Lords Sitting of 24 February 1932

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.

KINGSTON-UPON-THAMES EXTENSION BILL. [H I]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. The reason for it is that the Attorney-General's Report had not been received in time, and therefore we have to ask your Lordships to suspend the Standing Order.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 105 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

WOKKSOP CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (MAIDSTONE EXTENSION) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO VISIONAL ORDER (SITTING BOURNE AND MILTON) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-committment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

GREY SEALS PROTECTION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, I am in entire agreement with this Bill and wish to see it passed, but I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 1 (2) and (3). Subsection (2) says:
"An order made under this section which renders lawful the killing of grey seals during their breeding season may contain such regulations, if any, as the Minister or the Secretary of State thinks fit for prohibiting, during such period as may be specified in the order, the killing of grey seals…"
Subsection (3) goes on to state that:
"Before any order is made under this section, the draft thereof shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of not less than forty-eight days during the Session of Parliament…"
I understand that when this Bill was before your Lordships' House and another place last year there was some considerable trouble as to what should be the period during which the order should lie upon the Table of each House. Originally the usual twenty-eight days was inserted in the Bill. In your Lordships' House, at the instance of Lord Danesfort, it was made forty-eight days and in another place that period was adhered to.
It seems to me that either it is right to give power to the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland to vary the close season or it is not. If it is right I submit that forty-eight days makes it practically impossible for the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, working together, to modify the order in most cases, because forty-eight days during a Session of Parliament is so long that in practice it will take the power away from them. Therefore either you should put in a reasonable time—the usual time, namely, twenty-eight days—or you should cut out this provision altogether. Either they are to be trusted to make this modification and you should then put in a reasonable time, or, if they are not to be trusted and you are trying to stop them by putting in these forty-eight days

657
which is unduly long, then the time ought to be cut out altogether. But to try to clip the wings of these Departments to do something which in principle apparently Parliament desires them to do is neither logical nor sound.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I will of course represent to those responsible for this Bill the points raised by the noble Lord, but I must point out to him that this was really a compromise. There was an endeavour made in another place to get the period extended still further and I think those responsible for the passage of this Bill are desirous to adhere to the time now laid down. But I will of course investigate the matter and let the noble Lord know whether any further compromise can be arrived at.
LORD LOVAT:My Lords, I should like, to raise the question of whether it would not be better in limitation Bills of this sort to entrust more authority to the county councils, who, after all, know very much more about these matters than the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the county to which I have the honour to belong we know a good deal about, the seal. We have county representatives who come from the very areas where the killing of seals goes on, aid I do feel that all these proposals, such as bird preservation and seal preservation, would get much more easily through your Lordships' House and through another place, if more authority was delegated to the county councils, who really know something about them, rather than to officials, however eminent, in a central position like Edinburgh, who very often know absolutely nothing at all. I do not mean to press this point, but I suggest that when your Lordships are considering any Amendment to meet the noble Lord's wishes you should consider the question as to whether a delegation in some shape might not be well worth considering.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly (the EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair).
Bill reported without amendment.

NORTHERN IRELAND (MISCELLANE OUS PROVISIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): Amendments (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount the Leader of the House could answer two questions which I would like to address to him. The first is what the business will be next week after Monday. The second arises out of the debate we had last week on the events in the Far East. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether, in view of the repeated reports in the Press as to the contents of the Japanese reply to the Note of the twelve Powers, that reply has been yet received by His Majesty's Government, and if so when it will be published. If the reply has not been received, I do not know if the noble and learned Viscount could tell us how it is that the consents of the Note seem to be known in Tokyo.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, so far as business is concerned, on Monday we are meeting at a quarter to three and hoping to get all stages of the Import Duties Bill. After that we have at present no Orders of the Day set down for next week. I am told there is likely to be a Motion by one of my noble friends on the question of Waterloo bridge, but that Motion has not as yet made its appearance on the Paper. I think it is probably going to be set down for one day next week. There may be some small Bill which will be ready from the Home Affairs Committee, but there will not be anything of substance or anything controversial so far as the Government are concerned during next week after Monday.
As to the second question, the noble Lord was good enough to intimate to me he was proposing to ask this question; accordingly I have communicated with the Foreign Office and the answer which I have from them is that no reply whatsoever from Japan to the League of Nations has yet been received by the Foreign Office. Of course, it is possible that there

659
may be a reply on its way to Geneva, but if so there is no intimation to that effect of which we are aware. So far as the Foreign Office can tell, the forecasts which have appeared in some newspapers—I do not know whether they are as to the probable or as to the actual con
660
tents of the Note—are quite unauthorised, and at any rate we know nothing of the source from which the report emanates, or as to the accuracy of that report.
House adjourned at a quarter past four o'clock.