Lords Sitting of 14 February 1929

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a, Bill to consolidate the Companies Acts, 1908 to 1928, and certain other enactments connected with the said Acts; and to move that it be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read lª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read lª; and to be printed.

MEXBOROUGH AND SWINTON TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.
SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS COMPANY (TROLLEY VEHICLES, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2ª.

STOKE-ON-TRENT EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands upon the Paper in my name.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 91 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and Bill read 2ª accordingly.

BRIDGES BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, This Bill is the result of negotiations which have
922
extended over a period of more than three years between the Railway Companies' Association, the Canal Association and the County Councils' Association, with the assistance of the Ministry of Transport. It was originally drafted as a government measure but, owing to the restrictions imposed on the legislative programme of last Session, it was introduced in the House of Commons during that Session as a Private Member's Bill. The place obtained in the ballot was, however, not high enough to secure it a Second Reading. The present Bill is a redraft of that Bill, with amendments to meet the points raised by the various authorities interested in its provisions. The previous Bill, introduced in another place, was referred to on several occasions in the evidence given last Session before the Joint Select Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons on the Railway (Road Transport) Bills. In reporting on the Bills to the House the Joint Select Committee used the following words, which bear upon the measure which I am venturing to bring forward:—
"During the hearing of the evidence and arguments upon these Bills the question of the construction and maintenance of bridges has frequently come before the Committee and they are impressed with its importance.
A Bill dealing generally with the question of bridges has been read a first time in the House of Commons, and the Committee consider it advisable that some measure on these lines should be proceeded with at the earliest opportunity."
The object of this Bill is to facilitate the improvement and, where necessary, the reconstruction of weak bridges "for the maintenance and repair of which some person or body other than a highway authority is responsible." I refer to individuals, railway companies and canal companies.
Under the existing law powers are conferred in the Locomotives Acts and the Heavy Motor Car Orders on the owners of weak bridges to prohibit their use by locomotives and by heavy motor cars above certain weights. There are a large number of such bridges, and these powers have been freely exercised, with the result that locomotives and heavy motor cars are debarred from the effective use of many highways which are of considerable importance from the point of view of through traffic. The very expansion of the numbers of heavy

923
vehicles has led to an increase in the restrictions imposed on the use of bridges. During the last few years the Minister of Transport has received a growing volume of complaints as to the serious loss and inconvenience caused to trade and industry by the existence of these weak links in the highway system of the country. These representations have come not only from the Commercial Motor Users' Association and other associations representing transport interests, but also from chambers of commerce, local authorities and other representative bodies in different parts of the country. To mention a few instances: the industrial areas in the Midlands and in Lanarkshire are covered by a net work of railways and canals, and in these districts are large numbers of bridges on Class I roads which are subject to restrictions in the matter of weights which they are allowed to carry: owing to restrictions on certain railway bridges in Cheshire and Staffordshire the great ports of Liverpool and Birkenhead are practically cut off from access by road by vehicles exceeding 5 tons in gross weight coming from the south: in the eastern counties again there are a large number of weak bridges belonging to drainage boards.
Under existing conditions there are serious difficulties to be overcome before any effective steps can be taken towards the strengthening or reconstruction of a bridge in private ownership. In the first place, a large proportion of these weak bridges belong to railway and canal companies, who have obtained judgments in the Courts to the general effect that their liability as owners is limited to the maintenance of the bridge to a standard sufficient to carry the volume and weight of traffic existing at the time when the bridge was originally built. In the second place, the Minister of Transport., under the Statutes governing the administration of the Road Fund, can make grants from the Fund only to, or in conjunction with, a highway authority, and cannot, therefore, make a grant for the reconstruction of a bridge, however important it may be, direct to a railway or canal company. There is the further difficulty that the owners of bridges built under statutory powers are unable to transfer their liabilities or their property in a bridge to a highway authority, even
924
though they may wish to do so and it may be in the public interest that they should.
At the present time, therefore, the reconstruction of a weak bridge in private ownership usually involves more or less prolonged negotiations and a tripartite agreement between the owner, the appropriate highway authority and the Minister, under which the highway authority pays the cost of reconstruction with the aid of a grant from the Road Fund, and assumes responsibility for the future maintenance of the bridge, or of the roadway over it, while the owner makes a contribution in respect of the liability for future maintenance of which he is to be relieved. Moreover, as these negotiations are purely voluntary, there is at present no means by which the Minister can compel the reconstruction or improvement of a weak bridge even on a highway of first-class importance. In such circumstances progress has been very slow, and the situation every year is becoming more serious.
The Bill in the first place, under Clause 2, would enable highway authorities and the owners of bridges to effect arrangements with regard to the improvement or reconstruction of bridges and approaches, and the maintenance of the roads which they carry, without the necessity for specific sanction in every case. Secondly, and this is in Clause 3, the Bill provides that either the owner of a bridge or the highway authority, if they consider that the bridge is unsuitable for the requirements of road traffic, may apply to the Minister of Transport for an Order for the reconstruction, improvement or maintenance of the bridge or approaches or the highway carried by them. The clause would also enable the Minister to make any modification in the provisions of a Private Act which would be necessary to give effect to an Order, other than the provision relating to precedence of traffic or to the headway of a railway or canal. In order to safeguard the interests of railway and canal companies who own bridges, Clause 4 provides for various limitations on the provisions of Orders which may be made by the Minister under Clause 3. The limitations, however, are not of such a character as to prevent the Minister from making an Order in any suitable case.

925
Clause 5 provides that any Order under the Act transferring a bridge, or the responsibility for the maintenance of a bridge, to a highway authority shall not affect any statutory rights of a public utility undertaking in relation to the bridge. This refers to the rights that gas companies may have.
EARL RUSSELL: To take their mains across them.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Yes. Clause 6 deals with the apportionment of the cost of the reconstruction or improvement of a bridge in consequence of an Order made by the Minister between the owner of the bridge and the highway authority concerned. The cost of the work is limited in the case of the owner to an amount equivalent to his liability if the Order had not been made, except where additional expense is incurred by the highway authority for the purpose of effecting at the owner's request an improvement, in the owner's undertaking. Clause 7 provides for arbitration in the event of disputes arising as to the proportion to be borne by each of the parties of the cost of works to be carried out in pursuance of an Order made by the Minister. The remaining clauses are generally of a routine character and I do not think it necessary to trouble your Lordships with any special reference to them individually. This Bill is a measure which should effect an important improvement that is most urgently needed in the highway system of this country and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, in the Joint Select Committee which considered the Bills of the Railway Companies for road powers we heard something of this Bridges Bill which, as the noble Marquess has said, had already been in existence, though not very active existence, for some time, and I am glad to welcome its appearance to-day. We were not on that Committee very hopeful that it would reach legislative form so early, and I am glad that it has. The Bill is a rather complicated one, and I am not quite clear what powers it does give and what powers it does not give. I rather gather that it would not deal with a case—with which, in a particular instance,
926
the Joint. Select Committee did deal—in which a railway company opposed road improvement by making it extremely difficult to carry a new bridge across their railway. There is nothing, I think, in this Bill which would give power to the Minister to make an Order for that purpose. I am not sure, but as far as I can see that is the case. If so, that is perhaps an unfortunate omission.
I am also not quite clear what is likely or is expected to happen under Clause 2, where a highway authority may agree with an owner for the payment by the highway authority of contributions towards the cost of the maintenance. I hope it is not contemplated that under that clause pressure will be put upon county councils to take over the bridges of railway companies and maintain them at the expense of the ratepayer instead of at the expense of the railway. But I think the clause as it stands would give that power. I so read it. Of course, the noble Marquess has correctly stated what has been decided as to the sufficiency of a bridge. It has, I think, been decided in more than one case that the railway companies are not bound to maintain a bridge at a level which is necessarily equal to present-day traffic but only at a level which was necessary when the bridge was first constructed; and in cases of that sort, where the highway authority even in the interest of their own ratepayers desire that the bridge should be improved and strengthened, there would be nothing unreasonable in their bearing the cost of that. That I think would be covered by Clause 2, and I think that the clause, which enables agreements to be made for the transfer of the property and the transfer of the maintenance of the bridge, is an extremely useful clause.
I recollect a case in which I was engaged many years ago in connection with a canal company, in which a mandamus was obtained against a canal company requiring them to strengthen, repair or rebuild one of their bridges, which, of course, was a bridge of the ordinary canal shape with a very steep hump in it. The canal company was perfectly willing to allow the highway authority to make a practically flat crossing over the canal and to maintain it if they could do so, but the highway authority had not the power to do it, and the canal company

927
was under a statutory obligation which prevented it giving up this bridge or closing the canal in any way. And, further, when the mandamus was granted it appeared, of course, as is so often the case, that the canal company had no money at all and was therefore practically unable to obey the mandamus. The company could not rebuild and could not repair the bridge because there was no money to do it with. That raised an impossible situation, which, I take it, will be completely met by this Bill. Cases of that sort will be quite easy to adjust under the terms of this Bill and to that extent it will be a very great advantage.
I am glad to see that in Clause 3 the Minister is given very considerable powers, which I think will be useful, for dealing with the details of every case that arises. I see some difficulty—I have no doubt it has been fully considered—owing to the casual way in which the statutory obligation is dealt with: you may do this, that and the other regardless of the bridge being constructed under statutory obligation. Well, in the case of many bridges so constructed there are also statutory obligations about their maintenance and repair. I do not know whether that ought not in each case to be altered, at any rate by some perfectly definite order of the Minister, so that, if this statutory obligation in the Private Act under which the bridge is built no longer exists, it should be made clear what obligation does exist and what obligation remains. There may be, it seems to me, some ambiguity afterwards if that is not made clear by a definite order of the Minister at some point or other. I do not think myself there is any objection to his over-riding the provisions of a Private Act of Parliament in this manner, as provided by this Bill.
I understand from what we heard in the Committee and from what the noble Marquess has said to-day, that this is a Bill which has been agreed between the persons concerned after a good deal of difficulty and a great deal of negotiation. I think I am right in saying that. No doubt the noble Marquess in charge of it would say, perhaps for that very reason, that it cannot be substantially amended in any way without causing difficulty. But there may be Amendments that are desirable, and perhaps the noble Marquess would not mind giving a sufficient
928
time, say a fortnight, between now and the Committee stage, in order that any Amendments might be considered. As far as I can see, I think it is extremely likely that no useful Amendments can be put down, but I should personally like time to consider it.
LORD BLEDISLOE: My Lords, this is one of the problems which, so far as it affects land drainage authorities, came before the Royal Commission on Land Drainage in 1927, of which I was the Chairman. It is a matter, so far as drainage authorities are concerned, of great gravity, because they are not authorities with any large financial resources behind them, and it is those low-lying areas, particularly in the East of England, where they do own bridges—and own a good many bridges—where the land is easily subjected to flooding, and in case any of their bridges did break down the flooding would be a very serious matter for them, and involve a very serious financial obligation on the owners and occupiers of land in that area. The obligation of such authorities is limited to such cost of maintenance as would have been involved at the time the bridge was constructed, when traffic was of a much less heavy character than it is to-day.
Realising that, so far as the problem concerned the railway companies and canal companies, it was a matter of negotiation between them and the highway authorities, with a view of such legislation as has been introduced now into this House, what we suggested was that in the event of such legislation not applying to drainage authorities, a clause should be introduced in any Bill dealing with the matter, making it obligatory upon the highway authorities, whether county councils or other authorities, to take over those bridges, the basis of pecuniary liability or chargeability, so far as the drainage authorities are concerned, being limited to the amount which they would have had to meet on the basis that I have described, that is to say, such amount as would be necessary to maintain the bridge in a condition which would enable it to carry the original traffic. So far as I have been able to interpret this Bill I think the ground is covered, but I should like the noble Marquess to say in his reply whether he can assure me that the basis of pecuniary obligation,

929
as contemplated in Clause 6, is, in fact, on all-fours with the obligation as suggested in the Report of the Royal Commission on Land Drainage. Subject to that, I most heartily support this measure, as it is calculated to relieve all those who now have the responsibility of maintaining these bridges, particularly relatively poor authorities and drainage authorities, of an obligation which it is not fair any longer to ask them to carry.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the noble Earl opposite seemed to be somewhat in doubt as to the cost which might fall on the companies who own these bridges. This Bill now makes it possible for the highway authorities to come to voluntary agreements with the owners of bridges for their reconstruction, or, in default of such agreement, it enables the Minister of Transport to order such reconstruction upon the application of either the owner of the bridge or of the highway authority in whose area the bridge lies, and, in case of an order, the division of the costs between the parties—I think that was the point which the noble Earl asked about—may be settled by arbitration under the Arbitration Act.
The other point to which he referred, the extent of the liability of a private owner of a bridge, really touches two difficult questions of law. The first difficulty, which the noble Earl mentioned, has been settled by the judgment in the case of the Sharpness Dock Company, where the High Court decided that the liability of the private owner of a bridge only extended to maintaining it at the strength which was suitable for bearing the traffic over it at the time when it was built. The other legal point has not yet been decided, that is, as to the standard of maintenance of the carriage way over the bridge. The highway authorities are naturally of the opinion that the standard of maintenance of the roadway over the bridge, as required by Statute, is that necessary for the traffic of the day. The private owners, on the other hand, maintain that their liability for maintenance is limited to maintaining the roadway at a standard suitable for the traffic at the date when the bridge was built.
The noble Lord, Lord Bledisloe, has asked me a question about Clause 6, and I would say in reply that the amount
930
of the owners liability if no such Order has been made simply means the capitalised annual cost of maintenance to the owner. If the owner has been liable to expend a certain sum of money every year on the bridge that sum of money would be capitalised, and the same procedure of arbitration would be used if the parties were unable to agree.
EARL RUSSELL: Can the noble Marquess say when he proposes to take the Committee stage of this Bill?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Earl is asking me if we can delay the Committee stage?
EARL RUSSELL: Yes.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: If he will allow me, I will see whether his wishes can be met.
LORD BLEDISLOE: Can the noble Marquess tell me as to the basis of the commutation by way of lump sum referred to in Clause 7? Is that compatible with the proviso to Clause 6 (1) (c) where an Order has been made? That is really what I wanted to know.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I think that is so, but I will make inquiries.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FACTORY AND WORKSHOP (COTTON CLOTH FACTORIES) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, the object of the Bill which I have the honour to submit to your Lordships' House is to give effect to the absolutely unanimous recommendations of the Departmental Committee which was appointed to enquire into the grievances which had to be endured under the artificial humidity in cotton cloth factories. Besides the representatives of the operatives and the employers of labour that Departmental Committee had several members of great distinction and utility from outside. The Chairman was Mr. J. Jackson, the Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories, and Sir Arthur William Crossley, Director of the British Cotton Industry Research

931
Association, Mr. Leonard Erskine Hill, Director of the Department of Applied Physiology, National Institute of Medical Research, and Mr. D. R. Wilson, of the Industrial Fatigue Research Board, were members of it. These gentlemen, with, as I have said, the representatives of the operatives and the employers, made a very exhaustive inquiry, which lasted for some three years, into the conditions of cotton cloth manufacture, and succeeded in producing a unanimous Report. Considering that the matter had been under dispute for some fifty years that was a most remarkable and satisfactory conclusion of their labours.
Following upon the Report of a previous Departmental Committee, a Bill was introduced in 1911 which empowered the Secretary of State to give effect by regulations to the recommendations of that Committee. Its Report was accepted by the operatives with one proviso, that the regulations should be reconsidered within the space of three years. Then came the War and nothing more was done regarding the artificial humidification of cotton cloth factories. Then there were a great many conferences on this subject, and at last the Departmental Committee to which I have alluded was appointed. As I have said, after sitting for three years the Committee arrived at a unanimous conclusion. That Departmental Committee was set op under Mr. Arthur Henderson, who was then Secretary of State for Home Affairs. The previous Committee had been set up under Mr. McKenna, who represented the Liberal Party. The present Bill is introduced by a Conservative Government, so that all three Parties in the State have had a concurrent interest in legislation with regard to this matter.
The Committee reported that there was not very much to choose between the artificial humidification factories, which I believe is the technical expression, and those which were reputedly dry factories. But they said it was possible, indeed they all agreed and made certain recommendations, that regulations should be made to increase the comfort and to secure the better health of the operatives engaged in the industry. It is hoped that the present Bill will be a final solution of a question which has been a matter of great controversy for half a century. After the Committee had re-
932
ported there was a meeting of the operatives and employers of labour and they were unanimous in their support of the proposed Bill.
Clause 1, which is the operative clause, gives power to the Secretary of State to make certain regulations to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. This exactly follows the example set by the Bill of 1911, which gave the Secretary of State power to make regulations for carrying into effect the recommendations of the Departmental Committee of 1911. Under Clause 2 the plans of all new factories are not merely to be passed by the local authorities but, before they are passed, are to be submitted to the local factory inspector. That provision has been found necessary both in the interests of the operatives and of the employers of labour who are building factories. There are certain regulations of which local authorities are sometimes rather ignorant—for example, that certain windows must face the north or as near the north as possible—and if the factory inspector sees the plans and passes them a great deal of expense in altering premises afterwards may be saved.
I do not think it is necessary to go into the very intricate regulations concerning temperature, the sizes of pipes and various other things. The object of the Bill, as I have said, is to give the Secretary of State power to carry out the recommendations of the unanimous Report of the Departmental Committee. Clause 3 is the machinery clause for carrying out the purposes of the Bill. With those few words I beg to ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to the Bill which I hope is the last stage of a prolonged and controversial matter. I firmly believe that if the Bil is passed it will be to the interests of the employers and of employed in a very important industry. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Desborough.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, this Bill perpetuates a vicious principle which unfortunately has grown very much in the last few years. It gives power to a Department to usurp the functions of Parliament, and to pass what they call regulations which have the effect of an Act of Parliament and deal

933
with His Majesty's subjects; in fact, this does what in days gone by caused a King to lose his head. King Charles endeavoured to usurp the functions of Parliament and make laws himself. The result was that he was beheaded and Parliament regained its old powers. Now, in these days, we are asked to give powers to a Minister and a Department which we have always refused to give to a King. I may state that a humble individual like myself is not alone in opposing this class of legislation. Only a few weeks ago the Lord Chief Justice of England drew attention to what was going on in this direction, and he uttered a very grave note of warning. I do not remember his exact words, but what they came to was this, that legislation of this sort constituted a grave danger to the liberty of the subject.
This Bill empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations contained in the Report, dated January 23, 1928, of the Committee appointed by the Secretary of State on the 6th day of November, 1924, to consider and report whether, and if so what, modifications of the existing statutory regulations governing the use of artificial humidity in cotton cloth factories are desirable and practicable. What that Committee was I did not know until my noble friend Lord Desborough spoke, but I gathered from his speech that it was a Departmental Committee. There you have a Department appointing a Committee and acting on the recommendations of its own Committee. Those recommendations may be excellent; I do not for a moment say they are not; I do not know what they are; but I venture to say—I might almost include my noble friend Lord Desborough—that there is not a single noble Lord in this House who knows what these regulations are, and yet we are asked to pass a Bill which is to give effect—none of us knows what the effect will be—to certain regulations which are not in the Bill. In addition to that this Bill, under subsection (3) of Clause 1, gives to the Secretary of State power of this kind—
"Regulations made under this Act may be substituted for the provisions contained in Sections ninety, ninety-one, ninety-two and ninety-four of the principal Act and in
934
the Fourth Schedule to that Act, or for any of those provisions, and any of those provisions for which regulations are so substituted shall cease to apply as respects cotton cloth factories."
That is to say the Secretary of State, besides making new regulations, may repeal sections of an Act of Parliament.
That seems to me an extremely strong order and one to which Parliament ought not to agree. May I remind your Lordships of what happened only ten days ago in another place when the Minister of Health, in the Derating Bill, endeavoured to do something of this sort and there was such an outcry in the House of Commons that he had to give an undertaking that he would reconsider the clause. What has happened since I do not know, but that is what took place. We did not hear from my noble friend Lord Desborough what the regulations are which under the sections may be repealed. I took the trouble to find out something about that. I would say in passing that because we have done a wrong thing once there is no reason why we should do it again. If we have been a little lax in our vigilance and not looked after Government Departments as we should have done, that is no reason why we need not do it in the future.
Let me refer to the regulations which were enacted under the 1911 Bill. That Bill gave the Secretary of State power to make regulations which were to be substituted for certain provisions in the Factory and Work Act, 1901. The Cotton Cloth Factories Act, 1911, gave the Secretary of State similar powers relating to the same provisions. Now comes the difference, which my noble friend did not tell us about—very likely he did not know. Under the Act of 1911 the Secretary of State had to publish the regulations in draft and to consider objections, and, if objections were not withdrawn, an inquiry had to be held at which objectors could appear to be heard. If regulations were then made, they had to be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and could be annulled by either House. The present Bill repeals the Act of 1911, and subsection (3) of Clause 3 provides that the procedure shall not apply to regulations under the new Bill. The effect is, therefore, to empower the Secretary of State, without notice and without reference to Parliament, to make new regulations over-

935
riding the regulations having statutory force. I do not know that I want to say anything more on the Bill. I am sorry that my powers are not such as to enable me to attack the Bill in sufficiently strong language, but I have done my best, and, if I get any support, I shall certainly vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD CARSON: My Lords, I can assure you it is not out of any desire to make a speech in the House that I rise to enter my most solemn protest against the method adopted in this Bill. The noble Lord who moved the Second Reading described it as a Bill to give statutory effect to a Departmental Report. With great respect to him it is no such thing. This Report of the Department has never been before Parliament at all; Parliament knows nothing about it. It is not even a Committee of Parliament which framed the Report. It is purely a departmental matter which, according to my noble friend who moved the Second Reading, took two years and was a very long and complicated affair. It was never before Parliament at all and now this Bill is described as a Bill to give statutory effect to the Report.
Where is the Report? What is in the Report? Does any single noble Lord who is here at the present moment know what is in the Report? Would anybody among the noble Lords who only look to see whether they ought to be here or whether they ought not have the faintest idea after reading the Bill what it was that it was proposed to pass in his absence? Of course he would not. Though we have protested over and over again, I can understand the Government, on account of want of Parliamentary time, going on with the old practice (a very bad one) of allowing regulations under a principle which has been laid down, and strictly laid down, in a Bill. But these regulations are not under any Bill. They are not even under any Report of any responsible Parliamentary Committee. It is purely what the Department has said after this long controversy of two years. And look at what the Secretary of State is enabled to do. He takes up this long and complicated matter and he can make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to the recommendations contained in the Report.
936
Is he to take all the recommendations Can he select the recommendations he himself likes? Is he to put his own construction upon the recommendations? Is he to put his own sense upon how one recommendation affects another? And if he makes some regulation that is not within the purview of the recommendations, who is going to correct him? A more extraordinary method of legislating one cannot possibly conceive.
I know that Bills have gone a very long way in giving power to make regulations where a principle is laid down. I think that is a very bad method of procedure, but it may be that you have to do it. But that a Secretary of State should take up a Departmental Report and say: "All this now is to be law as I wish to lay it down in regulations and according to my selection," and put it into language that will suit himself! Why not abolish Parliament altogether so far as these matters are concerned? Why not pass a Bill to say that the Secretary for Mines shall make regulations for putting an end to the existing distress in the coalfields? It would be exactly the same thing. You give him the full power. Then look what follows. When he has made these regulations, which he does at his own sweet will in accordance with what be conceives to be the meaning of this Report, and taking, I suppose, as much of it as he likes, then any breach of these regulations is to be subject to penalties. He sets up the crime. He sets up the matters which he thinks ought to be punished by the various statutory penalties. That is shortly the Bill, and as my noble friend Lord Banbury has already pointed out, not merely does it give him power to set up the regulations at his own sweet will, but under subsection (3) of Clause I regulations under this Bill may be substituted—for what? For the provisions contained in Sections 90, 91, 92 and 94 of the principal Act, the principal Act being defined as the Act of 1901. Not only can he make regulations under the Report, but he has the power to repeal Sections 90, 91, 92 and 94 of an Act of Parliament. He is put in a position over both Houses of Parliament and over the King and can enact something entirely different from what Parliament has already enacted.

937
I do not know whether the Government would agree to this: I think it is a very bad way of legislating, but it would be better if they would agree to put these regulations into a schedule. Then we should know what they are. Then we should know beforehand what we are doing. It may not be a very good way of doing it, but at least it will have some effect. Or will they enact that these regulations are not to become binding until Parliament has approved of them? That is another formula which is very common. Or are they entirely above and beyond the Houses of Parliament who are to have no inkling whatsoever of what these regulations are to be? If we cannot get even that may we ask them not to pass the Bill until the regulations have been laid upon the Tables of the Houses of Parliament? At all events, that would have the advantage that persons who understand these matters could at least look into them and could at least give us some suggestions which we might be able to make before this extraordinary Bill becomes law. Those are the various courses of procedure which I suggest to His Majesty's Government.
As a Judge, I look forward with great apprehension to what may happen when a man is punished for a breach of one of these regulations. Can he say: "It is true the Secretary of State made a regulation under this Act, but the Report that he made it under did not authorise it," and will the Courts have to examine the meaning of this Report to see whether the regulation was made in accordance with the Report? That is a pleasant vista of litigation both for the judicial tribunal and for the subject. Apparently the observations that are made from time to time as to the tremendous powers that are being given from day to day to the Departments fall entirely on deaf ears. My noble friend Lord Banbury referred to the observations that have been made over and over again by the Lord Chief Justice—I know he feels strongly about this matter—in cases which come before him, of the way in which all this works out. But you have only to look in to-day's newspapers to see what another learned Judge said of the extraordinary powers that are given—in this case it was to the Minister of Health. I am glad to think that there is such an able Minister of Health at the present moment, and per-
938
haps if he were always there, so far as I am personally concerned I might not mind, having regard to the view I hold of his great abilities. But he will not be always there and it is the principle that is wrong. It is for Parliament to make legislation but Parliament is not making legislation. It may be making legislation when it orders regulations under something that it has approved of and when it has laid down the principle, but it is not legislating when it enables a Minister of State or a Department to select out of Departmental Reports what shall be law and what shall not be law.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am somewhat in agreement with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken about the way in which we ought to legislate. I have just been to the Vote Office in order to see what was the Report of this Committee. I could not get a copy of the Report from the Vote Office. The officials could not tell me whether it had been issued as a Parliamentary Paper or whether it had been merely published from the Stationery Office and sent to the Department. It does seem to me that that is not the right way in which to legislate. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will hesitate before they accept the proposals contained in the Bill. Really we know nothing at all about the recommendations of this particular Committee upon which the whole Bill is based. The object may be very good, but I do not think we ought to legislate on this matter without full knowledge of the recommendations of the Committee.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord opposite will see fit to give effect to the observations which have been made respecting this Bill. Speaking for myself, I do not know whether the proposal is beneficial or not. I shall assume that it is, that it is really intended to remedy some evil, but we really have no knowledge of it. We have not seen the Report in question and there is nothing in the Bill which enables us to form a judgment. I have not the slightest desire to condemn the proposal in itself. On the contrary I am anxious to consider it and I am predisposed to think that it is intended to be of advantage in the working of the factories. But surely there is good ground for the criticisms that have been made. I was very struck by some of the observations

939
of the noble Lords who have criticised this method of legislation. It does seem striking that, when the Department has had this Report, as I gather, since some time early in 1928, there should now be introduced a Bill of which, since we have not the Report itself, we know nothing, apart from the very general observations—naturally we could not expect more—of the noble Lord who introduced it. We are asked to give powers to the Minister, which no doubt he will do his best to use conscientiously, to change four sections in an Act of Parliament. That is really a startling development, and it is the more startling for the fact that these regulations relate to offences.
It seems to me a reasonable proposal on the part of my noble and learned friend Lord Carson that the regulations should be placed in a schedule of the Bill, so that we may see what it is intended to do. There should be no difficulty in doing that. If I am not mistaken, this Report has been in hand for twelve months or more, and all that we have is the skeleton of a Bill which, as the noble Lord told us when he introduced it, gives effect to a Departmental Report of which, I may add, we have no cognisance whatever. We are really being asked to legislate in the dark and to give full power to a Minister, not only to make regulations, but to make regulations which will actually change an Act of Parliament in four sections. I do hope that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will see some way to meet us. The suggestions that we are making are in no sense unreasonable, and my object in intervening is not controversial in the slightest degree. I think that we on this side of the House are prepared to assume that the purpose of the Bill is a perfectly good one and, when we know more about it, it is quite probable that we shall be satisfied. I beg the noble Marquess to give effect to the views that have been expressed.
LORD DESBOROUGH: My Lords, I have very great pleasure in replying to the remarks made by my noble friends behind me and on the other side of the House. I must say, to start with, that I think that the cotton operatives, who have to work in these factories while we are talking, will be greatly disappointed with your Lordships' House if they are
940
told that, after three years of consideration and after the fifty years during which this matter has been discussed, and when we have arrived at an absolutely unanimous agreement among both operatives and employers of labour, your Lordships refuse to give a Second Reading to a Bill that is to embody the wishes of both sides.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: Am I mistaken in thinking that this Report has been in the hands of the Government for something like thirteen months? If the hurry is so great, why have we not had an opportunity of seeing it?
LORD DESBOROUGH: If noble Lords are anxious to pass the Bill as soon as possible, the delay cannot be a good argument against giving it a Second Reading at the present time. Whatever the reasons for the delay may have been, it is certainly no good reason or excuse, because the Bill has been brought in rather late, to say that, when it is brought in, it should not at all events be given a Second Reading. My noble friends behind me have complained about this being the Report of a Departmental Committee. I tried to explain when I was moving the Second Reading that the Departmental Committee was the result of a great many conferences that were held on this subject, at which both operatives and employers of labour were present and agreed that the matter should be referred to a Departmental Committee and that they would abide by its decision. That is what I understand to have occurred. The Departmental Committee represented all sides, including both operatives and employers of labour, and they took close on four years over the matter. They were appointed in 1924 by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Arthur Henderson, and they reported in 1928. Why this Bill was not brought in earlier I do not know, but still submit that, if it is brought in late, that is no good reason for making it later by refusing it a Second Reading at the present time.
The procedure in this Bill is exactly the same as the procedure adopted when Mr. McKenna, whom I have no doubt my noble friends accept as a good authority on these matters, was Home Secretary. There was the Report of a Committee and a short Bill was introduced in 1911 which is almost word for word the same Bill

941
as this. It empowers the Secretary of State for the time being, with the agreement of those interested in the matter, to issue regulations. This is constantly done, as my noble friends opposite must know. I have myself introduced Bills giving the Secretary of State power to draw up certain regulations in order to carry out certain recommendations. These regulations are all likely to be of a very technical character, concerning the size of pipes, humidity, wet bulbs, dry bulbs, and things of that kind, and it would be absolutely unprecedented to put all those details, which are agreed on by both sides and by those concerned with research and so on, into an Act of Parliament. Though they may be important in bulk, they are dealing with very small and detailed matters.
The Home Secretary is absolutely bound by this Bill not to go an inch beyond the recommendations of this Departmental Committee, which were generally agreed to, and if he does so he will, of course, be liable to be brought before the bar of public opinion in both Houses. In 1911, when the Liberal Government was in power, exactly the same procedure, word for word, was proposed as is proposed now, giving the Secretary of State power to issue regulations carrying out certain objects. The same point was raised then as has been raised by my noble friends behind me. I shall be most happy on behalf of the Government to give an undertaking that these regulations shall be laid on the Tables of both Houses for forty days, so that members of both Houses will be fully able to satisfy themselves that the regulations do not go one whit beyond that which is asked for—namely, that regulations should be formed to carry out recommendations which are agreed to and desired at the present time by all parties. I hope the House will be satisfied with this undertaking that the regulations will be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
I should like to explain, if I can, to my noble friend Lord Banbury the position regarding the repealing of certain sections of the principal Act. The object is to repeal the Act of 1911, which is exactly the same as this Bill, but to leave the regulations in operation until the new regulations have come into operation, when the regulations of 1911 will be repealed. We do not want to repeal the
942
regulations of 1911 until the new regulations have been sanctioned. The same thing applies to the principal Act of 1901, which is only altered so far as it is not in consonance with the new regulations.
LORD CARSON: May I ask the noble Lord whether it is the fact, as stated by Lord Banbury of Southam, that the Act of 1911 which the noble Lord says is the same as this Bill, had in it a provision as to holding an inquiry and hearing objections, and after that laving the regulations upon the Table of the House? That is a very different thing.
LORD DESBOROUGH: In this case, as these recommendations are practically agreed to by all sides, it was not considered necessary.
LORD CARSON: The Act of 1911 deals with regulations, not recommendations.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I hope the noble Lord will make it quite clear exactly what the proposal is. Is it that the regulations are to be laid upon the Table now, or is it that this Bill should be amended and that by an Amendment of this Bill, which will no doubt be introduced by the noble Lord himself on the Committee Stage, the regulations are not to come into effect until they have been laid upon the Table of this House for forty days? That is a very common form, and I do not think it is easy to find any objection to such a course, but I hope the noble Lord will allow me to say that no mention was made by my noble friends beside me of postponing the Second Reading. To say that the unfortunate workers would feel dissatisfaction with this House was really going a little bit beyond what my noble friends said. All the delay was in the Committee, which was appointed in 1924 and did not report before 1928. If we venture to plead for a little further delay, until the Report has been laid upon the Table or circulated in the usual way, I think it is a little unfair to criticise us in the circumstances. If the noble Marquess the Leader of the House will assure us that copies of the Report will be made available, either in the Vote Office or by being circulated in the usual way, and will say that when the next stage of the Bill is taken there will be an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, providing that the regulations shall be

943
laid upon the Table of the House for forty days, then, I think, a good deal of the criticism against the Bill will be at an end.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, this subject is a very old friend of mine, for I think I was responsible for introducing and passing through Parliament a Bill upon this very subject when I was a young Member of Parliament, forty years ago. Therefore I think you will see that it is not a subject that comes before Parliament for the first time. It is a very old and very controversial subject, and very technical in its character, dealing with subjects which—I hardly like to say what may seem to be derogatory—even the most skilful of your Lordships would not he qualified to understand without some training. The Government have no desire whatever to pass anything behind the backs of your Lordships, and I engage at once, in reply to noble Lords, that copies of the Report shall be at once laid before the House, and shall be made available in the Vote Office, far any noble Lord who desires to read it.
I hold a copy in my hand. Your Lordships will see that it is a Report of some length, and one which I have no doubt would repay careful study. It concludes with a list of the amendments of the existing regulations which the Departmental Committee recommend. They are very technical indeed, as my noble friend has said. They have to do with such technical subjects as thermometers, size of pipes, the amount of humidity, and ventilation, and I think that when your Lordships have spent two or three days in reading the Report you will realise the extent of the interest which is felt on the subject. The regulations will be at once laid before your Lordships. I agree with my noble friend, and with noble Lords who have offered criticisms, that matters of importance should not be passed merely upon the authority of a Department, without the cognisance of Parliament. I think that disposes of the main part of the criticisms.
As to Amendments being inserted in Committee, that must be a matter for a little consideration. As long as your Lordships are willing to give a Second Reading to the Bill, I do not desire for a moment to hurry on the next stage, and if my noble friend would like a fort-
944
night to consider the matter, that length of time shall certainly be afforded. Then I am sure we shall be able to arrive at a proper conclusion as to any Amendment to be inserted in Committee. The noble Earl suggests that an Amendment should be put in providing that the regulations should be laid before Parliament for a certain number of days. That is not at all an unreasonable suggestion to make, though forty days perhaps is rather long, and I think we should do well to follow the usual practice. Forty days means forty sitting days of the House, and that extends over a longer period than forty calendar days. I hope that your Lordships will allow the Bill to have a Second Reading. All the available material will then be placed at your disposal, and any reasonable Amendment will, of course, be considered.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IMPORTS OF GERMAN WHEAT.
LORD HARRIS LORD HARRIS had given Notice to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are aware that wheat is being imported into England from Germany, on which the grower has in effect received a bonus on exportation; and whether they do not consider that the British grower should be safeguarded against such dumping. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before putting this Question I will take the liberty of describing to your Lordships what is happening. The custom in Germany, so I understand, and on very good authority, is to sell wheat and some other grain by the thousand kilos., and the price is supposed to include the full duty of 50 marks a ton. The wheat when exported from Germany to any foreign country gets a certificate of the Customs authority that that quantity of wheat has been shipped, on which the duty of 50 marks a ton is refunded. I cannot imagine that the actual exporter is the only person who benefits by this 50 marks a ton. Same of it must filter down to the producer, who is thereby able either to put something in his pocket, or pay a lower wage, or in some other way produce the wheat a good deal cheaper than the British farmer can.
I hope that my noble friend [Lord Stradbroke] is not going to treat this as a small or insignificant matter that can be ignored. It is by no means a small or insignificant matter to the unfortunate farmers in the neighbourhood of the port where I know this is happening—it may be happening at a number of other ports, for all that I know. Those farmers have to take two or three shillings a quarter less than the normal price, or the price at which wheat would be sold there if it was not for this subsidised wheat that is coming in. This is an additional burden laid upon the unfortunate farmer. It is not merely that he has to compete with an Act which compels him to farm at certain hours of the day which do not suit him; it is not enough that he has to give a wage which, on, I should think, quite two-thirds of the land in England, it is quite impossible for the land to afford; it is not enough that he has to compete against the production of all the world; but he has actually to compete now against a subsidy paid by a foreign Government. I am rather interested to know whether noble Lords opposite on the front Bench above the gangway regard that as Free Trade—subsidised produce coming into this country. It certainly is not fair trade from our point of view. I am rather interested to know whether they think the British farmer is being fairly treated in having to compete against subsidised production.
I thought I was justified in putting the second part of my Question, because I studied the Prime Minister's speech at Newcastle very carefully. He said something there about Safeguarding. First of all he repeated the pledge that he gave in 1924, that he would put no tax on foodstuffs, and then he proceeded to say something about Safeguarding:—
"I will say a word about another way in which we can help industry"—
I suppose agriculture is an industry—
"and that is by Safeguarding. Nothing has given me greater satisfaction than to notice how gradually that process of Safeguarding, which has been tried with such successful remits in certain limited spheres in this country, is really passing from the political arena, and is being considered—as it should be alone considered—from the economic and business standpoints."
Well, that is rather encouraging for agriculture, as long as it applies to
946
agriculture, but there is not a word through all that speech about safeguarding agriculture. There is Safeguarding for industries but there is no specific reference to agriculture. I hope my noble friend Lord Stradbroke will be able to give me sonic encouragement.
By way of contrast I should like to read something else. It is from a speech delivered by a Mr. Wise. I do not know Mr. Wise, but I am told he is one of the economic experts of the Independent Labour Party. He, in a speech made, I think, about the same time, said that
"he realised that a Labour Government could hardly stand idly by whilst the steel industry, whether nationalised or not, was disorganised by the import of subsidised continental steel."
And he added:—
"Nor is there any advantage to the country in sporadic dumping of foreign agricultural produce here."
I should be very much interested, if they thought it worthy of their attention, any noble Lord on the front Opposition Bench would tell us what they think of Mr. Wise's opinions. They give us some encouragement, you know—we who are suffering, and we are suffering terribly. The nobly Earl below me [Lord Stradbroke] knows quite well that many, many farmers in this country are next door to bankruptcy, struggling ineffectually against prices and against the cost of labour. They had a splendid harvest last year, nobody could complain, but it was absolutely of no avail because of the cost of labour and because of world prices. Are we going to have any encouragement from the Government at all? I know what will be said: "Oh, yes, we are doing a great deal; there is the derating scheme, there is the loan scheme." They are not going to save a single farmer between now and Christmas from bankruptcy. That is the danger—that in many parts of the country we know that our neighbours are next door to bankruptcy, and will probably be bankrupt before Christmas; and we do not get one syllable of real encouragement as regards what is the real factor, and that is price.
I was not surprised—I was disappointed, but I was not surprised—when the Farmers' Union the other day criticised the Government and declined to join a conference. I was disappointed,

947
because I do not see what they are going to get out of it, unless the Labour Party are going to act upon Mr. Wise's advice and safeguard us against subsidised foreign importation. I am not surprised that the Farmers' Union decline to join any more conferences after all the talk that has gone on for the last four years. This is a specific fact: subsidised corn coming into this country. It may not be a very large amount at present, but there is nothing to prevent its growing into a big trade, and I am extremely anxious to hear what the Government have to say about it.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord in the appeal which he has made. This German wheat comes in under very peculiar circumstances, as the noble Lord has said. There is an Import Duty in Germany of 2s. 6d. a cwt. (I translate it into English money), which works out at something like 11 s. 3d. the quarter on foreign wheat. If a German producer exports home produce he receives from the Customs authorities a certificate, entitling him to import into the country a corresponding quantity of foreign wheat duty free; so that after you allow a certain profit for those who have speculated in certificates, he gets a bonus of l0 s. a quarter. This wheat began to come into this country in the last quarter of the present cereal year. It came in small quantities, in small vessels, along the coast, and it was offered in London in November at 43 s. or 44 s. Up to that time English wheat had sold freely and in fair quantities at 47 s. and 48 s. The German wheat brought it down to 43 s. or 44 s.
I am not saying that the quantity is very large, but I would appeal to the Ministry of Agriculture to consider this particular case. They may say, they probably will say, that when you are importing into this country upwards of 28,000,000 quarters it does not particularly matter if there is a small quantity coming in from still another country. May I point out that this is not enough from the agricultural point of view. In the first place, there is an enormous ploughed area in Germany which at present grows rye. If the producers of those rye harvests are tempted by a bounty of 10 s. a quarter to grow wheat
948
they will grow it, and though this import of German wheat may be a trickle to-day, how can you tell that it will not be a flood to-morrow? To-day, I believe, the total amount that is coming in is approximately 330,000 quarters—no great figure, I admit. Still, that £700,000 paid to foreign farmers for wheat would have gone to the English farmers.
I say advisedly "would have gone to the English farmers," for this is the point to which I venture to direct the special attention of the Minister of Agriculture. The ordinary wheat that we import into this country from North and South America, including Canada, is mostly hard wheat. Our wheats, which are soft wheats, are considered by our millers to make a good mixture with those hard wheats. That is partly why we get a sale for our soft wheats mixed with the hard wheats from foreign countries. Also, our soft wheats are mainly used in the manufacture of biscuits. The wheats from Northern Europe are soft wheats, like our own. The constituents are the same in the two sorts of wheat. And into the tiny corner of agriculture where our farmers have some sort of pull over the foreign producer comes this German rival with his bounty of 10 s. a quarter and drives the unfortunate farmer pretty well to desperation.
If I may venture to say so, arable farming in this country, from Dorset-shire right round to the eastern coast and northwards, is in a very difficult position. Numbers of farmers are on the verge of breaking. Those who have tried to help them have been urging them to pool their wheat so that they may obtain a capital loan on the amount of the wheat in the pool at once and save themselves a ruinous discount, and also gain the advantage of the better prices which prevail in the summer. How can you hope to go to the farmer and tell him to pool his wheat, when the answer is: "I sold mine at once, and I got 48 s. You tell me to keep it until December when I only get 43 s." Will they ever join a pool? Is it not hopeless? As long as you have these sporadic imports from unknown countries—we know where the rest is coming from and can prepare for it—it is impossible to do anything to organise the wheat trade of this country. I should like very strongly to appeal to

949
the Ministry to look into this question—it is not settled, as I have said, by urging that It is only 330,000 quarters out of 28,000,000—otherwise, the very thing for which we have a sale at present in the English wheat market will be cut into and that cut may rise to enormous proportions in the years to come.
All I would say further is that if the arable land of this country goes into grass you will depopulate a great number of our villages. Moreover, I should like to warn you of this—that not only are many farmers, as I believe, on the verge of bankruptcy, but poverty of the acute kind is already reappearing in our English villages. Therefore, I venture to appeal to the Ministry of Agriculture to do something in this question and to do it not merely with regard to German wheat but on a large scale in regard to wheat-growing altogether.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, may I take up the word "desperation" from the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. The matter itself may seem to be a small one but at the same time I believe that a gesture of encouragement from the Government, even in a small way, would hearten our farmers very considerably. Many of them are on the verge of bankruptcy. Many of them have gone bankrupt. Alas, only the day before yesterday I heard that two or three in their despair had committed suicide. I come from the great corn-growing area of England. Norfolk, as your Lordships are aware, grows more barley than wheat, but the whole of East Anglia is occupied, I think, with the growth of cereals.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, that we cannot possibly look on with equanimity while the cultivation of wheat is going out of practice. I know that there is one school among us which considers that the wheat-growing days of England are over; that we are, and always must be, dependent upon supplies from overseas and that as our own cultivation dwindles we shall import more and more. Such persons believe that the right thing is that all our land should go down to pasture or that we should turn it into dairy farms or orchards, and content ourselves with producing milk, fruit and so forth. But to my mind it
950
is unthinkable that we should entirely, and with equanimity, abandon the cultivation of wheat. I am not thinking only of the necessities of war time which may be very far ahead and need not be taken closely into view. There are other circumstances besides war that might make it extremely important for us to produce sufficient home-grown wheat to last us for a short time. Think of what would happen in a long protracted shipping strike. Think, again, of other things that might for a time interrupt the safe incoming of our supplies from overseas. I believe it is imperative for us at least to cultivate so much land as will give us, in case of an emergency, enough wheat to tide us over the acuteness of any particular crisis.
There are others who say the whole salvation of the farmer lies in co-operation. As I have had occasion to say elsewhere, I never can see that the gifts for co-operation and marketing are necessarily to be found in the man who is an expert farmer. Much good may come from co-operation; but to tell farmers that their only hope lies in taking up a line of business for which they have not been trained, and where the expert knowledge that they have achieved from generation to generation, because it is in the blood, will not be effective, seems to me to be rather cold comfort and in some senses rather irrelevant. The noble Lord who has just, sat down has pointed out the difficulties in the way of the new proposal that there should be a pool of wheat preventing farmers having all to sell at the same time when they want cash, and, therefore, securing only a small sum for their crops; he has already shown to us some of the flaws that lie in that line of argument, and even if it be carried through successfully it will not touch the root of the matter.
Other critics of the farmers tell us they are averse from paying good wages. I do not for a moment believe that to be true. I believe there is no industry in the country in which the master and man are drawn more closely together than in the great industry of agriculture. The masters and men I believe to be friends. There are no trade secrets in the matter. They have been in constant association, working often side by side upon the land, and I believe the labourers friends are to be found among the

951
masters above all other people. Of course they have to pay wages which, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, are not really justified by the profits of the industry, but even there I do not think the farmers are in an over-critical mood. What I think they would like to know is this—what principle is supposed to guide the actions of the Wages Board, whether the Board takes into consideration the general run of prices, the ups and downs of the prices of food, whether they consider the wages that the workers get at harvest time and so on, and their privileges, such as cottages, and many other things. I think if you asked the farmers they would tell you they would like to have it made rather plainer what principles are supposed to guide the Wages Board. I do not think you would find that the farmers were condemning either Party. I am certain the farmers themselves would be more pleased than anybody in the country if they were in a position to pay even higher wages than they are asked to pay at the present time.
I believe farmers would be greatly satisfied, if the Government would take a comprehensive view of this question of the imports of subsidised wheat, the facts concerning which have been so lucidly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Ernle. I think it would encourage them to go on and persist in the hope of better times to come. Those better times seem always to be rather far deferred, but some encouragement, I am inclined to think, would help them, and would have a value far beyond what may be the actual profit to be put into their pockets by any possible Government action in this matter. I very earnestly press that the Government may give a sympathetic reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I only rise for one moment because the noble Lord, Lord Harris, challenged this Bench as to what our policy was on this question. We probably approach the matter from a point of view quite different from that which he takes, but at the same time I think your Lordships will probably have gathered from the debate that we initiated some short time ago on wheat and meat prices and the establishment of wheat and meat import boards, that we do share in the very general dissatisfaction
952
which is felt in all sections of the population who have anything to do with agriculture. We quite agree with the noble Lord that the dumping of another nation's surpluses do not the slightest good to this country. The consumer, as a rule, gains very little, while the producer does not gain very much out of shortages, because there is always the middleman sitting in between, and he generally manages to pocket the difference.
Our policy is this. We believe that the fluctuations in prices are of no use either to the producer or to the consumer, and that they had very much better be done away with by means of national organisation for national purchase. The noble Lord may say that he does not see how that is going to help him in this particular case. But let me consider it for a moment. He tells us the German Government is giving a subsidy, or what amounts to a subsidy, to the German growers of wheat so as to enable them to import wheat into this country at a lower price than we can produce it here. Suppose you had a national wheat import board which had control of all the importation of wheat into this country. The Germans would have to bring their wheat to the board. They would have received a subsidy, and, therefore, would be able to offer it to the board at a reduced price. The board would be only too pleased to take their wheat at the lowest price at which they could buy it, but they would not be under the least obligation to put that wheat on the market at a price which would be likely to destroy the general stability of their market. It would be entirely against the interest of the hoard to do so and against our interest to do so, because our interest as a nation is to keep the price of wheat stable. What, therefore, would happen? The board would buy the wheat cheap; it would sell it at the stabilised price; and, in fact, the German Government would be giving a subsidy to our national wheat commission which, I should think, it would very soon cease doing as soon as it realised what it was about.
There is another solution, one that has been put forward once or twice by the noble Lord, Lord Ernle, which really goes further than our proposal. In a debate in this House a month or two ago he told us that he felt that something useful

953
might be done if you had an international board to deal with the commercial situation throughout the world; and on another occasion he said that there was nothing for it but to stabilise the world price by international agreement. That, of course, goes very much further than we have suggested, but if it was possible to work out a scheme on these lines it would undoubtedly gradually provide a solution for just such a problem as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has put before your Lordships' House to-day.
I would appeal to the noble Earl who speaks for the Government to take this opportunity of reconsidering the Government's refusal to have a general inquiry into the conditions of the importation of wheat and other essential food stuffs into this country. On another occasion when we debated this subject there were one or two noble Lords, notably Lord Ernle and Lord Harris, who said they would have supported me in my plea for this inquiry if in the Motion I had not definitely made the statement that in this way we would be able to produce certain results. Now, without in any way asking the Government to commit themselves beforehand as to what the result of this inquiry would be, I would ask them—and I believe in this both Lord Ernie and Lord Harris will support me—to reconsider their decision in refusing an inquiry and to institute it at once. They have not been able to do very much for agriculture so far but this is a chance to do something. Just as on the question of drainage the other day I told them that we would be very glad to carry on the good work in June if they did not have time to do so, so we would be very glad to put into force any recommendations that such a Committee might make.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY or AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF STRADBROKE): My Lords, the noble Lord who asked the Question, the noble Lord behind me and the noble Earl opposite all spoke of the great depression that hangs over certain branches of agriculture, and as I myself happen to live in the eastern part of the country I am naturally fully aware of the unfortunate position in which the arable farmers find themselves to-day. Therefore, your Lordships will realise
954
that personally, as well as representing the Ministry of Agriculture, I feel the greatest sympathy for the condition of these farmers. The Government are fully aware that German wheat is being imported into this country and that complaints have been made by British farmers with regard to it. The noble Earl opposite has raised again the question which he raised the other day in this House, when I replied that the Government did not see their way to go into the question of a national purchase of wheat, because it has already been reported against and we did not think any good would come from having a Commission to enquire into the question again.
With regard to the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Harris, it has already been pointed out that wheat from Germany is exported under a licensing system. Your Lordships are doubtless aware that this system was adopted under the Customs Tariff Law of 1902. This licensing system was naturally suspended during the war period, but it was introduced again in 1925. Even before the War a considerable quantity of wheat and flour was imported into this country. For instance, in 1911 the imports (expressed in terms of wheat) were 22,000 tons. In 1912 they had gone up to 41,000 tons, and in 1913 to 54,000 tons. Then came the War. In 1925 the system was again introduced and the imports that year amounted to 106,000 tons. In 1926 the imports rose to 120,000 tons, in 1997 they dropped to 17,000 tons, and in 1928 they rose again to 79,000 tons. I should say with regard to the small quantity imported in 1927 that for three months of that year—during the months of May, June and July—the licensing system was suspended. On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Ernie pointed out, the greater part of the wheat imported from Germany into this country is imported during the latter part of the year, during the months of November and December.
In practice this system is used to compensate exporters in Eastern Germany, which is, of course, the chief grain-producing part of the country, for the difference between German and world grain prices, resulting from the fact that Germany is a protected market and that therefore German prices are higher than world prices. The main object of the system appears to be to provide an outlet

955
for the surplus grain of Eastern Germany because the high cost of railway transport is said to restrict the movement of grain from the eastern to the western parts of Germany. It is therefore cheaper, they say, to import wheat into Western Germany from abroad than to transport it by rail from the Eastern provinces. Thus, a grain exporter in Eastern Germany, when he exports grain, receives an import licence authorising him to import grain, and this licence he can sell to a grain importer in Western Germany, who uses it to pay the duty on a corresponding quantity of foreign grain which he proposes to import. The essence of the system is this, that the German Government, having imposed a duty on imported cereals, remits that duty by means of import certificates in respect of a quantity equivalent to the quantity exported. The noble Lord refers to the system as being in effect a bonus on exported wheat, and I agree with him that the export licensing system does confer an advantage on the German wheat exporters, inasmuch as it enables them to sell abroad at a price below the price of the article at home owing to the sum which they receive from selling the licence certificates. But in this connection it is necessary to bear in mind that. Germany is a country with a protective tariff and that consequently the price of wheat in that country is higher than the world price and higher than it is in Great Britain.
It is a matter of regret to us from the point of view of the farmers that this trade, which is mainly limited to markets in the East of England—a part of England with which the noble Lord who asked the Question and myself as well as the right rev. Prelate are very closely connected—should enter into competition with home growers, but it is with very great regret that I must add that we cannot see that any action can be taken by the British Government. The only way of meeting this complaint that German exporters do in fact gain some advantage from this system, would either be by putting a differential duty on German wheat or by the prohibition of imports of German wheat. Your Lordships will realise that neither of these steps is practicable. Under the Anglo-German Treaty, the British Government are debarred from treating wheat of
956
German production differently in any way from wheat of other origin. The provisions with regard to the duties to be levied on German goods are contained in the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Treaty, which is as follows:—
"Articles produced or manufactured in the territories of one of the two contracting parties, imported into the territories of the other, front whatever place arriving, shall not he subjected to other or higher duties or charges than those paid on the like articles produced or manufactured in any other foreign country."
There is nothing in the Treaty which would entitle the British Government to regard wheat exported under the advantage of the export licensing system as not being a "like article" with wheat in general.
As regards prohibition of imports, the Treaty debars us from imposing any new prohibitions on the importation of German goods except prohibitions imposed no certain specified grounds, which are set out categorically in the Treaty. These exceptional grounds include, for example, sanitary grounds, as well as considerations of public safety, but they certainly do not afford any opportunity of imposing a prohibition for economic reasons. Furthermore, such prohibition would offend the Geneva Convention for the abolition of import and export prohibitions and restrictions, a Convention in which the British Government took the initiative. In any case, I am afraid it is impossible to go further, because a duty on or a prohibition of imported wheat, from whatever source, would be contrary to the Prime Minister's pledge not to tax foodstuffs, given before the last General Election and repeated in the Newcastle speech. I regret very much that I cannot hold out any hopes of assisting our arable farmers in this direction, but your Lordships will see from what I have said that, owing to the Convention and commercial Treaties in existence between this country and Germany, we cannot take any steps in this matter, though of course it is receiving our consideration and we shall do all that we can whenever opportunity arises to ameliorate the position of our arable farmers.
LORD HARRIS: I am not quite certain that I understood about the system of licensing. Is all wheat imported under a licence?
THE ERAL OF STRADBROKE: No. I am sorry if I did not express myself plainly. The German Government give a licence for any wheat that is exported.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I would venture in a very few words to say something in regard to this subject. It so happens, as I think many of your Lordships are aware, that it is proposed to hold a national conference on the subject of agriculture in London this month, and inevitably, as the result of the organisation necessary for bringing that conference together, one has been brought very closely into touch with all these sides of the agricultural question, and naturally the very subject which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has brought up this afternoon has not been lost sight of. I am bound to say, being very much concerned with the organisation of this conference, that I am extremely disappointed with the reply that has been given by my noble friend upon the Front Bench. I can quite see the difficulties in which he is
958
placed, but at the same time I had hoped that it would not have been beyond the wit of the Ministry of Agriculture to give in this matter some indication—I will not say of the difficulties of the farmer, for I am convinced that my noble friend is fully acquainted with them and that they have his sympathy, but some ray of hope in this matter towards those who are placed in such an unfortunate position at the present time
I do not wish b detain your Lordships to-night, but I hope that by a very thorough thinking out of these questions and of the problem of wheat growing in this country some solution may be found which may commend itself, not merely to one, but to all political Parties in the State, and may on able this basic industry to be in some measure restored to that activity upon which, as I think many of us feel, the real civilisation and wellbeing of the country as a whole largely depend.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.