Lords Sitting of 17 July 1923

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
DENTISTS BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (BARKING BRIDGE) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed and returned to the Commons.
TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
  LORD SOMERLEYTON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given. If any of your Lordships desire an explanation of the Bills I shall be glad to afford it; but if not, as they are agreed to, it would be only trespassing unnecessarily on the time of the House to do so.
  Moved, That the order made on the 26th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Thursday the 14th day of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a—(Lord Somerleyton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a, accordingly.

  NORTH BERWICK BURGH EXTENSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  TEMPERANCE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1913, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, anybody who introduces a measure dealing with the affairs of Scotland and who expects to find it uncontroversial must be of a somewhat sanguine disposition; in all probability he will be disappointed. I cherish no delusions about the Bill that I am asking your Lordships to read a second time this afternoon; but I did think that its main object was so simple and so blameless that it required some ingenuity, if not imagination, to find anything contentious in it. Having seen the somewhat uncompromising Notice on the Paper in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, for the rejection of the Bill, I feel that I must congratulate him on possessing those qualities in a very considerable degree. We shall come back to the noble Earl in a moment.
  Some of your Lordships who have not had the good fortune to be born north of the Tweed may be unaware of the fact that in Scotland at the present moment we possess, under the Act I am trying to amend, the power of sharing to a great extent in the advantages which the American people are supposed to enjoy under their famous, if sometimes embarrassing, Prohibition Act. My countrymen are not slow, as a rule, to take advantage of their opportunities, but so far they have let this opportunity go by. In fact, they have somewhat emphatically declined to partake of the unrefreshing fruits of Local Veto that have been offered to them. Under the Act of 1913 the localities are empowered, every three years, to vote for one of three options—whether they will have no licences, whether they will have a limited number of licences, or whether they will go on as they are. Therefore, every three years Scotland, or at all events the greater part of it, is thrown into a welter of agitation. The elections are fixed for November and as the time approaches the storm bursts. Streams of money flow from unknown sources. A deluge of propaganda floods the land and there is a spate of speeches, during which the poll takes place. So far, the poll has been emphatically against the prohibitionists, but I venture to say that that result is not accepted with any spirit of contentment by the people of
  1072
  Scotland. The results are not final. They are not definite, and very often they give satisfaction least of all to those who have seen the particular option carried for which they voted.
  I will at once acknowledge that the large majority of those who vote in favour of no licences are sincere and would vote for nothing else. They are more dry than the bone dry people. They cannot tolerate anything in the way of moisture in the country to which they belong, and in their efforts to fasten the fetters of a liberty-corroding prohibition on the people of this country they will hear of no concession and agree to no compromise. I put them aside. But there are others who voted for the No-Licence resolution not because they are prohibitionists, but because they think that of the two evils the No-Licence policy is better than continuing as they are. They do not like the other option, in which I agree with them, because they think that the policy of Limited Licences concentrates the evil without in any way remedying it.
  There is a second lot of people who vote for the limiting of licences, but they are few in number. They vote that way because they dislike the others so much and because it is the only possible compromise. But what I maintain is that of the people who vote for the No-Change resolution and who see it carried, a very large proportion indeed would resent the implication that because they vote for no change they are content with things as they are now. It would be a gross libel on them. They vote for no change because they can consistently and conscientiously vote against all three of the options that are put before them or vote for the evil which seems to them the least of the three. I will give your Lordships a remarkable instance. The noble Viscount who administers the affairs of Scotland will remember receiving a deputation a short time ago. It was small, but it was very select. It consisted of a right rev. Bishop, a learned Professor of the University and a distinguished Judge. The Bishop had voted for no licences; the learned Judge had voted for limited licences; and the Professor had voted for no change. And yet the wet Bishop, the dry Professor and the moist Judge were all prepared to pool their humidity and to go into the same lobby

  1073
  in support of the only point in this Bill, which is to give them the opportunity of voting for a fourth option—namely, the improvement of the public houses in Scotland.
  I am not going to argue whether the plebiscite is a good or a bad thing; but if you have a plebiscite you ought, at all events, to give people an opportunity of voting for what they think is right and not for what they think is the least bad of three different options. Supposing there was not a liquor traffic plebiscite but a London traffic plebiscite, and suposing it was put to the ratepayers to vote not on one, or two, or three selected plans or even principles of London traffic, but simply whether they would have more traffic, or less traffic, or no traffic—what would happen? If we were caught one day in a block of traffic, and in our rage at missing a train, or perhaps one of your Lordships' speeches, we voted for no traffic, the thing would be absurd. But it is no more absurd than the present system of options about drink in Scotland.
  When I was asked to take charge of this Bill I said at once that I thought "reform of public houses" was vague. Of course, it is vague, but this is not a Bill to create reform in public houses; it is simply to invite the people of Scotland to express an opinion in favour of reform of public houses. It is not a building that we wish to see erected; it is but the scaffolding of the building that we wish to see erected. If this option were carried then the Government would appoint a Commission and that Commission would settle what form the reformed public houses were to take—whether they would take the form of State control: whether there would be disinterested management; and what standard and what ideals would be expected from these public houses. Another argument I have heard against it is this: that these Local Option elections may not take place all over the country, and that you could not get a clear vote in favour of my idea because elections would not be held everywhere. But if there were any serious opposition to the option regarding improved public houses you may be sure that there would be elections. I have yet to learn that the fact that a Government-majority may include in it a good many uncontested seats is any argument against the strength of their position.
  1074
  When I speak of improvement in public houses I wish to be regarded as one of the first to recognise that a great improvement has already taken place; that owing both to the action of Parliament and, particularly, of the licensing boards we have gone a long way in the main from the old drinking days. But if we have gone far from those days, we have still further to go to reach the ideal of the Public House Reform League which hopes to see in public house" places of recreation and refreshment, places into which, instead of slinking into them surreptitiously, men and women shall walk boldly and come out unashamed, places in which a man will be as ashamed to be seen drunk as he would be in the streets.
  I do not know whether your Lordships have read the debate that took place in another place last night on the condition of the country and its remedies. A very gloomy picture was drawn, but I do not think it was overdrawn. So far as I know, no mention was made in that debate of the statistics about drink. I am going to give your Lordships two figures. In 1913 there were 188,000 convictions for drunkenness in this country. Last year these convictions were reduced to 77,000. Last year there was one death from causes directly attributable to alcohol to every three that there were in the year 1913. Amongst all the gloomy phenomena that surround us and give us such cause for anxiety, I think that these figures shine out with a hope of promise of better things to come. I am sure that statistics like these will be welcomed in your Lordships' House, and will be welcomed by all moderate people, but they will not be welcomed by the extreme Prohibitionist Party who oppose my Bill, as they opposed Lady Astor's Bill in the House of Commons, because they are out to end, and not to mend, the drink traffic. They consider these remedies are only what Mr. Scrymgeour calls "blocks to prohibition." And he is right. They are blocks to prohibition. I believe that low drinking dens, people drunk on the streets, homes ruined by intemperance, and the crimes, diseases and deaths that are caused by alcohol, are the assets of the Prohibition Party. Without them they would be bankrupt of argument. And as these figures go up or down so do the hopes of the Prohibition Party ebb and flow.

  1075
  This Bill will be opposed by the Prohibition Party, but what I want to learn is why it will be opposed by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. I do not think that the noble Earl is one who would row stroke in the prohibition boat. I am well aware that the noble Earl was responsible for introducing the Act of 1913 to this House, but surely parental, prying legislation must have its limits. 1913 is a long time ago. A great deal has happened since then, and surely it is not impious on my part to try lightly to touch, as I am doing, the device which he crowned with his eloquence ten years ago. I do not think that can account for the noble Earl's action. The noble Earl, as I understand it, has been one of those vigilant optimists who have been trying to coax fire into the cold and ungrateful ashes of Liberalism. I do not know whether he thinks that he has got a new cry for his Party, whether the slogan of the Liberal Party, which he is going to lead, is to be "Hands off the publicans," and whether the public house is to be the refuge in which he and his supporters will rally, and from which they will shower bombs impartially on the forces of reaction and revolution. I await with expectation what he has to say.
  I have put before your Lordships the Bill the only point of which is that it gives to the people of Scotland a fourth option to vote upon. I ought to say that as under the present Act all votes given for limiting licences are counted against no licences, so, of course, in this Bill all the votes given for the fourth option will be counted against prohibition. This is a small Bill. It creates no precedent, it costs no public money, it involves no new machinery for the machinery on which it is drafted is already in existence, but it is one of those Bills which, having small beginnings, may have great results. It may be that an expression of opinion from the people on this fourth option may compel the Government to bring in a Bill dealing with this question, and may produce something which, working concurrently with improvement in matters of temperance in the tone and temper of the people, may so reduce the excesses of intemperance that these triennial elections may become unnecessary. Your Lordships' House has always been foremost to support improvements in the material condition of the people. You have always
  1076
  supported and maintained the liberty of the individual, and the rights of the minority, and I cannot help believing that you will give your sympathetic support to a Bill of which these principles are at once the essence and the foundation.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMP EARL BEAUCHAMP had given Notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading, he would move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the noble Earl has given your Lordships a very clear and alluring picture of the measure he has proposed this afternoon. The criticism I have to make on his speech is rather upon the omissions—the omission, for example, as to the history of the original Act, upon which I wish to address your Lordships. The Bill as originally presented to Parliament was very different from the Act which ultimately reached the Statute Book. I felt it my duty, last night, to look at some of the debates which took place in your Lordships' House ten years ago, and I was astonished to see how often I was obliged to address your Lordships on this subject, and how much I had forgotten of the whole topic. When I remind you of the circumstances in which the original Bill became an Act you will see the reasons which have induced me to put down the Amendment which stands in my name—an unusual step as regards a measure introduced by a private member in your Lordships' House.
  When the Bill was originally introduced it was divided upon in another place on the question of the number of years, and a large majority of Scottish Members voted for the numbers in the original Bill. In 1910 forty-six Scottish Members voted for it and only five against. In 1912 forty voted for it and seven against. It was this strong public opinion in Scotland which induced His Majesty's Government of that time to take up the Bill as a Government measure. It was considered by the Scottish Grand Committee in another place, and they devoted no fewer than ten sittings to its discussion. It passed practically unchanged through Report stage, and the Third Beading was carried by a majority of 157. The Bill then reached your Lordships' House, where the Second Reading was carried without a Division. When the Bill went

  1077
  into Committee a number of Amendments were made, and your Lordships will perhaps allow me to summarise them. The time notice was extended from tire years to fourteen years; a fourth option, disinterested management, was inserted and the three-fifths majority necessary to adopt a No-Licence resolution was increased to two-thirds; the Amendment for mutual insurance was defeated by three votes. The Bill was returned to another place, and the whole of the Amendments introduced by your Lordships' House were rejected by substantial majorities. Ten days later your Lordships re-inserted the original Amendments and the Bill, accordingly, was allowed to drop. His Majesty's Government took no further steps during that Session.
  The Bill was re-introduced in May. 1913. It went rapidly through all its stages and came before your Lordships' House again. Fortunately, on this occasion a very different spirit was observable in our debates, a spirit of compromise was in the air. Negotiations took place between the Leaders of both sides in your Lordships' House and in another place, and eventually the Bill was passed as an agreed measure. One of the conditions on which it was passed was the dropping of the fourth option. Various other alterations were made; but what I want to emphasise is the fact that the Bill, which up to the present has only been once put into operation in Scotland, passed this House as an agreed measure and part of that agreement was the dropping of the fourth option. The essence of the present measure is to reinsert this fourth option, the dropping of which was one of the conditions which made the former Bill an agreed measure.
  In those circumstances I cannot think your Lordships will so soon upset an arrangement which was come to by the Leaders of both Parties in your Lordships' House. May I call your attention to what Mr. Scott-Dickson said in another place on August 13, 1913:—
  "I, personally, still think it is not calculated to achieve any of the great results which those who believe in it think likely to result from it. I do not in any way dissent from the congratulations that have been expressed on both sides on the fact that a compromise has been arrived at. … The Bill as it now stands will be amended as a result of the compromise and we are content, so far as this side of
  1078
  the House is concerned, that the measure, if, and when, it comes into operation, shall have fair play."
  I turn now to what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, the Leader of the Opposition in this House at that time. Having described the character of the various Amendments, including the dropping of the fourth option, he said:—
  "We arrived at an agreement upon these bases, and such as it is I am glad that it has been arrived at. We, at any rate, have been parties to that agreement, and that being so we cannot recede from it now; and it is therefore certainly not our intention to offer any further opposition to the progress of the measure."
  The original Bill, as passed, was an agreed measure, and the noble Earl now wishes to insert into the Act one of the items, the dropping of which was one of the reasons which made the former Bill an agreed measure. In these circumstances it is difficult to think that the noble Earl will wish to persist in asking your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  He will perhaps allow me to say something upon one or two other matters which are contained in his Bill. I notice that in the Preamble it says that many of those entitled to vote, who were opposed to prohibition, felt unable to record their votes for any of the three options contained in the Act. From a sentence like that one would imagine that very few people had recorded their votes at all, either in favour of No. 1 option, or No. 2, or No. 3 contained in the Second Schedule of the Act. Let me turn to the facts and see the numbers that actually voted. In the boroughs the percentage of electors voting was 71·7, and in the counties 61·4, making a total percentage of the whole electorate of 69·6 who voted in one way or another. Some of them, naturally, voted in favour of no change. On that fact I make no comment, but I am quoting these figures to show that a great many more people voted on this occasion than vote in many elections, either in Scotland or in this country. Unless you get all the excitement of a General Election, or the intensified excitement of a by-election, 69·6 per cent, is really not a small proportion of the electorate. To say that many people were unable to vote is scarcely borne out by the facts and figures of the case.
  The noble Earl has described to your Lordships how he wishes to insert in the

  1079
  Schedule of the Bill the fourth option of disinterested management, and he describes what he means by disinterested management. Your Lordships will see what he means from subsection (2) of Clause 2 of the Bill. But there is to be no direct result. I think the object which he has in his mind——
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: I did not say anything about disinterested management. I merely spoke of a general improvement in public houses, without specifying it more particularly.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: I quite agree. But I understood from the noble Earl that he suggested that the Government might appoint a Committee to investigate the best way of dealing with public house reform, whether by disinterested management or by some other means. But there is nothing in this Bill to compel the Government to do so. The Government might take no action at all, and really it seems to me on the face of it quite clear that, supposing that the noble Earl's Bill were carried and this fourth option were given for the coming voting in the autumn of this year, there might really be no result except that a certain number of people who would have been mislead by seeing this option of public house reform would be the people who would equally have voted for no alteration at all it would, of course, look a great deal more respectable if they were to vote for public-house reform, though they would not know to what extent they were pledging themselves to any definite reform.
  Supposing the Committee which was adumbrated by the noble Earl were formed, supposing that it recommended something or other to His Majesty's Government, and supposing that His Majesty's Government found time to introduce a measure into Parliament based upon those recommendations, it might be that Parliament would not carry the Bill, and in those circumstances we should have effected nothing at all. It seems to me that to ask your Lord ships' House to pass this Bill before the people of Scotland have been able to vote a second time upon the agreed com promise is to ask more than it is fair to expect your Lordships to do. For those reasons I have ventured to put down this Amendment, and I shall certainly proceed to a Division if it becomes necessary.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out ("now") and at end insert ("this day six months").—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, we have listened to a very conservative speech from the noble Earl opposite. He said that, because your Lordships' House in 1913 agreed to a compromise, the compromise then arrived at should be adhered to at the present moment. But many things have happened since 1913. The movement for public house reform has largely extended itself, both in this country and in Scotland. I happen to be a trustee for a public house trust in Scotland for the allocation of surplus monies that arise out of the profits from the houses now in existence there, so that I know something of the way in which this movement has been extended. We have on the Cress Benches of your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord D'Abernon, who at Carlisle formulated and carried through a very far reaching system of public house reform. A great deal of experience has therefore been derived in recent years of how very important and beneficial this improvement of public houses has turned out to be. The noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, dwelt upon the great benefits resulting from the fact that people are not ashamed to be seen entering or leaving a public house. That is really the main purport of this movement. We desire to see public houses made more respectable, and we desire that people should be able to obtain meals as well as a certain amount of spirituous or alcoholic liquor to drink with those meals. I cannot see why, because this compromise was arrived at in 1913, we should disregard the very wide experience of the last ten years regarding this fourth option.
  The noble Earl went on to say that 69 per cent of the population in Scotland voted at the one election that has been held on this subject. But after all, on a matter which really concerns the daily life of the people of the country, there still remain 30 per cent of the population who did not vote. The noble Earl's contention that it is possible that they would have voted for the insertion of this fourth option is a very valid one. I may also mention that in 1919 your Lordship's passed a Bill on these lines—though it did not become law—for public house

  1081
  reform in England in order to improve the condition and status of public houses. If the noble Earl can plead that your Lordships' action in 1913 was relevant to this Bill, the action of your Lordships' House in 1919 is equally relevant. I earnestly hope, therefore, that my noble friend who introduced this Bill will press it in order to substantiate, if he can, this very important principle. The noble Earl, in his concluding remarks, implied that this would have no effect, but surely it is desirable to do all we can to establish this real reform in the country, so that people who desire it may have some means of obtaining proper meals at public houses. I hope that the noble Earl will go to a Division.
  LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I should like in one or two sentences to support the Amendment of the noble Earl who has moved the rejection of the Bill. There is undoubtedly a difference of opinion in this House and elsewhere throughout the country with reference to the issues of this Bill, but I hope that no difference of opinion will be found in regard to the method by which it is proposed to deal with those issues. There are two main considerations, as it seems to me, to be borne in mind. First of all we must consider the effect of this amending Bill up the principal Act, the. Temperance (Scotland) Act, 1913. The noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, has already reminded your Lordships of the conditions under which that Act was passed, and I think there will be general agreement that ultimately, when that Bill became an Act, it rested upon a compromise. I think the noble Earl who moved the rejection of the Bill was making a strong point when he reminded your Lordships of that fact. It is neither desirable nor right that such a compromise should be interfered with through the passing of this Bill.
  Supposing that this amending Bill becomes law, how will it affect the principal Act? It will affect it in many ways. In fact, I think it would in large measure render the principal Act useless. It would undoubtedly have the effect of splitting the vote, and in many ways it would be more difficult in the future to ascertain the real feeling of the Scottish electorate upon the issues at stake than under the, Act as it now stands. I have seen a good many amending Bills in my
  1082
  time, but I do not think I have ever seen a Bill drawn in quite the way in which this measure is drawn. We are all in favour of that which is stipulated for in the fourth option which is put in this Bill. We are all in favour of public-house reform, whatever our views may be on other aspects of the question. But as the noble Earl has already pointed out, even if the Bill were carried, there is no machinery for effecting such a reform. It is not for me to recapitulate the arguments, but I do not think your Lordships will think that the suggestion of the noble Earl, who moved the Second Beading of this Bill, is one which can be relied upon in a Parliamentary sense—the possibility of a Royal Commission being appointed by the Government, and the possibility of that Royal Commission making recommendations which would enable these particular reforms to be carried out.
  I will not detain your Lordships any longer, beyond saying this: In my judgment, whether we agree with the principle of the Act of 1913, or not, it ought to have a fair chance of being tested, not by one election but by a number of elections. Public opinion changes, and changes very rapidly, one way or the other, but I do not think that any member of your Lordships' House would say that upon the results of one election in Scotland the final judgment of Scotland upon this licensing issue can be founded. I hope therefore that the noble Viscount who will reply for the Government in reference to this Bill will at all events, on behalf of the Government, take the view that it would be most undesirable at the present stage to interfere with the compromise which has been carried out in the Act of 1913, and that the electors in Scotland should have a further opportunity of showing what is their real mind upon these points. From my standpoint, the results of the last vote upon the issues of the Act were not satisfactory, but that is not the point. The point is that the people in Scotland should have the opportunity, every three years, of expressing their views upon the issues which are at stake, and I hope the Government will take the view, having regard to the compromise attained under the principal Act and to what I feel sure is the overwhelming sentiment of Scotland upon that point, apart altogether from temperance views, that it is right

  1083
  that every opportunity should be given to have a fair trial, and that it should not be interfered with in this way by an amending Bill.
  VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, before the noble Viscount answers the question that has just been put to him, I hope he will assist us to some comprehension of where we shall be if this extraordinary Bill is carried. I have had the good fortune of more practical experience of this system than some of your Lordships, because I live close to one of the only towns in Scotland which have gone in for the thoroughly dry solution of no licence at all. Still, we get on very well. There is not the hardship that you would imagine. The wind has been tempered to the shorn Iamb, because the magistrates have the power, which they have exercised, of enabling not the public houses—there are none now—but the inns, of which there are plenty, to furnish to those who come there to take a meal alcoholic liquors with which to accompany that meal. That is extremely convenient having regard to the proximity of Gleneagles, the great golf links, with which no doubt some of your Lordships are acquainted. People come in to Auchterarder for meals, where they can be furnished under the system now prevailing with spirituous refreshments, and therefore, although the public house has disappeared, it is difficult to say that it is a thoroughly temperate place. Temperate it is in one sense, but-prohibition does not exist at all.
  In these circumstances I should like to know what is meant by the noble Earl's proposition to add a fourth option. On the last occasion there was an extraordinary amount of apathy on the part of the people of Scotland about the options given to them. It is a great mistake to suppose that the country is divided into people who are keenly in favour of temperance, and people who are keenly against temperance. There is a substantial minority of each kind, but the great mass of the people are indifferent. The result is that they did not vote. Very few No-Licence resolutions were passed, and it was not because the people favour intemperance but because they will not interest themselves in these options. If anything could make these options more distracting, it is the additional
  1084
  option which it is now proposed to give. The scheme under the Act of 1913 was to give to the people the power of deciding for themselves what should be the drink system in their locality. It might be that there was to be no licences, it might be there was to be a limited number of licences, or it might be there was to be no change. These were three practical things which were to be carried out. If they voted, and a resolution was carried, then something was done, but if the noble Earl's fourth option is added what is to be done?
  Electors will vote for this proposition: "Public House Reform resolution means that the voter recording his vote for this resolution considers that reform of our present- licensing laws is urgently required, but is not in favour of no licence." What is the elector in favour of? It is wholly an academic opinion. How are we, or how is the country, any better off for his having so voted. Nothing is to be done. You might just-as well take a piece of paper round and ask the voter to record his opinion in favour of the resolution. It is making a farce of local administration and of the Statute to propose a resolution of that kind. It is neither practical nor does it convey anything of what the voter is supposed to have in his mind. What is public house reform? Is it to have public houses open during church time on Sunday? It might just as well mean that as the closing of them, or the prevention of children going to them, or half a dozen other things. We have no knowledge, and we are given no information, and of all the absurd Bills that I have seen introduced into Parliament, this Bill takes a high place among those which contain the maximum of absurdity.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (VISCOUNT NOVAR): My Lords, we all welcome a speech from the noble Earl, Lord Wemyss, whether on temperance or any other subject. Most of us will be in full accord with him in desiring improvement in the Licensing Laws, and many will sympathise with the underlying purpose of the promoters of this Bill and the reasonable object that they have in view. I feel doubtful however, whether the Bill's provisions, however attractive, are practical. If the Bill be simple it would introduce many complexities into the working of the law.

  1085
  It proposes to add a fourth option to the three already comprised in the Act of 1913, in order to permit a voter who is not wholly in sympathy with any of the definite proposals upon which he is given an option, to record his vote to the effect that the reform of our present Licensing Laws is urgently required, but not in the form of no licence.
  I fear, however, that this resolution is no real alternative to the three existing options. The first three options, as the noble Viscount opposite has already indicated, deal with practical steps to be taken in the locality itself, while the noble Earl's suggested option deals with the national system of the liquor law. That is to say, at present a vote given in a particular area in favour of no licence, or the limiting resolution, or no change has perfectly definite consequences in that area, while, if the fourth option resolution were carried, it would, amount to a general expression of opinion in favour of some reform in the existing Licensing Laws of the country generally. Apart from the fact that in practice the carrying of this resolution is equivalent to no change, the fourth option does not profess to have any direct consequences in the area for which the poli is taken. In other words, its objective is not local executive action, but national legislative action.
  The second point is that the fourth option is not really an alternative to the other three, because a person supporting it may be in favour of one of the three options—namely, the limiting resolution. The meaning of the resolution, if carried, would be quite inconclusive. It not only leaves the matter entirely to future legislation, but it gives no guidance as to the direction that that legislation should take. It simply says that some reform of the laws is urgently required. Supporters of the resolution may have quite different intentions on the subject of reform. Some may be in favour of change in the structure of premises and in the conditions under which drink is sold; others may be concerned about the areas of administration or the constitution of the licensing authority. They may, indeed, be diametrically opposed as to the reforms which they desire. One supporter may be in favour of longer hours, another of shorter. All these people, however, would be gathered together as concurring in this resolution.
  1086
  It seems clear that, in the circumstances, the resolution, will be practically meaningless as to the state of public-opinion in the particular area upon the subject of any definite reform. Moreover, the polls are taken only when requisitioned, and therefore only in a certain number of areas. Therefore, if we admit this resolution, we do not ensure a national plebiscite on the question, though it is pre-eminently one that would have to be considered and dealt with nationally. The name of Public House Reform resolution given to the option conveys an impression substantially different from the meaning assigned to it by the definition. It suggests some modification in the actual public house, or in the conditions under which liquor is supplied, such, for example, as have been the objects of disinterested management. The different voters might have in mind such different objects as reconstitution of the present licensing court, alteration of the system of appeal, larger or smaller areas, modifications of the provisions of the Act of 1913, any of which objects could be regarded as covered by the expression "reform of our present Licensing Laws." It seems undesirable to introduce a nomenclature likely to cause misunderstanding.
  Clause 3 of the Bill appears to provide for the one practical effect of a vote for this resolution. In practice it seems difficult to construe and likely to complicate the results of an already difficult poll. In order to carry a No-Licence resolution it is necessary to secure a certain percentage of votes cast and a certain percentage of the total electorate. The wording of the clause would apparently mean that one vote is to be deducted from the No Licence poll for every vote recorded for the fourth option resolution; therefore, returning officers would have to deal with minus quantities. Nor does the clause make it clear whether a vote for the fourth option is to cancel out a vote for the No-Licence resolution, if the latter is transferred to the limiting resolution poll, in accordance with the Act of 1913. The Bill is not adjusted to that Act. For example, there is nothing to indicate that a percentage of the votes recorded, or of the total electorate, is to be necessary to carry this resolution.
  It is, therefore, obvious that this Bill in some quarters would be regarded as

  1087
  very controversial. I venture to suggest that the most hopeful course is for persons interested in this question to work out their own suggestion, which, when presented in tangible form, could be subjected to discussion in the usual way. The drink problem is so grave a one that proposals for any useful reform designed to check intemperance and to improve administration are always sure of sympathetic consideration. It is for the House to decide whether the Bill should receive a Second Reading, but I feel bound to say that I do not think that this Bill, even if amended in detail, offers a substantial basis for legislation. To vote for this Bill would, indeed, be to vote for an object which has yet to be disclosed, and, incidentally, for an immediate reconsideration of the Scottish Temperance Act. 1913, for which I doubt that the country is yet prepared until at any rate another poll has been taken. For the present, therefore, I think that an inquiry would be premature, and I hope that for this reason the Bill may not be pressed to a Division. But, if the Second Reading is carried, the Government would have to see that some of its provisions were made workable.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords. I did not rise at an earlier stage of this debate, because I imagined that we should probably hear from the representatives of the Government the particular point raised upon which I desired to lay stress. If we find, as I am bound to say I find, extreme difficulty in supporting this measure because of the indeterminate nature of the result which would arise from such a vote as the noble Earl advocates, I am very anxious that we should not be supposed to be influenced by the ground alleged by the noble Eari who moved the rejection of the measure. I can imagine nothing that would more strangely hamper and stultify our proceedings in this House than to admit the argument that, because ten years ago a particular measure was passed on an agreement between the two Houses, or a compromise between the two Parties, the measure is sacrosanct hereafter, and no change can be made in it because of what was done then. That argument seems to me so strange a travesty of the ordinary mode in which we look back upon our debates and modify our resolutions and our actions in
  1088
  accordance with circumstances which may have arisen, that I should be exceedingly sorry to appear to give support to the contention by the mere fact of finding myself unable to vote for the Bill.
  I am greatly in favour of some such arrangement as was adumbrated in the speech of the noble Earl, but I do not think that we reach it by the Bill that he has brought forward. It does not seem to me that, by voting for this measure, we shall be much advanced in the direction of obtaining the kind of disinterested management or something of the kind which (though, I know, he did not use the words) I had certainly understood to be the purpose of those who are advocating this fourth option. If the Bill were to take the form of suggesting that the fourth option should be allowed to voters in the direction of advocating what is known as disinterested management or public-house control, I should feel very strongly disposed to favour it, though I admit that I am afraid that one election under the Bill has not been enough to test the opinion of Scotland adequately and to justify us in forming an opinion about it. Had there been another election, and had that result left us in some perplexity as to what the opinion of Scotland was then, were it desirable that this fourth option should be introduced. I should be inclined to vote for it in a more specific form; but I deprecate in the strongest manner any suggestion that we are opposed to the Bill because of some arrangement that was made ten years ago for the sake of obtaining an agreed result between the two Houses.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I do not know what my noble friend the mover of this measure proposes to do, but my feeling in the matter is very much that of the most rev. Primate. Speaking personally, and not so much as a member of the Government for the moment. I am strongly in favour of the principle of the Bill which my noble friend has placed upon the Table, but I think that all your Lordships will feel, after listening to the speech of my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland, that the Bill in its present form is altogether unworkable—not merely that it will not carry-out the object which my noble friend has in view, but that it will not work at all.

  1089
  In those circumstances it is asking a great deal of your Lordships to request you to proceed with the Bill. Personally I should be much better satisfied, I must admit, if my noble friend were satisfied with the discussion and did not press it to a Division. I do not want to vote against him.; in fact, I shall not vote against him because I agree with the principle that he advocates.
  But I could not be responsible for supporting his Bill and asking your Lordships to support it. Even if the Bill obtained a Second Heading I have great confidence that he has no chance whatever of passing it into law first of all, if would have to be subjected to very drastic revision. Even with revision I doubt whether the difficulties which my noble friend the Secretary for Scotland has revealed could be put right. And even if all those obstacles were overcome, then, as my noble friend knows, it would have to go to another place where a man of his great Parliamentary experience is well aware what would happen at this period of the Session. In all those circumstances I desire to offer the very respectful advice to my noble friend not to press the matter any further. He has, after all, received a very large measure of support. I think the support of the most rev. Primate is a most notable support, because the most rev. Primate is a very distinguished advocate of temperance in your Lordships' House and always has been, differing, I am ashamed to say, in that one respect from myself. I have never been able to go with him in his views on that matter. But he is a supporter of my noble friend in this regard, and that is a great adhesion.
  If the Bill could be redrafted upon reasonable, lines with the full machinery in it, so that it really carried out what is desired, it would be a much longer Bill, no doubt, but my noble friend would certainly have a very great chance of carrying it through your Lordships' House. But it is for him to decide.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, I have only one word to say. I am a little surprised at the noble Earl's statement about this Bill having been carried through as a compromise and, therefore, rather implying that it is our duty to hold to that compromise. Surely that compromise was carried under the
  1090
  shadow of the Parliament Act, and if we are to be responsible for compromises of that sort, it will be in something like the way in which the Jews gave up their money in the Middle Ages. When the noble Earl said that because the Bill had been passed ten years ago it ought to be passed again now I could not answer him; I would sooner go home and read "Rip Van Winkle" again. However, after the appeal of the noble Marquess, after the kind manner in which the noble Viscount spoke about the matter and the very weighty words from the most rev. Primate, I have no doubt at all. Considering that if the Bill got through both Houses of Parliament it would not be ready for the elections in November, I accept the advice which has been given me and beg leave to withdraw my Bill to bring it forward in, perhaps, a more suitable form next year.
  Motion for Second Reading, and Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Grey of Fallodon.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  Protection of birds according to categories.
  1.—(1) For the purpose of this Act birds are divided into categories as follows:—
  (2) The expression "close season" means the period elapsing between the first day of March and the thirty-first day of August, both days being included:
  Provided that the close season in the case of the woodcock shall be the period elapsing between the first day of February and the thirtieth day of September.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved a manuscript Amendment, in subsection (2), to leave out "August" and insert "July." The noble Duke said: I am sorry that I was not in time to place this Amendment on the Paper, and I apologise to the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that under this Bill

  1091
  the beginning of the close time will be altered from July 31 to August 31. What that really means in practice is that, excepting pigeons and grouse, nothing can be shot before September 1. I have been asked to move this Amendment by a gentleman who is, perhaps, the most knowledgeable lover of birds in the whole of Scotland. It is his opinion that if the Bill passes in its present form, with the close time beginning at the end of August, it will be treated with contempt throughout the country and the whole effect of it will be lost.
  Your Lordships are probably aware that the present Act is not altogether effective, for one very good reason, that in country districts and moorland districts they are quite unable to enforce it. There is a considerable amount of wild duck and even snipe shooting in August. I seldom shoot, so that I am not particularly partial in this question, but I think it would be a great pity to pass a Bill which would put everybody against the preservation of wild birds. I am told that in the Tay district there is a large amount of land which is not let to rich men but on which a large number of people, including working men, are in the habit of shooting duck and snipe in the month of August. The Bill as it stands would entirely prohibit that. It would also prohibit all shooting of birds at the mouth of the Tay and other places in their passage to their breeding ground. This is an entirely practical question, and I do not want to labour it.
  I am in favour of the measure. I move this Amendment in order that the law might remain as it is, and because I believe that if it is accepted by your Lordships it will greatly improve the. Bill and help in the preservation of wild birds. However, as I was unable to give my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill sufficient notice of my intention to move this Amendment, if he is unable to accept it I do not want to take your Lordships to a Division upon it. I will withdraw in and put it down at a subsequent stage.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 3, leave out ("August") and insert ("July").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: I recognise the spirit in which the noble Duke has moved the Amendment. I agree with him that it is very desirable to avoid
  1092
  anything which is likely to set public opinion against the Bill. At the same time the Bill is not the outcome of my own unaided intelligence, it is the outcome of many weeks, I think, spent by a Departmental Committee, of which I was not a member but which was composed of some of the most eminent authorities in the country on the subject of birds. Subsequently, two advisory committees—one Scottish and one English (of the latter of which I was a member); which included, especially in the case of Scotland, to which the noble Duke referred, people who were not only great lovers of birds but with very great knowledge of them—considered the subject. I cannot there fore accept an Amendment off-hand without time for consideration. I would suggest to the noble Duke that he should follow the course he has indicated, and not press the Amendment now, but give me an opportunity of discussing whether the point which he has raised can be met cither by his Amendment, or in some other way, on Report.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, and beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to omit the following proviso at the end of the clause:--" Provided that the close season in the case of the woodcock shall be the period elapsing between the first day of February and the thirtieth day of September." The noble Duke said: I do not know why this proviso was put in, except that I believe a certain number of county councils under the present Act, prohibit shooting a woodcock till the month of October. I think that there is no very great harm in shooting a woodcock before then. I know that there are three counties in which there was this restriction. In two of them they say that the restriction was so absurd that it was never carried out, and at the end of three years they did not re-enact the provision. In the third county it still remains illegal to shoot a woodcock before the end of October, but not a single person in the whole county pays any attention to the regulation, nor has there ever been a prosecution. So far as my knowledge goes there has been, in late years, in the south of Scotland a very large increase in the number of

  1093
  woodcock, and if no one was allowed to shoot a woodcock before the beginning of October those who have to look after the nests to preserve the eggs of the young woodcock would never have a chance of shooting the woodcock at all, because they are away by then. Therefore, unless this proviso is taken out, it would be an absolute discouragement to anyone to preserve the nests for the breeding of woodcock. As was the case in my first Amendment, I have not given the noble Viscount sufficient notice to consider this Amendment, and if he will adopt the same course as he promised to do in the case of my first Amendment, and will consider this Amendment before the Report Stage, I shall not press it now.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, lines 4 to 6, leave out the said proviso.—(The Duke of Buccleuch).
  VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: I Should be sorry to give up this, because the vast majority of woodcock shot in this country are undoubtedly birds from abroad, and they do not arrive in this country till October. At the same time the woodcock is a breeding species in this country. In the north of Scotland it is fairly common, but as you get further south it becomes more and more rare until, when you get to the south of England, it is very rare indeed. The object of this particular provision with regard to the woodcock is to preserve and encourage the woodcock as a breeding species in this country, and not to take a specially heavy toll of the woodcock actually bred in this country, which always must be a small number compared with the number of birds arriving from abroad. The noble Duke, when he speaks of the vast number of birds killed, does not mean that they are British bred birds, but that they are birds from abroad. I am willing, however, to give consideration to this Amendment between now and the Report Stage.
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: May I supplement what the noble Viscount has said? There are a large number of woodcock which breed in the New Forest, and I think it would be a great mistake if the proposal which is contained in this Rill wore not adopted. With regard to what the noble Duke has said respecting Scotland, his point might
  1094
  be met by having a different date for Scotland from that which would apply in England. Woodcock breed to a considerable extent in the south of England, and we are very anxious that that breeding should not be interfered with.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON had on the Paper an Amendment to move at the end of the clause to insert "later days being included." The noble Viscount said: There is a mistake in the words as they appear on the Paper. It ought not to be "later days,'' but both days" included. It is simply to make the provision with regard to the woodcock conform in wording to the provision with regard to close time breeding.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 6, at end insert "both days being included."—(Viscount Grey of Fallodon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  Nature of protection given by Act.
  (2) Where any person sells or has in his possession for purposes of sale any bird in Category I, or the plumage or skin or any part of any such bird, or the egg or nest of any such bird, it shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been killed or taken as the case may be in contravention of this Act.
  (3) Where any person is found in possession of any bird, or the plumage or skin or any part of any bird or the egg or nest of any bird, and it appears to the court before which any proceedings are taken in respect thereof that there is reasonable ground for believing that the bird, egg or nest was killed or taken at a time when it was protected under this Act, the bird, egg or nest, as the case may be, shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been killed or taken in contravention of this Act—

  (a) in the case of a bird, or the egg or nest of a bird in Category I; or

  (b) in the case of a bird, or the egg or nest of a bird in Category II, if it is so found on any day between the fifteenth day after the beginning and the last day of the close season for that bird, both days being included; and

  VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out

  1095
  " in Category 1." The noble Viscount said: There are several Amendments which I have put down to Clause 3, but they all have the same object, which is really this. As the Bill is now drafted, if a person is found in possession of a bird in Category 1, or in possession of an egg or nest of a bird in Category 1, for the purposes of sale, or even if he has such a bird, nest or egg in his possession at all, there may be placed upon him the onus of proving he has got it legally. If it is in his possession, there may be placed upon him the onus of proving that he acquired the bird, or nest, or egg legally. Category I says that all birds are protected all the year round. It was thought fair in the Bill to place on anybody who was found in possession of a bird, nest or egg of a bird in Category 1 the onus of proving that it was not a British killed specimen, or that it had been taken before this Act came into force. That was thought a fair provision.
  But when we come to Category 2 the birds, nests and eggs are protected only during the close season, and it is only if the bird, nest or egg is found in possession of somebody during the close season that that provision about the onus of proof operates. Take, for instance, the case of the wild goose. There is only-one species of wild goose, I believe, which breeds in this country, and there are only, one or two colonies of them. It is very desirable that this species should not become extinct as a breeding species by having its eggs raided, but, on the other hand, as soon as the close season is over, it is absolutely unreasonable that the3e wild geese should not be liable to be shot in company with the vast number of wild geese which visit this country from abroad. Therefore if a person is found in possession, in October, we will say, of a gray-lag goose which is in Category 2, it would be very unfair to place upon him the onus of proving that he had acquired the bird legally, because at any time after the expiration of the close season it was open to him to acquire the bird legally.
  That is the reason why the provisions with regard to the onus of proof apply only in the close season to birds in Category 2. With regard to the eggs and nests of birds in Category 2, there is no reason why they should not have the same protection as the eggs and nests of birds in Category 1. Birds are protected
  1096
  only in the close season, but the eggs can only be taken in the close season, and, therefore, the eggs of birds in Category 2 are regarded under the Bill as absolutely protected as the eggs of birds in Category 1. The object of my Amendments is to give the eggs and nests of birds in Category 2 the same protection as the eggs and nests of birds in Category 1, while leaving the birds in Category 2 which can legally be killed in the close season, all the protection they have in the Bill as it stands.
  Amendment moved—
  Clause 3, page 3, line l5, leave out ("in Category I").—(Viscount Grey of Fallodon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: My other Amendments to Clause 3 are consequential.
  Amendments moved—
  Clause 3, page 3, line 16, leave out ("such")
  Clause 3, page 3, line 16, after ("bird") insert ("in Category I")
  Clause 3, page 3, line 17, leave out ("such")
  Clause 3, page 3, line 17, after ("bird") insert ("in Category I or Category II")
  Clause 3, page 3, line 30, after ("bird") insert ("in Category I")
  Clause 3, page 3, line 31, after ("Category I") insert ("or Category II")
  Clause 3, page 3, lines 32 and 33, leave out ("or the egg or nest of a bird")
  —(Viscount Grey of Fallodon.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  Special provisions with respect to the lapwing.
  4.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the nests and the eggs of the lapwing shall, before the fifteenth day of April in any year, be protected only against persons other than the owner or occupier.
  (2) During the period elapsing between the fifteenth day of March and the thirty-first day of August, both days being in-eluded, in any year, a person shall not sell for human consumption or have in his possession for the purpose of sale for human consumption any lapwing, and if any person acts in contravention of this provision be shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
  (3) On and after the first day of May in any year, a person shall not sell for human consumption or have in his possession for the purpose of sale for human consumption

  1097
  any eggs of the lapwing, and if any person acts in contravention of this provision, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved, in subsection (3), to leave out the words "the first day of May" in order to insert "the twentieth day of April." The noble Duke said: Under this Bill the eggs of the lapwing may not be taken after April 15. It is generally admitted that the lapwing is one of the most valuable birds from the agricultural point of view, and it is one that should be encouraged. Unfortunately, its eggs are very good and fashionable; and in London you will see them on sale at very high prices. Consequently there is a great demand to collect these eggs, and various county councils in Scotland have received sanction from the Secretary for Scotland for by-laws prohibiting these eggs being taken at all between certain dates. This prohibition has been perfectly useless, because it is no use prohibiting the taking of the eggs unless you prohibit the sale as well.
  The Bill prohibits these eggs being taken after April 15. That is a reasonable date no doubt, but it allows the sale of eggs up to May 1. Any one of your Lordships who consumes an egg after May I, which must have been collected before April 15, will feel that the high price charged for it is quite justified. My Amendment is to substitute April 20 for May 1. No doubt the noble Viscount has put the date in because it was recommended by the Committee, but many of your Lordships have knowledge on these matters, and it is possible that we may even improve on the recommendation of the various Committees which have considered the subject. In my own county the eggs are allowed to be collected on April 15, and my friends and myself very much enjoy them. During the war I sent some to my people at the Front in France. But in another county I am not allowed to collect these eggs. My gamekeeper does not collect them, but every single soul in the county tries to collect them and sell them. The result of my Amendment would be that they would be allowed five days in which to collect and sell these eggs, and I think that is a reasonable period. The intention of the Amendment is to strengthen, not to impair, the Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  Clause 4, page 4, line 8, leave out ("the first day of May") and insert ("the twentieth day of April").—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)
  LORD SALTOUN: I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Duke. Since the present Act was passed we hardly get any plover's eggs at all in the north of Scotland. The birds lay so very late. It is the same over the whole of the north of Scotland, and I think a regulation should be made enabling plover's eggs to be taken until a later date in Scotland than in England.
  VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: I am not sure that the speech of the noble Lord is exactly in" support of the noble Duke's Amendment. I propose to deal only with the Amendment, and my own personal opinion is in favour of accepting it. The dates for taking the eggs of the lapwing were gone into very carefully by the Departmental Committee, and they recommended April 15 as a suitable date for the beginning of the close season. They did so on the ground that it does not really do so much harm to take the first clutch of the eggs, because agricultural operations, which go on up to April 15, constantly destroy those eggs after the bird has begun to sit, so that in a considerable number of cases—this applies, of course, only to arable land—the first clutches of lapwings' eggs would come to nothing in any event. If the bird's eggs are taken before April 15 the lapwing will lay a second time, and, in arable districts at any rate, with a better chance of rearing its young. That is the reason for fixing the date at April 15.
  It is absolutely necessary, of course, to prohibit the sale of eggs, and when May 1 was put in as the date at which the lapwing's eggs were to be no longer sold, this was done solely with a view to meeting a hypothetical outcry from the trade in these eggs, on the ground that a large number of eggs might be legally collected before April 15 and would still be available for sale as late as the end of the month in fairly good condition. I really think that it will be in the interests of the protection of the lapwing that the sale of its eggs should cease as soon as possible after the taking of the eggs has become illegal. My own personal

  1099
  disposition would have been to accept the noble Duke's Amendment, but as the Amendment has not appeared on the Paper, I think it would probably be best that we should treat it as his other Amendments have been treated with a view to considering them before Report.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to. Clauses 5 to 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 (Penalties, etc.):
  VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 33, leave out ("offence") and insert ("offences").—(Viscount Grey of Fallodon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 12 to 16 agreed to.
  Clause 17:
  Application to Scotland.
  17.—This Act shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications:—
  Subsection (5) of Section eleven shall not apply;
  VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON moved,
  in the second paragraph, to substitute ("4") for ("5"). The noble Viscount said: This point was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, on the Second Reading. He asked why subsection (5) should not apply to Scotland. I have ascertained that through a mistake of the printer subsection (5) was printed instead of subsection (4). The reason why sub section (4) does not apply to Scotland is that its provisions are already covered by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts for Scotland, so that the law of Scotland is already adequate on this point and it is very inappropriate that it should be repeated in this Act.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 7, leave out ("(5)") and insert ("(4)").—(Viscount Grey of Fallodon.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 18 agreed to.
  First schedule:

  FIRST SCHEDULE.
  Birds in Category I (protected at all times).

  Avocet.

  Bearded Titmouse.

  Bee-eater.

  Bittern (all species).

  Black Redstart.

  Black-winged Stilt.

  Bustard.

  Buzzard (all species, including Honey Buzzard).

  Chough.

  Crested Titmouse.

  Dartford Warbler

  Eagle (all species).

  Golden Oriole.

  Harrier (all species).

  Hawk (all species except Sparrow Hawk).

  Hoopoe.

  Kentish Plover.

  Kite.

  Norfolk Plover.

  Owl (all species except Little Owl).

  Osprey.

  Phalarope (both species).

  Raven.

  Sand-Grouse.

  Shrike (all species).

  Spoonbill.

  Waxwing.

  Woodpecker (all species).

  LORD SOMERLEYTON LORD SOMERLEYTON moved after "Hawk (all species except" to insert "Kestrel and." The noble Lord said: I believe that this Amendment will be accepted by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill. My reason for moving it will. I have no doubt, be known to many noble Lords present. We know that kestrels, though they do not prey habitually on domestic animals or even upon game, are some of the worst poachers in the country, and such informants as I have been able to consult in the short time since this Amendment was put down have very strongly supported this view. I have actual proofs of the kestrel's poaching. A keeper of my own, on the 7th instant, shot two kestrels, one of which was carrying a young partridge while another was eating one on the ground. My agent found a kestrels' nest in a church tower a fortnight ago which contained a quantity of bones of game and poultry.
  I have no doubt that all your Lordships are aware that kestrels kill game under certain conditions, but I do not base my claims to include kestrels with sparrow-hawks on the ground that they kill game, because many of your Lordships are not in the habit of shooting and would not be interested in that point. I base this

  1101
  Amendment upon the fact that they kill stock belonging to farmers. A tenant farmer of my own writes:
  "Two years ago I found a kestrel's nest in a hollow tree containing the remains of seven pheasants and nine partridges of seven to twenty-one days old, and also a quantity of mice."—
  I admit that the kestrel does good as well as harm—
  "Last year two pairs of kestrels started on my young turkeys and in all killed twenty-seven. They were about a month in taking them and took birds up to three or four weeks old. The kestrels were nesting at the time. One nest was located in a water mill, and I laid up and shot them. The other birds were nesting on the south side of Fritton Lake. I did not find the nest, but my shepherd shot the hen and I got the cock red-handed carrying off a young turkey. There have been a couple round the young turkeys this year, but so far as I know they have only killed three."
  I need not say that a bird which can carry off a turkey three or four weeks old is a very real danger to farmers.
  I have also instances of chickens and ducks being taken, but I have not sufficient details to put before your Lordships. The only other point which I would venture to raise—and I think my noble friend in charge of the Bill will appreciate this—is that the kestrel is very common. No one has the least desire to kill it where it is not doing harm, but where it has taken to killing the farmers' stock it constitutes a real danger and ought to be classed with the sparrowhawk.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 11, line 19, after ("except") insert ("Kestrel and").—Lord So erleyton.)
  LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I desire to take up the brief for the kestrel. I cannot understand how the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite can bring forward any accusation against the kestrel from an agricultural point of view, because if there is one bird that kills more field voles than another it is the kestrel. It certainly does more good than harm in the agricultural world. Possibly your Lordships know the oft quoted instance of how a clover crop was damaged by the killing of kestrels. The kestrel, as I have said, is very fond of the field vole; the field vole preys upon the bumble-bee; and the bumble-bee is the agency through which clover is fertilised. If you kill a kestrel you may affect your clover crop. This is a well
  1102
  established fact and, as noble Lords may be aware, it is a very interesting deduction. There is no bird more useful in keeping down field voles than the kestrel. I have seen kestrels take small birds of all kinds, but only very occasionally. On balance the kestrel does good, and I should be very sorry to see him included with the sparrowhawk, which on the whole does harm. IF you include the kestrel you will have people killing merlins, hobbies and other hawks by mistake. I think it is very dangerous to allow the killing of any hawk except the sparrowhawk, which everybody who has ever lived in the country knows and can easily recognise.
  VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: This is just one of those cases which presents a certain amount of difficulty. I think that what has fallen from Lord Montagu of Beaulieu is undoubtedly true, and that the kestrel is on the whole a useful bird. As a rule, he does good, and he only occasionally does harm. But, so far as my own experience goes, this is what has happened. I have described the general utility of the kestrel, but every now and then in the breeding season an individual kestrel turns rogue and, finding, it may be, a place where pheasants are bred or where water fowl are bred, or it may be a farm yard, as the noble Lord opposite has said, it proceeds to supply its young from that source. Under the Bill it would be Possible to apply for a licence in order to destroy kestrels in that particular neighbourhood, but it is very desirable that the necessity of applying for a licence should be confined, as it is in the Bill, solely to the case of birds which in most parts of the country are really rare. The kestrel undoubtedly is in no danger of extinction at the present time.
  I think the danger of extinction to our birds comes not nearly so much from shooting as from the taking of eggs. It is very desirable that the Bill should excite as little opposition as possible, and that you should really be able to prove that it is not exposing people to danger from the protection of species that are not running the risk of extinction. We are, as regards owls, providing protection for all species except the little owl. The owl is one of the most effective means of keeping down field mice. I think that on

  1103
  the whole it will case the passage of the Bill if the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite be accepted. I therefore propose to accept the Amendment, merely observing that should there be any signs that the kestrel is becoming rare, there is power for the Secretary of State to replace the kestrel in Category I.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Second Schedule (Birds in Category II (specially protected during the close season)):
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: I have been asked to draw the attention of your Lordships to the inclusion in the Second Schedule of the wild goose (all species). I know very little about the habits of the wild goose, but I am informed that they do considerable damage in Perthshire, Fifeshire and other places, but especially in the two counties I have named. Well on into the month of April they eat the wheat down, the same as if a flock of sheep had been grazing, and it has been pointed out to me that it is a mistake to include them in this protection, as probably there is no particular reason except for the sake of the few to which the noble Viscount alluded as breeding in this country. The remainder of them breed in Nova Zembla and other places, where they are not protected in any shape or form. I do not wish to move an Amendment, but merely to draw attention to the matter and ask the noble Viscount to consider the point.
  VISCOUNT GREY OF FALLODON: This is an Amendment which I do not think it would be possible to accept, consistently with the Bill. I would observe that the wild goose in the Bill is only protected in the close season. There are very few which breed in this country. The grey land goose is the only kind. Therefore the damage of which the noble Duke speaks is not done by those comparatively few individuals or their comparatively few young reared in any year, but is done by geese which, as the noble Duke has said, are bred much further north, in some cases in vast numbers, and which arrive in this country after the breeding season here. It is by these foreign geese that the damage must be done. Wild geese are protected only in the close time, and wild birds from abroad
  1104
  do not arrive till after the close time is over, and therefore the Bill will not prevent the occupier or owner or anybody who has a right to do so, from shooting the wild goose at any time of the year when they are here in large numbers and are doing damage.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH: But they are here in the month of April. That is the point. I am informed that they are here in that month and are doing great damage to crops.
  VISCOUNT OBEY OF FALLODON: I did not realise that it was in the month of April. It is an entirely new point to me. I had no idea that they were in this country in any numbers in April, but I will enquire into the matter.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.

  AGRICULTURAL CREDITS BILL. [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
  Clause 1:
  Power to Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend money to associations for the purpose of making advances upon certain mortgages.
  (5) For the purposes of this Act "approved association" means an association which is approved by the Treasury for the purposes of this Act, and which does not trade for profit or by its constitution or otherwise is restricted in relation to the rate of interest on loan capital and the distribution of profits amongst its members so as to comply with regulations made in that behalf by the Treasury.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF ANCASTER) moved, in subsection (5) to leave out "Act" and insert "section the expression," and at end to insert "and the expression 'person' in the definition of

  1105
  borrower shall, without prejudice to the effect of section nineteen of the Interpretation Act, 1889, include an association registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1913, and having for its object, or one of its objects, the provision of small holdings or allotments." The noble Earl said: These are substantially drafting Amendments to remove a doubt as to the effect of Clause 1. The Interpretation Act, 1889, provides that the expression "person" includes a corporation "unless the contrary intention appears." It has been suggested that there are words in paragraph (a) which might possibly be construed as indicating a contrary intention. It is understood that there are cases in which land was bought for cultivation not directly by the cultivators but through a small holdings or allotments association, and to remove any doubt as to the eligibility of such associations for receiving advances, these Amendments are proposed. I hope they will be agreed to.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 3, line 1, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section the expression")
  Page 3, line 8, at end insert the proposed words.—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMP: Perhaps I may be allowed to say one word upon these Amendments. Will the noble Earl be good enough to consider the question of adding after "allotments" "allotment gardens "? It is a question whether they are included in the phrasing of these Amendments. I do not ask for an answer now, but will the noble Earl be good enough to think the matter over? He can either communicate a reply by letter or put down an Amendment on Report. I wish to meet his convenience.
  THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I will certainly consider the point.
  On Question. Amendments agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2:
  Organisation of agricultural credit societies.
  2.—(1) The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as the Minister) shall take such steps as are practicable, to promote the formation or extension of agricultural credit societies, that is to say, societies approved by the Minister and registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893, having
  1106
  for their object or one of their objects the making of advances to members of the society repayable within a period not exceeding five years for such agricultural purposes as may be approved by the Minister.
  (2) The Minister at any time within three years after the passing of this Act or during such further period as the Treasury may prescribe, may, subject to the provisions of any regulations made by the Treasury, make advances to any such society, but so that the total sum advanced to a society shall not exceed an amount equal to one pound for every one pound share held by members of the society on which a sum of five shillings has been paid.
  LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following subsection:—
  "(3) The Minister at any time within three years after the passing of this Act or during such further period as the Treasury may prescribe may, subject to the provisions of any regulations made by the Treasury, make advances to any bank approved by the Treasury for the purpose of facilitating advances by the bank to farmers (hereinafter referred to as "assisted advances") made after the passing of this Act, provided that—

  (i) the total amount at any time outstanding on nil the advances of the Minister under this subsection shall not exceed such sum as may be prescribed by the Treasury;

  (ii) the total amount at any time outstanding on the advances of the Minister to any particular bank under this subsection shall not exceed seventy-five per centum of the total sum then outstanding (including interest) on the assisted advances made by that bank to farmers;

  (iii) any assisted advance by the bank to a farmer shall ho made subject to the following conditions:

  (a) The assisted advance must be made for such agricultural purposes as may be approved by the Minister;

  (b) The assisted advance must be repayable within twelve months, but may be renewable with the approval of the Minister for such further period or periods as he may determine;

  (c) The interest on the assisted advance shall not exceed such sum as may from time to time be determined by the Treasury in consultation with the Minister, the banks approved as aforesaid, and the National Farmers' Union;

  (iv) an account shall be kept by each bank of every assisted advance to a farmer separate from any

  1107
  other account of the bank with the same farmer, and any sums from time to time received by the bank to the credit of that farmer shall be appropriate to such separate account and any other accounts of the farmer with the bank in accordance with regulations to be made by the Treasury."

  The noble Lord said: I wish at the outset to say how much I associate myself with those who have welcomed the introduction of this measure. I recognise the benefit it may be to agriculture, and the Amendment which I propose is merely an endeavour to make the operation of the Bill more rapid and effective. I recognise that in bringing this Bill forward the Government are discharging a pledge which they gave to the agricultural industry in respect of credits which are so badly needed by the industry. With regard to Clause 2, may I say how much I welcome the encouragement that the Government is giving to the further creation of co-operative credit societies?—a movement which, I think, is welcomed and has been encouraged for years by all those who have the interests of agriculture at heart. But I think it is clear that, in the effort to increase the number of these societies, and so establish the channel for conveying short credits to farmers, some time must elapse, and a considerable amount of propaganda must be necessary in order to remove some of that prejudice which, unfortunately, exists in the agricultural community with regard to societies of this nature, partly founded, of course, on ignorance of the benefits obtainable from them.
  This Amendment is largely prompted by a sense of the urgency of the question. I am sure the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will agree that time is of the essence of this matter, and that the need for obtaining credits is very urgent at the present moment among many farmers and small holders. I suggest that the banks be brought into the scheme of this Bill, because, after all, I think it is acknowledged that they have already been enormously helpful to the agricultural industry during the very distressful times through which it has recently been going. The farmers are accustomed to using the banks, and in that respect have become more familiar with the system than they were in the past. So far as the bankers themselves have been consulted in this
  1108
  matter they offer no objection to the suggestion contained in this Amendment, and they are willing to enter into discussion of the details with the Treasury. After all, these banks are spread all over the country, they are ready to hand for this purpose, they have already the organisation, with the wide distribution of their branches, and therefore they are, I suggest, in a better position, for the immediate needs of the moment, to distribute these credits which the Government desire to give to those who so much require them. It is on these lines that I commend the Amendment to the Government, as I and those with whom I act believe that it will enable the Government to achieve its object more rapidly and more effectively. The need is an immediate and a growing one. I trust, therefore, that the House will agree to this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 27, after subsection (2) insert the said subsection.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
  THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I thoroughly sympathise with the object, that the noble Lord has in view. He says he wishes that these credit facilities should be brought as speedily and as easily as possible to the farmers and cultivators of the land who require them I think he is right when he states that these credit societies will undoubtedly take a certain time to be formed and to come into operation. But I do not think that the Amendment will really do very much good. Its object is to authorise State funds to be advanced to banks, to enable them to grant agricultural credit to farmers. The noble Lord is right when he states that the most convenient and the most usual way for farmers to obtain credit is through the banks, and he is also right in stating (as was observed in the Report of the Commission which inquired into this matter) that the hanks have, on the whole, behaved in a wise and liberal spirit, and that, to most agriculturists who have any credit behind them, the banks have been willing to lend money. I do not quite understand whether the noble Lord thinks that, if the State advances money to the banks, the banks will then be in a position to advance money to more people. We have no evidence before us, and I do not think we have ever had any evidence, that the banks require this assistance. From all

  1109
  we can ascertain I believe the banks have plenty of money to lend, provided the security is good enough.
  I do not know that there has been any demand from the banks that the State should lend them money to enable them to lend it again to the farmers. I am not at the Treasury, so I cannot give a definite opinion upon that, though I think that in the past few years the Treasury has sometimes had to borrow from the banks rather than the banks from the Treasury. And that really is the process which I think the noble Lord's Amendment would bring about. The object that we have had in this Bill is to try to create credit where the banks are unwilling to lend, where they think they do not know enough of the borrower, or do not think ho is sound enough.
  I must read what is said in the Report of the Committee:
  "The essential difficulty in devising any sound scheme for affording additional credit facilities for agriculture "—
  That is, in addition to what is provided by the banks for merchants and others—
  "lies in the fact that, unless means can be devised which will enhance the intrinsic status of borrowers, the risk involved may be serious. The most effective way of increasing a farmer's credit status is by inducing him to link up his credit with that of his sellers. This is the principle of cooperative credits which has been successfully applied to the case of farmers in other countries, and we are convinced that it is in this direction that the solution of the short-term credit problems of agriculture in this country should be sought."
  Later on they say:
  "The proposal to encourage, by State assistance, the formation of co-operative credit societies possesses the further advantage that it will afford means, indeed the only means, by which agricultural labour will directly benefit by any measure of State credit for the farming industry."
  That is to say, that quite small men, by forming a co-operative society, would be able to borrow, and collectively to give that credit which, individually, they could not obtain from a bank—where, probably, they have not a banking account. Those are the lines followed by this Bill with regard to short-term credits, and I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
  LORD O'HAGAN: I do not suggest for a moment that the bankers are anxious to borrow from the Treasury. What I
  1110
  desired was to secure the interests of those who are seeking to obtain credit, namely, the small farmers and other farmers. I appreciate what the noble Earl said and I will not press this Amendment; though I confess that I am not altogether satisfied, because it seems to me that by restricting the operation of the Bill to the machinery which has been set up you are ignoring one source of the distribution of credit which will inevitably delay that distribution when it comes.
  THE EARL OF ANCASTER: The banks can go on lending now.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2, agreed to.
  Clause 3:
  Amendment of Land Improvement Acts.
  3.—(1) Notwithstanding any provision in the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, which limits the rate of interest payable under a charge created under such Act, the rate of interest under such a charge may be such as the Minister may from time to time authorise.
  (5) Section eighteen of the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, in so far as it prohibits without an order of the Court of Session the making of any provisional or other order sanctioning the improvement of land where the landowner or the husband of the landowner is an heir of entail in possession or a life renter and is the father of the next heir, or heirs, or of a succeeding life renter or life renters or of the fiar or fiars, and such heir succeeding life renter or fiar, or one or more of such heirs succeeding life renters or fiars, is in minority shall cease to have effect.
  VISCOUNT NOVAR VISCOUNT NOVAR moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "or the husband of the landowner is an heir of entail in possession or a life renter and is," and insert "is an heir of entail in posesssion or a life renter, and where such landowner or the husband of such landowner." The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment to give effect to the intention of the subsection.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 17, leave out from the first ("landowner") to ("is") in line 18, and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Novar.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  Application to Scotland.
  5. This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—
  (a) The Board of Agriculture for Scotland shall be substituted for the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries; the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Account shall be substituted for the Agricultural Credits Account: "freehold or copyhold land "shall mean" land held in fee simple"; "mortgage" shall mean "heritable security": "devisee" shall include "legatee";
  VISCOUNT NOVAR VISCOUNT NOVAR moved, at the end of paragraph (a), to insert "incumbrance shall not include a burden or charge incident to tenure." The noble Viscount said: This is a purely drafting Amendment which has the object of making it perfectly clear that the word "incumbrance" does not include feu duty or other charges.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 37, at end insert ("incumbrance shall not include a burden or charge incident to tenure").—(Viscount Novar.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.

  COTTON INDUSTRY BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  HOUSING, ETC. (No. 2) BILL.
  Order of the Day read for receiving the Report of Amendments.
  Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lords, on this Motion I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Pentland, in his speech upon the Second Reading of the Bill, raised certain specific points regarding Scotland. He stated that the conditions of building in Scotland were not recognised under the Bill, and that by custom, tradition and practice the cost of housing in Scotland has been higher house for house than in this country. He went on to argue that the subsidy of £6 per house was not sufficient to give
  1112
  the same encouragement to building in Scotland. The question as to whether Scotland was entitled to a higher subsidy had my most careful consideration before the introduction of the Bill. The English plan was selected for the purpose of comparison, and the expert officers of the local authorities arrived at a cost for Scotland of £38 10 s. a house in excess of that for England. After making full allowance for differences of climate, I was of opinion that the highest amount that could possibly be claimed for Scotland was £23 per house, made up of the cost of various items with which the noble Lord will be familiar in view of his long experience as Secretary for Scotland, his intimate knowledge of local conditions, and the explanations which have already been made on the subject.
  Even as regards the item of the £23 a house, I have very great difficulty in holding that Scotland as a whole is entitled to differential treatment; for, while the climate of the extreme north of Scotland is such that it may require a more substantial form of building than the climate of the south of England, there is but little difference between the climate of the Clyde and such places as Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester and the north of England generally. If Scotland's claim were to be conceded it would involve regional treatment throughout the United Kingdom, and that is a system which the Government, after full consideration, decided should not be adopted. To differentiate would involve the scrutiny of every housing scheme by the central Department. That would mean great delay and the continuance of that departmental interference which caused so many complaints of former schemes.
  In regard to the second point raised by the noble Lord that what is desired is 11/80ths of houses and not 11/80ths of money, as he is aware there is no limitation that Scotland should receive 11/80ths of the number of houses built in England. All that was laid down was the time limit within which houses must be built in order to participate in the State subsidy, and as many houses as could be built within the period we laid down would so participate. Under that scheme 176,000 houses are to be built in England; 11/80ths of that number would be a little more than 24,000, while the number of houses to be built in Scotland will be over

  1113
  25,000. Under the provisions of the new Bill it is proposed that this subsidy will I be payable in respect of houses erected during the period up to October 1, 1925, with power to the Board to grant an extension to June 1, 1926. Whatever number of houses can be built within that period will be entitled to rank for subsidy even though they may exceed 11/80ths of the number built in England.
  In the third place, the noble Lord claims that because of the difference in the Bating Law in Scotland, under which the local rates are divided between the owner and the occupier and are not paid wholly, as in England, by the tenant, the net return on the houses built in Scotland will be less than in England. But it is not clear that this is necessarily the case. The net return will depend upon the rents paid. While no accurate information appears to be obtainable, it may be noted that according to a statement by the National Housing and Town Planning Council the average rental of the houses erected by local authorities in England under the scheme of 1919 was £20 16s. The average rental of houses built under the corresponding Scottish Act is about £27. Making allowance for the deductions from the Scottish rental of owners' rates, it seems likely that the net return is probably slightly more in Scotland than in England on houses erected tinder that scheme. In any event it would be difficult to make the plea that the English taxpayer should be called upon to share the burden of a higher subsidy for Scotland merely because the rating system of the two countries is different.
  LORD PENTLAND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having so kindly answered the criticisms which I ventured to make at an earlier stage on one or two of the Scottish points in this Bill. In spite of what he says I still think that rating must operate as a discouragement to local authorities. Of course, it is rather in the region of prophecy than of fact and we must test it by experience instead of by anything we can say at this moment. I am very glad to hear that he is hopeful that the subsidy will be sufficient and that he has obtained some mitigation of the disparity which I venture to think is operative in Scotland as a discouragement. There is nothing more with which I need trouble your Lordships at the present moment
  1114
  except to thank the noble Viscount again for what he has said.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Clause 6:
  Repeal of superseded enactments subject to saving for existing liabilities.
  6.—(1) Sections seven and nineteen of the Housing, Town Planning, Etc., Act, 1919, and any enactments amending those sections, and Section eight of the Housing Act, 1921, are hereby repealed; but, "save as hereinafter in this section provided, this repeal shall not affect the validity of any regulations made thereunder or the power to amend such regulations, or any liability of the Minister to pay any 6um which under the said sections and regulations he has undertaken to pay, or the terms and conditions on which the Public Works Commissioners may lend for the purposes of a scheme towards the losses of which the Minister is liable to contribute under the said Section seven.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): The Amendment which stands in my name upon this clause is a drafting Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, lines 11 and 12, leave out ("thereunder") and insert ("under the said section").—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14:
  By-laws respecting houses divided into separate tenements.
  14.—(1) Section twenty-six of the Housing, Town Planning, Etc. Act, 1919 (which relates to by-laws respecting houses divided into separate tenements), shall, in its application to the administrative county of London, have effect—
  (a)as if after paragraph (i) of subsection (1) of that section there were inserted the following paragraph:—
  "(j) for the taking of precautions in the case of any infectious disease;"
  (b)as if in paragraph (a) of subsection (10) of that section for the words "for those purposes" there were substituted the words "under Section ninety-four of the Public Health ('London) Act, 1891."
  (2) Bye-laws made by the London County Council in pursuance of the said section as so amended, may provide that the bye-laws shall, either generally or as respects any particular metropolitan borough or any part thereof, have effect subject to such modifications, limitations or exceptions as may be specified in the bye-laws.
  LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: My Lords, any decision of the House as to the deletion of this paragraph (b) was deferred pending a meeting which it was suggested should take place under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Onslow. I must thank Lord Onslow, on behalf of the parties, for having at once taken steps to get them to meet together, and I am glad to report that after discussion of the difficulty an arrangement has been made which is incorporated in the two Amendments that stand in my name on the Paper. The difficulty I refer to arose between the London County Council representatives and the standing joint committee of the boroughs. That committee represents twenty-eight boroughs, and the members of it have since held a meeting to endorse the heads of agreement. At that meeting direct representatives of twenty-five of the London boroughs were present.
  The effect of the Amendments will be that the mandatory liabilities which existed under the Act of 1891 to make by-laws will become optional with regard to the by-laws dealing with houses other than those intended to be used by the working classes, and that the concurrent jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Boroughs and of the County Council will come to an end. The borough councils will still retain the right to make by-laws for houses not used or intended to be used for the working classes, a power which they have had since the Act of 1891. This agreement really simplifies the practice of the parties in making by-laws for London. It does not prevent by-laws being made for houses not intended to be occupied by the working classes, which would have been the effect of the Bill as it came to this House, nor does it oblige boroughs to make by-laws if they do not wish to have them. In certain boroughs there is a necessity for by-laws; in others there is not; and if my Amendments are adopted the Bill will leave the matter to the discretion of the councils.
  I do not think that any cause of difference will arise between the County Council and the borough councils on the matter. It is clear that considerable misunderstanding arose as to the arrangements that were made prior to the clause being inserted in the House of Commons, and although some Parliamentary objection
  1116
  was got rid of, yet there was not time, and perhaps not sufficient opportunity given, to ascertain the views of the boroughs, which caused them to object to the clause as inserted in the Bill. Now an arrangement has been made which, I hope, will prove to be satisfactory, and which I ask your Lordships to endorse by adopting the Amendments that I move. In my second Amendment, to insert a new subsection, I wish to make a small verbal alteration by inserting the words "come into force "after" as so amended "in the third line.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, lines 32 to 36, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Askwith.)
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I have great pleasure in accepting the Amendments of my noble friend on behalf of the Government with the verbal alteration he suggests.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 15, line 43, at end insert the following new subsection:
  ("(3) As soon as any byelaws made by the London County Council in pursuance of the said section as so amended come into force, all byelaws made by the council of any metropolitan borough under Section ninety-four of the Public Health (London) Act, 1.891, shall cease to have effect, but the council of a metropolitan borough shall themselves have power at any time after such byelaws have been made by the London County Council to make byelaws under the said Section ninety-four with respect to any houses or parts of houses in their area let in lodgings or occupied by members of more than one family to which the byelaws made by the London County Council do not apply.")—(Lord Ashwith.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 21:
  Power to make town planning schemes in special cases.
  21. Where it appears to the Minister that on account of the special architectural historic or artistic interest attaching to a locality it is expedient that with a view to preserving the existing character and to protecting the existing features of the locality a town planning scheme should be made with respect to any area comprising that locality, the Minister may, notwithstanding that the land or any part thereof is already developed, authorise a town planning scheme to he made with respect to that area prescribing the space about buildings, or limiting the number of buildings to be erected, or prescribing the height or character of buildings, and, (subject as aforesaid, the Town Planning Acts. 1909 to 1923. shall apply accordingly.
  VISCOUNT ASTOR VISCOUNT ASTOR had an Amendment on the Paper to move, after "interest to insert" or residential amenities." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have several Amendments on the Paper, and I realise that all the Amendments to the Second Schedule which stand in my name ought not to be moved at so late a stage. Unfortunately, the friends with whom I was co-operating did not have the Amendments drafted in sufficient time for me to bring them forward in Committee, and I realise that it would be unfair to ask the Government or your Lordships' House to make such material alterations and extensions to the Bill at this stage as my Amendments would involve. Therefore I do not propose to move the Amendments to the Second Schedule which stand in my name. With regard to my Amendment to Clause 21, if the noble Karl tells me that it goes too far and that the same objection applies, I do not wish to move it, because I do not want to hamper the passage of this Bill. This Amendment, however, is in rather a different position to my Amendments to the Schedule. It is an Amendment to a new clause which was moved on the Committee Stage, and therefore I could not have put it down sooner. If, however, the noble Earl tells me that he cannot accept it, although I think it is a logical addition to the new clause—Clause 21—I will not take up the time of your Lordships' House by-explaining it.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his action and his offer to withdraw these Amendments which I think your Lordships would agree are somewhat radical and drastic Amendments to introduce on the Report stage of this Bill. I wish that I could meet my noble friend with regard to his Amendment on Clause 21, but I fear there would be considerable difficulty in doing so for the same reason that I should have found it difficult, or indeed impossible, to accept those Amendments on the Schedule. The clause which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, was designed to meet special cases like those of Oxford or Stratford-upon-Avon, or other towns of antiquarian interest and architectural beauty, and it would not, I think, be desirable to graft on to it the Amendment which my noble friend has put upon the Paper. There
  1118
  would not be many towns where some case could not be made out for special residential amenities, and if you are going to include residential amenities—a rather wide term—you must remember that they are not the only considerations which might be urged in regard to town planning. They are, of course, of importance, but there are other matters that also are of importance. There is, for instance, the preservation of any special industry, or of business facilities, and considerations of that kind. I venture to suggest that this is scarcely the place to introduce so far-reaching an Amendment, and I shall be very grateful to my noble friend if he does not press his Amendment.
  THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Viscount does not move his Amendment.
  Application to Scotland.
  23. This Act shall apply to Scotland, subject to the following modifications:—
  (2) References to Section seven, Section ten, Section nineteen, Section twenty-eight and Section forty-six of the Housing, Town Planning, Etc. Act, 1919, shall he construed as references to Section five, Section nine, Section sixteen, Section twenty-five and Section thirty-two respectively of the Housing, Town Planning, Etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919, and the reference to Section one hundred and eighty-four of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall be construed as a reference to Section three hundred and eighteen of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892.
  VISCOUNT NOVAR VISCOUNT NOVAR moved, at the end of paragraph (2), to insert "and the reference to the Town-Planning Acts, 1909 to 1923, shall be construed as a reference to the Town-Planning (Scotland) Acts, 1909 to 1923." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is required in order to make the new clause moved in Committee by the Earl of Crawford apply to Scotland. My other Amendment on line 31 to leave out the word "and" is necessary in consequence.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 19, line 31, leave out ("and")
  Page 19, line 35, at end insert ("and the reference to the Town Planning Acts, 1909 to 1923, shall be construed as a reference to the Town Planning (Scotland) Acts, 1909 to 1923").—(Viscount Novar.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.

  FINANCE BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  RAILWAY FIRES ACT (1905) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, at this late hour of the evening I will be as brief as I can in dealing with this Bill. I will ask you to direct your attention to the various clauses of the measure while I run through them and explain the main alterations to the existing law which we propose to introduce. Clause 2 is the most important in the Bill. It makes a change. At the present moment, if a house is under the Rent Restriction Acts it remains under control even though it may change tenancy. If the owner comes in and occupies the house, then goes out and lets it again, it still remains a controlled house and subject to the restrictions of the Acts. Under this Bill we propose to remove control if the house becomes vacant. If a landlord enters into possession of a house on its becoming vacant then that house will be removed from control. There are two exceptions to this with which I will deal later, but as a general rule vacant houses will come out of the Bent Restriction Acts.
  Another point which has been a source of difficulty in the past is the question of leases. It has been found that the restrictions of the Acts are a considerable hindrance to those who wish to conclude leases because they apply both to short lettings and to lettings for any length of time. Naturally, when a lease falls in a landlord does not wish to hamper himself
  1120
  by concluding a new lease for 21 years or so, subject still to the restrictions which are laid down by the Acts. He prefers to allow the tenant to go on as a statutory tenant until such time as he is able to renew the lease under a free contract. This, of course, is disagreeable to the tenant who does not want to be a statutory tenant. He would much prefer to conclude a lease. He would be quite willing to conclude a lease with his landlord, although the terms might not be within the four corners of the restrictions. The clause which enables this to be done in certain circumstances is purely optional to the tenant He can remain as a statutory tenant and need not conclude a lease unless he wishes. This provision will assist in easing the housing shortage. When a house falls vacant now the landlord does not want to let it; that would bring it under control again. He prefers to put it up for sale and sell it vacant with possession. When a house becomes vacant now he can let it and also put it up for sale, and the buyer will be able to give notice to the tenant and obtain possession of the house if he requires it.
  I come now to Clause 3 and I am afraid that it is rather a difficult clause to understand. It is somewhat complicated. I repeat what my right hon. friend said in another place, that when the Bill passes into law the Government will take steps to have the old Acts reprinted together with the Amendments made by the present Bill in order to show the whole provisions of the law. Subsection (b) of Clause 5 of the principal Act makes it possible for a landlord to regain possession if the tenant or some one living with him has allowed the house to deteriorate, or has caused a nuisance in any way, or has used it for illegal purposes. But where the nuisance is caused by the sub-tenant or lodger the existing section does not apply. We have therefore extended it to cover the destructive lodger or sub-tenant and provided that it shall only be possible for the landlord to regain possession if the tenant has not taken proper steps to get rid of the obnoxious sub-tenant who is causing a nuisance.
  Now we come to the case of the owner requiring possession for his own use or for one of his grown-up children. I need not enlarge upon the hardship which the limitation to the powers of a man to

  1121
  occupy his own house have caused. They have been presented in the voluminous evidence which was laid before the Departmental Committee and is available for consultation by your Lordships. There have been constant articles in the Press, and the matter has been ventilated at length in another place. I think everybody, however wedded they may be to the principle of rent control, would wish that some relaxation should be allowed in the case of a man wishing to occupy his own house. Therefore, we say that where a man wishes to gain possession for himself, or one of his grown up children, he should be able to obtain it without conditions, provided that he or his wife, became the owner before 30th June, 1022. In such cases it is only necessary for the Court to be quite sure that the requirement of the house for his own use is really genuine. Of course, a man may buy a house for his own occupation quite genuinely even subsequent to 1922, and, therefore, the Bill says that in such cases, if the landlord can show that greater hardship would be caused by his being kept out of his house than by the tenant being evicted, he is able to regain possession without, providing alternative accommodation.
  Some months ago my noble friend Lord Hastings came to me with a deputation on behalf of the Central Land Association, and put forward certain proposals in regard to this Bill. I am afraid that he will, when he reads the Bill, be some what disappointed as the main object which he had in view—namely, to exclude all houses in rural districts—is not embodied in it. But I hope he will agree that certain useful concessions are made to the agricultural interest. For in stance, at the present moment a farmer cannot obtain possession of a cottage for one of his workmen unless he is actually employing that man. This provision is very difficult to work. Very often it is impossible to engage a man at all, or at any rate to employ him, until he is able to find housing accommodation. Con sequently, we have altered the provision of the original Act by saying that in cases whore a farmer has engaged a man conditional upon housing accommodation being obtainable for him ho is in a position to dispossess a tenant who is occupying a house necessary for a man whose employment is required for the proper working of the farm.
  1122
  I now come to the second class of provisions in Clause 3, namely, those whereby a landlord can obtain possession of his house by the provision of alternative accommodation. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention in the first instance to the fact that we have made a considerable alteration with regard to alternative accommodation. As the law at present stands, alternative accommodation is described as "accommodation reasonably equivalent as regards rent and suitability in all respects." That provision was found to be almost impracticable. It was held, for instance, that if a tenant was able to take in lodgers, the alternative accommodation should also enable him to take in lodgers. It was further held that the rooms in the alternative accommodation must be neither larger, nor smaller, nor less in number, and so forth. In fact, it was practically impossible to obtain alternative accommodation under the conditions laid down by the former Act.
  Consequently, we substituted for the definition which holds good at the present time a somewhat longer one, but one which, I trust, will be more suitable to the needs of landlords and tenants. This new form describes alternative accommodation as accommodation "reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant and to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent, character and proximity to place of work, and which consists either of a dwelling house to which the principal Act. applies or of premises to be let as a separate dwelling on terms which would afford the tenant security of tenure reasonably approximate to the security afforded by the principal Act."
  Possibly these last words will require a little explanation. It has been pointed out that with the abolition of the control of vacant houses a man who is offered a house which is not controlled may be turned out again in a week, so that if a landlord had two houses exactly alike and adjacent to one another, one occupied by a tenant and therefore controlled, and the other vacant and therefore uncontrolled, he might offer the empty house as alternative accommodation, and so obtain possession of the controlled house. If the tenant went into the vacant house he might, of course, be turned out in a week, and he would have no security

  1123
  of tenure whatever. Accordingly, we say that alternative accommodation must also offer security of tenure. If, as will undoubtedly be the case, but few vacant houses will be subject to the provisions of the principal Act, fixity of tenure will have to be provided for by some form of lease.
  We also extend to private enterprise the facilities for obtaining possession of premises which local authorities or statutory undertakings now possess. For instance, one may cite the case of a hospital which may wish to erect a wing and may not be able to do so because there are one or two controlled cottages on the land where the wing is to be erected. If that wore the case, the hospital authorities could now go to Court and would probably be able to obtain possession of those cottages by offering alternative accommodation.
  I think I ought to mention a safeguard which has been introduced to protect tenants against the consequences of houses being decontrolled. Under the original Act a landlord could get rid of a tenant by misrepresentation of facts, and if he did so he had to pay him compensation. If a landlord were to take this step, he might be able to get rid of his tenant and find it worth his while to misrepresent the facts and to pay compensation in order to get possession of a vacant house. Consequently, we provide that in such cases the house will not come out of control. If the landlord, by misrepresentation, gets a tenant out of a house he will have to pay him compensation and the house will return to control. This is one of the exceptions to which I referred where vacant houses will not be decontrolled. The other is where a tenant is evicted by his landlord for non-payment of rent. The landlord then regain" possession of his house, but the house is still subject to control.>
  I come now to Clause 4, the object of which is to simplify the present procedure. It has been suggested that some landlords have not spent the 25 per cent, of increased rent on repairs. The procedure under the present Act is cumbersome and is not fully understood by tenants, and consequently we alter that procedure by saying that the service of a certificate from a sanitary authority shall be a good defence to any claim against the tenant
  1124
  for an increase of rent. As regards Clause 5, which, I think, is an important-clause, it has been found that inconvenience and hardship to landlords have been caused by the fact that any small error in the notice served for increase of rent may vitiate the whole notice. We are here giving power to the county court to amend such notice by correcting errors and supplying omissions.
  Next, I turn to the question of the sub-tenant, which is dealt with in Clause 6. In England, as a general rule, no provision is inserted in a lease to forbid sub-tenancies. I believe that in Scotland there generally is such a provision; the Scottish landlords are it appears, more cautious than the English landlords. It is perfectly legal, therefore, for a tenant to let to a sub-tenant, but owing to the shortage of houses there are a great many more sub-tenancies than existed before the war. In those days, if a landlord had objected to his tenant's subletting he could have stopped it by saying that unless the tenant got rid of the subtenant he would give him notice to quit He cannot do that now, and he has to allow his house to be used in any way that the tenant chooses so far as subletting is concerned. We feel that the landlord is entitled to a slightly increased rent in consequence of the additional use to which his house is put, and accordingly we say that in respect of the part of a house which is let to a sub-tenant a landlord shall be entitled to receive from the tenant 5 per cent. more than the apportioned rent on that part of the premises. Then again, at the present moment, unless he contravenes the law, a tenant is allowed to charge only the amount of rent which he pays to his landlord for the premises which he sublets. We think that he should perhaps have some additional advantage, and it is suggested that he should also be allowed to take for himself 5 per cent, of the net rent of that part of the premises.
  The next two clauses deal with two grievances. The first regards the sale of furniture at an excessive price. That has been done to get over the prohibition of premiums. Furniture or fixtures have been sold at an enormous price as a condition of the renewal or continuance of a tenancy. We say that the price of any furniture sold under such conditions shall be stated, and if that price is in excess of the value, then the excess shall be

  1125
  treated as if it were a premium. Then there was another method by which it was suggested that the Act was evaded. That was by giving some very limited form of attendance, and it was held, I believe, that even a delivery of coals once a week, or something of that kind, was sufficient to class the premises as a letting with attendance. We endeavour to meet this by saying that the value of such attendance must form a substantial portion of the rent paid if the letting is to count as one with attendance. At the same time in calculating the amount in the rent attributable to the attendance regard must be had to the value of that attendance to the tenant: which of course might vary in different circumstances. The same provisions as are attached to attendance apply to furniture let with the house. Lastly, there has been a great deal of trouble in determining standard rent. The Courts have held that they cannot settle these questions unless they crop up incidentally in an action, so in Clause 9 we give power to the county court to determine these questions summarily, and so to arrive at a settlement.
  These nine clauses conclude Part I of the Act, and Part I of the Act—that is, the Rent Restriction Acts plus these Amendments—continues until June, 1925. On June 25, 1925, all the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts lapse, and in their place Part II of this Act comes into force. Part II is, if I may say so, the second step on the bridge between complete control and complete decontrol, Part I being the first.
  Part II of this Bill is designed to afford sufficient protection to tenants to render prolongation of the Rent Restriction Acts after June, 1925, unnecessary. The period provided for in Part II is five years, though Parliament may by resolution shorten it. Thus the protection afforded in Part II will last till 1930—and 1930 was the date which the Minority Report of the Departmental Committee regarded as that to which restrictions should be continued for the houses which came within the category of the 1915 Act.
  Now when the Pent Restriction Acts come to an end in 1925 some landlords may desire to take advantage, of their freedom: they may want to let their houses to other tenants, they may have had difficulties with their tenants and
  1126
  want to get rid of them and get better tenants, or they may want a change for any other reason. If a landlord wants to change his tenant and the tenant does not wish to give up the house, he may appeal to the county court, and if the court think that the conduct of the landlord is harsh or oppressive, or that the tenant would be caused exceptional hardship, it may refuse to allow the landlord to evict the tenant. Then, of course, the landlord may say, or he may have already said, that the tenant must pay an increased rent, and again if the tenant objects to this he can appeal to the court and the court has power to decide whether the rent shall be increased, and what increase is fair and reasonable. The criterion is to be the character and condition of the house and the rents of similar houses in the neighbourhood. But it may be said that though considerable hardship might be caused to a tenant in being evicted, if the landlord is not allowed to evict him the landlord himself may be caused greater hardship than the tenant has to undergo by being evicted from his house. In these circumstances, where the greater hardship might be inflicted on the landlord, the court would have power to grant the eviction.
  When Part II of the Act comes into force I think you will agree that a great deal of work will be thrown on to the county courts, and therefore we provide machinery by which reference, committees may be set up to relieve the county courts of some of the mechanical part of this work. The functions of these reference committees will be to determine questions in relation to rent, character or condition of houses. They can be moved into activity in two ways, and two ways only. First a County Court Judge may ask for their advice on the question of the appropriate rent, having regard to the condition and character of the house in question. The reference committee does not decide the question but only advises. Secondly, where both the landlord and tenant agree to do so, the question of lent may be referred to them directly. There has been a great deal of, I think, unfounded alarm at the constitution of these committees, which have been characterised as "the stepping-stones to rent courts." Really they are nothing of the kind: they are simply there to relieve the county court of the work of determining the specific questions which I have mentioned.

  1127
  Your Lordships are familiar with, the provisions of the Acts relating to compulsory purchase, and we are all aware that if land is sold under an Order and there is a difference of opinion in regard to price, the price is settled by an arbitration tribunal; but this is a very different thing from a land court, and these committees are very different things from rent courts. They act simply in an advisory manner. They will be set up, if ever they are set up, by regulations, and those regulations will be laid before both Houses of Parliament. No reference committees will be set up—and this is an important matter—unless both Houses of Parliament pass a Resolution confirming them. As your Lordships are aware orders which are laid on the Table of the House are confirmed automatically unless one House or another pronounces against them; in this case the regulations will not become operative unless both Houses confirm them by Resolution.
  I have only one other matter to draw attention to, and that is the clause dealing with repairs. When a tenant complains to a county court that the landlord has not carried out his obligations in regard to repairs the court may order that the rent shall be reduced until those repairs are carried out.
  The questions which are dealt with in this Bill are some of the most difficult that have confronted any Minister at a period when every Minister is confronted with questions of more than ordinary difficulty. I think that whatever opinion may be held as to this measure, or as to particular parts thereof, it has been generally recognised throughout the country that my right honourable friend has made a sincere and honest attempt to grapple with a problem of acute controversy, and that he has made a sincere and honest endeavour to hold the balance fairly between the many conflicting interests. As such I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
  LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I cannot help regretting, and I think there must be many members of your Lordships' House who join with me in regretting, that this Bill was not introduced to your Lordships at a time when it would have been possible to give it
  1128
  the adequate consideration which it deserves. It seems impossible to think that this measure, which is now going to be discussed in an utterly devitalised House, should be the Bill introduced by the Government to remedy a state of affairs which lost them four seats at an early stage of their existence, and which was not inaptly described by the noble Earl, to whom we are indebted for a plain and careful exposition of the Bill, as one of the most difficult measures that the Government have had to bring forward.
  I am not so foolish as not to understand that the Government have difficulties in arranging their business, but I think that a Bill which rightly demands, as this Bill does most careful investigation by all members of the House, and which raises in a form of acute controversy what ought to be the proper policy to be pursued with regard to housing in our present economic condition, should not have been introduced to your Lord ships' House at such a time as this. Of course, the first and obvious remedy-would have been that I, representing, as I do on this occasion, our depleted Opposition, should have moved that the House be adjourned, in order that the matter might be fully and properly considered. I am bound to say that I was tempted to take that course. But I know also that this Bill cannot be indefinitely postponed, that time is already occupied by other matters that will arise before this House for consideration, and that, if I were to do that, although there might be many of your Lordships who would think it was the right thing to do, yet, none the less, it would embarrass the Government gravely in carrying into effect a Bill which must be passed by July 31, or there will be grave difficulties ensuing. Therefore I merely protest, in passing, against the Government having put this down at the end of a long day's list. I do not think it is entirely excusable that they should have selected that place in the list when they might-have selected others for its position on your Lordships' Paper.
  The Bill deals with the most acute controversy, and is of the gravest importance. It is a Bill which propose to continue restrictions which now exist with regard to the rents that are to be

  1129
  obtained from the letting of houses. Many people regard this as a Bill containing something more than the mere germs of Socialism. They think that it prevents the proper play of economic forces with regard to house property, and imposes a very grave disability upon people whose investments happen to take the form of owning houses. I admit that I do not share that view. It not only appears to me perfectly plain that there must now be restrictions upon the rents to be obtained from houses in the hands of landlords, but I do not believe that the period assigned by this Bill as the period luring which this restriction is to continue will be found to be sufficiently prolonged.
  My reason is this. The economic shortage of houses is due to the fact that the Government interfered during the war and prevented houses being built. It was not an event that happened in the ordinary economic development of the country. It was an artificially created scarcity, and I think it would be the very worst possible example to allow people, who in those circumstances became possessed of what was in the nature of a monopoly, and a monopoly absolutely essential for the life of the community, to draw from their favoured position all that that position enabled them to exact. The maintenance of decent houses at decent rents for our working people is a matter of the very first importance if we desire to maintain order and stability in the government of this country. And therefore my feeling is not at all one of reluctance to continue the restrictions that have been imposed, but rather that the restriction is not imposed for a term sufficiently long. I imagine that the Government, in selecting the date which they did, did so with the comforting reflection that it was more than likely that they would not be holding office when that time expired, and that they would be queath to others the difficult position of knowing what was then to be done.
  The first thing that I wish to say about the Bill, remembering what I have said is to the necessity of protecting people from the exaction that must always follow from a few people holding what many people desire, is that it is a little difficult to know why it is that, in Clause 2, the mere fact that a landlord resumes possession of a house should entitle him
  1130
  there and then to exact what rent he pleases for it. If at the basis of the Bill lies the idea that I have attempted to express—namely, that it is not right to let people get all that can be obtained from the use of an artificially restricted commodity—I see no particular reason why the landlord should be given that opportunity, merely because the house falls into possession. At any rate, Clause 2, for some reason or other, provides that.
  Clause 3 is a clause upon which comment is obvious. It is probably the worst drawn clause that has found its way into any Bill that has recently been before your Lordships. If it were read out to you I would undertake to say that there is not a single noble Lord in the House who would have the faintest notion what it meant. As it stands, it is incomprehensible. You cannot understand it without having before you the clause in the principal Act to which this is an amendment. It states that—
  "Subsection (1) of Section five of the principal Act (which relates to restriction on right to possession) shall from and after the passing of this Act have effect subject to the following Amendments:—

  (a)for paragraph (b) the following paragraph shall be substituted:—

  (b)for paragraph (d) the following paragraph shall ho substituted:—

  (c) for paragraph (e) the following paragraph shall be substituted:—

  (d) the following paragraphs shall be added at the end of paragraph (g):—

  Then in paragraph (ii) certain words are to be added, and another paragraph is to be substituted for paragraph (iv), while subsection (6) of Section 5 of the principal Act is to be extended. Of course that is, on the face of it, sheer nonsense. It conveys no meaning to anybody's mind. Unless you have the other Act by your side and you add these things on, you can get no value from this Bill at all.
  It is said that when this Bill is passed the other Acts will be consolidated. That is a very good thing, but why could it not be done to begin with? I know that these complaints about this style of legislation are made by both sides of the House. It is one of those things which people are bound to accept when they are members of the Government, and of which the Opposition always complain.

  1131
  I feel that I have myself sometimes apologised for such Bills. But I am certain that the noble Marquess who is at present leading the House [Lord Salisbury] will admit that I have from time to time protested against it, even when I was a member of the Government, and I have always done my best, as far as possible, to avoid this method of legislation, which prevents people from understanding what an Act of Parliament means, and which always reminds me of the Roman Emperor who, in order to obtain revenue for his Treasury, put his Acts of Parliament in small letters at the top of a high column, and then, when the people could not understand them, punished them for disobedience to the law.
  Let us pass on from that to one or two of these other provisions. Take Clause 3 (1) (d). This provides that the landlord is, as far as I can understand, to obtain possession if the tenant has, without consent, assigned or sub-let the whole of the dwelling-house, or sub-let part of it, the remainder of it being already sub-let. Does that mean that that condition is imposed if the tenant has, without consent, sub-let, even although, under the terms of his original tenancy, he was at liberty to assign or sub-let? If not, is there anything in the original Act that prevents a breach of a covenant like that, giving the landlord the right to Resume possession? If this means that there is to be imposed upon a man who is under no obligation to obtain consent the necessity of obtaining consent before he exercises rights that he now possesses, then I think that this is a very drastic and severe provision which needs to be revised. I do not know, because I cannot carry in my head the entire provisions of the principal Act, and, without the principal Act, it is perhaps impossible to ascertain what it means. But I do not, for the moment, realise why the breach of a covenant not to assign or sub-let would entitle the landlord to obtain possession. If there is not a covenant enabling the landlord so to deal with the property, then I think it is wrong to prevent a man doing what he has the clear right to do—to deal with his property, even if it be a small monthly tenancy, just as law has permitted him to do.
  Then there are other provisions with regard to licensed premises which I understand
  1132
  also give rise to the same question, but with which I do not propose for the moment to interfere. I want, however, to direct attention to subsection (1) of Clause 5. It is said by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, and I think quite rightly said, that the notice which the principal Act contains and which the landlord must serve upon the tenant before any increase can be obtained is a complicated notice. It certainly looks as though that is so. But you have to remember that there are two people who suffer from this complication. There is the landlord and there is the tenant. If you allow the landlord to make any demand he pleases upon a tenant in one of these notices with the certain knowledge that if the tenant objects all he has to do is to go and put it right at the county court, you will encourage people who are dealing with ignorant men to attempt to exact from them that which the law does not permit. The assumption is that the advantage of the notice is that unless the landlord strictly conforms to what he is entitled to ask the tenant is entitled to disregard the notice.
  I know there are disadvantages which may arise from mistakes which are quite honestly made by a landlord in serving such a notice, and this is intended to protect the landlord from such consequences. But while it protects him it exposes the tenant to something far more grave, and I hope the noble Earl in charge of the measure will consider whether it is not possible, before the final stage is reached, to do something to mitigate the provisions of this clause in such a manner as to provide, at least, that the County Court Judge must find out that the mistake in the notice was a genuine mistake and not a mere inaccuracy in the figures.
  There is another provision in Clause 6 which also appears to me to be rather hard. That clause deals with the lawful sub-letting of part of a house by the tenant, and provides that when a tenant lawfully sub-lets he is to be at liberty to exact from the person to whom he sublets ten per cent, more than the landlord would have been entitled to receive. I do not quite see why. It is merely an encouragement to the farming out of houses, which is the worst thing in the world, and in order that the landlord may be satisfied he is to have part of what his tenant can get. I should be glad to

  1133
  know the reason that, induced the Government, in a Bill that is really designed for the protection of tenants—because that is the whole justification of the measure—to place a sub-tenant, to the extent of ten per cent., at the mercy of the landlord's tenant who is to be protected by the Bill.
  Finally, the landlord is entitled, under subsection (2) of Clause 6, to call upon the tenant to give him full particulars of any sub-letting, and if the tenant does not comply he is to be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £2. All this is on the hypothesis that the tenant is lawfully sub-letting. If I am exercising my lawful rights and subletting in a lawful way, why am I to be called upon to give full particulars to the landlord when I am asked for them and to be liable on summary conviction to a fine of £2 if I do not supply them? I do not like that clause at all, and unless there is some chance of the Government meeting us on that matter it will be our duty. I think, to take steps to see whether we cannot secure some amendment of it in the course of the Committee stage of the Bill.
  There is one thing that I think we must face, and it is this. The idea that the situation which justifies the existence of this Bill is one that is transient and passing away is entirely unfounded. The population of this country is increasing far faster than the accommodation that is obtainable for their proper housing. It is calculated, and I believe there is no doubt about the figures, that in spite of all our distress our population grows at the rate of one thousand a day: so that 365.000 a year are added to the population of this country. And what of the houses? According to the figures I have—of course, they are much more difficult to check than the figures of population—there is an actual deficit in the number of houses required of at least 20,000 a year. The consequence is that the situation which already exists will not grow easier. It is going to grow more and more grave and, so far from this Bill attempting to lighten the restrictions which are now imposed on the letting of houses, I cannot help thinking that, if there be any genuine desire to protect people from exorbitant and unfair rents, this Bill will have to be modified in a manner different from that in which I gathered from the noble Earl
  1134
  it was the intention of the Government to deal with it. I have attempted to make my criticisms as brief as possible having regard to the hour of the evening, and I hope that I have indicated one or two at least of the points with regard to which we think that this Bill is open to criticism and amendment.
  LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words upon this Bill which contains, I think, some very good provisions but is certainly in need of amendment. The drafting in more than one place is very obscure and there is a terrible amount of legislation by reference. I would especially draw the attention of my noble friend Lord Onslow to "paragraph (iv)" in subsection (11 (f) of Clause 3 in which these words occur:—
  "where the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age and …."
  I want to know whether there is going to be a full stop at the word "age," or whether the last part of the paragraph, which I have not yet read, is one with the first part, and whether the whole of it is governed by the date June 30, 1922?
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is all going to be redrafted.
  LORD DYNEVOR: Then I need not trouble your Lordships any further with that. It is most desirable, of course, that poor people and builders should fully understand what is in this Bill and should be able to follow it easily. It is not going to be administered by the Ministry of Health, but by the County Court Judges. Those Judges have already experienced great difficulty in interpreting the former Acts, and I had great hope that a Bill would have been produced this time which would not have to be taken to all the Courts in the land in order to find out what was meant. I thoroughly agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, in what he said about Clause 3, and I would sug gest that the whole of that clause, which extends over three pages of the Bill, should be recast by deleting Section 5 of the Act of 1920 and bringing in a new clause covering the whole matter. I would also suggest that in Part III, subsection (4) of Clause 15 should be omitted. That subsection permits a sanitary authority

  1135
  to appoint a committee to deal with the principal Act and this Bill, and it may lead to very great abuses.
  I should also like to see such a case as the following dealt with by the Bill. Supposing that a lessor granted a lease on January 1, 1923, for five years until January 1, 1928, at a rent of £70 until June 30, 1923, when he expected the principal Act to expire, and a rent of £90 thereafter. The effect would be that under Clause 1 of the Bill the rent of £90 would be cut down to £70 until June 24, 1925. That seems to me to be a hardship. The contract that was made was a perfectly legal and lawful one. There are other points with which it will be necessary to deal in Committee, but at this late hour I do not wish to trouble your Lordships further on the matter. I hope that ample time will be given before the Committee stage is taken in order that we may fully consider this Bill which has been in our hands for only a very short time.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I feel very acutely the reproaches of the noble and learned Lord opposite, for I share with him a feeling of profound regret that the Second Reading of this Bill should have had to be taken at this time of the evening, in a House which is not very numerously attended by noble Lords. The Parliamentary difficulty of the moment is not altogether the fault of the Government. It is in this sense the fault of the Government, that they fixed July 31 as the ultimate date upon which the existing Act expires. Perhaps they ought to have had sufficient foresight to have known that July 31 was too early, and should have fixed it a week later, but I have a shrewd suspicion, if they had taken that course, that the only result would have been that the proceedings in Committee and Report in another place would have taken so many more days to transact.
  We are really brought up against the date when the Act expires, and when it was my duty, with my noble friends who sit around me, to consider the conduct of business, I was very anxious to study your Lordships' convenience to the utmost m my power, and we put the Second Beading down sufficiently early after we received the Bill to enable a number of days to elapse between
  1136
  the Second Reading and Committee, which I believe to be the most important interval in the passage of all Bills that are not going to be rejected outright. Therefore we fixed the Second Reading for to-night, but I feel that the noble and learned Lord has a grievance, and a very legitimate grievance. We had intended to take the Committee Stage on Monday next, but now that there appears to be an Irish debate on Monday, the House would probably prefer to take the Committee Stage of this Bill on Tuesday, the day following. That will run us very near the limit of days, but I think it can be done. Tuesday is at present quite vacant. Therefore the whole evening would be at the service of the House for this Bill, and if noble Lords opposite would like to continue the general discussion they could do so upon the Motion to go into Committee. In that way, if they wished to do so it would serve as a sort of adjourned Second Beading debate, at any rat for the first hour of the afternoon. I do not suggest they should do that, but I mention it merely as giving them an opportunity, if they care to avail themselves of it, of continuing what would in effect be a Second Beading debate. I am most anxious to meet noble Lords opposite in any way in my power. I have not only allowed a week between the Second Heading and Committee Stage so that Amendments may be put down, but I am also quite willing, if the House thinks fit, to continue the general discussion for at any rate a part of the time available next Tuesday. I think the noble and learned Lord will sec how anxious I am to meet him.
  His criticisms of the Bill were acute, as one would expect them to be, and with many of them the House will sympathise. When he complained of the drafting of Clause 3 I may tell him that so far as I am concerned he was only forcing an open door. If he had watched the drafting of the clause as carefully as I have done he would have known that you could have even a more badly drafted clause than that. He would also have known that if the clause had passed in the form in which the Government submitted it to another place it would be a much more reasonable clause than it is now. The close attention which the House of Commons paid to this clause has resulted in an amount of complication

  1137
  which is truly wonderful. Now that it is presented to your Lordships I do cot know whether we shall be able to do anything to straighten it out at this period of the Session, I think that is more than doubtful. I need not say that any suggestion which the noble and learned Lord can make would receive from us the most careful consideration.
  The broad aspect of this Bill is this. We are trying to pass from the condition of limitation and restriction upon the rights of landlord and tenant to freedom again, and that is done in this Bill in two phases. We are presented with a condition under which rents are restricted and in which there is a certain limited fixity of tenure, and we want to restore complete freedom of contract. In the first phase- that is to say, till the middle of 1925—the presumption is that the restriction continues, but certain mitigations in that restriction are introduced. For the second phase the presumption is the other way. The presumption is one of freedom, and upon that freedom certain limitations are imposed in the Bill so as to prevent the recovered rights of the landlord being enforced unfairly and inequitably, having regard to the continued shortness of houses which we still anticipate. The broad principle of the Bill is, in two steps, to get back freedom of contract as between the parties. I understand from the noble and learned Lord's speech that he is not very sanguine that the period allowed is sufficiently long, but he does not contest the broad principle. He admits, at any rate by his silence—for he made no criticism on that head—that the Government, in proceeding to recover for the parties freedom of contract in these two phases, are proceeding upon right lines, and that, I am glad to think, will be the general view of your Lordships.
  He made certain criticisms in regard to which I shall not attempt to follow him at this late hour in detail, but I may permit myself to make a few observations upon two points that he raised, which were really allied points, in order to show the spirit in which the first Part of the Bill is conceived. He criticised, for example, the provision under which vacant houses should be decontrolled, He said: "Why-is that so?" The reason is this. The party whose interests we are anxious to safeguard is the sitting tenant, the man
  1138
  who has a house, whom we do not want to see turned into the street because of the advantage, the artificial advantage, which the landlord has at this moment owing to the want of housing accommodation. We, therefore, protect the sitting tenant. He is protected under the existing Act, and we continue his protection, but we see no reason why that protection and that control should adhere to the house. It should adhere to the tenant, and not to the house, and if the house possesses no tenant then, from our point of view, there is no reason why it should be any longer controlled.
  I think that the noble and learned Lord will see that the same argument applies in the case of sub-letting. We are not dealing with the man who sub-lets contrary to the terms of his contract. The noble Lord said: "Here is a man who has a right to sub-let, and if he sub-lets his house why should it become decontrolled?" The point is this. There again we have extended certain protection to the man, but if he sub-lets the whole of the house it is clear that he does not require protection any more. If he wanted a house to cover his head he would not sub-let it. The fact that he sub-lets it proves that he does not require it; and the house should be decontrolled. It is the man who is actually in the house and who might be turned out into the road because of the superior power of the landlord that we desire to protect. And in finding the very difficult road back to freedom and decontrol we begin by releasing all those houses which are vacant or which, having been sub-let arc-proved to be not necessary for the accommodation of the existing tenant. I apologise for going into so much detail on what are really Committee points, but I selected them because I thought they would illustrate to your Lordships, and to the noble and learned Lord, the spirit in which the first Part of the Bill is conceived.
  When we turn to the second Part of the Bill where, as I have pointed out, the normal condition is to be restored, with limitations to prevent it being abused, we rely on the power we give to the County Court Judge. That is a very exceptional proceeding, but it is embodied to some extent in the existing Rent Restriction Acts, and it has worked exceedingly well. I was partly responsible for those provisions when they were originally introduced,

  1139
  and I do not regret them. I believe the Rent Restriction Acts would have broken down absolutely but for the dispensing power of the County Court Judge which was inserted. The success of the provision has encouraged us to extend it a little further to deal with the question of the undue raising of rent in the period which must elapse between decontrol in two years' time and final and complete restoration of freedom in
  1140
  1930. That is the spirit of the Bill, the general principle of the two Parts of the measure, and I do not think your Lordships will be opposed to it. As to the details they must, of course, be discussed when we come to Committee stage.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House adjourned at a quarter before eight o'clock.