Lords Sitting of 13 March 1928

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE on the Woolsack.
GREENOCK AND PORT GLASGOW TRAMWAYS COMPANY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
RAILWAY (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILLS.
Message from the Commons: That they have passed the following Resolution, to which they desire their Lordships' concurrence: "That it is expedient that the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill and the London and North Eastern Railway (Road Transport, Scotland) Bill shall be committed to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."
PROTECTION OF LAPWINGS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF STRADBROKE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. It is a very small and non-contentious Bill, designed to correct a defect that is found to exist in Section 22 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1893. The question arises from the liquidation of the Agricultural Wholesale Society, which took place recently, and the subsequent judgment of the House of Lords in the case of Biddulph against that society, as a result of which a number of kindred societies who were members of the main body unexpectedly found themselves confronted

411
with a considerable liability to pay for shares for which they were not aware they were at all liable. A good many of the associations do not appear to have been aware of the situation in which they were placed, and the object of this Bill is to prevent the recurrence of what has happened in the case to which I have referred.
Under Section 22 of the Act of 1893 a registered society, by an alteration of its rules, can bind all its members and all persons claiming through them to the same extent as if each member had subscribed his name and affixed his seal thereto, even if he is totally unaware of any alteration in his liability. The situation revealed by the Biddulph decision has naturally aroused a great deal of unwillingness among farmers to proceed with the formation of new agricultural co-operative societies, and the National Farmers Union have intimated that they will not assist in, in fact they would rather discourage, the formation of new co-operative societies until the law has been amended. It is very desirable that no obstacle shall be placed in the way of carrying out the Government policy of encouraging the extension of co-operative enterprise in agriculture. The Bill therefore proposes that unless his consent in writing is first obtained a member of a registered society shall not be bound by any amendment of rules which requires him to take up more shares or to increase the value of his shares beyond those that he held at the date of the registration of the amendment.
In addition to the main purpose of the Bill, it has a subsidiary purpose, which will be beneficial. At present a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts has an unrestricted power of amending its rules in whatever manner the rules themselves may provide and the Registrar is bound to register an amendment if it is not contrary to the provisions of the Acts. Occasionally societies have utilised this power to increase directly the liability of members under their shares, as, for example, by increasing the value of the shares from, say, 5s. fully paid to 10 s. with 5s. paid, thus adding 5s. to the original liability of the shareholders. Under the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, a company has no power to
412
increase the liability of a member under his shares without his consent. The Registrar of Friendly Societies has, therefore, on the analogy of company law, sought to resist the registration of such an amendment and he has sometimes been successful; but it is extremely doubtful whether he has any authority to do so, as his power of objection is limited to matters which are contrary to the Act of 1893 itself, and such an amendment is not contrary to that Act. The present Bill, while not prohibiting an amendment which would have the effect of increasing the liability of a member under his shares, prevents such an amendment being enforced against a member without his consent in writing, and so substantially puts an end to the difficulty which at present exists. I hope that your Lordships will be pleased to give this Bill a Second Reading, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I think this measure will meet with ready assent. It seeks to put right something which admittedly needs remedying. The position has been fully outlined by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading. He has made it clear that owing to the judgment which was given, no doubt quite rightly given, in your Lordships' House, an unusual position has been created in reference to the Act of 1893, whereby members of these societies may have, and have had, put upon them liabilities beyond what they understood they could possibly be called upon to fulfil, and this has been done without their deliberate consent.
Obviously in any association or investment or business transaction nothing can be worse than that there should be unknown liabilities which may be put upon a man without his knowledge and consent. This has happened; and I think it is true to say that certain members of these societies have been placed in positions of very serious financial embarrassment. In order to prevent that kind of thing happening in the future, it is necessary to pass this one-clause Bill, the indirect effect of which will be, as I understand it—in fact I think this was implied in the remarks of the noble Earl—that encouragement will be given

413
to the formation of these co-operative organisations. At the present time there is a lack of confidence, there is mistrust owing to what has happened, and it is very desirable that these co-operative organisations should be encouraged and that their formation should be encouraged. I think it is true to say that so far as this country is concerned our record in this regard is not a good one. We are very much behind the statistics of many countries. As a matter of fact, I believe that only about 2½ per cent. of agricultural produce is marketed through co-operative organisations. If that is right, it is a very small proportion.
That is all I wish to say. I do not think there will be any controversy about this Bill. In view of the depressed condition of agriculture many things are proposed to help the industry. About several of the proposals, about most of them in fact, there is wide difference of opinion, and it is rather refreshing to come across something which will indirectly help agriculture and about which, I think, there is no difference of opinion. In those circumstances I have no doubt the Bill will receive the ready assent of your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POLICE DISTRICTS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My Lords, this Bill empowers county councils in Scotland to abolish police districts formed under Section 58 of the Police (Scotland) Act, 1857. Section 58 of the 1857 Act empowers a county council, if it is of opinion that a distinction ought to be made in the number of constables appointed in different parts of the county, to divide the county or any part of it into police districts, and to fix the numbers of constables to be appointed for each district. If the Secretary of State approves of such division, then under Section 59 of the 1857 Act each district pays, as local expenditure, the expense of the salary and clothing of the constables appointed
414
for it, while the remaining county police expenditure is defrayed as general expenditure by all the districts in common. Section 58 provides that where police districts have been formed, their extent may be altered; but the Secretary of State has been advised that there is, as the law stands at present, no power to abolish police districts or re-absorb them in the county. It has been represented that it is desirable that such power should be conferred on county councils, because the continuance of certain police districts is no longer required, and leads to unnecessary work and expenditure in connection with police accounting. Last Session this Bill passed through all its stages in your Lordships' House without discussion, but owing to lack of time it made no progress in another place, and therefore has to go through your Lordships' House again. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FALSE OATHS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, this is a Bill to consolidate and simplify the law of Scotland relating to false oaths, declarations and statements. The Perjury Act, 1911, which does not apply to Scotland, consolidated the law in England relating to perjury and kindred offences, and repealed as regards England a very large number of provisions contained in Statutes passed in a period of years extending from the reign of Henry VIII to the year 1909. Many of these provisions apply to Scotland, and the Statute Law Committee has pointed out that it would be of advantage if a Bill were passed for Scotland consolidating and repealing these provisions. It is obviously desirable that this should be done before a new edition of the revised Statutes is completed, instead of retaining these provisions on the Statute Book for Scotland only, especially as the Common Law in Scotland renders many of them unnecessary.

415
The Bill follows the principal provisions of the 1911 Act and repeals, in addition to some purely Scottish provisions, all the provisions repealed as regards England by the 1911 Act which apply to Scotland. Clause 1 penalises false statement made on oath and corresponds to Section 1 and 2 of the 1911 Act. There is, however, not the same necessity as in England to draw a distinction between false oaths in judicial proceedings and false oaths for other purposes, for the Common Law as to perjury is expressly saved by Clause 6 and would cover false oaths in judicial proceedings. Clause 2, which corresponds to Section 5 of the 1911 Act, penalises false statements in statutory declarations or other declarations, written or oral, made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament. Clause 3 corresponds to Section 6 of the 1911 Act, and penalises false statements made for the purpose of securing registration in any statutory roll or register. Clause 4 deals with persons aiding, abetting, or procuring contraventions by other persons and is analagous to Section 7 of the 1911 Act. Clause 5 corresponds to Section 8 of the 1911 Act, and makes offences committed outside Great Britain and Ireland triable in Scotland in certain circumstances. Clause 6 saves the Common Law as to perjury, fraud, etc., and makes provision for cases where a false statement is also in contravention of other Acts. Clause 7 corresponds to Section 15 of the 1911 Act, and deals with the form of oath, and with affirmation in lieu of oath, both for the purposes of the Bill and for the purpose of proceedings at Common Law for perjury. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the substance of this Bill seems to me to be good, and I do not rise to make any comment on that substance, but there is one clause, Clause 5, the effect of which is that if somebody, say, from the Far East, where they are not quite so particular about false oaths as they are in this country, lands in Scotland, or gets to Scotland, of which he is not a native, and a country with which he has nothing to do, he may be apprehended and tried and convicted under this Act, of which he has known nothing, and with which he has had nothing to do. I
416
gather from what the noble Duke said, that the provision is taken by analogy from the Act of 1911, but the Act of 1911 has been a good deal altered, and I think it is a strong thing to bring a stranger and convict him under a Statute of which he knows nothing, and with which he has nothing to do, merely because he happens to be apprehended in Scotland on a casual visit there, or may, indeed, have been cast ashore from a wreck. At any rate, he has nothing to do with Scotland. I should like to know from the noble Duke whether this has been carefully considered. It is not enough to say that it is an old provision. The section of the 1911 Act is a section of a different Act, but it may be that for the working of justice some clause of this sort is necessary. It is a very strong and rather startling provision, and I would like to know from the noble Duke the reasons for which it has been inserted here.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, I can assure the learned and noble Viscount that this point has been considered and will be again carefully considered before the Committee stage. I am very glad indeed that he has raised the point, and perhaps on the Committee stage he might like to go further into it. The clause corresponds absolutely to Section 8 of the 1911 Act.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: A different Act. But on the Committee stage the noble Duke will tell us, as I understand, that it has been fully considered.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: Yes.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and submitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (GRAD- ING AND MARKING) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, the genesis of the proposals in this Bill is to be found in the Reports of the Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Linlithgow in 1923. That Committee expressed the view that it was of the utmost importance that the State should interest itself in the efficiency with which farmers' produce is marketed

417
and distributed. As a result the Ministry of Agriculture undertook a more detailed investigation of the marketing of each commodity than Lord Linlithgow's Committee had been able to do in the time at its disposal. The purpose of the marketing reports published by the Ministry is not only to convey information to the farmer regarding marketing processes and practices, but an attempt is made in them to state, analyse and place in reasonable perspective the problems which concern both producers and distributors, to point out directions in which improvements seem possible, and to make definite suggestions to that end.
The suggestions of the Ministry deal in the main with the urgent necessity of making our produce more attractive to distributors in the large consuming centres of this country. The problem is mainly concerned, not with produce which is marketed direct to the consumer or retailer, important though this trade doubtless is, but rather with the supplies that reach the great industrial centres from distant, areas where production exceeds local requirements. This produce has in fact to meet the competition of produce exported to this country from abroad. Imported supplies have secured a substantial share of the valuable produce trade of this country. Many circumstances combine to account for this, but one contributing factor has certainly been the commercial advantage which imported produce derives from being marketed in large standardised consignments in standard non-returnable packages. Home produce, on the other hand, although it may be unsurpassed in quality, frequently arrives on the wholesale markets ungraded or indifferently graded and in unsatisfactory containers which usually have to be returned. I think we shall agree that it is difficult to see how home produce can avoid losing further ground to imported goods unless a standard grading system and standard non-returnable containers are adopted, at any rate as far as wholesale business is concerned.
The definition of grades is a difficult matter. The Ministry has given practical demonstrations which show all the suggestions with regard to grades and packages which have been put forward in the Orange Books. These demonstrations have served not only to acquaint producers
418
with the Ministry of Agriculture's proposals, but to afford opportunities of testing the commercial value of the grades put forward for consideration, and of estimating the support which they might be expected to receive from the various sections interested in the growing and marketing of the products concerned. It soon became clear that the standard grades suggested for eggs and fruit commanded a wide measure of agreement and that the egg industry and the fruit industry would be ready for an early move forward. The Minister's Poultry Advisory Committee, on which producers and distributors are represented, has now adopted a careful scheme of marketing reform for eggs. Proposals for fruit on somewhat similar lines are being worked out jointly by the Ministry and the National Farmers Union and will, it is hoped, shortly receive authoritative endorsement.
It is particularly gratifying that the egg industry should adopt a scheme of marketing reform as only last November the Standing Committee under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, declined to recommend that an Order requiring the marking of imported eggs should be made until sufficient improvement has been effected in the collecting, grading, packing and marketing a British eggs, in order to remove or, at least, mitigate the danger that the imported egg should obtain a better market in the United Kingdom than the home-produced egg. I must emphasise that the defects in the present situation are not entirely the fault of the producer. For certain commodities, dealers and others who handle home produce care little for standardisation and grading. Again, the difficulties of improving the assembling, grading and packing of produce in this country are immeasurably greater than those confronting overseas shippers. Nevertheless the home producer is realising to an increasing extent the seriousness of the situation and is doing his best to take matters in hand. The subject is engaging the unremitting attention of the National Farmers Union, who are acting in chase co-operation with the Department.
I will now come to the Bill itself and point out the principal clauses to your Lordships. Clause 1 enables the Minister to define grades for home produce. The use of the grades is entirely voluntary,

419
but if an official grade is used when an article is sold, the vendor thereby warrants that the goods conform with the definition contained in the designation and the purchaser has a civil remedy which will enable him to recover damages for breach of warranty, or he may reject the goods and sue for breach of contract. It is important to note that the liability of the producer for the correctness of his grading does not extend beyond the point of first sale. The liability descends, as it were, with each purchaser who buys for re-sale. I must emphasise that the clause is purely optional and no producer will be compelled to adopt the grade designations. Nevertheless the Minister's grades will at least supply a national standard to which the trade can work.
The grade designations may be applied to any article of agricultural produce, but the Ministry has no intention of applying standards to produce until the time is ripe for such application. As I have already mentioned, schemes have been devised for the proper grading of eggs and fruit, and it is to these articles that the grade designations will be applied in the first instance. Your Lordships will notice that the grade designations are to be prescribed by Regulations made by the Minister. In case there should be any fear that the Minister will act arbitrarily, I would refer your Lordships to Clause 6, which provides that before a Regulation can be made notice must be published in the London Gazette at least 40 days before it is made, and then after the Regulation is made it must be laid before Parliament and either House may present an Address within a period of 21 sitting days praying that the Regulation may be annulled. I think your Lordships will agree that that will give ample opportunity for anyone to object to any Regulations that may be proposed.
Clause 2 enables the Minister to prescribe a grade designation mark and to authorise persons to use it. The idea of a national mark is closely bound up with the needs of the wholesale market where, as I have already indicated, the battle between home produce and imported produce really has to be fought. National marks are in common use on Dominion and foreign produce on the English market. There is the "Kangaroo" mark of Australia, and the "Lur" mark
420
of Denmark. The use of these marks is only authorised on goods that reach a prescribed standard of quality. In order to bring in an impartial authority and in the interests of publicity, such marks are usually the property of the Governments concerned. A national mark is also desirable for other reasons. The adoption of the grades in Clause I is voluntary and a voluntary scheme would probably take too long in getting into effective action if nothing more were done than to prescribe grade designations. What is needed, in view of the pressure of imported supplies, is some incentive to accelerate the adoption of a standardisation policy for home produce. If the packers are given a national mark which will be a popular guarantee of the quality of their produce, a demand for such produce is likely to be created. The use of the national mark will be wholly voluntary, but obviously if it is to give confidence to buyers it has to be safeguarded from misuse. Consequently, only those persons and organisations will be authorised to use it who are in a position to conform to certain conditions calculated to ensure efficiency and who are ready to submit to voluntary control for that purpose.
The Minister proposes to delegate to a National Mark Committee the duty of controlling the use of the mark, and this Committee will be advised by trade committees representaive of the various commodity interests. It will always, of course, be open to individuals who have not been authorised to use the mark to grade their produce to the official standards laid down in Clause I, but it may be suggested that the grade designations should not be used at all except by individuals or associations who qualify to use the mark. It would, however, be unfair to make such a rule. The grade designations by themselves will have considerable trade value, and there may be individuals who wish to use the grades and are quite competent to grade efficiently but who may be unwilling to submit to the control involved in the use of the national mark. Others, again, may have enough produce to grade efficiently for local outlets but insufficient to qualify for the use of the mark for the wider purposes of wholesale trade.
Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill deal only with eggs and, unlike the first two

421
clauses, they are compulsory and not optional. Clause 3 requires that preserved eggs shall each be marked. This applies to all eggs sold or exposed for sale in this country whether they are home-produced or imported. At the present time there are three principal methods of pickling eggs. They may be kept in lime water, or in water glass, or in oil, and it is possible to detect by analysis whether eggs have been preserved in this way. In cases, however, where the marking of imported eggs preserved by any other process cannot be enforced owing to the impossibility of analysis, the Minister may exempt from marking home-produced eggs preserved by a similar process. Another method of preserving eggs is by keeping them in cold storage or in chemical storage. It is not possible to detect by analysis whether eggs have been preserved in this way, and consequently they cannot be brought under the provisions of Clause 3. Such methods are, however, dealt with in Clause 4, where it is laid down that any premises used for cold storage or chemical storage of eggs must be registered, and all eggs intended to be preserved in this way must, before being brought into the registered premises, be marked in an appropriate manner.
It is not proposed to bring the requirements of this clause, other than subsection (1), into operation unless an Order is made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, requiring the marking of imported eggs. The object of these two clauses is to afford some protection alike to the producer of new-laid eggs and to the purchaser; to the producer whose market, at a time of year when production costs are highest, is often liable to be interfered with by the sale of preserved eggs as new-laid, and to the purchaser who is entitled to know what he is buying and to be protected from paying a high price for eggs in the belief that they are only a few days old when they may have been laid six months previously.
Clause 5 imposes on county councils and county borough councils the duty of enforcing the provisions of the Bill, and I am informed that the County Councils Association and the Association of Municipal Corporations have in principle agreed to this proposal. It is hoped that the local authorities will be able to use
422
for this purpose the analysts and inspectors they already possess under the Food and Drugs Acts and the Weights and Measures Acts. I do not anticipate, therefore, that many new officers will have to be appointed by the local authorities concerned. I have already dealt with Clause 6, which requires Regulations to be laid before Parliament. Clause 7 contains definitions, while Clause 8 applies the Bill to Scotland. Clause 9 makes it clear that the provisions of the Bill do not affect the criminal liability which may arise under the Merchandise Marks Acts and the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts. Clause 10 provides that the Bill shall not extend to Northern Ireland, as there is already in force in that country a scheme of standardisation and grading of eggs. It is anticipated, however, that when Clause 4 of the Bill, dealing with registration of premises used for cold and chemical storage, comes into operation, the Government of Northern Ireland will secure that eggs preserved by means of cold storage or chemical storage in that country will not be sold in Great Britain unless they are marked.
I have already explained that the greater part of Clause 4 will not come into operation unless an Order is made under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, for the marking of imported eggs. I referred earlier to the fate of a previous application for such marking, but a second application has now been made by the trade interests concerned to the Committee set up under the Merchandise Marks Act and, although it is impossible to forecast what the decision of that Committee, which is an independent body, may be, we may reasonably hope that, with the passing of this Bill enabling the proper grading of home-produced eggs to be effected—a matter to which, as your Lordships will remember, the Committee attached great importance—the Committee will favourably review the decision to which they came last year and recommend that an Order requiring the marking of imported eggs should be made.
That is the Bill before your Lordships, and I venture to think that it is one which will appeal to all the members of your Lordships' House. It is designed to assist the farmers of this country to obtain better prices for their produce in competition with imported produce, by way of ensuring a recognised standard

423
of quality, without which it is impossible to satisfy modern market requirements on a large scale. I should like to point out that the schemes of grading provided for in the Bill have been prepared by the trade organisations concerned. The Government are not making any attempt to impose standards upon agriculturists; they are merely giving them the opportunity of coming within a scheme which, we hope, will have a most beneficial effect on the grading and marketing of home produce in the future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(The Earl of Stradbroke.)
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I think it might have been better if the Minister in charge of the Bill had circulated it a little sooner, because it has been very difficult to consult those with whom one generally acts in the country and there is undoubtedly a good deal of misunderstanding about the Bill. The noble Earl, however, has relieved my mind with regard to Clauses 1 and 2, which, as he has told us, are entirely voluntary and will not interfere with those great federations of cheesemakers such as we have in Cheshire and the West of England, and notably in Somerset, where the Cheddar Cheese Federation have their own trademark which is already getting very well known and is having a very desirable effect in the way of increasing the price at which cheese has been sold both in this country and also, I understand, for export abroad. I am much reassured, because the clauses are, to my mind, rather vague, and I was going to ask for an explanation of them and to enquire whether they would interfere with the trademarks already appropriated by these federations. The noble Earl tells us, however, that they are entirely voluntary.
I turn to what is, to my mind, a very doubtful part of the Bill. I refer to Clause 3. The noble Earl has stated that this clause will come into operation only when foreign eggs are to be marked, and this, no doubt, will take place in the very near future. We shall not at any rate have such a fiasco as there was in regard to the earlier Report that dealt with the marking of foreign eggs, when we were practically told that we did not know our own business and the Committee
424
treated British agriculturists in an insulting way. Clause 3 is, to my mind, rather doubtful. What does it do? It provides that, in all cases where eggs are preserved, whether chemically or in cold storage or in any other way, they have to be marked, but there is a proviso that:
"the Minister shall by order exempt from the operation of this section eggs preserved by any process with respect to which he is satisfied that the marking of imported eggs preserved by that process cannot be enforced."
I should have thought that, if it could not be enforced, the Government should have declared that those eggs should be kept out. Apparently we are to have free importation of eggs from China and Russia so long as it is shown that they cannot be marked. That seems to me an extraordinary provision. I should have thought that the best way to protect agriculture from this unfair competition would be to say that, where eggs cannot be marked, they must not be imported. That would be a very simple way to deal with the matter, but I suppose that, in this as in other cases, the present Minister of Agriculture is not too anxious to look after the interests of agriculturists and will continue to allow this unfair importation of foreign eggs.
I am rather doubtful also concerning Clause 4. It seems to me that this is going to be a rather troublesome business. All premises where eggs are preserved will have to be inspected and registered by the county council. It seems to me that you will have to have an army of county council inspectors going throughout the length and breadth of the county, registering every smallholder and every person who keeps poultry and who occasionally preserves eggs when there is a glut. Even the noble Earl might do it. When there is a great glut, he will preserve, and if you do not want all the eggs, you put them on the market and sell them Apparently, if a man should sell half a dozen preserved eggs he will have to have his premises inspected, and will have to be registered by the county council. It seems to me very unnecessary to have that inspection and registration. It would be much simpler to provide that if these eggs are sold, say, by wholesale, then it should be done, but I am very doubtful whether there is any grievance from which the

425
public suffer by having preserved eggs sold as fresh. People soon find out if they are taken in by the wholesaler or middleman or by the small retailer, and it seems to me a very small matter. All this will be doing a great deal to hamper the small man in this matter as well as causing a great deal of expense to the county council if the duties are thoroughly carried out.
I was surprised to hear the noble Earl say that the County Councils Association was in favour of this Bill. I very much doubt whether that association would be in favour of throwing all this extra trouble and expense upon the county councils. Perhaps when he replies he will tell us whether the County Councils Association have said that they are prepared to adopt and carry out Clause 4. To my mind it will inflict great hardship upon the small man, who has to be registered and is not allowed, unless he has his eggs marked, to sell them. With regard to the other part of the Bill there does not seem to be much objection to it, but I very much doubt whether it will do much more than can be done by private enterprise such as has been done in the case of the cheese manufacturers. I understand that the grading is not to be done by officials in Whitehall, but the duty will be delegated to some large body of wholesale people. I hope that we shall also see some producers upon the National Grading Committee, so that all interests may be considered in this matter; otherwise the small men will be prejudicially affected in this matter by the big wholesale men.
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, the substance of this Bill may be very useful, but it is over the form that the main question turns. As usual, and as is becoming too usual, it is a Bill for putting into the hands of a Minister power to make Regulations of all sorts which have to be observed and the breach of which is an offence. These Regulations may be necessary, and in some cases they may work well. They will probably work well wherever you are dealing with large bodies—with people associated together on a large scale—but when you come to the small man, who does not know the Regulations, he may get into trouble. I do not rise to oppose the Bill but to make a suggestion. It is in Committee that important questions will arise about this
426
Bill, and I hope that those of your Lordships who are in a better position to judge than I am, and who are familiar at first hand with some of the matters concerned here, will take the trouble to look into the clauses enabling Regulations to be framed and will let us have the benefit of your wisdom with regard to them. As to eggs I do not wish to say anything. The clause is rather vague. What the preservative measures are to be we are not told, but, there again, it is to your Lordships, who know how eggs have to be preserved, that we shall look in Committee for some light upon this matter.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I look upon this Bill which has just been introduced with rather more favour than those who have so far addressed the House upon this subject. It seems to me that the various criticisms that have been addressed towards this Bill, both by my noble friend Lord Strachie and also by the noble and learned Viscount, can be dealt with in Committee, and that probably we shall find that there is less point of difference between us than might at first appear. After all we have to realise the fact that one of the objects of the Bill is to procure for every producer the advantages which the Somersetshire farmers have already secured, with so much benefit. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not feel in Committee that his objections are of a very serious character. I quite agree with what has been said by my noble friend with regard to the marking of eggs, to which I would like to return in a few moments. Meanwhile, it does seem very desirable that some steps should be taken in this direction—some such steps as are adumbrated by the Government in this Bill.
Grading means that things are certified at the same time. There is a tendency for a purchaser to buy things by the label. He wants a thing of a certain quality, and if it is graded it is to his advantage. Grading helps the producer by way of advertisement, and it ought to lead in the end to a much larger consumption of home-grown food in this country. It is for the producers in this country to learn the lesson which manufacturers have already learned and know well enough now. It is that foreign goods are helped by being graded and certified, and therefore

427
it is probable that goods manufactured in this country will also be helped by being graded and certified. It is not that foreign goods are a bit better than British goods—I believe that the produce of this country is as good as, or even better than, the produce of any other country in the world—but it is because the purchaser is more sure of getting a certain quality that foreign goods get an advantage now. Take New Zealand butter, or Danish eggs, or American fruit. In all these cases the producers have learned the advantage of marking an article so that the purchaser may be certain of getting an article of a particular quality. We could produce things of as good a quality, and all that the purchaser needs is to be assured that goods are of a certain grade and quality. This Bill, I hope, will tend in that direction. In so far as it does that, it seems to me that it deserves our support.
With regard to English eggs, I do perhaps share the hesitation of my noble friend Lord Strachie. The inclusion of eggs was considered by one of the Committees on the Merchandise Marks Act and was rejected by that Committee. I think that any system of marking should apply to home produce as well as to produce imported from abroad, and that importers from abroad should not be required to submit to the delay and expense of a marking process to which the home producer has not to submit. No one who has read the very valuable Report of Lord Linlithgow's Committee can have any doubt as to the advantages which, in many directions, the produce of this country may derive from a system of this kind. With your Lordships' leave, I will read an extract from that Report with regard to poultry. This is what the Committee says:—
"Grading widens the available market, facilitates sale at assembling points in producing areas, reduces buyers' risks, saves time and effort involved in inspection before purchase, and so reduces distributive costs; it facilitates long-period contracts between producers and distributors, makes possible accurate and comparable price quotations, increases the effectiveness of auction sales, and improves the value of the commodity generally. In addition, the fact that successful advertising depends to an increasing extent on sale by description and on the differentiation of commodities by grades gives peculiar importance to grading at the present time."
It is in view of the conclusion that they reached in regard to poultry and other
428
matters that for my own part I view this Bill with favour, and I hope that it may become law in the course of the present Session.
After the criticisms which have been offered by my noble friend and by the noble and learned Viscount, I would like to express the hope that we may be given plenty of time before we go into Committee on the Bill, and I am quite sure that the noble Earl will be good enough to give us time to consider our Amendments before we reach that stage; but, subject to any Amendments which may be found desirable in Committee, I must confess that I hope this Bill will pass into law.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, as there is no matter connected with the agricultural industry about which, personally, I feel more strongly than this question of organised and orderly marking of agricultural produce, I should like to express the hope that this Bill will receive the favourable consideration of your Lordships' House. Quality may be important, as I think it is, but experience of other countries and our own markets has shown that even more important than quality is uniformity, and it is, in fact, the uniformity—the uniformity in high quality—of much of the competitive produce of other countries that is mainly responsible for the disastrous condition in which we find the agriculture of this country to-day.
The noble and learned Viscount opposite has, if I understand him aright, expressed some alarm with regard to the small man, as distinct from the larger producer under this Bill. I should have thought that the large man is generally able to take care of himself but that the smaller agricultural producer, in every country with which I am acquainted, does require a certain amount of supervision and direction, not merely in the marketing, but also to some extent in the production of his output. Of course, in other countries to a large extent co-operation between the farmers themselves, particularly the small farmers, operates to ensure that the agricultural produce is suited for the purpose of the foreign—generally speaking the British—market, but co-operation unfortunately is not a live force amongst the agriculturists of this country, and, that being so, it seems to devolve upon the Government,

429
in this country at least, to perform the function which in many other countries is carried out by the farmers own co-operative organisations. I have come back recently from the Argentine Republic, and I am bound to say that in that country, as in others, I. am almost staggered by the extent to which the requirements of the British food market are carefully studied, and by the very great care that is exercised on the part of the farmers themselves, their organisations, and their Governments to see that food unsuited to the requirements of our market is not sent across the seas.
I hope that this Bill may have a successful passage through this House, and I should like, if I may, having some personal knowledge of the work of what is now called the Marketing Branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, to say that in this connection I think that honour should be given where honour is due, and that a tribute ought to be paid to the very valuable activities of the present Minister and his staff in putting marketing in the front of all the present activities of the Ministry of Agriculture, realising that no subject is more important, if our own home produce is to obtain fair treatment in our own markets.
THE EARL OF STRADBROKE: My Lords, I hope I may be allowed to thank your Lordships for the reception of this Bill by the House and for the criticisms made upon it. I hope very sincerely that it may pass this Session without any great change. We are particularly delighted to know that Lord Bledisloe has been good enough to give support to this Bill, and anybody with his great knowledge of agriculture must speak with much weight in your Lordships' House. Now that I have the honour of trying to carry out the duties which he discharged so successfully and efficiently, it is peculiarly gratifying that he gives his blessing to this Bill.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, said about the registration of premises, there is no question of registering premises where preserved eggs are kept. The registration of premises referred to is where eggs are kept in a chilled condition and under chemical gas conditions. There are not a great many of these premises in the country, and I do not think the Bill will lead to any great expense to have them registered. What the County Councils Association
430
said was that they agreed in principle to this Bill, but they had not seen the Bill itself when they gave that assent. It will be clear, therefore, that people who preserve eggs in the usual way, such as I have mentioned, will be able to do so so long as they sell the eggs as preserved eggs. The reason for the cold storage centres being registered is that one cannot tell by analysis that eggs that have been kept under those conditions are preserved eggs. There is no analysis that will prove it. If they have been preserved in lime water or other preservative you can find that out.
I think Lord Bledisloe answered the question raised by the noble and learned Viscount with reference to the small man. We hope very much that this Bill will be able to help the small man, because he will be able to sell his eggs to the larger associations who will be qualified to deal with them both as to the marketing and the grading. The great point is that we do want to ensure what Lord Bledisloe said is so important—namely, to get the eggs well graded and to get the general public to know that when the eggs are sold under a particular grade with a Government mark they really are of the quality stated. The Minister will appoint a Committee to decide on the grade, whatever it may be. There will probably be three Or four grades of eggs—and different grades of fruits, too—but each consignment of eggs must come up to the grade if the grade designation is accepted. I do not think there are any other points raised by the discussion, and I hope I may rely on the support of the House to pass this Bill and to make it effective.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS (CONVEN- TION) BILL.
THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND: My Lords, at the special request of Lord Parmoor, who has on the Paper an Amendment to this Bill, but who cannot be here to-day, we have been asked to postpone the Committee stage of this Bill until to-morrow.
Committee put off till to-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past five o'clock.