Lords Sitting of 21 February 1928

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, the Earl of Donoughmore on the Woolsack.
ABSENCE OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, it is my duty to inform your Lordships that the Lord Chancellor, acting upon medical advice, has found it necessary to absent himself from his official duties for a few weeks. I need not say with what regret his colleagues make that announcement, but I should add that we are entirely satisfied that it is very necessary he should go—all the more do I say so because I am aware that it is largely owing to the very heavy strain which our work has thrown upon him that this step has become necessary. I am sure that I am only saying what he would himself say if he were still here, when I say how very much he regrets putting the House and the office over which he presides to any inconvenience by his absence; but I think I am able to say that so far as the judicial work which your Lordships have in hand is concerned there will be no very great difficulty at the present time. I believe I ought to add that that is largely owing to the kindness of my noble and learned friend the Leader of the Opposition, who has always done his best to help public business in this respect through. I do not think there is anything more to say, except that we have every hope that the Lord Chancellor will be able to resume his duties after Easter.

MESSAGE FROM THE KING.
His Majesty's Answer to the Address of Tuesday last reported by the EARL OF CROMER as follows:—
"I have received your Address praying that, in pursuance of Section 11 of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, two Judges may be appointed to the High Court of Justice to fall vacancies in the King's Bench Division thereof, and I will issue
174
directions in accordance with your desire."

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE (PROHIBITION) ACT (1921) AMENDMENT BILL. [H.L.]
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill designed to prevent the sale of plumage illegally imported, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Danesfort.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, to be printed, and to be read 2a on Thursday, March 1.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
HARWICH HARBOUR BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
LANCASHIRE QUARTER SESSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
MERSEY TUNNEL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
POOLE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
PORT OF LONDON BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SANDOWN URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
STRETFORD AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
CLEETHORPES URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
PLYMPTON ST. MARY RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

PROTECTION OF LAPWINGS 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. — (Lord Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Protection of lapwings.
1. It shall not be lawful for any person—

(a) during any time between the fourteenth day of March and the eleventh day of August to sell any lapwing for human consumption, or to have any lapwing in his possession for the purpose of sale for human consumption; or

(b) to sell for human consumption, or to have in his possession for the purpose of sale for human consumption, any egg of the lapwing.

LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, in paragraph (a), to leave out "any time between the fourteenth day of March and the eleventh," and to insert "the period between the fifteenth day of March and the first." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether my noble friend will accept this Amendment. The object is to bring the dates of this Bill into line with the provisions of the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1980. Your Lordships may be aware that there are already eight Acts dealing with the protection of birds and it is very difficult for everybody to know all of them. They are
176
almost contradictory. The Wild Birds Protection Bill, which was introduced in this House and unfortunately was lost in another place, would have repealed all those eight Acts and the dates which are in the Bill of my noble friend are taken from that Bill. But that Bill is, unfortunately, dead, and I make this suggestion to the noble and learned Lord, that instead of introducing any new dates he should if he has no objection, keep to the dates of the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out from ("during") to ("day"), in line 8, and insert ("the period between the fifteenth day of March and the first").—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: This is a Government Amendment to my Bill. I should like to know whether it is introduced for the purpose of prefacing the adoption by the Government of my Bill, or whether it is merely a niggling, interfering Amendment which has no real substance at all and is put forward on behalf of the Department which the noble Lord, if I may say so, so ably and so amiably represents in this House. Unless I know that I am not prepared to accept this Amendment, and I will tell your Lordships why. I desire that there should be no reserve at all about my attitude. I am anxious that there should be no delay whatever in getting this Bill through this House and for this reason: the Government have put forward a number of reasons, each one of which, I think, is wholly inadequate, why they will not adopt this Bill. I do not want to give them another excuse and enable them to say: "Now, see how late it is; we cannot possibly take up the Bill now. If we had had it a day or two before it might possibly have been done." And if this Amendment had any real substance in it at all, why did not the Government introduce it last year when precisely this same Bill was before the House, when precisely the same conditions as those to which the noble Lord referred existed, and when there was just as much cause for the Amendment as there is to-day? On the contrary, on that occasion they introduced two other Amendments both of which, I am glad to think, were rejected, as I felt sure they would be, by the unanimous opinion of this House. Neither of them did the noble Lord think

177
it necessary to pursue. It is for that reason that I do not desire to accept this Amendment.
There really is no reason at all why you should attempt to make this Bill agree with any other Act of Parliament. It is a Bill that has special reference to a special bird, under special conditions. And I cannot see the reason why, when other periods are fixed for other birds, you should change this period, which was originally the Government's own period, selected for this particular Bill. I might further suggest to your Lordships that it would be possible to introduce an infinite variety of Amendments, proposing a day earlier or a day later, or proposing to cut off a bit here and to extend a bit there. There is no limit to Amendments of such a class if you really want to go into them, but there is no reason why any of them should be accepted.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I can assure my noble friend that there is no Machiavellian plot at the bottom of this small Amendment, and I think I can more or less easily explain why it is suggested now, and why it was not suggested before. My noble friend will remember that the last time he brought forward this Bill he did take these dates from a Government Bill which was before the House.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Not before the House then.
LORD DESBOROUGH: It had been passed by the House of Lords, and there was a Bill—
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Lord will forgive me. Last year this Bill of mine was introduced at the same time as this year, when no Bill was before either this House or the other House.
LORD DESBOROUGH: But the dates were taken from a Bill which had passed this House.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Certainly.
LORD DESBOROUGH: And which was taken up in another place.
LORD BUCKMASTER: And dropped.
LORD DESBOROUGH: And unfortunately dropped. But the point is this,
178
that these dates were in that Bill which was dropped, and which would have repealed those other eight Acts, and so it, was no use trying to alter the dates in this Bill when they were in a Bill which the Government had passed through this House. If the Government had done that they would have been going against their own Bill. What has happened is that the Bill which I bought forward in this House—I thought it was a very good Bill, and think so still—was killed in another place, and therefore it has disappeared. Now we come to the Bill of the noble and learned Lord, and on behalf of the Home Office, who make suggestions about all Bills, good, bad or indifferent, I suggest that, considering the lamentable fate which befell the Bill last year, it would be just as well to alter these dates to bring the Bill into line with the Act of 1880. Of course, if there is any real objection I shall not press the Amendment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I ought probably not to have interrupted the noble Lord, but I do at least desire to make it perfectly clear where we are. In the Session before last there was a Government Bill, and in that Bill there was this provision, and that Bill was dropped. Last Session I introduced this Bill when the other Bill was dead and buried, and when there was no such Bill, either in contemplation or on the Statute Book; and then, as I say, the Home Office did not propose this Amendment. There was no conceivable reason why they should not have done so then, just as they do it now. The noble Lord has not answered my question. I asked him whether the Government are introducing this Amendment as a preface to adopting the Bill, because, if so, both this and every other Amendment I would most gladly accept.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I always admire the Parliamentary skill of the noble and learned Lord. He is very anxious that the Government should undertake this Bill. So far as I am concerned, it would be an admirable Bill for the Government to undertake if they only had time, but the noble and learned Lord knows quite well, as I explained at some length on Second Reading, that I am unable to give him that assurance, and I am extremely sorry. It would have been much easier for me to promise the

179
noble and learned Lord, who is always very persuasive, that I would accept his Bill, but I cannot do that, and, even if I were to make a promise, it could not be performed. I cannot control another place. As for these few days, I should have thought it was hardly worthy of the forensic eloquence of the noble and learned Lord to insist that it was a matter of vital importance that these few days more or less should be granted. But my noble friend has said that he does not want to force this Amendment upon the noble and learned Lord. Had I been in charge of the Bill, I should have thought that the way in which the noble and learned Lord has received that kind of Amendment is hardly a good prelude for getting the Bill through; but he is as good a judge as I am.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: I have some sympathy with the view of the Government, and I think this Bill should be made to harmonise as much as possible with the legislation already existing in numerous Acts to protect birds of various descriptions. If every bird had a Bill of its own, the difficulties of legislation would be greatly increased. It would be as well to have the whole of this bird legislation reviewed, because a great many most destructive birds are protected which ought not to be protected. On the other hand, there is this particular bird with which, I am sure, we have the greatest sympathy, and which we desire to see included in the general legislation. But I think it would be as well if this Bill could be made to harmonise as far as possible with the seven or eight Acts which have already been passed.
On question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (a), before "sell," to insert "kill or." The noble Viscount said: As the Bill stands at present, I am afraid it is rather a bad example of a law for the rich and a law for the poor. Under this Bill, a poor man cannot sell the plovers themselves or their eggs, while a rich landowner can glut himself and his friends upon the birds and their eggs. I beg therefore to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("to") insert ("kill or").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD DANESFORT: I hope the noble and learned Lord will accept this Amendment, which I think improves the Bill. Surely, as the Bill now stands, it is possible for a man to kill any number of lapwings, providing he eats them himself and does not sell them. The only prohibition, as I understand the Bill, is against selling. The noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill desires, no doubt, to protect lapwings, and therefore I think he ought to put words into it prohibiting a man from killing lapwings for his own consumption.
LORD DESBOROUGH: In the view of the Government, this Amendment is unnecessary, as the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, already makes it an offence to shoot or trap any lapwing between March 1 and August 1, The lapwing is included in the Schedule to that Act and is therefore protected absolutely during that period.
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am very grateful indeed for the assistance of the Government, and it is extremely pleasant to receive it. This Bill is not designed for the purpose the noble Lord has in mind. As Lord Desborough has pointed out, the protection of birds from destruction is already provided for, and the noble Lord will see the reason why it is desirable to stop the lapwing being sold. If that is not done, they may be sold during the whole of the close season, poulterers saying that the birds were not killed during the close season, but during the open season, and kept in cold storage until wanted for sale. It seems to me that there is really no need whatever to introduce into this clause the words suggested by the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: In view of what the noble and learned Lord has said, I, of course, withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (a), after "sale," to insert "or use." The noble Viscount said: I do not think the plovers's eggs are protected in any way, and therefore I move this Amendment. As I said before, the rich landowner can give them to his friends and eat any number of them.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, after ("sale") insert ("or use").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for the interest he has taken in this Bill. I am deeply concerned in its fortunes and it is a great pleasure to find somebody who also takes an interest in the subject. It is perfectly true that as this Bill stands, a man may take plovers' eggs on his own land for his own consumption.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: And that of his friends.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The Bill is not designed to stop that, nor do I think it is right that it should stop it. He cannot sell then; nor would he give them to any extent. Would it not be a little hard if a farmer was not to be at liberty to take the plovers' eggs at certain times? In these matters you have to look all round and it is not really quite fair to say to a man: "You are not to take eggs on your own land for your own consumption." The real purpose of the Bill is to stop the wholesale destruction of these birds by the wholesale taking of their eggs, which, as we know perfectly well, will flood the poulterers' shops in a few weeks. I would ask the noble Viscount, therefore, not to insist upon his Amendment.
LORD DANESFORT: Before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, I should like to press this upon the noble and learned Lord. As I understand the position to-day, it is that a landowner can send out his keeper at the time the plovers are laying to collect all the eggs he can find upon the land and that landowner can eat them himself or give them to his friends or invite the noble and learned Lord or anyone else he likes to eat them. In that way a very large number of plovers' eggs have been consumed every year and are being consumed. I may be wrong but that is my impression. My noble friend's Amendment would prevent people from picking up the eggs on the land and eating them themselves or presenting them to some one else, and in that way would give very material protection to the plover. I really cannot imagine why the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill, who is so anxious to protect the plover, should not accept this Amendment. It is not an unreasonable one and I cannot see why anyone should object to it.
LORD BUCKMASTER: If I were to accept this I should be going back on
182
something that I have said not only on this occasion but on former occasions when this Bill was passed. Your Lordships' first consent was given on the view I then put forward. The idea of landowners scouring their fields and meadows and moorlands to gather together these eggs in baskets and distribute them among their friends is really a wild vision and has no relation whatever to the actual facts.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment in view of what the noble and learned Lord has said.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:—
"(2) So much of Section three of the Wild Birds Protection Act, 1880, as relates to exposing or offering for sale or having in control or possession wild birds recently killed or taken shall, as respects lapwings, cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: This Bill being somewhat wider in its scope than the Act of 1880, which it replaces in respect of the protection of lapwings, it is necessary that this subsection should be put in. It is really a drafting matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Desborough).
LORD BUCKMASTER: It is true that this Amendment does not affect the purpose of the Bill but it does affect its chances of becoming law at the time I desire. It is entirely a matter that is in your Lordships' hands. I do not want to have Amendments put in if it is possible to avoid them without in any way doing violence to the judgment of the House. What I do want, if possible, is to save stages on the Bill. I say quite frankly that is what I seek to do. If there were any Amendments that your Lordships thought really ought to be put in, of course I should not urge that consideration upon you. If the Government would take charge of this Bill they would be able to put this matter right.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must respectfully protest against the line taken by the noble and learned Lord which seems to be in the last degree trivial. He wants to avoid at this early

183
stage of the Session a Report stage on this Bill. Does he really think there will be any difficulty in getting the Report stage? If I had only such trivial problems to face I should be abundantly satisfied. There is no difficulty whatever in the noble and learned Lord geting the Report stage. He knows well that I cannot give him any promise. The only reason why I am not particularly keen is that if I urge the House to accept Amendments it may look as if I were going to help the Bill and I cannot help it more than by putting the noble and learned Lord's case before my colleagues. I can do nothing more than that and that, I have no doubt, my noble friend beside me (Lord Desborough) will do. As the Leader in your Lordships' House, however unworthy in that office, I should suggest that it is our duty to make the drafting of the Bill as good as it can be made and if this Amendment is necessary for drafting the noble and learned Lord should, I think, accept it just as the Government would have to accept it if we were in charge of the Bill instead of him.
LORD BUCKMASTER: The noble Marquess is hardly doing me justice. It is not that there is not time now. When the noble Marquess says it is a trivial thing I want to point out that these are matters of consequence and what will happen at the end will be—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not now.
LORD BUCKMASTER: Yes, but this is to begin on March 14, and unless we can get it through here so that the Government can have time, they will be able to say: "Now it is no use; we will let it go." It is that which I seek to prevent. I want to save hours over this in order that at the end I may be able to tell the noble Marquess frankly that there was no conceivable reason why the Government should not introduce this Bill—time, merits or anything else. That is why I want to save time now if I possibly can.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Penalties.
2. A person guilty of any offence against this Act shall be liable on summary conviction
184
to a fine not exceeding five pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding ten pounds, or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding one month.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert the following new subsection:—
"() Where a person convicted of an offence against this Act is a company, the chairman and every director of the company and every officer of the company concerned in the management thereof shall be guilty of the like offence, unless he proves that the act constituting the offence took place without his knowledge or consent."
The noble Viscount said: I noticed in the Nursing Homes (Registration). Bill a clause which I think is a model clause, identical to the one which I have on the Paper. Poulterers and restaurants, when they are limited liability companies, would under this Bill be in a favoured position and I therefore think that my clause should be inserted. For that reason I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 19, at end insert the said new subsection. — (Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD DESBOROUGH: The objection which the Home Office have to this subsection is that it brings rather too heavy artillery to bear on a somewhat small matter. The instance to which my noble friend has referred was really instituted under D.O.R.A. for the purpose of safeguarding the health of the people. I think this subsection is quite unnecessary in the present case. There is no doubt that if any of these people do break this law they can be proceeded against and adequately punished under the existing law. In view of that the Government think this subsection is unnecessary.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If the people can be proceeded against there is nothing more to be said and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Short title.
4. This Act may be cited as the Protection of Lapwings Act, 1928.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM moved to insert at the end as a new subsection:—
"(2) This Act shall remain in force for five years."

185
The noble Lord said: After the somewhat violent objection offered by the noble and learned Lord to the first Amendment moved by the noble Lord on the Front Bench (Lord Desborough) I can hardly hope that this Amendment will find favour with him. The noble and learned Lord, in introducing this Bill, urged its acceptance on the ground that the lapwing was rapidly diminishing. That is, unfortunately, no doubt the case in many localities, though in many other places there are large flocks still to be seen. It is doubtful whether this diminution, where it occurs, is altogether due to the collecting of eggs; still the passing of this Bill ought to have some good effect. The Bill is in the nature of an experiment and I submit that as such it should be given a trial for a fixed period before it is put permanently on the Statute Book. The result of the Bill may be that the lapwing may increase so enormously that these restricted provisions may be no longer necessary, and people may be able to consume plovers' eggs at ball suppers without thinking they are doing a definite injury to agriculture. On the other hand, the result of the Bill may be negligible, in which case there would be no point in continuing it. I think that reasonable protection should be given to the lapwing, because all agree it is a most valuable bird; at the same time, I think that opportunities should be given for testing this experiment. Your Lordships may think that five years is a sufficiently long period in which to see what effect this Bill would have. I therefore beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: I do not want to oppose the noble Lord violently. He admits two things that really lie at the root of this matter—one, that the bird is diminishing; the other, that it is useful. He says that at the end of five years you may have too much of a good thing. I doubt it very much. This is not a bird that lives on anything excepting farmers' pests. That is the great point about the bird. There are other birds that have a mixed diet, but this bird lives on all the things that are most hostile to the
186
farmer and therefore the more of them you have the better it will be. If you had enough of these birds you would have no need of the Poisons Act which was passed last year, because these birds would do the whole of the work. I must say that I feel a little uneasy about accepting this limitation to five years. It is not as if there was a question of any harm being done. It is admitted that good will be done. Yet at the end of five years, if this Amendment is accepted, we should have to begin the battle all over again. This is the third year that I have tried to get this Bill passed and even now I am not certain of its going through. I certainly do not want at the end of five years to begin all over again. Unless the noble Lord is seriously attached to this Amendment I would far rather that the Bill should stand as it is drafted. If it is found that circumstances have completely altered at the end of a period of years, which I doubt, then something could be done to amend the law.
LORD TEYNHAM: I do not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.

COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
The following Lords, namely:—

D. Bedford,

D. Wellington,

M. Bath,

E. Plymouth,

V. Grey of Fallodon,

L. Erskine,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss),

L. Denman,

L. Kintore (E. Kintore,)

L. Hylton,

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Parmoor,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Somerleyton,

with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, were appointed a Committee to select and propose to the House the names of the five Lords to form a Select Committee for the consideration of each opposed Private Bill.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Standing Orders Committee appointed: The Lords following, with the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee:—

D. Bedford,

D. Northumberland,

D. Wellington,

M. Bath,

M. Bristol,

M. Lincolnshire,

E. Denbigh,

E. Airlie,

E. Stanhope,

E. Clarendon,

E. Malmesbury,

E. Onslow,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Howe,

E. Strafford,

E. Russell,

V. Churchill,

V. Ullswater,

L. Clinton,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss.)

L. Wigan (E. Crawford,)

L. Clanwilliam (E. Clanwilliam,)

L. Templemore,

L. Kintore (E. Kintore,)

L. Hylton,

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Redesdale,

L. Ritchie of Dundee,

L. Colebrooke,

L. Desart (E. Desart,)

L. Ashton of Hyde,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Somerleyton,

L. Chalmers,

L. Clwyd,

L. Meston,

L. Darling.

All petitions relating to the Standing Orders which shall be presented during the present Session referred to the Committee unless otherwise ordered.

SPECIAL ORDERS COMMITTEE.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the next Motion on the Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider all Special Orders of the present Session; and that the Lords following, with the Lord President, the
188
Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

D. Wellington,

M. Bath,

E. De La Warr,

E. Clarendon,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Strafford,

E. Russell,

E. Plymouth,

V. Peel,

V. Allendale,

V. Devonport,

L. Wemyss (E. Wemyss,)

L. Kintore (E. Kintore,)

L. Stanmore,

L. Redesdale,

L. Desart (E. Desart,)

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Meston.

—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the House of Lords Offices be appointed and that the Lords following, with the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Bath,

M. Lincolnshire,

M. Aberdeen and Temair,

E. Chesterfield,

E. Shaftesbury,

E. Stanhope,

E. Clarendon,

E. Onslow,

E. Bradford,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Strafford,

E. Russell,

E. Selborne,

E. Cromer,

E. Plymouth,

E. Midleton,

E. Birkenhead,

V. Churchill,

V. Allendale,

V. Finlay,

V. FitzAlan of Derwent,

V. Chelmsford,

V. Ullswater,

V. Younger of Leckie,

L. Wemyss (E Wemyss,)

189

L. Wigan (E. Crawford),

L. Kintore (E. Kintore),

L. Hylton,

L. Lamington,

L. Monk Bretton,

L. Ampthill,

L. Newton,

L. Stanmore,

L. Dunedin,

L. Atkinson,

L. Colebrooke,

L. Desart (E. Desart),

L. Islington,

L. Southwark,

L. Parmoor,

L. Buckmaster,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Somerleyton,

L. Lambourne,

L. Ernle,

L. Meston.

—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Leave given to the Committee to report from time to time.

PEERS' WAR MEMORIAL.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name setting up the Peers' War Memorial Committee. This is the same Committee as last year, with an obvious exception, which we all regret, arising out of the death of the Earl of Oxford and Asquith. It is proposed to add the name of the Earl of Kintore who served as Chairman of Committees during my absence. He will be a great help to the Committee.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to make the necessary arrangements for the erection of the Peers' War Memorial, and to deal generally with matters relating thereto; and that the following Lords, with the Lord Privy Seal and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Lincolnshire,

E. Beauchamp,

E. Buxton,

V. Peel,

L. Wigan (Ė. Crawford),

L. Kintore (E. Kintore),

L. Desborough,

L. Arnold.

—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EXPORT OF SUGAR BEET PULP.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is the case that sugar beet pulp is being exported abroad thereby preventing the British farmer having the benefit of this valuable feeding stuff; and to move for a Return showing the amount of sugar beet pulp exported in each of the last three years, the price per ton received f.o.b. on exportation and the countries to which the pulp was exported. The noble Lord said: My Lords, my attention was first called to this question of the exportation of sugar beet pulp at a meeting of the council of the Dairy Farmers' Association, at which it was urged that this exportation was to the detriment of this country. I regret to see that the noble Lord who presided at the meeting, Lord Desborough, is not in his place at the moment, because he suggested that as nothing could be done without definite knowledge a Question should be put in another place. That Question was put, but, as your Lordships are aware, it is very easy for a Minister when answering a Question in another place to evade the point and not to answer directly. Therefore I thought it desirable to raise the matter in your Lordships' House, where a Minister can be asked to give reasons for doing a certain thing or for saying he is not prepared to do it.
Mr. Guinness, in another place, did not answer one way or the other, which I think is unfortunate. It is stated that in 1927 the production of sugar beet pulp was 87,658 tons and the amount exported 20,745 tons. There is, I am told, great difficulty in the matter of making contracts for sugar beet pulp. I have been told of the case of a man who made a contract for 50 tons of pulp, but, although a contract had been made, the company with whom it was made refused to carry it out and said there was not sufficient pulp. That meant, I suppose, that they had exported it abroad. I notice that the price of sugar beet pulp to the producers is £4 5s. a ton, and that it is sold by agents at £5 5s. a ton. The export price to America is £5 per ton f.o.b. Unless something is done to stop this exportation it is probable that it will grow, because it is very much easier for a company to export the pulp in large quantities than have the trouble of peddling it out to small individual

191
farmers. Looked at from the point of view of the sugar beet company and its shareholders it is better to export in bulk when they can get such a good price as £5 per ton. But what is the result of that? It is simply encouraging competition from abroad. This pulp, when taken abroad, is used for the purpose of feeding animals to be exported here in the form of meat, or for the purpose of feeding dairy cattle in order that milk may be sent over here to compete with the home products.
I was much interested to see in The Times of February 13—no doubt your Lordships often read the very interesting articles by the agricultural correspondent of The Times—an article in which the view was taken that foreign competition is encouraged. The agricultural correspondent of The Times wrote:
"The country, in common with the farming industry, must in the end be seriously affected by any considerable prolongation of the present state of things in animal husbandry—milk as well as meat. Foreign competition is encouraged in ways that are vitally detrimental to home production. The Home Office recently issued a pamphlet on foreign condensed separated tinned milk, extolling the sanitary conditions under which it was produced.…"
The same sort of thing is going to happen if you encourage sugar beet pulp exportation. To my mind what you ought to do is rather to prohibit the exportation of sugar beet pulp from this country. Though I say that, I think it would be quite wrong to prohibit the exportation of offals, because offals are not subsidised by the Government. Sugar beet pulp has been very heavily subsidised and it is estimated that next year £2,000,000 will be spent upon subsidising sugar beet factories. I am not taking objection to that, but I am taking objection to the subsidy being used in a way which has the effect of encouraging competition from abroad by exporting useful food stuffs to our competitors there and enabling them to produce more cheaply things which are competing with our own produce.
I am sure the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, will agree with me that in many parts of the country the farming industry to-day is in a very parlous condition. The present Government have declared that they will not put on protective duties. I agree with that, but I
192
entirely disagree with the idea that the foreigner should be able to get goods cheaply at the expense of this country, owing to the subsidies. Not only is this product useful for feeding cows but it is also useful for feeding stock and producing meat. This is a very strong argument for taking some action. It is not as if we should be doing any harm to these great sugar beet companies, because it was stated the other day that in some instances, owing to this too large subsidy, they have been able to pay the whole of their capital and now they have the whole of their plant and machinery at no cost. That is very nice for the shareholders, but it will not do them any harm if the companies are forced to keep the pulp in this country and to sell it at a lower price. It is argued that so far the farmers have not been inclined to take all the pulp that the companies had, so that a certain amount was left upon their hands and they had to get rid of it. I agree, but, considering the enormous profits that these companies are making in some cases, I do not think that it would do any harm if they were obliged to scrap it.
As a matter of fact, we know that they would do the same as anybody else who has something that is difficult to sell: they would reduce the price and, instead of sending it abroad at £5 a ton, they would sell to British farmers at £2 or £3 a ton. I think that most of your Lordships will agree that there will be no harm in giving the British farmer an opportunity to buy cheap foodstuffs under present conditions. I cannot see any argument against this plan. I wish to ask the noble Earl if he will give me a definite answer whether the Ministry of Agriculture are prepared to consider forbidding the export of sugar-beet pulp from this country. In order to secure information on the subject, I have also asked for a Return showing the exact amount that has been exported, the price received, and the countries to which the pulp has gone. I think it necessary to know this in order the better to judge to what extent this pulp is being used by those who compete with us and are able to buy very cheap materials at the expense of this country.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships will allow me to intervene for one moment, as an

193
old and unrepentant Free Trader, just to call attention to the somewhat remarkable propositions, as they seem to me, that were laid down from that Bench. I understood Lord Strachie to complain, in the first place, that these sugar-beet people should export their pulp at all. I do not pretend to be a financial authority, but I have been told by those who are that it is all to our benefit that we should be able to export something in order to pay our debts and that this was what we had to look to in order to pay our debts. This, indeed, is a very small factor, but even this may be useful. This is only a very small portion of the whole question, into which I do not propose to enter now. The noble Lord referred to other aspects which may have to be raised at some other time. But he went on to say, and to complain, as it seemed to me, that this sugar-beet pulp, when exported, was useful to the people who bought it for feeding their animals to compete with us. It is a very curious commercial doctrine that you should sell to foreigners only something that is of no use to them. I should have thought that the object should be to satisfy your customer as well as yourself. I do not understand why the noble Lord complained that the pulp was useful to the people who bought it. He said that it enabled them to compete with our animals. I suppose that everything that you sell to foreigners in one sense enables them—
LORD STRACHIE: May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? I emphasised the fact that this is an article subsidised by the Government.
EARL RUSSELL: I was coming to that later. It is perfectly true that the noble Lord later an drew a distinction between subsidised and non-subsidised articles, but I think he will find, if he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, that in the earlier part of his speech he complained without qualification of the fact that we were selling something useful. That seems to me a very remarkable proposition. To take the point regarding the subsidy which the noble Lord has mentioned, I do not quite know why, because an industry is subsidised—rightly or wrongly; I am not going into that—you should compel the people who carry on the industry to carry it on in an uneconomical
194
way. He even suggested that they might scrap some of their sugar beet pulp. Surely, it cannot be right, in the interests of economy and in the interests of making money on which, after all, Income Tax is paid, that these people should not be allowed, like anybody else, to sell their product in the best market they can find. I do not suppose that they sell to the foreigner from any particular desire to do so. Probably it is because they are unable to find a market at home. Like other people, they probably seek their market where it can be found. I do not wish to enter into the controversy itself, but I did think that these were such remarkable Free Trade principles to hear expounded from that Bench that I could not resist intervening for a moment to call your Lordships' attention to them.
THE EARL OF DENBIGH: My Lords, as one who has been interested in this question for a good many years, and being perhaps equally unrepentant, though in a contrary direction, as the noble Earl who has just spoken, I cannot help thinking that it is exactly the unrepentent Free Traders such as he who are very largely responsible for the position of agriculture to-day. That is a question, however, which we need not go into at this moment. With regard to the sale of this very useful cattle food, I quite admit, with the noble Lord who brought the matter forward, that the fact of the industry being subsidised does put it on a somewhat special footing. The industry was subsidised for the purpose of introducing a new and valuable activity about which very few people here knew anything at all. The farmers; the labourers, the manufacturers of machinery and everybody connected with the industry in one way or another had to be educated. All this took time. The farmers had to be educated more than anybody else, but they are undoubtedly beginning to appreciate the value of the industry and of the pulp as a cattle food. The British farmer, as your Lordships know, is a very conservative individual, and it takes a long time to get him to change his methods.
I am connected with one of these factories and I have seen with great regret the fact that a considerable amount of sugar beet has been sold

195
abroad. I feel very strongly that, in the interests of better agriculture, it is unfortunate that such a product as sugar beet pulp should be sold out of the country. It may be that the farmers have been slow in coming forward to buy and also in making forward contracts and, when foreign dealers come and make forward contracts at the beginning of the season for the purpose of selling the product to people who appreciate its value, it is very difficult for a commercial company to refuse to sell, because they know well that they would not have the storage room for the whole amount, and it is incumbent on them to get rid of considerable quantities of pulp. In regard to the particular factory with which I am connected, during last season about 2,650 tons were sold to the growers and about 2,150 tons to various other people, making 4,800 tons, while 3,600 tons were sold to go abroad, mostly to the Continent, at a price of about £4 17 s. a ton. Personally, I think that I should very much like to see some pressure brought by the Ministry of Agriculture upon all the sugar beet factories, because you cannot treat one differently from another, and I think we all want to see the country benefiting from the industry. I am certain that it would be to the benefit of agriculture if all the sugar beet pulp were consumed on the land, and it should be. I would welcome any action taken by the Ministry of Agriculture for the purpose of bring that about. It is a great pity that the British farmers do not seem to appreciate this pulp as much as the Continental farmers do. The latter know perfectly well what is its value, and are always ready to take wet pulp away from the factory when they bring their roots in. The English farmers are very slow to do that, and I believe that wet pulp is better as a cattle food than the dry pulp. The position, however, in that respect is improving, and I think that anyone who wants to see this industry a lasting and standing benefit to agriculture will welcome anything that the Ministry can do to bring about the consumption of the pulp on the land.
VISCOUNT NOVAR: My Lord, I entirely concur in what was said by the noble Earl on the Front Opposition Bench as to the value of the principles of Free Trade, and I associate myself
196
entirely with him in the view which he expressed. I think, however, he will agree with me that the principles of Free Trade have been somewhat undermined by the extremely extravagant subsidy given for the growth of sugar beet. Among agriculturists it is undoubtedly a matter of deep interest to be able to make a success of this new industry. I doubt whether they will be long in finding out the value of the pulp, wet or dry. It is becoming extremely popular as cattle food, and I am not one of those who think that the British farmer is very stupid or slow. In fact I am rather inclined to agree with Adam Smith, that there is no class of man who has such a variety of knowledge as the farmer and the farm labourer. I think that they will certainly pick up the value of the pulp as feeding stuff very quickly.
What is more difficult to pick up is the method of growing the crop. It is being grown in some parts of the country at enormous profit; and in other parts not at a profit but at a loss. I am alive to the interest represented by the noble Earl who has just spoken. The factories certainly derive great benefit from the crop, but the agriculturists in some parts have not done so, and it seems to me that the only way in which the factories can encourage the farmer to continue to grow sugar beet is to give him more advantages that he has hither-to been given out of the bounty. The bounty ought to have been given, if to anybody, to the farmer, rather than to the man who sets up the factories, or at any rate the farmer should have had his share of the swag. He has not got it and therefore he is discontented and would like to get a larger share of what the. British taxpayer is good enough to provide. I am against the bounty, but, the bounty being there, it would be well for the factory owners and others to give the British farmer every advantage they can, and giving him feeding stuffs cheap is one way of doing it. The Americans are buying at a larger price and if it pays the Americans I have no doubt it will pay our people, but if the British farmer can get it cheaper it will be some recompense to him for the loss which in many cases he has had to suffer. At any rate the result of this debate may be to induce those interested in the beet factories to give to the farmer a little more of that

197
help which they so abundantly receive themselves.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF STRADBROKE): My Lords, the noble Lord asked for some figures regarding the quantity of dried pulp which has been exported during the last three years, and perhaps I had better give those figures at once. In 1925 the amount of dried pulp produced was 21,705 tons, and of that 4,657 tons were exported; in 1926 the amount produced was 62,800 torts, of which 36,760 tons were exported; in 1927 the amount produced was 87,658 tons, of which 20,745 tons were exported. Those figures show that last year about one quarter of the dried pulp was exported, as compared with more than half exported in the previous year. I might also add, for the information of the House, that in 1925 31,482 tons of wet pulp were turned out from the factories; in 1926, 26,137 tons; and in 1927, 17,693 tons. All the wet pulp was consumed in this country. I think that those figures show that during last year there was a far greater demand for dried sugar pulp than in previous years. It is, I think, well known to your Lordships that in the first instance the factories were left with large quantities of dried pulp on their hands, and did not know what to do with it, and therefore they looked abroad to sell what they could not sell in this country.
It may be that some people think that British farmers are put to hardship in this direction, and if the noble Lord will give special cases we shall be very glad to look into them. May I point out, with reference to this, that the growers of sugar beet have an option of taking back a weight of dried pulp equal to five per cent. of the total weight of their beet deliveries to the factory. The amount of dried pulp produced from the beet crop itself is six per cent., and therefore the grower has the option of taking back five per cent. of what he sends in, leaving one per cent. to the factories to deal with as they like, provided that the grower takes up the option before August 1. It may be thought by some that a longer time should be given for the farmer to make up his mind whether he will exercise his option or not, but while we are all naturally anxious to help the farmer and the agricultural
198
interest, we must also remember that the factories are put in a difficult position in dealing with this dried pulp. It is very bulky stuff and has to be kept under shelter and perfectly dry. If it is kept dry it will keep for an indefinite time; if it gets damp it is very soon spoilt.
It may be thought that the factories are perhaps more anxious to sell abroad than they are to the farmers here. With regard to that, I will only point out that in 1927 the Anglo-Dutch and the Anglo-Scotch companies, which own and control eleven of the nineteen factories in this country, started an advertisement campaign urging the farmers to buy this dried pulp, and pointing out what good stuff it was to feed the cows and fat cattle on. Whether it was a result of that or whether the farmers had found out for themselves that dried pulp really is good feeding stuff for their cattle, there was a far greater demand for this dried pulp than there had been in previous years. This being the case, I have to state that the Ministry do not think it is in any way necessary, or indeed desirable, to prohibit the export of dried pulp from this country. They feel that, now that the farmers realise that this is a valuable feeding stuff, they will take all that the factories can put out, and there will be no need for the factories to send it abroad, as I do not really think they wish to do. It is much better for them to have a home market; besides that, I think it is obviously in the interests of the factories to be on good terms with the farmers and to meet them in every way they can in selling them the dried pulp, should the farmers be willing to take it.
There is one other question which the noble Lord asked, and that is about the average price per ton of dried pulp when exported. The exportation prices in 1927–28 f.o.b. ranged from about £5 to £5 15 s.; in the previous year 1926–27 the price ranged from £5 4s. to £5 15 s.; and in 1925–26 from £5 10 s. to £6 per ton. The price in the factory would be from 10 s. to 15 s. per ton less. The countries to which dried pulp was exported were chiefly the United States and Holland, and, to a less extent, Canada, Germany, and Italy. I hope these are the figures which the noble Lord wished me to give him, and, with regard to the prohibition of the export of dried pulp, the Ministry

199
do not see that it is in any way necessary to put that into force, as they consider that there will be a sufficient market in this country to absorb all the dried pulp produced, and that the farmers now will be very glad to buy it.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I am glad that it should fall to my lot to be the first to congratulate the noble Earl on his first appearance here in his new office. He has come back to this country after a successful term of office in the Dominions, and I am quite sure that he will carry out the duties of his office in this House and at the Ministry with the same success as he achieved in Victoria. I should like, if I could, to persuade him to add some more information to that which we already have in regard to the sugar beet factories, and, in the second place, I should like to call attention to the astonishing extravagance of the present subsidies, and I hope that I may enlist, if possible, the support of the noble Lord, Lord Banbury of Southam, who is always a supporter of economy in your Lordships' House, in trying to secure some reduction of these subsidies.
I hold in my hand Command Paper 110, not presented to your Lordships' House, but given to me in the Printed Paper Office with a celerity which almost amounted to a conjuring trick when I asked for it a little earlier this evening. I had not heard of it before, or I would have spoken of it to the noble Earl. I will take from it the returns given by the English Beet Sugar Corporation in regard to their Cantley factory, and I should be glad if the noble Earl could tell us more about it. Here is a company with a capital of £450,000. It has a general reserve, already accumulated in the course of two or three years, of no less than £299,000, that is to say that, owing to the subsidy paid by the taxpayers of this country, it has accumulated in that short time a sum equal to two-thirds of its capital. And that is not all. On the top of that it has put by an Income Tax reserve of no less than £71,000. Taking that at the rate of 4s. in the £ it looks as if in the one year it had made a profit of no less than £350,000 on a capital of £450,000. That may or may not be; at any rate it points to the fact that the subsidy which is being given is an extravagant subsidy, calculated upon lines
200
which were totally unnecessary. I am bound to say that in view of this it is not very much to ask that more should be given to the farmer and more to the labourer for what they do in the production of beet.
Then there is the Kelham factory. That has an Income Tax reserve account of no less than £17,000 upon a capital of £250,000. In regard to all this I quite admit that it is difficult to say what may be the exact position until you know how many years these companies have been in existence. You do not expect these concerns to produce money at once, as the noble Earl, Lord Denbigh, would be the first person to admit. They cannot be expected to make a profit in the first year. I turn to another company, the Ely Factory Company, which, on a capital of £450,000, has a capital reserve of £30,000, a general reserve of £66,000 and an Income Tax reserve of £50,000. Really I do think we are entitled to ask for a little more information with regard to these vast sums of money. During the years 1924 to 1928 no less than £10,000,000 has been paid in the way of subsidies for sugar beet. I admit that I always regard with a certain amount of hesitation proposals made by the Front Bench opposite. When they are agreed to by the Front Bench on this side I feel almost certain that they need a double measure of vigilance. Here in this sugar beet subsidy we have a measure which was agreed to both by the Labour Government and the Conservative Government; indeed it was initiated by the Labour Government as one of their cures for unemployment, and in order to set agriculture on its feet. Now we find that the subsidy is of a fantastic character, that these factories not only get all their raw material free but, in addition, 10 s. for every ton of beet sugar delivered at the factory.
Talk of this business being thriving! Of course it is thriving when money is poured out like water. An industry would be thriving at that rate if it grew tea in Hyde Park, or oranges in the Royal Gallery. Anyone could make a business thriving if the taxpayers' money was poured out in that way. Talk about the "dole" at West Ham and Poplarism! Why, this is putting sugar on the "dole" to an extent even greater than the amount of "dole" which has been spent

201
at West Ham and Poplar. And it is the result of the two Front Benches putting their heads together and agreeing upon one common policy. And think of the reaction—the sugar refineries, where men are thrown out of work, the increase of unemployment at Greenock and places of that kind, the refineries where short time is being worked. For every one man who has been put into temporary employment it is calculated that two have been put out, and it has cost us £10,000,000 to do it—a magnificent result of this policy of subsidising sugar in this country!
I will take the opinion of Sir Leonard Lyle, chairman of Tate & Lyle, Ltd. He said:
"All that the subsidy has done is to make money for a few people without placing the industry on a permanent basis, and in the process it has hit an old-established and well-run industry, that of sugar refining, very seriously."
We find one of these balance sheets to which I have already referred signed by Mr. Van Rossum, one of the many foreigners who have seen their opportunity of making money out of the people of this country by participating in these factories. There is one special figure which, I think, will interest noble Lords opposite. The Scottish companies issued a notice saying that the terms they were going to pay for labour were £2 18 s. per week for a day of twelve hours with nothing extra for overtime or Sunday. That does not seem to me to be what you would call a very generous rate of wages to give to workpeople in this country, and I can only say that it is one of the results of the policy initiated by the Labour Government and carried on since then by noble Lords opposite when they took office.
I have not very much hope that we shall get much more information from the Ministry of Agriculture, though we should like, to have it. I should like to know exactly the profit which is made by each of these companies mentioned in Command Paper 110, and the amount of subsidy which is paid to each of them, the amount of beet sugar which they all of them produce, and the amount of beet sugar which is delivered by those companies. I venture to think that I have said enough to show to your Lordships that there is an immense waste of money going on with regard to this subsidy to sugar beet, and
202
I hope that it may attract the attention of those among noble Lords opposite who are in favour of economy, because I believe that a great deal can be done in this direction without doing any harm to the amount of employment in the country.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the noble Earl is always at his happiest when he has an opportunity of offering criticism, and I think it must have given him the maximum of delight when he was able to criticise not only the Government but the Opposition Front Bench. I think, however, that he rather overstated his case in regard to one matter. When the Labour Government was in office, it took a step towards starting a, new industry. That may or may not have been right, but I think it was right in the circumstances, and, so far as I can gather from the figures given by the noble Earl, the industry so started has been enormously prosperous. I suppose the Government are entirely responsible for the amount of the subsidy, and I do not think that the Opposition had anything to do with the amount; but I think I should agree with the noble Earl on the figures he has given, that, prima facie, the amount appears to be extravagant, though to say that definitely, of course, implies a knowledge of all the relevant conditions. Like the noble Lord who raised this question, I regret that this dried beet pulp should have been sent abroad, because the question as to whether it is absorbed by farmers at home (and I know this has been a question among farmers), is one of price, and although there has been an increasing consumption in this country, there was also an increasing price paid for the exported commodity. It went up, I think, from £4 to £6.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: In 1925–26 it was £6.
LORD PARMOOR: What is it now?
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: 5£ 4s.
LORD PARMOOR: Then it is less now than it has been, and I suppose one would draw the inference that as the price diminished, the demand for it in this country increased, as, of course, one would naturally expect. It does not seem reasonable that the price to farmers of a by-product of a subsidised industry of this kind (because it is a by-product) should be increased by foreign competition

203
Farmers should be able to purchase it at a reasonable price, having regard to the conditions of the trade, and to the great advantage which, apparently, the trade is deriving from a subsidy. I do not desire to embark upon this question. I can only say from my own knowledge of the farmer that a commodity of this kind at something like £4 would pay him; but there is, then, all the difficulty of traffic, carriage and matters of that kind, unless the farmer is in immediate proximity to one of these beet factories. In conclusion, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl opposite upon representing the Ministry of Agriculture in this House, and upon the admirable way in which he has given his information this afternoon.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, as the noble Earl opposite has given me all the details I asked for, I shall not press for the Return. I should like, however, to remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parmoor, that the terms of the subsidy were actually proposed by Mr. Snowden on the excuse, it is alleged, that a by-election was imminent. I am very much disappointed at what has been said about prohibition. I had hoped that a more satisfactory answer would have been given in this House than was given in another place, where the Ministry of Agriculture refused to deal with it, although large quantities of beet pulp were being exported from this country. The Minister of Agriculture is always giving his sympathy to farmers, but he seems never to do anything practical. And now in this House the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture has refused to do anything to help farmers upon this question, although we all know how serious matters are, especially in East Anglia and other districts, and how important it is that farmers should be able to buy cheap pulp if they can. I ask the leave of your Lordships to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

APPLICATION OF POLICE COURT FINES.
LORD STRACHIEhad given Notice to draw attention to the refusal of the Home Office to grant an interview to the representatives of the County Councils Association
204
on the subject of the simplification of the law relating to the application of penalties imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, so long ago as July 6, 1927, the County Councils Association made application to the Home Office for an interview on the subject of the simplification of the law relating to the application of penalties imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction. I should not have brought this question before your Lordships had it not been that the Parliamentary Committee of that Association, of which some of your Lordships are members, requested me to do so. Those of your Lordships who are connected with county councils will appreciate that it is a body of some importance, and that some notice of it should be taken by a Government Department. As a rule, I must say that we find Government Departments most courteous to us, and that they welcome our assistance and are very glad when we bring matters to their notice instead of coming to Parliament direct.
To their application of July 6, 1927, the Association received the following reply from the Home Office, dated August 23, 1927:—
"With reference to your letter of 6th ultimo, I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that the proposal of your Association regarding the application of penalties imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction would appear to affect materially the sums received by the Road Fund out of fines, and, if so, it is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Transport and the Treasury. It is, however, understood that any proposal affecting materially the sums so received would be unacceptable to His Majesty's Government. In these circumstances the Secretary of State thinks that no useful purpose would be served by an interview at this office."
Your Lordships will see that they simply rode off on a side issue. We did not want to discuss the question of the Road Fund. Perhaps they thought we were going to object to the Government making further raids on the Road Fund to the detriment of local taxation. We followed the matter up by asking for another interview and again we were refused.
I should like to remind your Lordships shortly what it is we are actually asking about. We are asking that we may be able to make more simple the keeping of accounts by the county councils, and that all these sums should be paid into one

205
fund, the Police Fund. I would like to give one or two instances. At present, under the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, the penalty not exceeding one half goes to the informer and the remainder to the overseers (now the rating authorities). Under the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1908, any part of the penalty not paid to the informer is paid to the Exchequer. Again, under the Gas Works Clauses Acts and the Waterworks Clauses Acts of various years, the penalties go to the undertakers for some offences, sometimes one half to the informer and half to the overseers, sometimes to the local authority and at other times to the applicant, according to the nature of the offence. Then, in offences in connection with the sale of intoxicating liquors, penalties go sometimes to the Exchequer, sometimes to the County Fund and at others to the Police Pension Fund, and are occasionally split between the last two mentioned Funds.
I have quoted a few instances to show the complicated way in which the accounts have to be kept. That complication means more officials and more expenditure. I do not think it was unreasonable for the County Councils Association to ask for an interview with the Home Office in order to see whether we could not have the system simplified and all the penalties put into one account. The only complaint I have is that the Home Office rode off on the Road Fund, saying they had nothing to do with that Fund. We do not want to discuss the Road Fund but to discuss these various accounts to which I have referred. I hope the noble Lord will see that we are really trying to help the Government Department and are not desirous of interfering. I trust that the Department will now regard the matter differently and not refuse to give us an interview.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, in the first place I should like to disclaim any imputation of discourtesy on the part of the Home Office. The last thing they wish to do is to be discourteous, especially to such an important body as the County Councils Association. But it seems to me there is in this matter some mistake. The Home Office reply was that the matters into which inquiry was proposed to be made chiefly referred
206
to two other Departments—namely, the Treasury and the Ministry of Transport. The various fines which are imposed in the courts are merely collected by the Home Office and then redistributed, and if there is a proposition that these sums, some of which are rather large, should be distributed in another manner that is not a matter upon which the Home Office itself can receive a deputation. As the Home Office tried to point out, it is a matter which concerns two other Departments and one which should be referred to those two Departments.
I have the list of the various fines as to which the Home Office act as the collecting agent. They get very little for doing it, but they have been in communication with the various police court authorities who say that it is more convenient that these sums should be collected through the instrumentality of the Home Office. The Home Office, itself, does not benefit from these sums to anything more than a very small extent. By far the largest stun collected is from the various road fines that are imposed. They amount to £162,502. That is a large sum of money and it represents fines that are sent direct to the Ministry of Transport under a comparatively recent Act, the Act of 1920. If there is any feeling that there ought to be a change in the distribution of these fines—and I have read the correspondence between the Home Office and the County Councils—I think it is a matter which should be discussed with the Ministry of Transport and the Treasury. The Treasury are the next largest recipients and it would, I think, be very improper for the Home Office to discuss the allocation of these large sums. I do not know that I need go into the matter any further except to say, speaking on behalf of the Home Office, that the list thing they desired to do was to show any discourtesy to the County Councils Association.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease in this country through the importation of meat from foreign countries where the disease is prevalent; and to move for Papers.

207
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not intend to make an attack upon the policy of slaughter which the Government have carried out for a considerable number of years. I myself think that in all probability that was the right policy to carry out, but the fact remains that that policy has not resulted in the stopping of the disease and, therefore, that there must be some source from which infection comes. I had the privilege of asking the other day the noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture how many outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease there were in 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1927, and I asked that question for this reason, that in 1915, 1916 and 1917 we were at war and consequently the importation of meat from abroad was very much smaller than it is now.
The answer to my Question was that in 1915, when the War had been on only some few months, the number of outbreaks was 56. In 1916, when the War had been on for a considerable time and when consequently the importation of foreign meat was less, there was only one outbreak. In 1917, when the submarine menace increased and there was consequently not very much, if any, foreign meat imported, there was no outbreak. When we get to the period after the War we find that in 1927 there were no fewer than 143 outbreaks. The noble Earl who represents the Ministry of Agriculture stated in his reply that 1927 was by no means the worst year and that there had been between 1921 and 1927 more outbreaks than the 143 in 1927. That looks as if the contagion was introduced into this country by the importation of foreign meat. There was in The Times this morning a letter from Sir William Haldane. I do not know who Sir William Haldane is, whether he is any relation of the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Front Bench opposite.
LORD PARMOOR: His brother.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: No doubt I shall receive the support of the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, and the noble Lord who sits next to him (Lord Muir Mackenzie). This is what Sir William Haldane says:—
"The information I am receiving at present from Argentina makes it evident that now foot-and-mouth disease is prevalent all over that country, unless possibly in a few remote districts, and that it has passed beyond the power of the Argentine
208
authorities to save the herds of that country from this devastating disease. From a most trustworthy and well-informed quarter I have private confirmation of the published statements as to the serious position of matters. Without going into detail, the position as described is such that no effective quarantine of the cattle to be slaughtered for export to this country is possible now against this insidious disease. All that can be done is to endeavour one way or another to reduce somewhat the amount of infection that Argentine chilled beef will necessarily carry here while its importation continues. The Argentine authorities—"
I would draw the attention of the noble Lord particularly to this—
"appear no longer to question that chilled carcasses of infected cattle retain the disease in virulent form for several weeks, and thus are an almost certain source from which infection can be spread in countries where their beef is consumed. But naturally they are desirous to avoid any measure so drastic as to stop their large export trade."
Later he goes on to quote an article in the Review of the River Plate. Apparently, Lord Bledisloe has arranged with the Argentine that there shall he more inspectors in the Argentine Republic. The Review of the River Plate does not seem to think that is very much use, and neither do I. I have not very much faith in the endeavours of an Argentine inspector to prevent his brother's meat being exported to this country. Then Sir William Haldane goes on to say:—
"On the other hand, there is an obvious sense of temporary relief because Lord Bledisloe is reported to have agreed on behalf of the British Government that the Argentines are to be allowed to continue their beef trade with this country for two years on their assurance that they will appoint a largely increased number of inspectors of cattle or carcasses for export to Britain."
On that I can only repeat what I said just now, that I have not very much faith in the action of the Argentine inspectors stopping cattle coming to this country.
There is another point which I think emphasises the fact that in all probability this disease has been brought into this country through the importation of foreign meat, either chilled or frozen. That is that the Ministry of Agriculture themselves—I think, it was some two years ago—stopped the importation of pork from Holland and other neighbouring countries on the ground that they

209
were afraid that the importation of pork from those countries, where there was foot-and-mouth disease, did spread the infection in this country. If that is so—and I think that cannot be contradicted—it is evident that meat coming from the Argentine Republic, where the disease is certainly if not more prevalent at least as prevalent as it was in Holland and those other countries, does spread disease. Therefore I think I am justified, in view of the very great loss to the agricultural community which is caused by foot-and-mouth disease, and also in view of the large sums which the taxpayers have to pay for the slaughter of cattle, in asking the Government what steps they propose to take in view of the facts which I have—I am afraid very feebly—put before your Lordships' House.
Unfortunately there was recently an outbreak of the disease in Ireland, and the Minister oil Agriculture, in another place, said:—
"As soon as full reports are received from the Irish Free State Government the Ministry will be able to settle from which ports in Ireland animals can be accepted for slaughter within 96 hours at those ports at which there is slaughtering accommodation."
I am not sure whether that statement means that animals are to be slaughtered at ports in Ireland or whether they are to be slaughtered at ports over here. I presume it means at ports over here. I would like to ask in reference to that, if any steps have been taken to prevent the importation of dead meat from Ireland. With all due deference to them, I rather think that what applies to Argentine inspectors would apply to Irish inspectors and that in all probability an inspector in the Irish Free State, if he were too officious, might get shot. I think I have said enough to show that there is considerable danger in the importation of dead meat, but before I sit down I should like to add a word in case the Government are afraid that an agitation may be got up by the Labour Party—and possibly also, although I do not think it likely, by the Liberal Party—that the food of the people is in danger. There are plenty of other places from which meat can be exported. It can be exported from our own Dominions, from Africa, Australia and other places where foot-and-mouth disease is not prevalent. Therefore that argument falls to the
210
ground. There is no danger of preventing a proper supply of meat coming into this country. The only question is whether the importation of that meat supply should be limited to countries in which there is no foot-and-mouth disease. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has himself answered some part of the Question with regard to what is being done in South America. I should like to remind your Lordships—the noble Lord has referred to it already—that in June, 1926, the Government made an Order prohibiting the importation of fresh meat from the Continent because there was danger of infection being brought here in that way. It may be interesting to note that during the eighteen months preceding the prohibition there were 51 initial outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease confirmed in this country as compared with 32 initial outbreaks during the eighteen months succeeding the embargo. That seems to point to the fact that the embargo did diminish the risk of foot-and-mouth disease being brought into the country. The difficulty is that one is never able to prove exactly where infection does come from. A suggestion has been made—the noble Lord has referred to it—that infection is brought in by chilled meat from South America. I would point out to your Lordships that a great deal of chilled meat has been brought from South America for many years. Before the War something between two million and five million cwts. of chilled beef used to be brought into this country from South America. The importation of chilled meat has increased from about three million cwts. in 1921 to ten million cwts. in 1927.
Of course there is nothing really to prove that disease is brought in by chilled meat or by frozen meat. The quantity of frozen meat imported has greatly diminished. The quantity increased very largely during the War, when we got great quantities from Australia and other countries, but the importation has now decreased, while the importation of salted beef into this country is now an almost negligible quantity. The view of the Ministry is that the proper place for the inspection of imported meat is in the country of origin. With that in mind arrangements have been made to which

211
the noble Lord has already referred. As your Lordships are aware, Lord Bledisloe has recently been in South America and he has made arrangements with the Argentine Government which he hopes will at any rate diminish the danger which some people fear is caused by the importation of chilled meat from that country. I cannot give the full terms until Lord Bledisloe returns but, as your Lordships know, he will shortly be in this country and the terms that he has arranged can then be stated.
In the meantime, I can say that arrangements have been made with the Argentine Government, and Orders have been published in their papers, taking effect from February 1 last. These Orders provide that: (1) animals cannot leave an estancia without a certificate of freedom from disease and also a certificate that the cattle on the estancia are free from disease; (2) the wagons in which the cattle are conveyed must be disinfected and thoroughly cleaned, and the transport companies are responsible for this being done; (3) a certificate of freedom from the disease is required before the animals can be taken from the markets and sent to the frigorificos; (4) if animals awaiting slaughter in a frigorifico are found to be affected, they must be isolated until they are passed as being free from disease; and if by any accident such animals have passed into the slaughter house, their carcasses are on no account to be exported; (5) only new coverings can be used for meat for exportation; and (6)—this is a matter which Lord Banbury mentioned and, I am afraid, rather laughed at—the Argentine Government will appoint from 60 to 70 additional veterinary inspectors for the control of the disease in the interior of the country. These are the provisions that the Argentine Government have promised to make with a view to lessening the risk and in the hope, I suppose, of stamping out this disease in that country.
We must bear in mind, however, that there is no direct evidence that foot-and-mouth disease has been introduced by chilled or frozen meat. The Research Committee have made the very disquieting discovery that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease can be found in the marrow of the bones of carcasses as long as 76 days after slaughter. Consequently, the Ministry of Agriculture has
212
issued an Order prohibiting the feeding of animal matter to animals in this country unless it has been boiled for an hour, and also prohibiting such foodstuffs from being brought into contact with animals until so treated. Packings in which meat is imported must also be entirely disinfected. The suggestion has also been made that infection is brought in by the importation of shrubs and plants from countries where foot-and-mouth disease exists. We have no evidence on that point, but in order to protect ourselves an Order has been issued prohibiting the holding of sales of these shrubs and plants on any place which is used for the sale of livestock, and the straw and packing cases in which the shrubs are packed have to be destroyed, and such packing materials must not be brought into contact with animals.
Turning to the suggestion that we should get our meat supplies from other countries, your Lordships are probably aware of the enormous quantity of meat that comes from South America. No less than 48 per cent. of the beef consumed in Great Britain comes from South America, and, if we were to cut off that supply suddenly, it would lead to great dislocation and discomfort to many people. We cannot hide the fact that these restrictions and Orders made by the Ministry of Agriculture are very inconvenient to farmers and in some ways act detrimentally to the carrying on of their business, but it is impossible for any Government Department to make these restrictions valid and these Orders workable unless they have the active and thorough support of the farmer. We hope that farmers will help in this direction by carrying out to the letter the Orders that are issued by the Ministry of Agriculture. These are not only the views of the Ministry itself. In one of the issues of the Farmer and Stockbreeder which I read recently the view was expressed that the time had long passed when farmers could say that they did not know what foot-and-mouth disease was or recognise its symptoms, and that their duty was to learn all the signs and to teach their employees, so that if any animal were stricken with the illness it could be at once reported.
It is most unfortunate that in some cases outbreaks have not been reported, with the result, I fear, that the disease

213
has spread from the district in which it is now rampant. I trust that everybody will help the Ministry in stamping out the disease by reporting at once when any outbreak occurs, so that the district may be isolated and the danger of spreading the disease minimised. The disquieting thing is that, while the Research Committee have always had before their minds the discovery of some preventative of this disease, unfortunately they have not so far been able to find it. They have heard of many cures that have been discovered and the researches that they have made have led to a great deal of useful information being gained regarding this terrible disease, but they have not yet discovered a preventative, and they are still working to find an effective means of preventing a disease which has done such an enormous amount of harm to stock owners and breeders in this country. I think that I have answered the questions put by the noble Lord, and I only wish that I could tell him that we had found some means of stamping out this horrible disease.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I wish to ask the noble Earl one question. When I was at the Privy Council and had to deal with research matters I gathered that it was extremely difficult to isolate the virus of foot-and-mouth disease. The noble Lord has told us, and we have seen in the Press, that the virus has been discovered in the marrow of bones of animals seventy or eighty days after death. The matter raised by the noble Lord is so important that I wish to ask if any advance has been made by the Research Committee in the way of ascertaining by scientific tests whether, for instance, chilled beef from the Argentine is infected or not with this virus. That has been the great difficulty in the past. I do not ask this in any contentious spirit. Everyone knows the extreme importance of this matter. If there were a scientific test of this kind, it would appear to be a comparatively simple matter. I agree that it is convenient that the inspection should be made at the port of the country of origin, but it is desirable, as Lord Banbury pointed out, to find a system which gives real security, or which can be trusted to the same extent as you could a test made by scientific means, before the meat was exported to this
214
country. I should like to know whether advance has been made so far that a test of that kind could be applied.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers I would like to put a question to him, in view of the statement that the Ministry has still under consideration the question of what ports in Ireland should be closed for sending beasts over to this country. In deciding from what ports cattle are to be allowed to be imported, may I ask whether he will bear in mind two points of distinction between the Free State on the one hand and Northern Ireland on the other? As I understand it, this country has no control over the inspection of animals in the Free State, for the purpose of detecting foot-and-mouth disease. In Northern Ireland, on the other hand, we have power of inspection. Then there is this further difference, I understand, that at the present moment there is no foot-and-mouth disease in Northern Ireland—that the outbreak, so far as information has reached the newspapers, is entirely confined to the South. I desire to ask whether those facts will be borne in mind when the Government decide from what ports in Ireland cattle are to be allowed to come over to this country.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, with regard to the question of Lord Danesfort every care will be taken in deciding from which ports in Ireland cattle can be allowed to be exported. With regard to the question of Lord Par-moor, I can say that I am satisfied that every effort is being made by the Research Committee to find out where this virus comes from. It has been found to be existent, it is true, in the marrow of bones, and that has been proved by feeding bones to pigs, which have been infected in consequence.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for the answer which he has given me, but I would like to point out to your Lordships that, I think almost for the first time, it has now been admitted that the infection can be brought into this country by the importation of foreign frozen or chilled meat. I think I am not misrepresenting the noble Earl when I say that he stated that when the importation of

215
such meat from abroad was stopped the disease went down by a certain number of outbreaks.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: Or fresh meat.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: What we are all trying to do is to endeavour to get the disease stopped, and I think it is evident that the disease is brought into this country by the importation both of fresh and frozen or chilled meat from countries where the disease is prevalent. The noble Earl said that the Ministry thought that the proper place to inspect the animals, to see whether they had foot-and-mouth disease, was abroad in the exporting country. I should not have said that that was the best place. Surely it is the object of exporting countries to get their goods sold, and to leave it to them to decide whether we are to lose, by having our cattle slaughtered, seems to me to be a rather quixotic enterprise. I am glad that the result of the debate to-day is to show, as I have already said, that there is a danger from the importation of meat from infected countries. I do not want to press the matter any further, but I do hope that the Ministry will consider whether or not the steps which they are taking are sufficient.
I think the noble Lord said something about the great many years during which meat has been exported from South America—the Argentine Republic is of course the place in question—and nothing very serious has resulted. My information is that it is only within the last ten years that the disease has been so prevalent in the Argentine Republic. What they tell me is done in the Argentine, Republic, if any cattle are found to be suffering from the disease, is that they are not killed or even isolated, but merely put in a place enclosed by rails, with the other cattle all round, and so the disease is spread until the Argentine Republic is full of it, as emphasised by the letter of Sir William Haldane in The Times to-day. I hope that now it will not be necessary to bring the matter forward again, but that the Government will take steps to prevent the importation of meat which may bring infection. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ST. HELENS TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY.
LORD DESBOROUGH LORD DESBOROUGH moved, That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the matters of complaint that have arisen between the Watch Committee of St. Helens and the Chief Constable of the Borough Police Force touching the administration of the Force.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the matter has arisen in this way. The St. Helens Watch Committee, in September last, after making a disciplinary charge against the Chief Constable of conduct unbecoming his office, required him to resign, purporting to act under Section 1 (2) of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, under which he would have no right of appeal. The Secretary of State, however, took the view that their action was in substance a requirement to resign on disciplinary grounds and that the Chief Constable, therefore, had the right of appeal to him under the Police (Appeals) Act, 1927. The Chief Constable appealed, and the Secretary of State appointed Sir H. Maddocks, K.C., and Sir Leonard Dunning, His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary, to hold an Inquiry into the appeal. This was duly held, but the Watch Committee held aloof and took no part in it. After considering the report of the Inquiry the Secretary of State in November last determined the appeal in the Chief Constable's favour, and made an order reinstating him as Chief Constable. The Watch Committee thereupon placed him on extended leave, and that is still his position. Since then the Committee have collected information on which they have based further complaints against the Chief Constable, and have now asked that a further public Inquiry should be held into the matters of complaint which have arisen. In these circumstances it appears to the Secretary of State very desirable that there should be a further Inquiry, with wide scope and power to take evidence on oath, and he accordingly proposes that a Tribunal should be established for the purpose, under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. I beg to move.
Moved, That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established under the

217
Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, the matters of complaint that have arisen between the Watch Committee of St. Helens and the Chief Constable of the Borough Police Force touching the administration of the Force.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD COZENS-HARDY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it will be open to the Tribunal proposed to be set up to reconsider the issue which was before the public Inquiry recently held, and whether the decision of the Home Secretary in the matter is final
218
Very serious statements were made at that public Inquiry, and I would suggest to the noble Lord that, in fairness to the parties, the findings of the Commissioners at that inquiry, which have been communicated to the parties, should now be published.
LORD DESBOROUGH: I am afraid I cannot undertake to do that myself, but the matter will be referred to the Home Secretary.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.