Lords Sitting of 7 October 1931

Preamble
The House met at twelve of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL.
Message from the Commons to acquaint the House that they have come to the following Resolution: That further proceedings on the London Passenger Transport Bill be suspended till the next Session of Parliament.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, after the Message which we have just heard read I beg to move the Resolution which is printed on the Order Paper—namely, That any notices published and served, and any deposits made in respect of the Bill in the present Session, as also the proceedings of the Select Committee of this House appointed to join with a Select Committee of the House of Commons thereon, shall be held to have been published, served and made and to have effect respectively for the Bill if the same shall be brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament. In moving this Resolution, I hope your Lordships will appreciate that we are not discussing the merits of the Bill. That will be done when the Bill is sent to this House from the Commons, and there will be full opportunity then for all stages of the Bill to be dealt with.
It will be within the recollection of the House that Lord Hailsham, when he was Leader of the House and when the proposal to appoint five of your Lordships upon the Joint Committee was before this House, laid it down emphatically that, in appointing members to that Committee, your Lordships retained full power to deal with the Bill in this House, and were not committed in any way. Your Lordships will also have noticed that this Resolution passed unanimously through the House of Commons last night, and I noticed that Sir Basil Peto, who was one of the members of the House of Commons who sat on the Joint Committee, strongly approved of the Prime Minister's proposal to carry this Bill over. The chief reason which actuated the Government
276
in proposing to carry it over was the great expense that has been involved, and that would be wasted if the Bill died now. It is calculated that something like £40,000 would be charged to the Treasury for expenditure for counsel and other matters during the thirty-five or thirty-six days in which the Bill was considered before the Joint Committee. In the case of the Bill passing, that charge would fall on the new Transport Board, but if the Bill is dropped now the Transport Board will not come into existence, and the large sum of £40,000, which I have mentioned, would fall upon the Treasury. That was one of the Government's chief reasons for asking for a Resolution to carry the Bill over.
As regards the question of precedent, which my noble friend Lord Hanworth and other noble Lords raised yesterday, the Prime Minister quoted a precedent last night in the House of Commons—the occasion when Mr. Balfour moved that the Port of London Authority Bill, which was a Private Bill, should be carried over from one Session to another. I grant that this is not quite the same case. That Bill was not carried over a Dissolution but only over a Prorogation. I also said yesterday—and this was taken exception to—that this Bill is a hybrid Bill. Although it was started by the Government, there were a lot of private interests concerned. It became a hybrid Bill, and thus differed to some extent from what is usually described as a Public Bill. As your Lordships know, by a Motion which the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, moved last week, all Private Bills are carried over. This being a Public Bill, or a hybrid Bill, whichever you like to call it, does not come in the same category, but I hope that, for the reasons I have given, your Lordships will decide to pass this Resolution. The Resolution passed in another place secures that the Bill will be considered again next Session in the House of Commons, and I again remind your Lordships that it is open to you to do exactly what you like with the Bill when it comes up to you. It will be brought here from the House of Commons, and will have to go through Second Reading and Committee in this House. I hope, therefore, that in moving this Resolution I shall meet with your Lordships'

277
support, and that you will agree to it, as it was agreed to in the House of Commons last night. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That any notices published and served, and any deposits made in respect of the Bill in the present Session, as also the proceedings of the Select Committee of this House appointed to join with a Select Committee of the House of Commons thereon, shall be held to have been published, served and made and to have effect respectively for the Bill if the same shall be brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament. —(The Earl of Lucan.)
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, the Resolution moved by the noble Earl, if I understand its terms rightly, is in the precise form that is applied to an ordinary Private Bill where it is proposed to carry it over from Session to Session, or from Parliament to Parliament. Of course, our Private Bill legislation is of a quasi-judicial character and that procedure has long been adopted and is followed as being prudent and just to the parties concerned; the reason being that, in private legislation, we are really dealing with matters that arise between private bodies, and the matters are referred to a Committee as a matter of course for judicial decision. I think there is no doubt about what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hanworth, the other night that, so far as Public Bills are concerned, no such procedure has ever been followed. There is no precedent that I have been able to find anywhere. I have no doubt that the noble Earl will bear in mind that various members have, from time to time, brought forward in another place the question of carrying a Public Bill over from Session to Session, though I am not aware that it was ever proposed to carry it over from Parliament to Parliament.
EARL PEEL: The Port of London Bill.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not put that Bill in the category for a moment. I am talking of the general principle. It is not a matter upon which we need have any contention. So far as I understand the fact that we have to give a decision is agreed all round. What I am putting to the noble Earl is that those members of the other House who desired that
278
matters should stand over from Session to Session were opposed by people who thought that legislation was easy enough anyhow, and that it was just as well not to give additional facilities for it. I may mention this curiosity of the present decision, that if I had stood up and made the proposal which the noble Earl has brought forward uproar might have taken place. It is suggested that there is a precedent in the Port of London Bill. I do not think that that ever was a precedent. Certainly, it never came to be tested as a precedent in any form, and I agreed with the Chairman of Committees when he said that it is quite a mistake to suggest that that was a precedent for what is being proposed in the present case.
The strength of the Motion as brought forward by the noble Earl is, no doubt, that there has been a large expenditure of time and money and it is a pity that it should be thrown away. We shall all sympathise with that, and although I do not want to go into the merits of the question I am strongly in favour of the proposals of the Bill as they at present, stand, and of the arguments with which it was supported by the then Traffic Minister, Mr. Morrison. It is, however, important in these matters that precedent should be carefully considered. Just as it is said that what is meant by security is certainty of expectation, so what is meant by protection of our free decision is the certainty that our procedure shall be maintained.
I am not going to oppose the Motion of the noble Earl, because I understand that it is supported by the present Leader of the House, Lord Peel, which in my opinion is a very strong matter when this sort of question has to be considered. But why should you have this as a precedent? This Resolution, if we adopt it, and it is adopted by the House of Commons, will not be binding upon another Parliament. You cannot in one Parliament put any restriction whatever upon what is known as the sovereignty of Parliament. Therefore when the next Parliament meets, if it is desired and thought right that the Bill should be taken up and carried on from the stage which it has already reached, it will be within the power of that Parliament to do so, and that is where the question will arise. On the other hand, if the new Parliament adopted the view put

279
forward by some members that considering all the conditions under which the Bill has arrived at its present stage it would not be right to go on without beginning the procedure over again, that, of course, can be done.
Whatever you do now is in the hands of the next Parliament, and whatever you do does not fetter their power or discretion, one way or the other. I dislike what has been called by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, unprecedented procedure. I do not think there is any precedent for a proposal of this kind, but I certainly should not oppose it if the Government in power think it necessary and right, and are prepared to support it. At the same time I hope my opinion will go forward, for what it is worth, that these changes in procedure of an exceptional kind ought not to be adopted, except in very exceptional circumstances, and I doubt whether the present circumstances have that exceptional nature. Subject to that, I have no doubt that the noble Earl will succeed in passing his Motion.
LORD HANWORTH: My Lords, I think it is important that you should fully appreciate that what we are discussing is a Resolution relating to a Public Bill. It is of no use saying that it is in the nature of a Private Bill. It is a Public Bill. A Private Bill is initiated and has its birth by very different procedure from that by which a Public Bill is brought forward in this House. This Bill was introduced as a Public Bill and it remains a Public Bill. The mere fact that it has opposed to it some particular interests involved does not alter the character and nature given to it at the time when it was introduced as a Public Bill. You are being asked to carry over that Bill not only to a new Session but to a new Parliament. I think it is very important indeed to make it quite plain that we are talking about a Public Bill, for it would be very unfortunate if any doubt were cast upon the procedure which has been adopted, time and again, in reference to Private Bills, relating to railways, water, electric lighting, and so forth, numbers of which will be found in the authoritative text book of Parliamentary procedure by Sir Erskine May to have been carried over from Session to Session.
280
You are now asked to deal with this Public Bill and to carry it over not only to a new Session, but to a new Parliament. Yesterday I quoted to your Lordships the fact that on two occasions where proceedings had been commenced by way of impeachment it was found necessary in both cases to pass an Act of Parliament to enable them to be continued, in the case of an adjournment by Dissolution. There is another case to which I think I ought to call attention. In divorce proceedings in respect of misconduct committed in India it was found to be impossible for the evidence to come from India to be dealt with in the same Session or in the same Parliament, and in 1820 the matter was dealt with by Statute, and it was dealt with to enable those proceedings to be carried on in spite of a new Session or a new Parliament. The recital to that Act is as follows:
"Whereas by the usage and custom of Parliament no proceedings by Bill in Parliament have continuance from one Session to another."
The Act was passed.
The matter does not rest there. In 1890, at the instance of Mr. Balfour, a Committee was set up to deal with the rule that at the end of the Session all Bills only partly discussed lapsed completely. The Committee sat. Mr. Balfour was Chairman, and there was a sharp contest upon the Committee. The proposal to carry over the Bills to a new Session—not to a new Parliament—was strongly opposed, and particularly by a minority headed by Mr. Gladstone, who embodied his objections in a Minority Report. The Majority Report was only that of a bare majority. Looking at an authoritative book on the procedure of Parliament I read this:
"The recommendation was only adopted in the Committee after a close Division, and was strongly opposed by a minority headed by Mr. Gladstone.… As a matter of fact the House has never, to this day, adopted the idea."
That is in reference to Public Bills, and reasons are given, with which I need not trouble your Lordships, for saying that it would be a difficult procedure to adopt to the convenience of both Houses of Parliament. But I think I have indicated, from the precedents to which I have referred and from the Report of that Committee, that your Lordships are now being asked to take a step which is

281
doing some violence to the custom of Parliament as so far understood.
The present case is one in which it is said much money would be lost to the promoters. It may be, and indeed I personally think that the procedure of carrying over Bilk from one Session to another might be a useful procedure to adopt. It would, in fact, relieve your Lordships of what is a very embarrassing situation which occurs from time to time at the end of the Session, when a great number of Bills are brought to your Lordships' House, and no adequate discussion is possible. If it were possible to carry over such measures to another Session your Lordships' House would probably have an opportunity of doing extremely good work in amending those Bills. If I may give an illustration of the sort of difficulty in which your Lordships are placed, let me refer to the Landlord and Tenant Bill, which was before this House when the late Lord Cave sat oil the Woolsack. I think it was the Lord Chancellor who, at the end of December, withdrew a whole batch of clauses, agreeing that as they stood they were quite incomprehensible, unworkable, and unwise. Next day he produced another batch of clauses which your Lordships had to take. They were better than the previous ones, and your Lordships accepted them. If it had been possible to carry that Bill over to a new Session, I have no doubt that more mature thought and a better opportunity would have been given to it, and better work would have been done.
I speak, therefore, as in no sense hostile to a considered procedure for the carrying over of a Bill to a new Session. But here we are asked to go even further, we are asked to carry over a Bill to a new Parliament. I do not think there is any real precedent for carrying over a Bill of this sort to a new Parliament—the case of the Port of London Authority is really no case governing the present—and I have intervened only to offer to your Lordships some information which I happened to have the opportunity of finding, and to point out that your Lordships are now being asked to do something which has never been done before. It might be wise to have the procedure, and if it were done after consideration, well and good. I say nothing about that, but I do think it is important that these matters should be placed before your Lordships in debate, in order that they
282
may be made quite plain, and when a new Parliament comes into being that it may recognise that its hands are completely free to do what it likes with a Bill. All that will happen is that the evidence taken before the Committee so far will stand good, if and so far as a new Committee seeks to make use of it. As a matter of fact, the Bill, as I understand, was introduced and carried through, not by the present Government but by the previous Government. The present Government have, so to speak, accepted it filially from the old Government, and now they are going to hand it on to the grandchildren of the originators of the Bill. I hope that these grandchildren will understand that they are as free and unfettered as the younger generation feel themselves always to be to-day.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I very much sympathise with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition., because he is quite right in saying what a storm there would have been if he had proposed such a Motion from the Government Benches when he was Leader of the House. As regards this particular procedure, I should like the Chairman of Committees to tell us a little more. I am not quite confident yet that I thoroughly understood that the procedure as regards Private Bills applies not from one Session to another, but from one Parliament to another. Because, to my mind, that makes the whole difference. If that is so, there may be something to be said for saving expense, as this is a hybrid Bill, for, though it is a Public Bill, it is not exactly of the same nature as an ordinary Public Bill. I am sure your Lordships are greatly indebted to Lord Hanworth for the case he stated and pressed. I am afraid I cannot possibly agree with him that it would be a good thing for Public Bills to be carried on from one Session to another. There would be no finality at all. And, as regards carrying over from one Parliament to another, it is unthinkable.
It has been said that this is not a precedent, but may I call your Lordships' attention to what Mr. Alexander, lately First Lord of the Admiralty, said in the House of Commons last night? He welcomed the decision of the Government, but thought it a pity that other Bills on

283
which there had been a large expenditure of time and money, like the Town and Country Planning Bill, the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Bill, and the Consumers' Council Bill, were also carried forward. What a horrible blister that is for the future if such a procedure were to be adopted. As regards this Bill, I quite agree with what previous speakers have said that the case of the Port of London Authority Bill is no precedent at all. That was more or less an agreed Bill.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL PEEL): No.
LORD JESSEL: The noble Earl says "No," and I understand that he will answer that. At all events, this is a most contentious Bill, and, so far from there being agreement, I understand that, although we were told that the railway companies had agreed upon it, the Metropolitan Railway Company are very dissatisfied. The London County Council certainly is not agreed upon this Bill, and other local authorities with which I am acquainted are not agreed upon it. Therefore, there is a great deal of difference of opinion upon this important Bill. But I quite recognise that a great deal of money has been spent upon it, and, whatever Government is in power—I hope it will be the National Government—will have to bring in some sort of Bill dealing with London traffic next Session. Therefore, as I said originally when I put a Question on the subject, I am not going to oppose this Motion. At the same time, I wish to place on record my strong dissent from any proposals that this should be regarded as a precedent for carrying over from one Parliament to another—not only from one Session to another—Public Bills brought in by any Government. Therefore I am very glad that such expressions of opinion have come forth not only from myself but from other noble Lords in regard to the procedure adopted in this case.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, may I say at once that I entirely and absolutely agree with what has fallen from noble Lords in regard to the extreme undesirability of considering this procedure which is proposed to your Lordships to-day in the light of a precedent
284
for the future. I think the analogy, I hardly like to call it the precedent, of the Port of London Bill need not have any great stress laid upon it. I think the real argument for carrying this proposal through lies in the merits of the case, the saving of the money which will otherwise be put to the charge both of the promoters and the opponents of the Bill, because the petitioners will suffer considerably in pocket. It is perfectly true that this is a Public Bill; strictly speaking it is a Public Bill. Like any other Bill introduced by the Government it is a Public Bill. But it is a hybrid Bill, as I said yesterday, and a hybrid Bill is a Public Bill which is in the nature of a Private Bill. But that does not alter the situation and does not bring it under the consideration of Private Bill procedure.
My noble friend behind me put a specific question to me in regard to what has been done in the past at the time of a Dissolution of Parliament in the matter of carrying over Private Bills. I have in my hand the Minutes of May 9, 1929, which I think was the day before the Dissolution. A Resolution was moved then in regard to Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills. It is at page 791 of the Minutes and your Lordships can find it there. I will not read it out as it is very long indeed, but I might read one paragraph which is at the bottom of the page:
"That the proceedings on such Bills shall be pro formâ only in regard to every stage which the same shall have passed in the present Session; and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages."
LORD PARMOOR: There is no question as regards Private Bills and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills. That has been the procedure for a long time.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Yes, that is what I was saying to my noble friend behind me. I have informed him that the procedure had been in force for a long time. Then on May 10, an alphabetical list of Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills was printed. That, I think, answers the question of my noble friend in regard to Private Bill procedure. We are asked really to apply this Private Bill procedure to this particular hybrid Bill, and it might interest your Lordships if I were to say what I am told would happen if your Lordships

285
were not to agree with this Resolution. As your Lordships are aware, a Standing Order has been passed in another place and I imagine the result of that, will be that the Bill will be introduced in another place in the next Session, or It may be considered as having passed all its stages up to that which it has reached at present. If it goes forward it will come to your Lordships' House in the ordinary way as a "Bill brought from the Commons."
Then it would go before the Examiners to see whether it had complied with Standing Orders, and if they reported that Standing Orders had been complied with—I could not say and I do not suppose that the Examiners could say with-out going into the whole matter whether Standing Orders would have been complied with or not—the Bill would go forward. If they reported that Standing Orders had not been complied with, then the Bill would go before the Standing Orders Committee with that Report and the Committee would decide whether it should recommend your Lordships' House to dispense with Standing Orders or to insist upon them. If they decided that it was impossible to dispense with Standing Orders the Report of the Standing Orders Committee would come before your Lordships' House and your Lordships would decide whether to accept the Report or not. If you decided to accept the Report and not to dispense with Standing Orders then the Bill would fall. But really all that would happen in those circumstances would be that you would be rejecting the Bill in the same way as you would be able to reject it on Second Reading; so that the opponents of the Bill are not being put at a disadvantage—at least, that is my humble private opinion.
Your Lordships will observe that the Notice states that in the event of a Message being received from the Commons the Earl of Lucan would move to resolve
"that any notices published and served, and any deposits made in respect of the Bill in the present Session, as also the proceedings of the Select Committee of this House appointed to join with a Select Committee of the House of Commons thereon, shall be held to hare been published "
and so forth. I am informed that your Lordships are in no way fettered by this Resolution in regard to what you may
286
wish to do in the next Parliament. You may say that having given the Bill a Second Reading you will refer it to a Select Committee for consideration. It is perfectly open to your Lordships to do that quite regardless of there having been a Joint Select Committee sitting on the Bill in this Parliament. You could appoint a new Committee if you wished to do so, or you could deal with the Bill in any other way that you thought proper. So I do not think your Lordships will bind yourselves in any way. If you saw fit to agree with the proposal, it would be a saving of the expense that has been incurred. If your Lordships take that course I earnestly hope that it may be the general opinion of your Lordships that this shall be in no case a precedent for the carrying over of a Public Bill, but that particularly in a time of crisis you are assisting the promoters and the opponents to fight this matter out—because I gather (I have no knowledge of the merits of the case) that it is a highly contentious Bill—with the least possible cost. That is all I have to say and I think I have answered the question of my noble friend behind me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SANKEY): My Lords, I have very few observations to address to your Lordships' House. The only reason I have for inflicting any speech upon you is that I do not think I ought to remain silent on a question like this. Let me say at once that I agree with all the remarks that have been made by my noble friends the Master of the Rolls and the former Leader of the House. I particularly agree with the remarks made by the noble Earl and do not differ in a single sentence from what he said. In my view there is no precedent for this proposal. It is entirely unprecedented. But there is another thing which is entirely unprecedented—the time in which we live. I hope that the precedent will never be repeated. I hope even more that the crisis through which this country is passing at the present moment will never be repeated.
We are in great difficulties. Speaking with full responsibility as a member of the Govenment I ask your Lordships to pass this Resolution. I offer no opinion as to whether it will bind any future Parliament; but I will give this opinion

287
and give it to your Lordships quite bluntly—that your Lordships will be in the wrong if you fail to pass the Resolution. Its whole object is the endeavour to save expense. If it is not passed we shall have thrown away thousands of pounds to a quite useless purpose. By passing this Resolution your Lordships do not prejudice your rights with regard to this Bill when it comes before you in any single jot or tittle. What you will do is to prevent the throwing away of thousands of pounds of public money at a time of crisis like this when economy must be the order of the day. At any rate, by this gesture you will show that you intend to do all you can to help the country. I beg your Lordships to pass this Resolution.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, if I may add one word I would do so, though it is perhaps not necessary after what the Lord Chancellor has said. I listened with great interest to what was said about the precedent. When I was informed that there was a good precedent in August of 1903 in the case of the Port of London Bill I took it upon myself to say that it was a bad precedent and not a good one. I am rather pleased from a legal point of view to find that all the great lawyers in the House entirely agree with me as to that. Nevertheless, I think it is remarkable that a great Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Balfour, did contemplate, in his answer to a question that that Bill should be carried over not only for the Session but after the Dissolution. He was asked a question as to whether the Bill was carried over for a Session of the existing Parliament, or, in the event of a Dissolution, to a new Parliament, and he stated that the carrying over was quite irrespective of a Dissolution. No doubt, that is not a precedent, but it is rather remarkable that such a course seems to have been contemplated with equanimity by a great Conservative Prime Minister.
The only other point I should like to emphasise is this. Of course we do retain entire power over the Bill in this House. Our powers are not prejudiced in the least. We shall be able to amend it or throw it out on Second Reading when it comes up, or oppose anything in it which we do not like. Speaking for myself I wish to say that there is nothing I dislike more than setting up any prece-
288
dent for carrying over Public Bills. I cannot imagine anything more disturbing to the whole of our political and national economy than that that should be done. It is with the greatest relief that we see the end of a Bill at the end of a Parliament, and think that the matter is dead and buried for all time. The only reason really on which we base our action in this case arises from the necessities of the situation, and the desire, which is so imperative in these days, to avoid any waste of money. I think after the discussion that has taken place in this House, it must be patent to everybody, to the admirers as well as to the critics of your Lordships' House, that you are determined not to set any precedent for the carrying over of Public Bills, and that if it is done today in this case it is only done because of the extreme necessities of the situation. You are determined and have declared that in no other case will it apply.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOODSTUFFS (PREVENTION OF EXPLOITATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; and read 1a.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I desire now to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Your Lordships are aware that this measure has been passed in another place without any controversial discussion. In fact, it passed its Second and Third Readings without a Division. When this country was forced off the gold standard in circumstances now familiar to your Lordships a depreciation of sterling as compared with many foreign countries was inevitable. The Government at once considered the effect which that would have on food prices. Obviously, in a country which imports no less than four-fifths of its cheese, lard, and even a larger proportion of its bacon, butter, and sugar, to mention only a few of the staple articles of food, prices must be affected by a fall in the sterling exchange. The position as regards supplies was satisfactory in itself. There was an abundance of the chief articles of food, and so long as normal trade was

289
carried on there was no reason to fear that the country would be likely to go short of food.
The one cause, and the only cause, of disturbance in that connection was the depreciation of sterling. The Government's endeavours were, therefore, concentrated so far as was possible upon seeing that the retail prices to consumers were not raised unreasonably—that is, that advantage was not taken of the position to exploit the consumer by an immediate increase in prices against the possible effects of variations in the exchange. On the Monday following the suspension of the gold standard the President of the Board of Trade saw representatives of the traders in wheat, flour, sugar, butter, cheese, bacon, meat, oils and fats and other essential commodities. He also saw representatives of the Co-operative Wholesale Society and other co-operative societies, of the provision exchanges and the association of grocers, also representatives of the large multiple shop concerns as well as others who play an important part in the food industry of the country. From them all he has received the greatest assistance possible, and with them all he has been in close consultation. While, from the purely business point a view, prices in this country would have at once risen to the replacement cost of the commodity concerned as the price of that commodity was raised by the fall in the value of sterling, in fact the co-operation of the interests concerned has avoided any general attempt to increase the price of foodstuffs in the country.
The efforts of the Government and the trade interests concerned have been successful, and there has so far been little appreciable change in retail prices. Food commodities which are brought from abroad and passed immediately into consumption, such as bacon and butter from the Continent, have risen in price, but only in proportion to the increased cost which has been actually paid for them; and while some brands of canned goods, for example, have risen so far as wholesale prices are concerned, others have not, and I would venture to suggest that consumers must, for their own protection, exercise care and vigilance when they desire to buy these commodities. It is now just over a fortnight since the gold standard was suspended, with the con-
290
sequent fall in sterling compared with other currencies throughout the world. I feel sure your Lordships will agree with me that no one, looking at food prices to-day, could possibly imagine that such a change had really occurred at all, and very great credit is due to the importers, the wholesalers and manufacturers, and also the retailers of food, for the levelheaded and public-spirited handling of the situation which has enabled me to make such a statement as that I have just made. The Government has no reason to think that this attitude will not be maintained, and this, coupled with vigilance on the part of the consumers, should ensure that, whatever consequences may follow from the suspension of the gold standard, they shall not be exaggerated by exploitation.
I want to make it quite clear that in taking the powers contemplated by this Bill there is certainly no criticism intended of the attitude of our food traders. We have in fact no evidence whatsoever of exploitation. On the contrary, the efforts of the Government and of the traders themselves have given the public a benefit which, from the strictly business point of view, they were not actually entitled to receive. The food traders have played the game and the Government fully appreciates what they have done; but, like the public itself, food traders should be protected against possible action by individuals who may be seeking an unreasonable advantage. In introducing this Bill I am able to say that the trade representatives who have been consulted agree fully that such a Bill as this should be introduced and it has their full support.
The Bill itself requires but little explanation. It is a short, simple measure which gives the Board of Trade wide powers to make such regulations as they may consider necessary or expedient for the purpose of remedying or preventing a shortage or unreasonable increase in price of any article of food or drink of general consumption caused by the action of any person or persons who may be exploiting the present financial situation. There is no intention whatsoever of setting up a huge machinery of control of the kind with which we came to be familiar in the Great War, but it is necessary to take wide powers in order to be able to act promptly if any cases

291
of exploitation do arise. The powers, for example, would enable the Board of Trade, through persons whom the Board may authorise to do so, to take possession of stocks or contracts of any person who appears to be exploiting the situation. If it is necessary to use the powers they will be exercised in consultation with representatives of the trades concerned, and it will be possible if it is so desired to delegate powers to a trade association or to some other body, such as a municipality, so that they will be able to deal promptly and effectively with persons who are abusing the position. Penalties are provided for offences against the regulations and jurisdiction will be exercised by courts of summary jurisdiction.
The situation is, of course, entirely different from the situation which arose in the War. First of all there is no interruption of supplies. Supplies are continuing and we have every reason to expect and hope that the normal flow will continue. Apart from the financial question there is no obstacle to obtaining supplies. There is no difficulty in obtaining exchange for making food purchases and it is vital, as your Lordships will agree, that the ordinary processes of trade should continue. There is no intention to interrupt or to hamper those processes by the creation of a huge administrative machine of the food control type, but it is intended to prevent or if necessary to punish exploitation. After full discussion with the interests concerned the Government have formed the opinion that apart from the effect of falls in sterling there is no reason to anticipate higher food prices in general. There will be the usual seasonal variations, but the world position of supplies, as your Lordships are well aware, is satisfactory. In fact, in certain countries there is a glut in the market of certain food supplies. With the wholehearted co-operation of the food industries the Government will endeavour to see that any rise in price due to sterling decline is reasonable, and they will use their powers under the Bill to prevent and punish any exploitation of the situation at the expense of the people's food. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Marquess of Londonderry.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, it is not our intention to offer any opposition to the passing of this Bill, but inasmuch as it is a Bill of considerable importance it seems inadvisable that it should pass through your Lordships' House without a word of comment from this side. We recognise that it is a measure which is precautionary in its character and that it deals not with things that have already happened but with things that might happen under certain circumstances in the future. The justification for this measure is that it will help everybody concerned to remember what the community expects from them in the manner of fair dealing in the great crisis through which the nation is passing. If I expressed any doubt about this measure it would be rather in regard to the way in which it will be implemented. I very much hope that the vigilance of the Government will be keen and that they will really act as occasion seems to them to demand it.
One could criticise at length what seem to be omissions in the Bill, but that would not be helpful at this time. For instance, I cannot detect who is to prosecute or who is to decide on prosecution, nor can I find in regard, say, to a multiple company who is the person to be prosecuted, whether it is to be the secretary or the directors or whoever is concerned. Things of that kind really require some explanation but I do not intend to press them this afternoon. I hope, however, that the steps taken will really be adequate and will be immediate when the time comes. In the olden days I believe that persons of the kind the Government have in mind in this Bill were tied to a cart tail and whipped through the City of London. Being attached to humanitarian principles I do not desire to see that kind of punishment re-established, but I hope nevertheless that His Majesty's Government will take what action is necessary.
I cannot close my remarks on this Bill without reminding myself and your Lordships that during this Session of Parliament under the other Government there was an opportunity of getting this work done in another way, but every artifice of Parliamentary obstruction was indulged in by those now enthusiastic in promoting this measure to prevent the Consumers' Council Bill doing what it is now pro-

293
posed to do by this Bill. It is not that the Consumers' Council Bill outraged in unusual degree private liberty, because Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister, speaking in the other House the other day, said that this Bill is, to use his own words, infinitely more drastic than the Consumers' Council Bill.
EARL PEEL: The late First Lord said it was eyewash.
LORD SNELL: It is sufficient to me to point to what Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister said. I only wish to say in conclusion that I think that this measure may be necessary in the circumstances in which we are placed, but we must never forget that what we really require in the long run is adequate organisation of the distributive services throughout the country so that when a crisis of this kind comes, if it ever comes again, it will be more easy to regulate than it is at present. We shall assent to this Bill as an act of faith in the belief that His Majesty's Government in this matter, at least, will really do their best to protect the interests of the consumers.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I propose to address you for only one moment in support of the measure before the House. It is a measure which I think it is most essential to pass at this stage, and I am very glad that the powers contained in the Bill are very wide and drastic. The noble Lord who has just sat down referred to the attempts that were made under the previous Government to have some permanent arrangement of this kind, in order to provide a more satisfactory distribution of foodstuffs throughout the community, and to control prices. This question of prices is one of the most difficult that we have to face at the present time, and really nobody knows very much about it. We all talk a lot about food prices, but we are inclined to forget that one has to take the monetary value of wages into account in making calculations, and really this is a subject upon which very little is known. What is necessary is to try and control the monetary prices that we can see, so as to bring them into relation with the monetary wage that a man is receiving.
It is very interesting to see what the real course of wages and prices has been over the last fifteen years. A document has just been published by the Secre-
294
tariat of the League of Nations which gives some figures about this country that are so striking that I think it will be of interest to your Lordships to observe what has been discovered in the course of the work that they have done. In the fifteen years between 1913 and 1928, the annual consumption per head of various foodstuffs in this country has increased, in the case of butter—I am giving approximate figures—from 10 lbs. to 14½ lbs.; the consumption of margarine has decreased from 3¾ lbs. to 2¾ lbs., showing the steady progress towards a higher standard of living; the consumption of cheese has gone up from 5½ lbs. to 7½ lbs.; of coffee from ½ lb. to ¾ lb.; the number of eggs that the average person consumes has gone up from 56 to 69; the consumption of dried fruit has gone up from 4¾ lbs. to 6 lbs.; beef, which I think is the most remarkable of all, shows an increase in consumption by the average man and woman in this country from 22 lbs. in 1913 to 33 lbs. in 1928, an increase of 30 per cent.; the consumption of bacon and ham has gone up from an average of 13¾lbs. per head to 23 lbs.; of tea from 6¾lbs. to 9¼ lbs.; of tobacco from 2 lbs. to 3 lbs.; and the only article of consumption that really shows a big decline is beer, with a drop from 22 gallons to 16½ gallons. It is really an interesting observation that from these figures it is clear that there has been an increase of about 28 per cent. in the actual amount consumed per head in this country. That is quite apart from questions of currency or the value of prices or wages. The actual increase in the food consumed by the ordinary individual in this country over a period of 15 years rose by roughly 2 per cent. per annum.
That does show that we have made very substantial progress in the direction that noble Lords are so constantly urging. This Bill will help us to maintain the position that confronts us to-day, and I hope that the activities of those who will have to govern this country in the near future will help us to continue that increase. There is no greater mistake than to imagine that, because there is a slight increase in prices at a certain moment, it is necessarily going to diminish at all seriously the standard of living of the people of this country. There is still a very wide margin, for we have made great progress in past years, and a slight rise in prices, while it may be felt by housewives and others who have to make

295
purchases, will not seriously alter the progress that is being made by the population of this country from year to year. I hope that this Bill will be passed without any dissent, and will be used by the Government with all the force that they may feel to be necessary from time to time.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I do not feel that there is any necessity for me to add much to what I have already said on this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for the speech which he has made, and also for that of the noble Lord behind me, with the very remarkable and interesting figures that he gave us. The noble Lord opposite referred to the Consumers' Council Bill. I think he will agree with me that the procedure under that Bill was not nearly so expeditious as that of the Bill of which I am venturing to move the Second Reading to-day. I think he referred also to the Emergency Powers Bill. That Bill has been in existence for a considerable number of years, and could only operate on an extensive scale. This Bill gives the Government power to deal practically with eases whether on an extensive scale or not. The noble Lord asked a question, which was asked in the House of Commons also, as to who will be prosecuted. I confine myself to the answer that was given by the Attorney-General, who said that he was aware of the hardships that might be imposed on small people, and his main desire was to see that the right people were hit, and that the bigger people should come under the penalties and jurisdiction of the Bill. He went on to say that it would be for the regulations to provide for this and that—
"the regulations will be administered with common sense, and against the men behind the scenes, the directing brains."
I do not think the noble Lord need have any anxiety as to who will be the prosecutor, and I have no doubt that this Bill, when it becomes law, will carry out the purpose for which it was framed.
LORD SNELL: There is no intention of making a poor salaried secretary a victim in a case where a big multiple company is concerned?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: That was answered in the Attorney-General's words.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

SUNDAY PERFORMANCES (TEMPORARY REGULATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons, and read 1a.
THE PARLIAMENTARY AND FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE ADMIRALTY (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be now read a second time, perhaps I may very briefly explain the situation which has arisen in regard to it. No doubt your Lordships have read in the public Press a good deal in regard to the Sunday Observance Bill and the Sunday Performances Bill earlier in the year. The Bill now before your Lordships is quite a different Bill from that described in the public Press. That Bill was brought in by the late Government, by Mr. Clynes the then Home Secretary, and raised a question of principle. It was a non-Party Bill, and was put to a free vote in another place, and then it had a very difficult career in Committee. That Bill was brought in to deal with a very curious situation that perhaps I might briefly describe to your Lordships. Concerts began to be held in London somewhere about 1899, or even earlier, and nobody objected to that at all until one day in 1897, when the London County Council's attitude was challenged in the Courts, and the London County Council's licensing of these concerts was upheld in the Courts. Things remained quiescent until cinemas began to come into use, and eventually they began to hold entertainments on Sundays from 1916 onwards. In addition to London there are 96 other areas in which cinemas are open on Sundays. Stage plays and music hall entertainments have never been permitted on Sundays. In London the licensing authority is the Lord Chamberlain, and elsewhere the justices, but neither have agreed to stage plays being performed on Sundays.
That was the situation which we desire to retain by this Bill. What has hap-

297
pened in the interval to make the Bill necessary is this. At the end of 1930 there was an action in the High Court under the Sunday Observance Act, 1780. In the course of the judgment it was decided by the Court that cinemas were illegal on Sundays, and doubt was even cast on Sunday concerts, and possibly on such harmless entertainments as the Zoological Gardens, debates and lectures, for which payment was demanded from those who came to attend them. Your Lordships will realise that the penalties are very material when I tell you that a common informer can obtain up to £200 for every Sunday on which there is a performance. Perhaps some of you may feel it is just as well if the common informer should be given those powers, and the local authorities be compelled to follow the law, but that is not the whole story, because undoubtedly, now that local authorities realise that they have no authority to control the character of performances, the cinemas are beginning to think about giving variety entertainments, which are a very different story from the ordinary picture performances.
The present Bill is merely a stop-gap measure. Its duration is limited to one year from the passing of the Act. It does not add to the number of performances which may be given on Sundays, because only those licensing authorities which have within a period of one year before the passing of this Bill allowed Sunday opening of places of entertainment may continue to do so. In those cases, and only in those cases, may the local authorities continue to license. Where entertainments have not been given on Sundays no power is given in this Bill to allow them to be held. In Clause 1, subsection (1), of the Bill there is a condition which I think your Lordships will approve, whatever your views may be with regard to these entertainments on Sundays, and that is that the licensing authorities can impose such conditions as they may think fit. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is very necessary that the licensing authorities should continue to exercise those powers.
As regards the entertainments which may be given there is a definition in subsection (2) of Clause 1, in which it is made quite clear that a cinematograph entertainment means merely the exhibition of pictures, with or without
298
mechanical reproduction of sound, and that it does not include a variety entertainment of any sort or kind, and that a musical entertainment means "a concert or similar entertainment consisting of the performance of music, with or without singing or recitation." The matter was raised in another place when the Bill was discussed two days ago, but I think that House was satisfied with the explanation given by the Attorney-General that the definition was quite clear and adequate to meet the case.
I may perhaps say a word or two with regard to Clause 2. The effect is merely this. There are a certain number of actions pending, and the Home Secretary has the power to rescind any penalties which are imposed when somebody brings a case in respect of a cinematograph entertainment, but the Home Secretary has no power to remit the costs of the action. It is felt that where a case has been brought subsequent to the introduction of the big Bill earlier in the year, the common informer had full notice that Parliament intended to deal with the subject, and therefore it was felt that it was only right that the Home Secretary should have power to remit the costs of the action as well as the penalty. Where, however, a case was brought before the Bill was introduced on April 2 last, there costs shall be levied, subject, of course, to the decision of the Court or Judge, and in those cases it shall be the Court or Judge who shall decide.
There are a few words at the end of Clause 2 which perhaps require a little explanation. There is no licensing authority for such entertainments as those to which I referred earlier—namely, the Zoo, lectures and so forth. Therefore it might be that a common informer might bring an action against them, and the Bill introduces words which prevent such an action from being brought without the approval of the Attorney-General or the Solicitor-General. That would prevent proceedings from being taken in such harmless cases.
This Bill will not extend to Scotland, because the Sunday Observance Act, 1780, also did not apply to Scotland. As regards Northern Ireland, the Parliament there has sufficient power to take such action as may be considered necessary,

299
and therefore it is not necessary for this Parliament to deal with the situation. Wales is brought into the Bill, although I believe it is the case that there is only one place in Wales where cinematograph performances are given, although, the Welsh being a very musical people, there are a large number of places where concerts are given, and those might have been attacked. The duration of this Bill is limited to one year from the passing thereof, and therefore I hope I have given an accurate description when I say that it is merely a stop-gap Bill, until Parliament has more opportunity for dealing with the larger question and considering it on its merits. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Earl Stanhope.)
LORD SNELL: My Lords, It is not my intention to offer any opposition to the Bill. On the contrary, I wish to give it every possible support, on the understanding, of course, that it is an emergency measure to see us through the present time, until the whole situation can be explored and properly dealt with. On that understanding we give the Bill our hearty support. I was interested to hear the noble Earl suggest that lectures take the form of an entertainment. I have always been afraid, when I have been a lecturer, that they were in the form of an infliction. But I am glad to feel that they are not to be made the subject of a prosecution. A point I wanted to clear up was this. I really do not understand what is the position of a cinema that has been open for eleven months, or nine months, or six months before the passing of this Bill. Is it not rather hard to make it depend upon that arbitrary date? Why should not all cinemas that have been opened be immune from prosecution? In a rapidly changing industry, such as the cinema industry, I can conceive that during the last twelve months there have been quite a lot of cinemas opened on Sundays, and it seems rather a pity to make them liable to prosecution.
EARL STANHOPE: It is not a question of cinemas having been open for a year; it is a question of whether a local authority has taken powers to license such entertainments within their area during the year.
LORD SNELL: It refers to the area, and not to the cinema?
EARL STANHOPE: Yes. There may be hard cases even under that provision, but, of course, we have to make a line somewhere, and that always entails hard eases wherever the line is drawn, as the noble Lord knows.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) committed to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment:
Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIA TION) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons endorsed with a Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911, and read 1a.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended), Bill read 2a: Committee negatived: Bill read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment, agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal Assent was given to the following Bills:—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2),

Foodstuffs (Prevention of Exploitation),

Sunday Performances (Temporary Regulation),

Ardrossan Harbour Order Confirmation.

301

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Chepping Wycombe),

London Electric, Metropolitan District, and Central London Railway Companies (Works).

HIS MAJESTY'S SPEECH.
And afterwards His Majesty's most gracious Speech was delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of His Majesty's Command) as followeth:—
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"My relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly.
"I have been following with interest and sympathy the resumed deliberations of the Round Table Conference. I trust that joint endeavour may produce an agreement on a plan which will commend itself to the judgment of wise statesmanship.
"Members of the House of Commons,
"I thank you for the provision you have made for the public service.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"In the last few weeks My people have been called upon to face a financial and economic crisis which continues to give cause for anxiety. The measures taken by My Ministers, with the support of Parliament, to meet this emergency, involve sacrifices from every member of the community. I am confident that, as on former occasions in the history of the country, every citizen will co-operate to the
302
utmost of his power in restoring prosperity to the nation.
"I have given My assent to measures necessary to balance the National Budget.
"An Act has been passed to amend the law relating to the gold standard.
"My assent has also been given to a measure to ensure the public against exploitation in regard to the supply or price of certain articles of general consumption.
"In bidding you farewell, I earnestly commend you to the merciful protection and guidance of Almighty God."
Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read.
After which the LORD CHANCELLOR said:
MY LORDS, AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE or COMMONS,—By virtue of His Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in His Majesty's name and in obedience to His Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday, the twenty-seventh day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-one, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday the twenty-seventh day of October, One thousand nine hundred and thirty-one.
End of the Second Session of the Thirty-fifth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the twenty-second year of the Reign of His Majesty King George V.
The Parliament was dissolved by Royal Proclamation issued on October 7