Lords Sitting of 28 April 1931

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

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): My Lords, I should like to make a short statement with the permission of the House before we begin our business this afternoon. Your Lordships will recollect that you asked me to write a letter to the noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, not only expressing our great regret that he had resigned owing to the condition of his health but intimating to him that it was the unanimous desire of this House that he should reconsider his resignation, and, if possible, after a prolonged holiday, take up again the work he has done so admirably in the past. I had a letter from Lord Donoughmore, of which I think the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, both have copies, in which he expresses his deep gratitude to the House for the action they took last Tuesday in asking him to reconsider his decision. He said that he had delayed a little in sending his answer in order that he might give real and full consideration to the kind proposal which the House sent to him through me. I am sorry to say that the result of his consideration is that he is bound to ask us to consider his resignation as final.
Before coming to that determination, he said, he not only considered the matter with great care himself, but consulted the doctors in whose hands he was, and they told him that it really was impossible, owing to the condition of his health, to take up the duties of Lord Chairman again. Perhaps I may read the last passage in his letter. He writes:
"My heart is very full of gratitude and I am deeply touched, but I am sure that my duty to the House and my duty to myself both point in the same direction in asking to be finally relieved."
We shall, of course, have to accept that decision as final. I propose to-day to give Notice of a Resolution dealing with

879
the appointment of a successor to Lord Donoughmore when we meet to-morrow. I am told that it is right that Notice should be given of a suggestion of that character. I have had the advantage of consulting—in a very friendly manner, I hope I may say—with the Leaders of the two Parties opposite, and I think I may add that we are agreed and that the name we propose to bring forward is that of the Earl of Onslow.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has said I have been furnished with a copy of the letter written by the Lord Chairman. In view of its terms I think it is obvious that there is nothing we can do but accept his resignation with very great regret. Lord Donoughmore, in his resignation, has shown the same sense of public duty that your Lordships have learned to expect from him on every occasion in connection with this House, and I am sure we part with him with extreme regret. We feel that we are losing one who has served this House with dignity and efficiency for nearly twenty years. He carries with him in his retirement the best wishes of everyone of us for a speedy return to the enjoyment of health and strength, and, I hope, to many years of distinguished public service. With regard to the Motion which the noble and learned Leader of the House has set down for to-morrow, I have only to say that he and I and the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, have been in consultation about the matter and have taken such steps as we were able, and I hope the proposal which he is making to-morrow will be one which will commend itself to this House.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, it is not necessary for me to do more than re-echo what has been said by the two noble Lords who have spoken. It is a commonplace among some of us in this House that when the two Front Benches are agreed, the rights of Back Benchers are being infringed and when the three Benches are agreed it is perfectly certain that something wrong is being done. On this occasion, while we are unanimous in regretting Lord Donoughmore's resignation, I hope that to-morrow we shall be unanimous in welcoming his successor.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CITY OF WOR CESTER) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (MANCHESTER AND SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

PHARMACY AND POISONS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, before putting the Motion, that this Report be now received, I would ask leave to make a personal explanation arising out of one of the Amendments discussed in Committee. In a short statement in Committee I referred to the case which might possibly arise of an assistant breaking the regulations with regard to the sale of poisons with the connivance of his employer, and I said that in such a case, which must be very rare, we should be dealing with persons of low moral standard. In some journals the last words became detached from their context, and were made to refer to pharmaceutical chemists as a whole. It was not noticed in this House during the course of the debate, and nothing was further from my own mind, as I am fully aware of the importance of the service to the community rendered by pharmaceutical chemists, whose professional standard it is intended to maintain and raise by the proposed legislation. I therefore regret the misunderstanding, and I am obliged to your Lordships for having allowed me an opportunity to correct it.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 2:
Issue of certificates of registration, and penalties for abuse of certificates.
(2) If, with intent to deceive, any person—

(a) forges, or uses, or lends to or allows to be used by any other person a certificate of registration or any other certificate issued under any of the Pharmacy Acts; or

(b) makes or has in his possession any document so closely resembling any such certificate as aforesaid as to be calculated to deceive;

he shall, in respect of each offence, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and, in the case of a continuing offence to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for every day during which the offence continues.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to add to subsection (2) "after conviction therefor." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is really only a drafting Amendment. It would be unreasonable and contrary to the usual practice that the continuing penalty imposed by the clause for a continuing offence should begin to run before there has been a conviction for the offence.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 18, at end insert ("after conviction therefore").—(Lord ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Duty of authorised sellers of poisons to register business premises]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): The Amendment, on the Paper to this clause in the name of Lord Halsbury, to substitute "person" for "seller of poisons", is not moved.
Clause 5:
Authorised sellers of poisons furnish registrar with list of shops and pharmacists in charge.
5.—(1) Every authorised seller of poisons shall in the month of January in each year send to the registrar a list of all the sets of premises where his business, so far as it comprises the retail sale of drugs, is being carried on and the name of the registered pharmacist by whom the business is conducted on each set of premises.
(2) An authorised seller of poisons who fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, at the end of subsection (2), to
882
insert "and to a further fine not exceeding one pound for every day subsequent to the day on which he is convicted during which the default continues." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this point was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie of Thame, and Lord Danesfort, who put down an Amendment in Committee in order to meet their point. The clause is thereby made a little bit more drastic.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 11, at end, insert ("and to a further fine not exceeding one pound for every day subsequent to the day on which he is convicted during which the default continues").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I beg leave to thank the noble Lord for having met the point that I raised.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7:
Restriction on use of certain titles, etc.
7.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person unless he is registered as a pharmaceutical chemist to take or use the title of pharmaceutical chemist or pharmaceutist, or for any person unless he is registered as a pharmacist to take or use the title of chemist and druggist, or of druggist or of pharmacist or of member of the Pharmaceutical Society, or to take or use in connection with the sale of goods by retail the title of chemist.
(3) If a person acts in contravention of the foregoing provisions of this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, and to a further penalty of five pounds for every day during which the offence continues.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), after "retail," to insert "or the dispensing of medicines." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment was moved in Committee by Lord Hereford, who pointed out that it was designed to prevent the use of the title "chemist" by unqualified dispensers in a hospital or in the laboratory of a manufacturing house. In reply, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede said the point would be covered by an Amendment which would be moved by the Government to Clause 24. It is true the Amendment was negatived, but I think it must have been on the assurance that an Amendment was going to be moved to Clause 24, the Definition Clause, which, as far as I can see, was not done.

883
Therefore I think I am entitled to raise the point afresh. It does not appear that the point has in fact been covered, as there is nothing in Clause 24 which covers it. The Amendment seeks to prevent an unqualified person obtaining a post as a dispenser to a hospital and describing himself as "chemist" to the hospital. It frequently happens that there is writing paper or order papers specially printed for the use of the dispensary, upon which is the name of the person in charge of that department. If on the stationery in this way an unqualified dispenser is described as a chemist, the Amendment would make it illegal. Such a use of the title is not only misleading within the hospital itself, but might easily become a means whereby a person not entitled to do so could obtain possession of drugs, such as morphine, cocaine, or heroin, which, under the Dangerous Drugs Acts, may only be ordered by a medical practitioner or a pharmacist for hospitals.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 23, after ("retail") insert ("or the dispensing of medicines").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, what I think the noble Viscount does not quite appreciate is that the word "dispensing" really means supplying. So far as dispensing in shops is concerned, the point is already dealt with by the preceding words. If it is intended, as I gather from what the noble Viscount has said, that the Amendment shall cover the case of so-called dispensing in hospitals, the Amendment will not have that effect. An essential element in dispensing is, as I have said, supplying, as will be seen by the definition in the Bill. Therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, after the explanation I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment, but I would like to consult the Pharmaceutical Society in order to ascertain their views.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, my next Amendment, in subsection (3), is nothing more than a drafting Amendment, to bring the penalty in line with the other provisions of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 39, leave out from ("conviction") to the end of line 41, and insert ("in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and in the case of a contiuuing offence to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for every day during which the offence continues after conviction therefor").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Constitution of Statutory Committee]:
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, after subsection (4), to insert the following new subsection:
"(5) If the member appointed by the Privy Council becomes, by reason of illness or other infirmity temporarily incapable of performing the duties of his office, the Privy Council may appoint a deputy (who shall be a person having practical legal experience, but who need not be a member of the Society or of the Council of the Society) to perform his duties for any period not exceeding six months at one time, and the person so appointed shall, during that period, have the same powers as the person originally appointed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, since the Bill was last before the House the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has most courteously given me an opportunity of conferring with him on some of the points which I then raised, and I have reason to hope that in the form in which the Amendment now stands it will be acceptable. It will, therefore, not be necessary to trouble your Lordships at any length. The Amendment is intended to deal with the point that, as the Bill stands, the Statutory Committee cannot meet in the absence of the member appointed by the Privy Council.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 19, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the Government accept this Amendment. May I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in communicating with me, and thus saving a great deal of time?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Conditions to be fulfilled by pharmacist in order to become authorised seller of poisons.
11. A registered pharmacist carrying on a business which comprises the retail sale of drugs shall be an authorised seller of poisons within the meaning of this Act if the following conditions are complied with—

885

(a) in each set of premises where the business is carried on the business must be bona fide conducted by the pharmacist himself or some other registered pharmacist; and

(b) the name and certificate of registration of the person by whom the business is so conducted in any premises must be conspicuously exhibited in those premises.

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (a), after "in," to insert "every part of." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a manuscript Amendment, of which I have given private notice to the noble Lord. I am sorry I did not put it down on the Paper, but I only went into the case, which was reported in The Times, late last night, and had not time to get the Amendment printed on the Paper. The Amendment arises out of a rather disquieting case, which was reported in the Press at the end of last week. The name of the case is the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain versus Watkinson. It was the case of a coin-in-the-slot machine, in which the Pharmaceutical Society proceeded against Mr. Watkinson for the recovery of a penalty of £5 under Section 3 (1) of the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908.
In the course of his judgment Mr. Justice Talbot is reported to have said this:
"No one could doubt that if that which had been done by Mr. Watkinson could be done without breaking the law, it was very unfortunate, because, as had been pointed out by the County Court Judge, any child of a stature sufficient to enable him to reach the effective part of the machine could get one of these dangerous bottles. It did not seem beyond the province of the Court to say that the Pharmaceutical Society and others interested in those matters might well consider the question whether those methods of retailing poisons should not be directly controlled by the Legislature."
Further on he said:
"It appeared plain that the words 'in every premises' did not mean 'in every part of the premises,' or still less 'at all times or hours.'"
That is a very serious statement by one of His Majesty's Judges, and I have put down this and other Amendments to try to cover that point. If the noble Lord would like me formally to move them now and have a general discussion on them, after which he might put something down for the Third Reading which would really cover the point, I should be prepared not
886
to press the Amendment. But I think now is the time when the legislation should be altered to cover the case.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 23, after ("in") insert ("every part of").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, this is really not a point of great substance, but it is a point of some importance. There was a Committee which sat in the course of last year, when the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition expressed the very strongest views with regard to manuscript Amendments. He thought that manuscript Amendments should only be moved on the rarest occasions, and, although I did not agree with him in every case, I do think, as a member of the Committee, that I cannot allow this discussion to go on without protesting against the moving, and especially on Report, of a manuscript Amendment. I do not know what the Leader of the House will think, and I regret the absence of the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Earl, Lord Donoughmore, who was, I think, in the chair on that occasion, fully agreed as to the immense importance of preventing manuscript Amendments from being put into Bills at a late stage; and, although I do not wish to oppose the Amendment, I wish to enter a caveat, and I hope your Lordships will be very careful before adding anything in manuscript to this Bill on this occasion.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, with my short experience I hardly like to express any opinion with regard to procedure and to the proper course to take in reference to manuscript Amendments. I only received the notice of this Amendment an hour ago. It is a matter which may be of considerable importance. It is, quite obviously, not a matter that can be tucked into a Bill at the last moment. The case to which the noble Viscount has alluded is one against which there is going to be an appeal—I think an appeal is pending. As to whether special legislation would be required I am not in a position to say, and I cannot say whether, when this Bill goes to another place, it should be amended in this respect or not. But, in any case, I think your Lordships will agree that this is not the appropriate moment to deal with it in this Bill, and I cannot, there-

887
fore, for a moment accept any of the Amendments on this point which the noble Viscount has put down.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord to consider between this stage and Third Reading, with the help of his advisers, whether he might not put on the Paper an Amendment which would deal with this really very important point? Of course, I agree with everything that has been said as to the undesirability of manuscript Amendments coming before your Lordships' House at a late stage of a Bill; but in this case it has been very difficult to put down the Amendment earlier, owing to the fact that this case was only decided quite recently. But the noble Lord will have time between this and Third Reading to consider it carefully, and, if he thinks fit, to prepare a new clause or an Amendment. It may be said that there is an appeal pending, but it is by no means certain that the appeal will succeed, and, unless some clause of the kind is put into the Bill now, it may be six months, or possibly a year, before this really very serious matter can be put right.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I should like to say a word in confirmation of what the noble Earl has said. It is, I think, one of the things we boast of in this House that we carry on our proceedings in such a form that matters are properly considered, and if words are inserted in a Bill they are inserted in proper form. That is quite impossible if at the last moment a manuscript Amendment of this character is put forward. I dissent from any proposal further to consider it now. But this Bill will go to another place. They have the power there of revising what we do, as we have the power of revising what they do. But, so far as this House is concerned, I hope that we shall maintain our attitude that manuscript Amendments brought forward at the last moment on Report are not then considered. I say nothing about the Third Reading—we are not upon that at the present moment—although I should deprecate it even then. I hope this Amendment will be negatived.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I wish to support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp, and by
888
the Leader of the House. I do not think we can discuss this matter on a manuscript Amendment, although I ought to say, in justice to my noble friend, that it was quite impossible for him to do otherwise than he did, because he did not hear of the case until the Amendments had been printed. I think your Lordships would agree that, in view of the importance of the matter, he was perfectly right to bring it before your Lordships' House. Possibly it might be put down on Third Reading and then discussed, but possibly not passed; but, as the noble Lord the Leader of the House said, there will be an opportunity of further consideration of the matter before this Bill can become law.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, may I add to what my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, that I am afraid on Third Reading my attitude would be precisely the same as it is about introducing this into the Bill on the Report stage. The Third Reading will probably have to be taken in the course of a very few days as it is necessary for this Bill to go to another place, and I think it is extremely doubtful that such an important matter as this can be dealt with by merely amending a sentence in the Bill. Therefore, I would not hold out to the noble Viscount any prospect of a change of attitude if he were to raise the question again on Third Reading.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, in my speech—
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not think that on the Report stage the noble Viscount has the right to address the House again. If we get the Committee principle of procedure on the Report stage we shall never get done.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The noble and learned Lord did not reprove his colleague Lord Ponsonby when he made a second speech, and I think I am entitled to say—
LORD PARMOOR: I really must protest as Leader of the House. I ought, perhaps, to have reproved Lord Ponsonby, but I did not know. On the Report stage we must keep to one speech.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I ask the leave of your Lordships' House to reply.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I was careful to say in my speech that I was not going to press this Amendment now. I only asked the noble Lord to consider the point and to put something down on the Third Reading. For my part I do not care a snap of the finger whether this House does it or the other place, so long as it is done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12:
Conditions to be fulfilled by body corporate in order to become authorised seller of poisons.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in Section five of this Act a body corporate which is an authorised seller of poisons may, if the superintendent is a member of the board of directors or other governing body of the body corporate, use the description of chemist and druggist, or of chemist, or of druggist, or of dispensing chemist or dispensing druggist, and the description "pharmacy" may be used in connection with the business.
(3) If—

(a) a body corporate which is an authorised seller of poisons has been convicted of an offence against the Pharmacy Acts; or

(b) any director or officer of or other person in the employment of that body has been convicted of any such criminal offence, or been guilty of any such misconduct, as, in the opinion of the Statutory Committee, renders him, or would if he were a registered pharmacist render him, unfit to be on the register;

the Statutory Committee may inquire into the case and may, unless the body corporate satisfies them that the act or omission which was the ground of the conviction or which constituted the misconduct was not instigated or connived at by any of their directors or by their superintendent or any other of their officers, direct—

(i) that the body corporate shall cease to be an authorised seller of poisons and shall cease, either generally or in respect of specified premises, to be entitled to use any title or description which a body corporate being an authorised seller of poisons is entitled to use;

(ii) that any or all of the premises of the body corporate shall be removed from the register of premises and be disqualified, for such period as may be specified in the direction, from being registered therein.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the first Amendment is really drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 24, leave out ("five") and insert ("seven").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise the use of any of the said titles or descriptions in or on any premises which are for the time being disqualified under the next succeeding subsection from being registered in the register of premises, or in connection with any business so far as it is carried on in any premises so disqualified."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this really amounts to a drafting Amendment. This and my next Amendment, which is to omit all words in paragraph (i) in subsection (3) after "poisons", make the point clearer and place the matter in a more appropriate position. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 31, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"A body corporate which is entitled by virtue of the provisions of this subsection to use the descriptions aforesaid may, if it is a private company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1929, and every director of the company is a pharmaceutical chemist, also use the description of pharmaceutical chemist or of pharmacist."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, whilst not perhaps covering all cases where objection cannot be taken to the use of these titles, will give some latitude to a pharmacist who wishes to follow the present tendency of converting an individual business into a private limited company without sacrificing his right to the use of the title "pharmacist." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 31, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 6, leave out from ("poisons") to the end of line 10, and insert ("or").— (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13:
Continuation by a representative of business of pharmacist who has died, become of unsound mind or been adjudged bankrupt.
13.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if at any time after this section comes into force a registered pharmacist who is an authorised seller of poisons dies or becomes of unsound mind or is adjudged bankrupt, any representatives who thereafter carry on his business in accordance with the conditions hereinafter specified shall, for the purposes of that business and during the period specified in subsection (2) of this section, be authorised sellers of poisons and be entitled to use in conjunction with the trade name of the pharmacist, such titles, emblems and descriptions as might have been used by the pharmacist.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "or becomes of unsound mind or is adjudged bankrupt." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have given private notice to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill of my reason for moving this Amendment. In the Committee stage of the Improvement of Livestock (Licensing of Bulls) Bill I put an Amendement on the Paper to cover this very point with regard to certificates for keeping bulls. I was approached before the Committee stage of that Bill and asked particularly not to move the Amendment because it would upset the whole law of bankruptcy and it would be inadvisable in the case of lunatics. I was very much surprised to see that the noble Lord had an Amendment in Committee to cover that point in this Bill and I think it requires some explanation. I shall not press my Amendment to a Division because I approve of the words. But I think some explanation is required. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 22, leave out from ("dies") to ("any") in line 23.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount for having explained to me his purpose in bringing this matter forward.
892
The words he proposes to omit were inserted at the particular request of the Pharmaceutical Society. I think the noble Viscount will see that if they were omitted it would not be possible for the business of an insane or a bankrupt registered pharmacist to be carried on. This would be really an injustice to his relatives and his creditors. It was on the representation of the Pharmaceutical Society that we put the words in.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [New provisions to be substituted for existing provisions as to sale of poisons]:
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I am not sure that I am in order in drawing the attention of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to a very conditional promise he made me as to Clause 15. If I am in order, may I take it that the noble Lord—
LORD PARMOOR: Is the noble Lord proposing an Amendment on the Report stage?
LORD PHILLIMORE: No, I am merely drawing the noble Lord's attention to this point.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think this is the time to do it. There will be an opportunity, no doubt, on Third Reading. That is not ordinarily done on the Report stage.
Clause 17:
Preparation of list of poisons for purposes of Act.
17.—(1) The Secretary of State shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act cause the Poisons Board to prepare and submit to him for his approval a list of the substances which are to be treated as poisons for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The list to be prepared under this section shall be divided into two parts as follows:—
Part I of the list shall consist of those poisons which, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, are not to be sold except by persons who are authorised sellers of poisons, and
Part II of the list shall consist of those poisons which, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, are not to be sold except by persons who are authorised sellers of poisons or by persons entitled by virtue of Section eighteen of this Act to sell poisons included in the said Part II.
(3) The Secretary of State shall forthwith take into consideration the list submitted to him by the Poisons Board, and may by order confirm it with or without modifications, as he thinks proper.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, my first two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 12, line 13, leave out ("this Part of")
Page 12, line 17, leave out ("this Part of").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "entitled by virtue of Section eighteen of this Act to sell poisons included in the said Part II," and to insert "whose names are entered in a list kept under Section twenty of this Act." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a series of Amendments, and I desire to make it plain that there will be power by rules made under the Bill to restrict any undesirable Part II poisons which may be sold by a registered person in certain cases or to restrict the sales of certain Part II poisons to certain classes of registered persons. To do this involves differentiating between persons whose names are on a list kept under Section 20, and it is thought that the phraseology used here and elsewhere in the Bill would, if not amended, imply that such differentiation was perhaps impossible, and that every person whose name is included in the list kept under Section 20 would be necessarily entitled to sell every poison for the time being listed in Part II of the list. The noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, called my attention to the matter on the Committee stage and I think this series of Amendments will meet his point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 20, leave out from ("persons") to the end of line 22 and insert ("whose names are entered in a list kept under Section twenty of this act").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert:
894
"Provided that where the Secretary of State proposes to confirm the list with modifications the Secretary of State shall inform the Poisons Board of the proposed modifications and give to the Board a reasonable opportunity of making any observations with respect thereto, and shall, before finally confirming the list, take into consideration any observations so made."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name deals with a point of some importance. It is to ensure before the Secretary of State departs from the recommendations of the Poisons Board that the Board shall have an opportunity of upholding its point of view. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 26, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18:
Prohibitions and regulations with respect to sale of poisons.
18.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, it shall not be lawful—

(a)

(b) for any person to sell any poison included in Part II of the Poisons List, unless either—

(i) that person is an authorised seller of poisons and the sale is effected on premises duly registered under Part I of this Act by or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist; or

(ii) that person is a person entitled by virtue of Section eighteen of this Act to sell poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List and the sale is effected on the premises specified in the list kept under the said section as premises on which that person is entitled to sell such poisons:

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act and to any rules made under this Act dispensing with or relaxing any of the requirements of this subsection—
(a)
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), immediately before paragraph (a), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(a) for any person to keep open shop for the dispensing of prescribed medicines unless that person is an authorised seller of poisons."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this point was reserved by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, although in very guarded terms. I think he said that it would require a greater armoury of arguments directed in support of the Amendment than were at that time forthcoming. The Amendment was originally in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, who, as your Lordships know, cannot be here, and I have been asked to move it in this amended form. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, took objection to it, I think on four grounds, one of which was that it would involve great hardships, because there are many parts of the country where there is no registered pharmacist within reach. That this would not result is shown by the working of the National Health Insurance Act, under which all farm workers in fact come, and who are in most country districts supplied with medicine dispensed by the doctor. If the paragraph was adopted, doctors being free to dispense, the same practice would prevail.
Lord Ponsonby's second objection was based upon the fact that the Society's Amendment as originally drafted would prevent the supply of simple, uncompounded medicines. For that purpose, the wording of the proposed Amendment has been changed, and the word used is "dispensed," which is the word used in the National Health Insurance Act. The noble Lord also objected on the ground that it would interfere with the possibility of persons holding the assistant's certificate of the Society of Apothecaries, and ex-Army compounders, from dispensing in chemists' shops. As redrafted, the Amendment overcomes this objection. A further objection was that it would lead to an increase of price, an argument with which I should be in very great sympathy, but I would point out to the noble Lord that there are over ten thousand shops which would be qualified to dispense in this country, and that the ordinary rules of competition would probably ensure a sufficiently cheap supply. The noble Lord also suggested that the Amendment would interfere with the supply of veterinary medicine. With that point again I should be in the greatest sympathy, and I have received from the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons a suggestion that qualified surgeons should be added to the doctors and dentists as persons qualified to dis-
896
pense. I hope that the noble Lord would, if he accepted the Amendment, also accept the suggestion of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. The arguments in favour of doing away with open shops were placed before your Lordships on Second Reading., and it is not necessary for me to reiterate them. I would only add that, owing to a clerical error, the words "prescription only given" in an Amendment to Clause 26 were intended to read "prescription duly given" and I hope the noble Lord may agree to the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 38, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, this Amendment, as the noble Lord has explained, is another attempt on his part to get this particular form of wording included in this Bill. In a later Amendment, as he says, he proposes to define "prescribed medicine" as meaning a medicine" ordered on the prescription duly given by a duly qualified medical practitioner or by a registered dentist." As dispensing a medicine is defined in Clause 26 as supplying a person "in accordance with a prescription duly given by a duly qualified medical practitioner," the effect of this proposed Amendment would be to prevent any person, except the registered pharmacist, supplying a medicine on a doctor's prescription. This was the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, on Committee stage. This is a matter of a very far-reaching character. We have consulted very closely with the medical profession on this point, and we have their whole-hearted support for the attitude we are taking up. This is asking for the pharmaceutical chemist an absolute monopoly and a control of prices. The analogy, as I pointed out in Committee, with the provision under the National Health Insurance Act, is not the same, because there the prices are controlled. This would give a complete monopoly, and also it would rule out Army dispensers, those who have certificates of the Society of Apothecaries, and any unregistered pharmacist. Whether that should be done or not I do not want to say now, but it is quite obvious that if such a very drastic proposal is to be adopted and to be included in an Act of Parliament, there should be a very wide-

897
spread inquiry into the whole case before legislative action is taken. I am afraid I cannot alter the attitude which I adopted on the Committee stage, and I must refuse to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the next Amendment in my name is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 9, after ("Act") insert ("and").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (1) (b), to leave out paragraph (ii) and insert:
"(ii) his name is entered in a list kept under Section twenty of this Act, and the sale is effected on premises specified in that list as being premises on which he is entitled, subject to the provision of this Act, to sell poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List."
The noble Lord said: This is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 12, leave out paragraph (ii) and insert the said new words.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2). immediately before paragraph (a), to insert "in respect of any poison or class of poisons in Part I of the Poisons List." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make it clear that it is possible for the poisons in Part I of the Poisons List to be divided into one or more classes, and that regulations may be made applying different provisions to different classes within Part I. The Amendment was put down in a different form in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said he thought that the Government's Amendment designed to cover this point did all that was necessary, but was ready to consider any further Amendment. The present wording of the introductory paragraph to Clause 18 (2) makes it clear that rules can be made dispensing with or relaxing any of the requirements of the subsection, but does not go to the extent of putting it beyond question that the poisons in Part I of the Poisons List can be divided into different categories. I suggest that the new Amendment, with-
898
out in any way weakening the rule-making powers of the Secretary of State, and without limiting the discretion of the Poisons Board, makes it clear that the poisons in Part I could be divided into classes, as, for example, poisons which could only be sold upon a medical prescription, poisons upon the sale of which a signature would have to be obtained in the poisons book, and poisons which could be sold without restriction provided they were labelled with the word "Poison." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 38, at end insert ("in respect of any poison or class of poisons in Part I of the Poisons List").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am in full agreement with the point which the noble Viscount has argued and it is merely a question as to whether the Bill, as it stands, makes that clear or not. I have gone into this very carefully and have consulted high legal authorities, and I am advised that the words which the noble Lord proposes to insert are really unnecessary and do not add any effect to the Bill as it stands. The various categories of poisons are defined and it is not really necessary to refer to them again in the words he proposes. His particular point is safeguarded.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19:
Exemption with respect to sales wholesale and sales to certain persons.
19. Except as provided by rules under this Act, nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall extend to or interfere with—
(5) the sale of an article by a person carrying on a business, a substantial part of which consists of the sale of poisons either by way of wholesale dealing or for use by the buyers thereof in their trade or business to—
(a) a person who requires the article—

(i) for the purpose of his trade or business; or

(ii) for the purpose of enabling him to comply with any requirements made by or in pursuance of any enactment with respect to the medical treatment of persons employed by that person in any trade or business carried on by him; or

LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in paragraph (5) (a) (i), after "business," to insert "or incidental thereto." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put my Amendments on the Paper because it was suggested to me that the Bill was inclined to restrict the facilities which agriculturists have at the present moment of obtaining poisonous substances, but I am given to understand that, on the contrary, it extends those facilities and does not restrict them. I shall therefore formally move this Amendment in order to give the noble Lord in charge of the Bill an opportunity of saying that that is the case.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 32, after ("business") insert ("or incidental thereto").—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The noble Lord, Lord Strachie, is quite correct in the inference he draws from examining this clause, because, if the intention of his Amendment was to help the farmers, which I gather it is, this really would do nothing in that respect, whereas the Bill as it stands is favourable to their particular case.
LORD STRACHIE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20:
Certain persons other than authorised sellers of poisons to be entitled to sell poisons in Part II of Poisons List.
20.—(1) Every local authority shall keep for the purposes of this Part of this Act a list of persons who, not being entitled to sell poisons included in Part I of the Poisons List, are entitled to sell poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List, and shall, on payment of such fee as is hereinafter provided, enter in the list the name of any person who, having premises in the area of the authority, makes an application in writing to the local authority in the prescribed form to have his name entered in the list as a person entitled to sell such poisons on those premises:
Provided that the local authority may refuse to enter in, or may remove from, the list the name of any person who in the opinion of the authority is, for any sufficient reason relating either to him personally or to his premises, not fit to be on the list.
(5) If any person whose name is on the said list is convicted before any court of an offence against the Pharmacy Acts or of any other criminal offence which, in the opinion of the court, renders him unfit to have his
900
name on the list, the court may, as part of the sentence, order his name to be removed from the list and direct that he shall, for such period as may be specified in the order, be disqualified for having his name on any list kept under this section.
(8) It shall not be lawful for any person whose name is entered in a list kept under this section to take or use, or affix to, or use in connection with his premises any title, emblem or description reasonably calculated to suggest that he is entitled to sell any poison other than a poison contained in Part II of the Poisons List, and if any person acts in contravention of this subsection he shall, in respect of each offence, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding twenty pounds, and in the case of a continuing offence to a further penalty of five pounds for each day during which the offence continues.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 12, leave out ("are") and insert ("shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the next Amendments are also drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, lines 13 and 14, leave out ("on payment of such fee as is") and insert ("subject as")
Page 17, line 16, leave out ("in writing")
Page 17, line 18, after ("entitled") insert (''subject to the provisions of this Act")
Page 17, line 22, after ("who") insert ("fails to pay the prescribed fees or who").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"and provided that the local authority before inserting the name of an applicant in the list shall take into consideration whether in the neighbourhood where the applicant carries on or intends to carry on business the reasonable requirements, of the public with respect to the purchase of poisons in Part II of the Poisons List are satisfied."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment was moved by my noble friend Lord Askwith in Committee in the same words. In replying, my noble friend said this was a matter which he would look into. He understood the point, but was not prepared at the

901
moment to say whether he could accept it. He thought he might possibly meet the point on the Report stage. The Bill, as it is drawn, requires local authorities to put upon the list the name of every applicant, unless there is some objection to him personally or to his premises. Under the Poisons and Pharmacy Act, 1908, before a, licence to sell agricultural and horticultural poisons can be granted, the applicant has to publish notice of his intention to apply for such a licence in two newspapers circulating in the neighbourhood, he has to give notice to the Chief Officer of Police and, before granting a licence, the local authority is required to take into consideration whether in the neighbourhood where the applicant carries on or intends to carry on, business the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the purchase of these poisons are satisfied. They have also to consider any objections that may be received from the Chief Officer of Police or from existing vendors of these substances.
The effect of the Bill in its present form is to sweep away these restrictions. Any one may be listed as a seller of these poisons, and the local authorities have no power to prevent the multiplication of the channels through which such deadly poisons as arsenical sheep dip or weed killer may reach the public far beyond the needs of the locality. It is with the object of restoring to the local authorities the discretionary power which they have hitherto enjoyed that this Amendment is framed. I would like to read a passage from the Justice of the Peace and Local Government Review on this clause:
"The conditions are of the simplest character. Any person having a place of business in the area of the authority may apply in writing to the local authority to have his name entered on the list of authorised sellers allowed to sell these things, and unless, in the opinion of the local authority, there is a sufficient reason relating either to him personally or to his premises, he will go automatically on the list. All he has to do then is to have his premises registered, and observe some simple regulations as to labelling…. Local authorities are not likely to refuse registration except for some very serious reason; and as they are only to consider the fitness of the applicant and of his premises they are not likely to trouble themselves about the nature of the poisons covered by a licence to sell… Applicants for such licences are required to be advertised in
902
the local Press, so that objections may be lodged against the granting to them of licences: such publicity will no longer be required, nor will any opportunity be given of urging objections."
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the noble Viscount quite rightly reminds me that on the Committee stage I promised the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, to look into this particular point. On looking into it further, I am, however, only fortified in the attitude I took on the Committee stage. It has been found in practice that very strong pressure is being brought to bear on local authorities by interested parties to prevent licences being granted. The strongest evidence was laid before the Departmental Committee on the point and the farmers were unanimous in demanding that the provisions of the existing law upon the subject—namely, the provisions about reasonable requirements—should be abolished. The Government have heard that farmers' co-operative societies have repeatedly been prevented from obtaining licences for the supply of agricultural necessaries which contain poison, and I had placed before me by the Ministry of Agriculture a table with a number of instances where this very undesirable restriction has been exercised. In the face of these facts and with a view of giving what support we can to the agricultural industry, it would be impossible for me to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I have several drafting Amendments to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 7, leave out from the first ("is") to ("criminal") in line 9, and insert ("entered in any list kept under this section, is convicted before any court of any ")
page 18 line 29, leave out from ("to") to ("any ") in line 30, and insert (" use in connection with his business")
page 18 line 33, leave out ("contained in Part II of the Poisons List") and insert ("which he is under this Act entitled to sell").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, my next Amendments bring the form of the penalty clause into line with the form of the other penalty clauses in the Bill.
Amendments moved—
Page 18, line 36, leave out ("penalty") and insert ("fine")
page18 line 38, leave out ("penalty of ") and insert ("fine not exceeding")
page18 line 39, at end insert ("after conviction therefor").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 21 [Power of Secretary of State to make rules]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 15, leave out from ("persons") to ("and") in line 17, and insert ("whose names are entered in lists kept under Section twenty of this Act and for prohibiting the sale of any specified poison or class of poisons by any class of such persons ")—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 7, at end insert:
("(j) for prescribing anything which is by this Act to be prescribed").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 22 [Penalties]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, these are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 14, leave out ("(7) of Section eighteen,") and insert ("(8) of Section twenty")
page 20, line 17, leave out ("penalty '') and insert ("fine'')
Page 21, line 1, leave out ("penalty") and insert ("fine")—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 23:
Inspection and enforcement of Act.
(5) It shall be the duty of every local authority by means of inspection and otherwise to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance by persons not being authorised sellers of poisons with the provisions of Part II of this Act and of the rules made
904
under this Part of this Act so far as those provisions relate to poisons included13, at end insert the in Part II of the Poisons List.
(6) The inspection required by the last preceding subsection may be carried out either by persons appointed by the authority to act as inspectors for the purposes of that subsection or by persons who are inspectors appointed by the Society under This section, and any such inspector whether appointed by the Society or by the local authority shall, for the purposes of the last preceding subsection, have power at all reasonable times to enter any premises on which any person entitled by virtue of Section eighteen of this Act to sell poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List carries on business, and any premises on which the inspector has reasonable cause to suspect that a breach of the law has been committed in respect of any such poisons, and in either case shall have power to make such examination and inquiry and to do such other things (including the taking, on payment therefor, of samples) as may be necessary for the purposes of the inspection.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert "and for that purpose to appoint inspectors, and an inspector appointed by the Society in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section may, with the consent of the Society, be appointed by a local authority to be also an inspector for the purposes of this subsection." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause reads as if there were a possibility of double inspection in regard to Part II. The sole object of the Amendment standing in my name is to make it quite clear that only one inspection is possible.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 13, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, in subsection (6), to leave out all words down to and including "by the Society or" and to insert "an inspector appointed." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 14, leave out from the beginning to the second ("by") in line 19 and insert ("an inspector appointed").—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The next Amendments are drafting Amendments dealing with points to which I have already referred.
Amendments moved—
Page 22, line 22, "leave out from ("person") to ("carries") in line 24, and insert ("whose name is entered in a list kept under Section twenty of this Act")
Page 23, line 3, leave out ("penalty") and insert ("fine")
page 23,line 13, after ("shall") insert ("in respect of each offence").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 24:
Orders and rules to be laid before Parliament.
24. All orders and rules made by the Secretary of State under this Act shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of thirty days during the Session of Parliament and, if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament before the expiration of that period, praying that the order or rule may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of any new order or rule.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, at the end, to insert:—
"Provided that any order confirming with amendments the Poisons List as submitted to the Secretary of State by the Poisons Board, or amending or varying the Poisons List otherwise than on the recommendation or with the concurrence of the Poisons Hoard, or making rules under Section twenty-one other than rules recommended by, or concurred in by, the Poisons Board, shall, when so laid before each House of Parliament be accompanied by a statement of the reasons of the Secretary of State for so making such order or rules without the concurrence of the Poisons Board."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although this may introduce a new feature into the process of legislation by order, it seems only reasonable, if the Secretary of State thinks it is necessary to depart, from the advice of experts appointed by Parliament, that Parliament should be told why the Secretary of State thought that necessary when Parliament is asked to confirm the order. I am not sanguine enough to think that when the Secretary of State is asked to give a statement of reasons the reasons which he gives will be very informative. My only object is that some signal should be exhibited denoting the conflict between the experts appointed by Parliament and the expert advisers of the Minister. I am glad to know that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill may
906
be able to accept this Amendment, which I think would go far to remove some of the objections.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 29, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am glad to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25:
Expenses of local authorities.
25. Any expenses incurred by a local authority under this Act shall be defrayed, in the case of the council of a county, as general county expenses, and, in the case of the council of a county borough, out of the general rate fund.
LORD EBBISHAM LORD EBBISHAM moved, after "defrayed," to insert "in the case of the Common Council of the City of London, out of the general rate." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord in charge of the Bill for his advice in connection with this Amendment. The object of the Amendment is to make the local authority in the City of London the Common Council. Under the Bill as it stands at present the local authority for the whole of London, including the City, would be the London County Council, who I understand have no objection to the alteration which I now propose.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 31, after ("defrayed") insert ("in the case of the Common Council of the City of London, out of the general rate").—(Lord Ebbisham.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am glad to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26:
Interpretation.
26. In this Act, unless the context other wise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Local authority" means as respects a county the council of the county and as respects a county borough the council of the borough:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause of which I have given Notice is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 39, leave out from ("section") to ("respectively") in line 40, and insert ("eleven, Section twelve, and Section thirteen").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD EBBISHAM: My Lords, the Amendment of which I have given Notice is also consequential. It is to insert certain words after "'Local authority' means."
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 10, after ("means") insert ("in London, as respects the City of London, the Common Council, as respects the rest of the administrative city of of London, the County Council, and elsewhere").—(Lord Ebbisham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE had given Notice to move to insert "'Prescribed medicine' means medicines ordered on the prescription duly given by a duly qualified medical practitioner or by a registered dentist." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential to my Amendment to Clause 18 which was not accepted. Therefore I do not move it.
Clause 27 [Application to Scotland]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the Amendments standing in my name are all consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 25, line 12, leave out ("eleven") and insert ("thirteen")
page 25 line 31, leave out ("eighteen") and insert ("twenty")
page25 line 34, leave out ("Section twenty") and insert ("subsection (3) of Section twenty—two").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Constitution of Poisons Board.
1. The Board shall consist of fifteen members:
2. The Board shall he composed of the following persons, namely:—
One person appointed by the Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Ireland;
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, the first two Amendments on the Paper are drafting Amendments.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 4, leave out ("fifteen") and insert ("sixteen'')
page 27, line 29, after ("the") to insert ("Council of the").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, at the end of the Schedule, to insert "8. The quorum of the Board shall be eleven." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is to deal with the quorum. It provides that the quorum of the Board shall be eleven. It was thought on the whole that that would be the most suitable number.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 11, at end insert ("8. The quorum of the Board shall be eleven").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

YARMOUTH NAVAL HOSPITAL BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references arc to Bill No. (54).]
Clause 9, page 8, leave out Clause 9 and insert the following clause:
Misstatements in certificates, etc.
(". —(1) Any person who makes a wilful misstatement of any material fact in any medical or other certificate or in any statement of bodily or mental condition under this Act stall be guilty of a misdemeanour.
(2) A prosecution for an offence under this section shall not be instituted except by the direction of the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions.")
Clause 10, page 8, line 37, at end insert:
("(d) Subsection (2) of Section nine of this Act shall not apply.")
Page 9, line 17, at end insert:
("(d) for any reference to the Attorney-General or to the Director of Public Prosecutions there shall be substituted a reference to the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.")
LORD MAKLEY: My Lords, the Amendments which are in your Lordships' hands are Amendments inserted in another place. They are purely formal and drafting, and I beg to move that your Lordships agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SMOKE ABATEMENT.
VISCOUNT MERSEY VISCOUNT MERSEY asked His Majesty's Government what measures are now being taken to deal with smoke abatement. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I should be very grateful if, with your Lordships' permission, I might reserve any few remarks I may have to make until after the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House has made a statement. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I have no doubt that your Lordships will allow that to be done. I think it may be convenient. This is a matter which I shall hope to deal with at no very great length. I do not intend at this stage to delay the House, but I want to state how the matter appears to us—that is to the Government—to stand at the present time. I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Newton, in his place because he was Chairman of the Inquiry which eventuated in the Act of 1926—the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act, 1926, which is the Act under which the matter is dealt with at the present time. I propose to divide what I have to say into two parts for the sake of convenience, and to deal with the administrative part of the question—that is the action of the Ministry of Health—and more particularly with the scientific aspect of the question, because my Department is at the head of all scientific inquiry into matters of this kind.
I desire to make it clear that an immense amount of work has been done and is being done with a view to a solution of this difficult question. I do not want to take you at great length into history, but I dare say the noble Viscount
910
is aware that even in the fourteenth century there was a proclamation prohibiting the use of coal in London. A Commission was appointed to inquire of those "who burn sea coal in the City or parts adjoining" and to punish "with great fines" and in the case of a second offence" to demolish their furnaces." That is more drastic than any step which we take at the present time, and it shows that the question has been a long time under consideration. It is interesting also to know that in Queen Elizabeth's time there was a prohibition of the use of sea coal in London whenever Parliament was sitting. I am afraid we have not that advantage now, but we have to see what can be done to produce better atmospheric conditions.
At the outset, I would like to emphasise one point which I know has been in the mind of Lord Newton. The difficulty which arises as regards the pollution of the atmosphere, in reference to which I shall have to give some tests and statistics, largely arises from the domestic coal fires. I think it was part of the Report of the Committee presided over by Lord Newton that it would be necessary to deal with the domestic coal fires if you wore to have a real reform and modification of the atmospheric pollution which affects London and so many towns at the present time. But this, I am afraid, until public opinion is further educated in the right direction, is an obstacle against true reform on this question of atmospheric smoke pollution. An estimate made in the year 1921 showed that in London the smoke pollution consisted roughly of two and a half parts by domestic smoke, as against one part due to industrial smoke. I think since that time there has been a good deal more of the industrial element in our London life and in the surrounding districts, and I feel myself that unless steps are taken in time—and it is quite time they were taken—we shall suffer very much more in the future than in the past from atmospheric conditions. I will give similar statistics with regard to Glasgow, and perhaps it is more striking, in some respects, that we find that in Glasgow, a great industrial centre, in 1929, only two years ago, an estimate as regards pollution from the domestic use of coal and the industrial use of coal

911
showed three and a half parts due to domestic use of coal against one part due to industrial use of coal. It is not necessary, I think, to give further statistics or further illustrations to show that real improvement can hardly be expected so long as there is no protection against the atmospheric pollution which comes from the domestic hearth at the present time.
The domestic smoke is impregnated with a large amount of tarry matter, and this tarry matter is a very important element in the amount of resulting pollution. This is because the tarry matter operates not only directly in cutting off light but also indirectly through its sticky qualities in retaining in contact with masonry and vegetation the sulphur impurities carried with it, and, as we all know, sulphur acids are the most actively destructive element of the pollution. So far as furnaces are concerned, great attention is paid to combustion. It is made as complete as possible, and the more complete the combustion the less you get of atmospheric pollution in the form of tar and soot. I think, as I shall point out presently, a great deal has to be done in the industrial as well as the domestic area in order to get better conditions in the future; but it is right to point out that whereas great advance has been made in better combustion in industrial furnaces, little or nothing has been done as regards the ordinary open hearth.
The Newton Committee estimated that the waste of coal owing to present conditions was sufficient to account for 2,500,000 tons per annum out of a total domestic consumption of 40,000,000 tons. Just compare that with the industrial calculation, because it will show the great difference in the two. In industry the loss was calculated at only 500,000 tons out of a consumption of over 100,000,000 tons, showing, as a matter which cannot be controverted, that far larger pollution comes from the domestic hearth than from the industrial furnace. I will give one other calculation which has been made because I think the gravity of the case should be sufficiently stated. It is estimated that apart from the waste of fuel already mentioned, smoke from domestic chimneys causes damage to the extent of at least 10 s. per ton of coal burnt. In fact, the crux of the situation
912
largely lies in the domestic open coal fire, and one of the major questions is whether anything can be done to deal with this great source of atmospheric pollution.
The great difficulty, no doubt—Lord Newton I have heard state it more than once—is the prejudice of the ordinary man in favour of burning coal upon the open hearth. But I think it is sometimes forgotten that if you get free burning semi-coke, which can be produced by low temperature carbonisation of coal, you have a bright fire, with the advantage that the amount of pollution is comparatively unimportant. I recollect going down to Richmond. I wish many of your Lordships could go down to see the scientific work which is being carried out in the Department of the Privy Council, in various directions. I went down to Richmond, where large experiments were being carried out in the low temperature carbonisation of coal, and I noticed particularly the brightness of the fire in the room in which I was entertained. On inquiry the fire turned out to be the semi-coke which resulted as one of the byproducts of the carbonisation of coal at a low temperature. As a matter of fact now there are many places in London where this coke can be obtained, but the advantages are not realised. Of course, there is no compulsion, because, so far as the open hearth is concerned, it is, I think, outside all the provisions of the Act of 1926.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Clause 5, which forbids you to use an open fire in a building.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think so, but I do not want to controvert what my noble friend says. But practically there is no working power to prevent the ordinary open hearth coal fire being used in the ordinary dwelling house.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No.
LORD PARMOOR: That is what I meant. I was sure we should be agreed upon that, and I am much obliged for what the noble Earl has said. Then you have to recollect that it is no good a comparatively small number of people taking the precaution of using this semi-coke unless it is a matter of general custom, because it is not from one or two hearths, but from the multiplication of

913
hearths, that the difficulty arises; and that cannot be cured without some satisfactory provision. I am sorry to say that, anxious as the Government are, and as I am, that this atmospheric pollution should be dealt with, there seems little prospect at present of obtaining powers over the domestic hearth which would really be of use in order to bring about a reform in what is an ever-increasing danger. Perhaps I ought to say that the use of semi-coke does not necessarily diminish the immediate amount of sulphur acids, but what it does is to get rid of the tarry, gritty, and dirty materials which smoke from domestic coal fires carries out with it and disperses to the detriment of all vegetation and the promotion of impurity in atmospheric conditions generally.
Before I come to the administrative question, which is a very important one—and I may say in passing that I believe everything is being done by the Ministry of Health which can be done, under existing conditions—I should like to say something about the scientific side of this very important question. Perhaps your Lordships will not mind my emphasising this factor. The Scientific and Industrial Research Department of the Privy Council, which is now under the extremely able chairmanship of Lord Rutherford in all these matters, publishes Annual Reports: and those Annual Reports show the work that has been and is being done. I wish I could persuade your Lordships to read this Annual Report with some care, in order that you might know how much is being done. I agree that there is an immense amount which remains to be done, and it is in that direction that we are making further experiments.
Let me give one or two illustrations of the experiments which we are making. One very important point is the area over which the pollution is carried. Many experiments show that in some cases the area is very wide indeed. Defects in visibility, from experiments at Valentia, were shown to extend to 350 miles. Flying at Catterick has been noted to have been brought to a standstill by a thick haze from the Leeds area fifty miles away, though the weather was otherwise fine and bright. There is an interesting experiment going on at the present time. The difficulty, of course, is
914
to isolate the source of pollution in any particular case, and therefore Norwich was taken for the purposes of our experiments. Norwich was taken because it is itself an isolated industrial centre. The results have not yet been fully analysed, but they are being analysed, and I hope that, there again, fresh information which it is very necessary to obtain will be obtained on a scientific basis.
There is another point—I am not quite sure how far at was dealt with in the Report of the noble Lord, but certainly further scientific experiments are being carried out at the present time—it is very important to develop some simple method of being able to determine the amount of sulphur impunity in the air. For this purpose, appartus has been developed by the Government Chemist, on behalf of the Committee of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research which is dealing with this question, a description of which has just been issued. Similarly, a simple method for routine measurements of daylight is being developed at the National Physical Laboratory for the Committee. Parenthetically, I wish your Lordships could pay a visit to the National Physical Laboratory, which is the largest and best equipped in the world. I am sure you can have no idea of the scientific investigation which is going on without an actual visit to the spot.
Turning for a moment to the administrative side of the matter, attempts made by one or two authorities to make by-laws under the section applicable to the matter in the Act of 1926, have had to be rejected because of the difficulty of obtaining reliable measures of the density of smoke. You must have the scientific power of discernment before you can make by-laws of this kind really effective. This is a point on which interesting experiments are being made at the Fuel Research Station of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research at Greenwich, who are interested in the matter also from the point of view of the efficiency of fuel combustion. If a successful solution can be found it will be of the greatest possible value, because it will then be practicable to lay down more definite standards in reference to which it would be possible to enforce the necessary by-laws.

915
I should like to impress this also upon your Lordships. I think it is common ground now that the question of the carbonisation of coal has become a matter of very great national, industrial and public importance. I will not refer to that in detail because it has been very much discussed of recent years. But the experiments which we are carrying on at Greenwich have been of great advantage not only as regards the form of furnace which is most suitable for the process but also for producing an article, which, as I said before, would be a great element as regards the domestic consumption—that is, what is called a semi-coke which is capable of being used, I believe, as pleasantly as the present coal fire without any great risk of the corresponding dangers which arise at the present time.
Many other bodies have of course been active in connection with the general question. Let me give an illustration. I do not know exactly whether to call it administrative or scientific, but I give it in reference to the work done in the recent controversy in connection with the Battersea power station. The work there was largely under the scientific supervision of the Government Chemist. Let us see how far, where there was proper supervision, even in a great work of that kind you could really counterbalance or get rid of the evils of smoke impurity. We have all seen the Reports; I certainly have had to read them. There is no doubt whatever, I believe, as regards the sulphur acids in the air, that they could be reduced to a negligible quantity. In using the words "negligible quantity" I should like to think that negligible quantity ought to be nothing at all. Still, they could be reduced to a negligible quantity and provision has been made for that purpose. In reducing them to a negligible quantity you have to use water, and if you are not careful you merely change the source of pollution from the sulphur in the air to sulphite in the water, which, after all, may not be as bad but is a form of pollution which ought not to be allowed.
That matter has been left to the control of the Port Authority who have command over the lower reaches of the Thames, and it is for them to see in getting rid of the pollution of the air that the sulphur acid does not become sulphite in the water. I dare say your Lordships know
916
that enormous quantities of the water of the Thames have to be taken in order to wash the sulphur fumes sufficiently to reduce the sulphur acid to what is called a negligible quantity. I merely mention that to show in what an unsatisfactory condition, in some respects, the matter stands. It was only because in that case the possible pollution was so great that public attention was called to it and a whole series of experiments made. I hope that by means of those experiments any danger, at any rate of air pollution and I hope of water pollution, will be avoided.
There are one or two words on administrative action that I should like to say. Administrative action does not come within the Department with which I am particularly connected, but I know perfectly well that every effort has been made by the Ministry of Health, both by its own action and by co-operation with the local authorities, to do all that can be done to ensure that there shall be no pollution having regard to the present state of our scientific knowledge. What I have to say naturally refers chiefly to England and Wales, but I want to add that, although the Scottish Acts are not on all fours with the English and Welsh Acts, yet in substance Scotland has the same problem. A communication has reached me from the Scottish Office that they are just as anxious to deal satisfactorily with this smoke nuisance there as we are in our great industrial towns in England. The statutory abatement provisions, as I have said—this is for the purpose of administration—are contained first of all in Section 91 and the following sections of the English Public Health Act, 1875; but these have been extended and amended by the Public Health (Smoke Abatement) Act, 1026. Everyone who has had to deal with these matters—and two noble Lords opposite have had experience in particular—will agree with me that the present law applicable to matters of this kind is really to be found in the Act of 1926. I have already stated with what limitation, because that Act does not apply to the fire in the ordinary domestic hearth. I know perfectly well the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Newton, encountered. I know, too, that if he had had his way there would have been further legislation and certainly the

917
commencement of a new era in which that source of pollution might have been, not all at once, of course, but by degrees, eliminated.
No directly active function of smoke abatement is vested in the Ministry of Health or any other Government Department, but the Ministry stands in general supervisory relation to the activities of local authorities. It has the function of confirming by-laws, power to require information from local authorities, to extend or contract by Provisional Order the list of industries which are exempted, and to require the making of by-laws by local authorities as to smoke. It is contemplated, and was indicated in a circular to local authorities at the time of the passing of the Act of 1926, that the activity of a local authority should include not only the legal enforcement of the provisions of the Acts, especially the Act of 1926, but the co-operation of the local authorities with industry so as to secure, the improvement of smoke reduction methods whether by improved stoking, which is a very important matter, or the adoption of adequate appliances to prevent a nuisance. In addition, there was the promotion of and collaboration in research directed to secure improvements, with power to contribute to the cost of investigation and research by other bodies or persons. The value of this combination with the local authorities in the formation of what are called regional committees to secure uniformity of administration, and for the investigation of common problems and better cooperation with industry, was specially emphasised in the whole of that circular.
So far as I know, there have been no direct complaints of the administrative action of the Ministry of Health under the Act of 1926. At any rate, I am very grateful to think that the noble Viscount will answer me, because then we will know more exactly what his points of complaint are. But, judging generally, there has been great co-operation and mutual assistance between the local authorities and the Ministry and some of the greater municipalities. Although for the reasons I have stated, you cannot expect a very large measure of immediate reform, very many steps have been taken in the right direction. I will give one more illustration of the effect of this atmospheric pollution. Experiments were
918
made in Leeds in growing certain vegetables in the City and also six or seven miles out, and the effect of the air pollution was such that the growth was four times greater in the purer atmosphere outside than it was within Leeds itself, where there is a large amount of industrial and other work going on. Then, in Manchester, the Pollution Advisory Board estimated that were the air of Manchester as pure as that of Harrogate—taking Harrogate as an illustration of pure air—the cost of household washing in Manchester would be reduced by something like £250,000 a year. I wish all these facts could be produced and printed in a more complete form than they can possibly be given in a speech in your Lordships' House, but I think I have said enough already to indicate how very important this question is.
Again, going back to sunlight, of which we do not have too much, and which is an important factor in our national health, sunlight in winter is obscured to the extent of about 50 per cent. by smoke atmospheric pollution in some of our larger and more thickly inhabited districts. I would ask your Lordships to look at the Sixteenth Report on the Investigation of Atmospheric Pollution issued by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research only a few weeks ago, which showed that there was no ultra violet light at all recorded at a station in the centre of Sheffield in November and December of 1929. I have already dealt with the question of visibility. There is a very curious illustration from Falkirk, where experiments of visibility were made, and a calculated visibility of 230 miles was reduced by the ordinary atmospheric pollution to a distance of only 20 miles. One other illustration I may give from abroad, where of course the same scientific principles apply. At Pittsburgh an attempt was made in 1912 to ascertain the assessable financial losses due to smoke pollution. The result showed the loss per head of the population to be about 20 dollars per annum—£4 to £5 per annum. A similar estimate was made in 1918 in Manchester, indicating an annual loss of about £1 per head. The volume of evidence upon the economic losses attributable to smoke pollution is really overwhelming, and to this must,

919
of course, be added the interference with all the amenities and health of life in our urban districts.
I hardly think it worth while to give your Lordships further statistics. What we want to do, if possible, is to get something done. I wish to say on the scientific side, with which I am connected, that we are making experiments in every direction in order to get results which, if placed in the hands of the local authorities and the Ministry of Health, would enable effective by-laws to be made. It is surely a terrible matter that, without more protection, London should be further surrounded, as it is at the present time—encircled one might almost put it—with industrial chimneys. May I give another illustration. I live forty miles away, in Buckinghamshire, and whenever there is an east wind we have an atmosphere—a murky smoky atmosphere—which reminds one very much of the atmosphere in the great industrial towns of Lancashire. I should like to think that there would be no real delay in further dealing with this topic, but I am bound to admit that just now, at any rate, is not a time when further work can be undertaken in these directions by the Government. I know the Departments concerned have done and are doing all they can, and will do all they can. What is really wanted is a careful analysis of the results obtained, and then to use that analysis to put an end to what is not only a loss to health but also a loss in many other directions which I pointed out. The pollution should be stayed, if it can be, without further delay, in order that the principles enunciated by Lord Newton in 1926 may be made practically applicable to this great question.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, it is very gratifying to me to find the noble and learned Lord taking so much interest in this question, but I think that is the only point upon which we can congratulate ourselves. I observe that his colleague, the Minister of Transport, speaking at some function in connection with the new power station in Battersea, expressed the opinion that there was great need for more vigorous legislation in order to combat the smoke nuisance at the present time. I repeat that we have, after all these years of labour, very little to con-
920
gratulate ourselves upon. It is true that fogs, for instance, are not as bad as they were, but they are just as prevalent, and the damage that a really bad fog can do can be illustrated by what occurred not long ago in Belgium. We have had no such experience in this country, but it is quite conceivable that the same thing might some day occur here.
The noble and learned Lord dwelt a good deal upon the necessity for investigation, but there is not the smallest necessity, so far as I can see, to investigate how fogs are produced. It is the simplest matter in the world. The reason why fogs in this country are blacker and worse than anywhere else, with the possible exception of certain parts of Belgium, is perfectly plain. The blackness and the dirt of fogs in this country are due to the national practice of burning raw coal in open fireplaces, a process which has been described, I rather think it was by myself, as an extravagant and a dirty one. The plain truth is you cannot enjoy the amenities of burning raw coal in open fireplaces, as we nearly all of us do, without at the same time contributing to the general dirt and discomfort of the smoke with which we are periodically afflicted. As long as that frame of mind continues, there is not likely to be much improvement, and we shall present a most melancholy, and humiliating contrast in our industrial districts compared with those in Germany, for instance. I confess that I have seldom been more humiliated as an Englishman than when I visited, in the course of this inquiry, towns like Cologne, Dusseldorf and Essen, and compared them with the corresponding towns of this country, such as Birmingham and Manchester. It was a most humiliating experience for an Englishman.
For the present, however, I see little prospect of our conditions being radically improved. If the Government were in earnest there is not much necessity to embark upon further investigations. They should insist upon the provisions of the Act of 1926 dealing with this particular question being enforced. I would like to point out what are the main provisions of that Act. The first provision is that the penalty shall be increased. So far as I know, there has not been a single case in which the increased penalty has been imposed on on offending body.

921
That is, however, a minor matter because, at this moment, with industry in its present, state, the last thing a local authority would wish to do is to impose increased penalties. An important matter is, however, dealt with in Section 2, which refers to the colour of the smoke and lays down that it shall not be merely a, question of black smoke, but that it shall be permissible to take action whatever the colour of the smoke. Everyone knows that smoke is equally objectionable whatever its colour may be.
I now come to the action of the Ministry of Health, that institution for which the noble and learned Lord has such admiration. The Ministry takes the view that local authorities have only power to deal with black smoke, and any attempt to deal with anything else has been a failure. As the Act was introduced in order to remedy this particular difficulty, and as it has been in existence for five years, it is a most extraordinary thing that the Ministry of Health should have allowed these five years to pass without taking any steps to amend this section.
There is another respect in which this Department is equally, if not more, to blame. Different Governments have always persistently refused to deal with private dwelling houses. Although there is a great deal to be said from that point of view, I cannot help thinking that circumstances have changed now and, as public money is now used to build houses, it is not altogether unreasonable that steps should be taken by the Ministry in order to prevent the unnecessary emission of smoke in consequence of the use of the open fireplace. We who are interested in this question thought we had been very clever when we had Section 5 inserted in the Act, because that section provides that a local authority shall have power to control the heating and lighting arrangements in new buildings used as offices, shops and for commercial purposes. That sounded all right and looked all right; but, when one came to administer it, the Ministry of Health, that much-admired Ministry, said the section was so badly drawn that it was unworkable, and that is its view at the present time. I have pointed out two cases where the Act has proved to be unworkable and the Ministry of Health during
922
these five years has not begun the slightest attempt to put the matter right.
I can draw a gloomy picture of our position at the present moment, but I am going to refrain from doing so. Possibly because I am a pessimist by nature, I see very little hope of improvement. As long as the private citizens of this country insist on burning raw coal and as long as the Ministry of Health adopts its present attitude, I see little prospect of any improvement. I may be singular in my views, but it has always seemed to me that smoke is not a local nuisance but a national nuisance, and that therefore the power to deal with it ought to come from the central power, which is the Ministry of Health. As far as my experience goes, I have never found the Ministry of Health very anxious to deal with this particular question. It is always very easy to find excuses to refrain from pressing local authorities, and I admit that, at the present moment, nothing could be more distasteful than to put pressure upon local authorities which causes further expenditure in any direction. But, still, if the Ministry of Health is going to persist permanently in this apathetic attitude, I do not see how any permanent improvement is going to be effected, although we have the machinery at our disposal, if we care to take advantage of it.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, we must be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, for having raised this question to-day because it is always interesting to know how this matter has progressed. I have had a good deal to do with it in the past and I do not know how many Bills I have brought in dealing with this matter. None of them, however, was passed and the 1926 Act was some body else's. All the time I was in the Ministry of Health I had to deal with the matter and I was ably assisted and urged forward from behind by my noble friend Lord Newton. He blessed the Act but said at the time it did not go as far as he would have liked. We all know that the crux of this matter is the question of domestic smoke and the difficulty is that the habits of the English people and of many other nations are fixed in the desire for the open fires. If I were to ask any of your Lordships whether they preferred central heating or the

923
open fire, there would be no doubt as to the answer they would give. Lord Newton has told us that Section 5 has not been carried out. It was thought that that section was a workable provision and I am surprised to hear that the Ministry of Health now find a difficulty in carrying it out. It provides that in offices and shops, though not in dwelling houses, where possible something else shall be substituted for the open hearth.
The way out of this difficulty is the one suggested by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. He has given us an interesting and instructive account of recent experiments carried out by his Department which make it possible to substitute for coal some other combustible substance. In that way one can meet the objections of the people who want the open fire and do not want central heating. I gather that the experiments have not gone so far as to require legislation, but they are of a very promising description. Another point mentioned by Lord Newton was Section 2, which deals with the possibility of the inclusion of all kinds of smoke as well as black smoke. That was a point on which great stress was laid when the Bill was brought in. It was looked on as a great advance in the right direction that not only black smoke but other smoke should be treated as a nuisance. If that has not been carried out, then the Act has not been made as much use of as possible. I understand the difficulties there are in this matter. We do not want to do anything that might depress industry. It may be that, at the present time, it is not possible to carry out Section 2 as far as one would wish, but possibly later on more opportunity may be afforded for the use of this section.
There are, of course, certain processes which one cannot include in the clause. The noble and learned Lord mentioned Sheffield as a particularly smoky place, and I remember very well a deputation coming from Sheffield and pointing out that certain processes—possibly Lord Ponsonby, who knows the town very well, will be able to say more definitely—were carried on there in which it was almost impossible to prevent the making of black smoke. It is an exceptional instance which the noble Lord gave us. The noble Lord has told us of experi-
924
ments which are being conducted, and I am sure we may be satisfied that great care is taken to find processes and methods which may abate the nuisance, because everybody agrees that it is an intolerable nuisance. The noble and learned Lord mentioned Battersea and I think he told us that the precautions taken there were very satisfactory, but the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I think said that the Ministry of Transport was rather disturbed as to Battersea. I live near Battersea and I hope that the noble and learned Lord may prove the more correct. Really the way of dealing with this matter is by constant experiment. I do not think any of your Lordships would suggest that further legislation can help very much at the present moment. It is no use saying that this or that must not be done if you are going to cause harm to industry or to private persons.
The method of experiment in all directions is the right one, and when the time comes for further legislation then I am sure we shall welcome it. At the same time I should like to associate myself with Lord Newton in urging that the Ministry of Health should encourage local authorities to make use of the powers of the Act, and the greatest vigilance should be exercised to see that wherever possible local authorities insist on the terms of the Act being carried out. I have no doubt that the present Ministry do all they can, but, of course, there are great difficulties. It may seem very easy, but I know from my experience when I was at the Ministry that it is very difficult indeed to abate the nuisance and at the same time not do anything to injure industry or private persons. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having raised the question and to the noble and learned Lord for the explanations he has given.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: My Lords, there is one suggestion which I should like to make. It seems common ground that the real offender is the open fire—the domestic open fire. It also seems to be common ground that the imperfect combustion of coal in the open grate leads to very serious economic loss. It may, even in these times, be good business to incur some expenditure to prevent economic loss. I would like to suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House, whether the Government

925
could not in regard to assisted houses take some action directly or through local authorities to encourage the use of electric heating or gas heating and to discourage the use of the open fire. It should not be beyond the wit of man to work out some scheme by which a local authority could give some slight remission of rents in the case of assisted houses where there are no open fires. It might be carried even a little further. As it is a matter of importance to the State, why should not the State consider making some slight remission of Schedule A Income Tax in the case of houses in which there are no bad smoke-producing appliances?
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, with your permission I should like to make a few remarks at this stage. I have to thank the noble and learned Lord opposite for the very interesting account he has given of what is being done. He asked what complaints I had to make. I would like to refer him to the form of my Question. It was merely to ask what measures are now being taken to deal with smoke-abatement. I did not suggest any complaints. Although the noble and learned Lord has told us a great deal about the diagnosis of the trouble, we have not been told very much about what is being done. I would beg leave to suggest to your Lordships that the very great diminution in fog and over-loaded atmosphere is due much more to the action of private enterprise than to anything that this or any previous Government has done. It is really, if I may say so with some diffidence, the action of the gas companies and the electric light companies which is responsible for the very great alteration in the atmosphere from what it was thirty or forty years ago. Electric light and gas fires, and I would add the burning of coke, are largely responsible for the decrease in smoke from domestic fires. To apply the regulations of the Act to domestic fires would be almost impossible because of the expense, but I think the regulations could quite easily be applied a little more thoroughly to industrial concerns. The noble and learned Lord made a remark about high temperature carbonisation.
LORD PARMOOR: Low temperature carbonisation.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: High and low. I am advised, and I believe it is correct, that the coke produced from high temperature carbonization—that is to say, the old system—is in every way as good and a great deal cheaper than coke which is being produced from low temperature carbonisation. That is really all I wish to say, and I would thank the noble and learned Lord opposite for the very great trouble he has taken in his reply. I know it has been with very great difficulty that he has made his reply to-day, but the Question had been on the Order Paper of your Lordships' House for so long that I felt it would be probably better that it should materialise to-day rather than be deferred to a later occasion.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, I do not know whether in the circumstances, having regard to the questions which have been put to me, I might be allowed to say one or two words in further explanation. For instance, the noble Viscount who spoke last, said—I do not, know where he finds it—that high temperature coke is as good as what I have called semi-coke of low temperature carbonisation. If that is so, so much the better.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I happen to be a director of the Gas, Light and Coke Company, which made the experiment.
LORD PARMOOR: All I can say is that I have been to the experimental station and I am glad to hear that that is the result. That enables me to answer more fully the question of Lord Onslow. That is the direction, to my mind, in which we may look for amelioration. I am not aware that any alteration of grate, or anything else, is necessary if you get coke of either high or low temperature carbonisation. I thought it was low temperature. Either way, you get a delightful fire. Yon do not get rid of all the fumes, but you do get rid of the tarry and gritty factors which make smoke from open grates so deleterious. I am glad to think that noble Lords realise that this is the problem. The problem is, can we deal with these open domestic grates? I doubt whether you can do it until the habits of the people alter, or until the people are persuaded that coke will give substantially the same results while getting rid of the extreme nocuous

927
elements. There is one matter which I would like to say with regard to by-laws. The by-laws are the by-laws of local authorities, and it is for them to enforce them. I think the by-laws of local authorities are not confined to black smoke, but apply to smoke from which there is any source of impurity. I thank your
928
Lordships for the kind way in which you have received what I had to say. I think it is a matter of great importance, but the real complexity is the question of the domestic hearth.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past six o'clock.