Lords Sitting of 16 November 1933

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

SEA-FISHING INDUSTRY ACT, 1933 (SEA-FISHING INDUSTRY (REGU-LATION OF LANDING) ORDER, 1933).
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order made by the Board of Trade under the Sea-Fishing Industry Act, 1933, be now approved. This Order has been made by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Sea-Fishing Industry Act. As provided by that Act, it is subject to the approval of each House of Parliament. It was presented to the other House last night and to-day I have the honour to submit it to your Lordships. The Order provides the necessary machinery to enable effect to be given to the policy of the Government, which was explained to the House during the debates on the Sea-Fishing Industry Bill which became law on July 28 last, just before Parliament rose for the Summer Recess. This Bill was to restrict foreign supplies of sea-fish to an annual amount equal to 90 per cent. of the average annual imports from each country during the last three years.
It will be recalled that the object of the Act was to save from collapse an industry so seriously depressed that a large proportion of it had for some time been working definitely at a loss. Wholesale prices of fish at the ports had been so low as to be unremunerative to producers, and supplies of fish were evidently greater than markets could absorb at prices which would yield a fair return to the industry. The Act aimed at improving prices by regulating supplies, both British and foreign. It provided that no Order should be made by the Board of Trade to regulate foreign landings until Orders had been made by the Ministers concerned with fisheries under the powers conferred by Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act to restrict the landing of sea-fish caught in far northern waters, to regulate the size of mesh of fishing nets used in British fishing boats, and to prohibit the sale
412
of specified classes of undersized sea-fish. These restrictions, which apply only to the classes of fish which it is least desirable to market, were calculated both to improve prices at the ports in this country and to improve fishing by reducing the destruction of immature fish.
An essential part of the policy underlying the Act was to impose a restriction on foreign landings so that the efforts of the home industry should not be nullified by increased importations from foreign countries. The scheme represented a large measure of general agreement. The home industry accepted restrictions on their operations on condition that they were protected from increased foreign landings; and the foreign countries principally concerned, representing, it is remarkable to note, over 90 per cent., of our foreign imports of the kinds of fish affected by the Order, accepted the import restriction by voluntary agreement in view of the benefits conferred by the other restrictive measures proposed. Orders under Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Act were made by the appropriate Ministers on July 29 last and became operative on August 1. It had been hoped that the Order regulating foreign landings under Section 1 of the Act could be made in time to come into effect immediately after the other Orders, but it was not found practicable to make the Order until August 15. It came into operation on the 21st of the same month.
The Preamble to the Order states the intention to regulate landings of foreign-caught fish by restricting them to the quantities specified in the Schedule in the case of the principal supplying countries, and in all other cases to 90 per cent. of the average amounts landed during the three years 1930 to 1932. The quantities specified in the Schedule also represent, in round figures, 90 per cent. of the three-year average for the respective countries named. As it was desired that the quota year should correspond with the calendar year, Part I of the Schedule sets out separate figures, with appropriate reductions, for the period from August 21 to December 31, 1933. The operative sections of the Order provide the necessary machinery for restricting imports to the amounts specified. Before making an Order under Section 1 of the Act the Board of Trade are re-

413
quired by Statute to have regard to the interests of the consumers of the sea-fish to which the Order relates—including persons, such as curers, who purchase sea-fish for processing—and to the effect of the Order on the commercial relations of this country; and to satisfy themselves that the Order is not at variance with any commercial treaty, convention or agreement between this country and any other country. Your Lordships can rest assured that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade and his officials have paid due regard to these considerations.
As has already been stated the object of the Act was to bring about such an increase in the wholesale price of fish at the ports as would enable a reasonable profit to be made by the owners of British fishing boats. A comparatively small increase of the order of ½d. per lb. is all that was desired. There is every reason to anticipate that such an increase could be effected without causing any appreciable increase in retail prices. The cost of packing, transport and marketing of so perishable a commodity as fish is necessarily high, with the result that the prime cost of the fish constitutes only the minor part of the price charged to the consumer. Moreover, the alternative to the measures taken by this Government would certainly not have benefited the consumer in the long run. A continuance of the port prices ruling during the past year would have made it impossible for many trawler owners to continue their operations and the resulting collapse could not have failed to have been detrimental to the consumer. As regards the commercial relations and agreements of this country, it has already been mentioned that voluntary agreements were reached with countries representing over 90 per cent. of our total foreign imports of the kinds of fish affected and the Order is in conformity with those agreements.
It is too early yet to judge the working and effects of the Order, but it may be said that it has worked smoothly hitherto and there is every reason to anticipate that it will continue to do so. As regards its effects, the position up to date gives no ground for disappointment. In July last, before the new measures came into operation, the average price of white fish of British catching in England and
414
Wales was only 15s. 11d. per cwt., the lowest July figure for many years. In August the average price rose to 19s. 7d. per cwt. as compared with 17s. 5d. in August last year. It fell slightly to 19s. 6d. in September (as compared with 22s. in September last year) but in October it rose to 25s. 5d. as compared with 19s. 10d. in October last year. A spell of exceptionally hot weather was experienced in August and September this year favouring good supplies of fish and tending to restrict demand. In October fishings were hampered by stormy weather and landings were lighter.
Retail prices, it is satisfactory to observe, appear to have remained about normal. In July last the average retail price of fish as recorded by the Ministry of Labour was 93 per cent. above the figure for 1914. The percentage rose to. 94 per cent. in August and to 96 per cent. in September and October. During the same period the index figure for all articles of food showed an increase from l8 per cent. in July to 23 per cent. in October, above the figure for July, 1914—a. greater increase than in the case of fish. In 1932 the index price of fish rose from 94 per cent. above pre-War in July to 100 per cent. in October—a greater increase than in the present year. The slight upward movement of fish prices in the last few months cannot therefore be attributed to the effect of the Orders.
I have been supplied with a very full brief by the Department which I represent, and if any noble Lord has any question to ask I or my noble friend Lord De La Warr, who is here, will do our best to answer it. In consequence of this Act there was a very definite improvement in all the ports as regards this industry. Our markets are becoming more attractive, orders are being placed for the building of new trawlers and men are being taken on instead of being discharged. The whole position is considerably better than it was before the Act was passed, and I confidently recommend this Order for the approval of your Lordships.
Moved, That the Order made by the Board of Trade under the Sea-Fishing Industry Act, 1933, which was presented to this House on the 7th instant be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING ACT, 1933 (BACON (IMPORT REGULATION) ORDER, 1933).
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE moved, That the Order made by the Board of Trade under the Act, which was presented to this House on the 8th instant, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order is one which has been made by the Board of Trade under Section I of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, which your Lordships will remember received the Royal Assent last July, a week or so, I think, before the Act to which I referred just now. The House will recall that the imports of bacon and hams from foreign countries have been controlled since November last year. In that month, owing to the collapse of the meat market, emergency arrangements of a voluntary kind were made for controlling the importation of all kinds of meat and, at the same time, it was arranged to reduce the importation of bacon and hams by 15 per cent. The Government announced on December 19 last that they accepted in principle the recommendations of the Reorganisation Commission for Pigs and Pig Products, generally known as the Lane-Fox Commission. The basis of those recommendations was that in order to establish the home bacon industry on a firm basis of annual contracts the total supply of bacon and hams should be limited in the first instance to a quantity of rather over 10,500,000 cwts. per annum, which was estimated to be the average supply available in the years 1925 to 1930. It was decided to continue the reduction of foreign imports gradually so as to reach the Lane-Fox level in the autumn, when the first home contracts would be made and the Ministry of Agriculture were able to obtain the assent of the bacon-exporting countries to the successive reductions.
The reductions were calculated on the general assumption that the home supplies would, when the contracts were made, be found to be about 2.000,000 cwts. per annum, but it is a fact, as we now well know, that when the contracts were actually made the home supply was found to be no less than 3,000,000 cwts. per annum. Clearly in these circumstances the Government had no option but to effect a corresponding reduction in the imports from foreign countries,
416
and this they accordingly endeavoured to do. Unfortunately certain countries, and in particular the country chiefly affected—namely, Denmark (who has a Treaty right to 62 per cent. of the total importation from foreign countries)—could not see their way to accept so sudden and drastic a reduction by way of voluntary agreement. It should be made clear that we have no sort of complaint against the attitude of the Danish Government who, throughout the period of restriction, have helped His Majesty's Government in every possible way. They did not, however, if one may interpret their attitude, feel that they could impose upon their farmers a reduction of this magnitude without the sanction of a compulsory Order on our side. One or two other countries also demurred and it, therefore, became necessary for the Board of Trade to exercise their powers to regulate imports under Section 1 of the Agricultural Marketing Act of the present Session, which became law on, I think, July 21 last.
The Order which is before your Lordships was accordingly made on the 7th November. It is of the simplest character, consisting of a Preamble, eleven clauses and a Schedule, and provides merely that as from the 1st December bacon as there defined can only be imported under licence. By Article 7 of the Order bacon is to be deemed to be imported under licence if there is produced at the time of importation a licence issued by the Board of Trade, or a certificate issued on behalf of the foreign Government to the effect that the consignment is produced in that country and forms part of the total quantity arranged to be imported from that country. The countries to which the Order applies are the eleven countries named in the Schedule, and, by Article 3, any other foreign country imports from which exceed a rate of 400 cwt. per week. The actual quantities will be fixed from time to time as required. Under the existing arrangements the total importations from foreign countries in the period from the 10th November to the 28th February will be a little over 1,900,000 cwt. This quantity is at present divided among the several countries on an agreed basis, but the allocation is provisional only and subject to further

417
discussion with the countries concerned. I therefore ask your Lordships to approve the Order which has become necessary in order to carry out the policy already approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Board of Trade under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, which was presented to this House on the 8th instant, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, I should like to make a few observations and put one or two questions with regard to this Motion. I do so particularly because, unfortunately, owing to my being in the dentist's chair, I was not able to take part in the discussion in July, when your Lordships passed the original Order which this one is intended to amend. We have just dealt with two commodities, fish and bacon. There is an essential difference in our handling of those two commodities. As regards the fishing industry, we have given protection, without insisting on putting the industry in a strait-jacket and fixing domestic prices or limiting domestic productions. So it differs essentially from this Order under the Agricultural Marketing Act.
As your Lordships may possibly he aware, I have had misgivings about the ultimate effect of some of these Orders under the Marketing Act, and I think that what has happened already in connection with the bacon scheme, and what appears to be happening in connection with the milk scheme, justifies to some extent some of the misgivings I ventured to put before your Lordships. Take, for instance, one paint brought out yesterday in another place—namely, the amount of money which under the quota scheme leaves this country and goes into the pockets of foreign producers or the pockets of shippers. Under the quota the increase in the price leaves this country, whereas if you had a straightforward tariff any increase in price which results from it would go to the Treasury and thereby benefit the consumer in this country. I notice that, speaking yesterday in another place, Mr. H. G. Williams, who is an ardent Conservative and a staunch supporter of the Government and of the Conservative Party, estimated that under the bacon scheme more than £3,000,000 sterling a year would be given
418
to foreign farmers which, under a straightforward tariff, would have come to the Treasury. I have always said that as between the two forms of Protection—Protection through a tariff and Protection through a quota—it seemed to me that Protection through a tariff, in normal conditions, when you are not dealing with depreciated currencies, was far preferable.
I think the Government have made the mistake of not beginning with established industries like livestock, but have been attempting to create almost a new industry. After all, it is almost a new industry in connection with the pig which is being created, because we are to have a very large expansion; and the result is that live-stock producers are in a worse position than ever. It would be better if you had decided to protect live-stock farming as a going concern instead of trying to create a new industry. One of the fallacies, it seems to me, is that a great deal of the scheme is based on guesswork. Consumption cannot be accurately forecasted. There are two factors to be taken into consideration—one is quality and the other is price. If quality deteriorates then it is very probable demand will also diminish, and I am not sure myself—I should like very much to know what the noble Earl representing the Ministry of Agriculture or the noble Lord representing the Board of Trade and the consumers, feel about it—I am not sure that quality will be maintained if there is this very rapid expansion in the home-made bacon industry.
There is another point and that is the effect on consumption of price. Recently, as your Lordships know, there has been a very large importation of bacon. That has been due to the fact that bacon was cheap and people were poor. They were unemployed, trade was bad, and because people were poor those with reduced income bought bacon. If you put up the price of bacon—and the object of this scheme is to put it up—too high, it does not follow that people will consume the same amount. They will change their dietary, they will turn from bacon if it is made expensive to cheaper forms of food. There are many alternatives equally nourishing that would be cheaper. So it does not at all follow that the consumption estimated under these control

419
schemes will be constant if the quality diminishes or the price increases.
This question of the cost of food, particularly essentials, is vital to an industrial country like ours, which is dependent on its export trade. Under the Danish Agreement a great deal was made of the fact that the Danes, because they were given 62 per cent, of our imports, undertook to buy large quantities of English coal. If you are going to reduce substantially the amount of bacon we get from the Danes, it seems to me obvious that they will not buy so much coal, one of our basic industries, one of our hard-hit industries in this country. I have always felt that one of the results of this bacon scheme would be to disappoint either the British farmers on the one side or the Danes on the other side. The English farmers expect a very large expansion of pig production, with a consequent reduction of our imports of Danish bacon. The Danes, on the other hand, when they gave us large orders for coal, or whatever else, contemplated that 62 per cent. of our imports would represent a large figure. It is obvious, if you are going to restrict, to take the most extreme case, 62 per cent. of nothing is worth nothing; and if you reduce the total volume of your imports very substantially, it is quite obvious that the Danes will not be able to spend so much in helping British industry, coal or whatever else it may be.
There is another point I should like to put to the noble Earl or to the noble Lord, and it is connected with the formula in the Lane-Fox scheme. As I understand it, the formula was based on the assumption that there would be sixteen pigs per sow per annum. I think the noble Earl will remember that was the figure given. I should like very much to know whether the Ministry of Agriculture agree with that figure. I hold in my hand a report issued by the University of Cambridge Department of Agriculture. I shall read only one small quotation:
"The records collected in the Cambridge pig recording scheme show that in well-managed herds a reasonable average in pig production is seven and a-half pigs marketed per litter, or fifteen pigs per sow, assuming two litters per annum; but in practice two litters per sow within twelve months is achieved by only 40 per cent. of the sows."
420
When the ordinary number of pigs per sow is not sixteen, as the Lane-Fox Commission suggested, but something very much below that—it may be twelve, it may be ten, probably it is some figure between ten and twelve, as far as I am able to ascertain—I would like very much to know what the opinion of the noble Lord is, because obviously, if the premises are not correct, the conclusions drawn from them must be faulty.
It seems to me there are two things brought nearer as the result of this and other schemes. One is the very rapid approach of monopoly import boards, which I have always felt was the logical and inevitable sequel to quotas. I would say honestly I would prefer the two—though I think tariffs are infinitely better—but under the import board scheme consumers would be able to get a commodity imported at a cheaper price, whereas the quota commits you to buying possibly in the dearest market. I do not think it is in the interest of the consumers, and if it is not in the interest of the consumers, sooner or later you are bound to have a reaction against your agricultural policy, because the majority of voters are consumers and townsmen. The next step towards which we must be inevitably driven is control of production. In an industry such as agriculture, depending as it does upon climate and so many other factors, I think that is a very dangerous sequel. I notice that only recently one of the leading supporters of the hop scheme stated publicly that the existing hop growers now wanted power to prevent any new person starting growing hops—that is to say, they wanted to obtain for themselves a monopoly in hop production. That seems to me an inevitable sequel, and I think you will find the same thing will probably arise in connection with dairying, pigs, and other things. I am not enough of a Socialist to see that sort of result with any equanimity.
There is only one last point I would like to put to the noble Earl. As I understand it, the Government have, what I briefly call, guaranteed an overdraft of something like £500,000 in connection with bacon. The figure does not really matter, but a substantial overdraft has been guaranteed. I would like the noble Earl to tell us how it is proposed to liquidate that. As far as I can make out, that amount can only be liqui-

421
dated either by making a gift or a sort of subsidy to the industry through the Board, or by raising the retail price to the consumer, or, possibly, by lowering the contract price. I may be wrong, and I should be grateful if the noble Earl would tell us how the Government propose to deal with that. I have always attempted, when examining these schemes under the Marketing Act, to deal with them constructively and not in any carping spirit or by way of obstruction. The whole policy is so tremendously experimental that I think it is vital we should scrutinise the scheme as carefully as possible. Therefore, I apologise to your Lordships for having taken up so much time.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF, THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, a number of points have been brought forward by the noble Viscount, with which the noble Lord, Lord Temple-more, has asked me to try and deal. I would take the noble Viscount's last point first and answer it very briefly. With regard to this loan which has been guaranteed by the Government, it will be liquidated by menus of a levy on pigs by the Pig Board in the future—that is, providing the loan actually has to be met. But so far, while not wishing in any way to be committed to what I am saying, I think it looks at the moment as if it were quite likely that by no means all of that sum is going to be required.
Then the noble Viscount raised the question of the accuracy of our figures, and he commented on the fact that inevitably, in initiating these schemes, we must work a great deal upon guesswork. We are quite ready to admit that; in fact one reason why it is so necessary to have these schemes is that it is quite impossible at present, with our existing machinery, to attempt the planning of this industry. It is essential, if we are to attempt the planning of agriculture, that we should have these new schemes in existence before we can have any really definite information to work upon, and, therefore, I make no apology to your Lordships for the fact that whereas we budgeted for something over two million pigs we found that about three million pigs have been contracted for.
The noble Viscount also raised the vexed question, which, I think, we have
422
very often discussed before between ourselves, of the tariff versus the quota. I am quite sure the noble Viscount would not wish me to enter into all the details of that controversy once again; but there is just one aspect of that question which I would like to be allowed to deal with for a moment. Later on in his speech the noble Viscount complained that if we were going to reduce pig and bacon imports from Denmark we would inevitably lose our foreign trade with Denmark. In another portion of his speech he complained that by our system of regulating imports we found ourselves in the position of having to pay to Denmark very nearly as much money as we were paying in the past for a very much larger number of pigs. Those two facts go together. It is because of this quantitative system of the regulation of imports from Denmark and from other countries that the foreign country as well as our own country does gain from a rise in price, and Denmark, and even other foreign countries, are enabled thereby to continue to buy from this country; whereas if we had adopted the method of a tariff and made it impossible for Denmark to get any benefit from any rise in price we would have found ourselves in the position inevitably of breaking the purchasing power of Denmark and making it quite impossible for Denmark to make any purchases in this country.
The noble Viscount went on to deal with the question of prices, and said that if we raised prices unreasonably in this country we were going to make it impossible for consumers in the towns to buy the product. That is perfectly true. Any man in his senses must be prepared to recognise that fact. But what are the actual facts of the situation? Are we in fact proceeding to raise prices unreasonably What are the prices of bacon at the present moment as compared with 1930, a year in which, I think the noble Viscount would admit, bacon consumption was at a very high level, though at not quite such a high level as in 1931? But in 1931 there was not a single bacon-producing country in the world that was selling bacon at the cost of production. The reason why bacon consumption was so very high then was that bacon was being sold at knock-out prices, below replace-merit value, and if that situation had been allowed to continue it would

423
not have benefited the consumer because producers would have been driven out of production. As a matter of fact at the time when we originated this system of quota regulation Denmark had already had to reduce its pig population by no less than 20 per cent. because of the ruinous prices. The effect of that must have been a shortage that inevitably would result in a rise in prices that would have hit the consumer. The average price for 1930 was 1s. 4 ·10d. To-day, even with this rise of which the noble Lord has complained, the price of bacon is 1s. 1 ¼d. per lb., so that really even at the present moment, although we have had a very considerable rise as the result of the action of the Government, the price of bacon is still 3d. a lb. lower than it was in 1930 when consumption was high.
The noble Viscount asks, how are we going to guarantee quality? I think the noble Viscount is familiar with the scheme and has seen the provisions in the scheme for encouraging the production of high-quality bacon. The Minister of Agriculture has frequently given assurances and has frequently warned the farmers that if our producers are not able to satisfy the market as to quality or as to quantity—and the Minister made this very clear as late as last night in another place—then inevitably the Government will find itself in the position of having to lift the sluices and let in a greater quantity of imports. We have realised all along that the only justification for keeping bacon or, indeed, any foodstuff out of the country, is that we can produce it satisfactorily in this country and satisfy the market both as to quality and quantity. I think I have dealt with the questions raised by the noble Viscount and I hope these answers will satisfy him and your Lordships.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, may I be allowed to point out that the noble Earl has not answered my query about the formula, the number of pigs per sow? There is one other point. I would not have intervened again if he had not suggested that the price of bacon was going down. Of course, it may be going down compared with any given year, but if he will read the speech made by the head of his Department made in another place yesterday he will
424
find this is what was said by Major Elliot: "I do not suggest that rises are not taking place."
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Viscount is perfectly right. I think that is clear from what I said—that, even with the existing rise, the price is still 3d. a lb. lower. I think that in saying that I made it clear that there had been, in fact, a rise during the last few weeks. On the question of the formula it is perfectly true that the figures given by the Lane-Fox Commission do not agree with the figures given by Cambridge University. Neither of those figures have anything to do with the Ministry of Agriculture, and in so far as they affect the price, then they are purely a matter for negotiation between the two Boards, the Pigs Marketing Board and the Bacon Marketing Board. Of course they do affect the cost of production; they do therefore affect the price, and so they have to be dealt with in negotiation between the two Boards.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WORTHING) BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Message of yesterday considered (according to Order).
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Viscount Gage, I beg to move the Order which stands in his name. This Provisional Order deals with the construction of sea defence works at Goring-on-Sea in the Borough of Worthing. The Bill has been before your Lordships' House and has been agreed to, and it is now before another place. The object of the Order I am moving is that the Bill should be carried over to the next Session of Parliament so that time shall not be lost by its having to come before your Lordships' House again. Your Lordships will understand that, with the sea actually coming in and doing considerable damage, it is very necessary to get these works put in hand at the earliest possible date, I understand from my noble friend the Chairman of Committees that he has no objection to the procedure proposed. I venture to hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that this Order be approved.

425
Moved, That leave be given to suspend any further proceedings on the Bill which was introduced into this House in the present Session of Parliament, and which has passed this House and been sent to the House of Commons, in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that all fees due thereon up to this day be paid;
That a copy of such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the next meeting of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, certified under the seal of the Minister of Health and stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Earl Stanhope.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, this Order is in common form, although it is not very usual for Provisional Order Bills to be carried over to another Session. In regard to Private Bills it is a common thing. We do it practically every Session and, indeed, I think every Session. The last time a Provisional Order Bill was carried over in this way was in 1928. In the case of a Private Bill it is the Chairman of Committees in your Lordships' House who moves the necessary Resolution, but in the case of a Provisional Order Bill, as the measure is introduced by the Department concerned, it is the representative of the Department who moves. I think your Lordships will be quite safe in agreeing to the course proposed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WELLINGTON, SALOP) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, in another place two Amendments were made in this Bill and I think your Lordships will agree to both of them. One is a very small one to put right a misprint, and the other is to postpone the date when the Order shall come into effect. The reason for that is that it was hoped that the Bill would pass through another place before the Recess. That was found impossible and so instead of coming into operation on October 1 last, as was intended, it will now come into operation on April 1 next year. I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now consider the Commons Amendments to this Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 25, page 13, line 18, after ("whole") insert ("number of members of the").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think that I need detain your Lordships for a very long time—I hope not more than ten minutes or a quarter of an hour—although there are a number of Amendments to be considered. Your Lordships will recollect that this was a Consolidation Bill which effected one of the greatest consolidations ever attempted

427
in this country. It repealed the whole of 47 Acts relating to local government and repealed 170 in part. It was referred to a Joint Select Committee and was passed in this House before the Recess. A number of Amendments have been made in another place. I think 90 per cent. of them are drafting. With regard to the others, five or six are necessitated by reason of the fact that since the Bill was before your Lordships' House ten new boroughs have been created in the United Kingdom, which necessitates some small Amendments in various clauses. It will also be found necessary to alter the date on which the Act will come into operation—namely, January 1. There will not be time left before that date to make the multitudinous regulations necessary and therefore the date proposed is June 1. I think there are only three other Amendments of any substance and they simply bring into operation certain clauses which the Joint Select Committee thought might well be left out of a Consolidation Bill but which, on second thoughts, it has been found more advisable to restore. They are really reenactments of the law as it stood. I will now deal with the Amendments seriatim. The first is a drafting Amendment to assimilate this Bill to other corresponding Bills, and I beg to move that we agree with it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 33, page 17, line 25, leave out ("the county, or for either county") and insert ("a county").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is purely a drafting Amendment and I beg to move that it be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 50, page 28, line 21, leave out ("thirty-four") and insert ("thirty-seven").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords this looks rather a curious Amendment. It is necessitated by the postponement of the date of the Bill coming into operation. Your Lordships may ask why that
428
means a difference between 1934 and 1937. The reason is that parochial elections take place—I think about April—in 1934. The Bill does not come into force until June 1, 1934, and so it is necessary to provide for the three years to 1937 when the next elections will be held. I move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree With the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 51, page 31, line 11, leave out ("it") and insert ("them")
Clause 51, page 31, line 14, leave out the second ("it") and insert ("them").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these Amendments are drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendinents.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 61, page 3.5, line 35, after ("shall") insert ("in the case of the chairman, at the meeting at which he is elected and, in the case of a councillor").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. It is intended to make it clear that the chairman of a parish council, as in the case of the chairman of other authorities, can make the necessary declaration of acceptance of office at the meeting at which he is elected chairman. This was the intention of the clause, but it has been pointed out that as the clause is drafted, it is open to doubt whether the chairman can make the declaration at that meeting. I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 61, page 35, line 36, after ("or") insert ("in either case").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is consequential on the last Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 64, page 37, line 25, after ("member") insert ("of the authority")
Clause 66, page 39, line 11, leave out a
Clause 66, page 39, line 12, leave out the second ("a")
Clause 66, page 39, line 12, leave out the third ("a").
TEE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these are purely drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 72, page 43, line 14, leave out ("on motion, grant a mandamus for the") and insert ("order an").
THE LOR.D CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to substitute for the words "The High Court may, on motion, grant a mandamus for the election", the words "The High Court may order an election". The Amendment is made because questions of the procedure in the Courts should be left to Rules of Court and not dealt with in a Statute.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The. Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 72, page 43, line 34. at end insert:
("(5) The High Court may order that tae costs of any person of proceedings under paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section shall be paid by the council of the county or borough concerned").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, Clause 72 (2) provides that in the event of a failure to elect the chairman or a member of a county or borough council, the High Court may order an election to be held. This is the existing law, and when proceedings are taken (though this is a comparatively rare event) their object is usually to clear up some genuine doubt in the interpretation of the law. In such cases, it is reasonable that the expenses both of the person who initiates the proceedings find of the respondent should be treated as forming part of the election expenses. The Amendment enables this to be done if the Court so directs. The
430
only question is to give the High Court certain power as to costs. It is doubtful, under the existing law, whether such a direction can be given unless the council themselves consent. The Amendment clears up this doubt.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 75, page 44, line 18, at end insert:
("Provided that a county councillor elected for an electoral division consisting wholly of a county district or of some part of a county district shall not vote on any matter involving only expenditure on count of which the county district is not, for the time being, liable to be charged.")
LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, this proviso is based on Section 35 (6) of the Local Government Act, 1888, which prohibits a. county council for an electoral division which is wholly comprised within a Quarter Sessions borough, and which had a population of 10,000 or over in 1881, from voting in respect of any question involving expenditure on account of which the parishes are not for the time being liable to be assessed equally with the rest of the county, to county contributions. Owing to some remarks made in another place when the Bill was before the Joint Select Committee, the Department were asked to prepare a memorandum on the matter for the consideration of the Committee. At that time, the Department felt some doubt whether the proviso would, in fact, work satisfactorily, and suggested to the Committee that the simplest course might be to omit the proviso altogether. The matter has been gone into very carefully again, and the County Councils' Association have taken the matter tip, and they are satisfied that the administrative difficulties are not so serious as the Department thought. Therefore, in another place it was thought fit to put in these words.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The. Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 76, page 46, line 13, after ("which") insert ("it appears to")
Clause 76, page 46, line 14, leave out ("are satisfied")
Clause 84, page 49, line 32, leave out ("every") and insert ("each")
Page 50, line 10, leave out ("are") and insert ("is")
Clause 97, page 57, line 29, after ("borough") insert ("council")
Clause 103, page 60, line 19, leave out ("and") and insert ("")
Clause 120, page 71, line 15, after ("this") insert ("Act").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these are purely drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 122, page 72, line 39, at end insert the following new clause.
Disclosure by officers of interest in contracts.
(".—(1) If it comes to the knowledge of an officer employed, whether under this Act or any other enactment, by a local authority, that a contract in which he has any pecuniary interest, whether direct or indirect (not being a contract to which he is himself a party) has been, or is proposed to be, entered into by the authority or any committee thereof, lie shall, as soon as practicable, give notice in writing to the authority of the fact that he is interested therein.
For the purposes of this section an officer shall be treated as having indirectly a pecuniary interest in a contract or proposed contract if he would have been so treated by virtue of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of Section seventy-six of this Act had he been a member of the authority.
(2) An officer of a local authority shall not, under colour of his office or employment, exact or accept any fee or reward whatsoever other than his proper remuneration.
(3) If any person fails to comply with the provisions of subsection (1) or contravenes any of the provisions of subsection (2) of this section he shall for each offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(4) References in this section to a local authority shall include a reference to a joint committee appointed under Part III of this Act").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I now come to a clause which is not exactly a new clause. It applies to officers the same principle as Clause 76 applies to members of a local authority—namely, that interests in contracts with the authority, however indirect, must be
432
disclosed. It re-enacts and makes applicable to local government officers in general the provisions of Section 193 of the Public Health Act, 1875, which makes it an offence for an officer to exact or accept, under colour of his office or employment, any fee or reward other than his proper salary, wages and allowances.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 131, page 77, line 35, leave out ("and liabilities")and insert ("income debts, liabilities, and expenses")
Clause 140, page 82, line 21, leave out ("considers") and insert ("consider")
Page 83, line 10, leave out ("is") and insert ("are")
Page 83, line 12, leave out ("it") and insert ("they")
Page 83, line 42, leave out ("by which").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these are all drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 145, page 88, line 37, at end insert
("(7) An order made under this section, other than an order which is provisional only, shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is a little different. A similar subsection, reproducing the existing law, was in the draft Bill prepared by the Chelmsford Committee, but was deleted by the Joint Select Committee. The matter was raised on Report stage in this House by Lord Ampthill, and on behalf of the Government I promised that the matter should receive further consideration. The County Councils' Association have since pressed for the reinsertion of the subsection. The Government have no objection, and indeed they think it the proper thing to do.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 147, page 90, line 27, after ("powers") insert ("or duties")
Clause 148, page 91, line 39, after ("procedure") insert ("and subject to compliance with the like conditions")
Clause 178, page 110, line 31, leave out from the beginning to the second ("or,") in line 39, and insert ("effect any transaction which might he effected under those provisions otherwise than under those provisions and in accordance therewith.")
Clause 189, page 115, line 29, after ("this") insert ("Act")
Clause 213, page 128, line 36, leave out ("probable")
Page 129, line 11, leave out ("probable")
Page 129, line 21, leave out ("probable")
Clause 217, page 132, line 10, leave out ("1928") and insert ("1933, or of any other enactment or statutory order relating to the supply of electricity")
Clause 217, page 132, line 12, leave out from ("of") to end of line 13, and insert ("tramways or light railways, or for the purposes").
LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these are all drafting Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 249, page 151, line 40, at end insert:
Provided that where, under or by virtue of any enactment, the power of an authority or person specified as aforesaid to confirm by-laws bas been transferred, the authority or person to whom that power has been transferred shall be deemed to be the authority or person specified as aforesaid.")
LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, This Amendment is drafting, and it is to deal with such a case as that of the Minister of Transport exercising powers transferred to him from the Board of Trade.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.——(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 253, page 153, line 3, leave out ("an aboslute") arid insert ("a")
Clause 253, page 153, line 27, leave out ("an absolute") and insert ("a").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these Amendments are drafting. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 268, page 159, line 3, after ("vestry") insert ("or of any meeting of inhabitants in the nature of a vestry")
Clause 268, page 159, line 4, after ("parish") insert ("or place").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a little different. Clause 268 transfers, inter alia, the civil functions of the vestry in a borough or urban district to the council of the borough or district. This would include the powers of the vestry under the Burial Acts. Since the Bill was published it has been pointed out that where a burial ground is provided for a part of a parish the powers of the vestry are exercisable by a meeting of the inhabitants of that part of the parish. As the clause is drawn, those functions would remain vested in the meeting of inhabitants. It would be absurd to leave these powers vested in the inhabitants when the powers of the vestry for the whole parish are transferred to the borough or urban district council, and the object of this Amendment is to remedy this defect in the Bill. I beg; to move.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 304, page 180, line 29, after ("purposes") insert ("and, for the purposes of Part VI of this Act, includes a body which is a compensation authority for the purposes of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, and an insurance committee constituted under the National Health Insurance Act, 1924.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, under Section 62 of the Local Government Act, 1888, any "authorities" affected by an order for the alteration of the areas may enter into agreements for the adjustment of their property, income, debts and liabilities. Clause 150 of the Bill, which reproduces Section 62 of the Act of 1883, has substituted references to "public bodies" for the references to "authorities," and it has been pointed out that the effect of this alteration will be to prevent adjustments being made in the future in the case of compensation authorities under

435
the Licensing Acts and in the case of insurance committees. The object of this Amendment is to secure that these adjustments may be made in the future as in the past. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 304, page 181, line 21, at end insert the following new clause:
Interpretation as respects Crown rights.
(".The mention in this Act in relation to any particular matter of His Majesty's Royal Prerogative shall not be held to prejudice or affect, in relation to that or to any other matter, the general application of any rule of law with respect to any estate, right, power, privilege, or exemption of the Crown.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is a little different. The object is to safeguard the Royal Prerogative in Crown cases. The Amendment has been very carefully drawn because the choice of a form of words has been a matter of difficulty, but it is thought that we have it right now. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 306, page 183, line 17, leave out ("January" and insert ("June").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we cannot get regulations ready by the 1st January, so we had to get the Commons to insert "June" instead of "January". The Amendment postpones the date of the commencement of the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
First Schedule, page 187, line 10, column 4, after ("Rawtenstall,") insert ("Stretford.")
First Schedule, page 187, line 19, column 2, after ("Chatham,") insert ("Dartford.")
First Schedule, page 187, line 23, column 4, after ("Ealing,") insert ("Finchley.")
First Schedule, page 187, line 27, column 4, after ("Hornsey,") insert ("Southgate.")
First Schedule, page 187, line 28, column 4, after ("Twickenham,") insert ("Willesden, Wood Green.")
First Schedule, page 187, line 46, column 2, after ("Eccles,") insert ("Fleetwood.")
First Schedule, page 187, page 188, line 28, column 2, at beginning insert ("ilston.")
First Schedule, page 187, line 30, column 2. after ("Newcastle-under-Lyme") insert ("Rowley Regis")
First Schedule, page 187, line 45, column 4, after ("Brighouse,") insert ("Goole.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we now come to a group of Amendments which I will take very rapidly. These are Amendments which were necessitated by the creation of new boroughs since the Bill left your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Second Schedule, page 190, line 45, leave out ("fill op") and insert ("prepare for signature").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, paragraph (6) of Part II of Schedules of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, has the words "shall, at the request of any burgess, fill up a nomination paper." By the Representation of the People Act, 1918, the term "local government elector" was substituted for "burgess." The provision in the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, was applied to county council elections by the Local Government Act, 1888. The provision means that the proper officer, the returning officer or town clerk, shall upon request fill up a nomination paper, apart, of course, from the signatures of the persons subscribing the nomination paper. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 191, line 9, after ("writing") insert ("on, or").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is for the purpose of making it clear that the consent to nomination may be signed by the candidate on the day for delivery of nomination papers. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 191, line 12, at end insert:
("Provided that n the case of an election to fill a casual vacancy if the returning officer, in the case of an election of a county councillor, or the mayor, in the case of an election of a councillor of a borough, is satisfied that owing to the absence of a person from the United Kingdom it has not been reasonably practicable for his consent in writing to be given as aforesaid a telegram consenting to his nomination and purporting to have been sent by him, shall be deemed, for the purpose of this paragraph, to be consent in writing given by him on the day on which it purports to have been sent and attestation of his consent shall not be required.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a provision which explains itself. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 192, line 14, leave out the second ("of").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this corrects a printer's error. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 129, line 25, leave out paragraph 8, and insert:
("8. A candidate who is validly nominated for more than one electoral division of a county or for more than one ward of a borough shall, by notice signed, attested, and delivered as aforesaid, withdraw from his candidature in all these electoral divisions or wards, as the case may be, except one, and if be does not so withdraw he shall he deemed to have withdrawn from his candidature in all those electoral divisions or wards, as the case may be")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is concerned with the procedure for preventing frivolous candidatures. It will eliminate the exercise of a difficult and unpleasant duty by the county returning officer or the mayor, who ought not to be required to decide for
438
what area a candidate should stand. The candidate, if he does not withdraw from all electoral areas except one will, under the Amendment, be automatically disqualified from going to election anywhere. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Seventh Schedule, page 228, line 28, leave out ("1928") and insert ("1933")
Seventh Schedule, page 228, line 38, leave out ("1931") and insert ("1933").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Eleventh Schedule, page 243, line 10, after ("of") insert ("section")
Eleventh Schedule, page 250, line 7, column 2, leave out ("Improvement") and insert ("Protection")
Eleventh Schedule, page 256, line 36, column 3, after ("relates") insert ("to parish councils and")
Eleventh Schedule, page 265, line 26, column 3, leave out ("subsections (5) and") and insert ("subsection")
Eleventh Schedule, page 270, line 44, column 3, leave out ("section") and insert ("subsections")
Eleventh Schedule, page 272, line 38, column 3, leave out ("Sections") and insert ("Section").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, these Amendments correct slips in the Repeal Schedule. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I beg to move that these Amendments be now considered, and, perhaps, as this is the last occasion I can say anything about

439
this Bill, your Lordships will permit me to say just one or two words. In the first place, I want to express my deep sense of gratitude to the Special Committee of this House for the care they spent in examining this measure in the Committee rooms. It was due to their labour that it was possible to place this Bill on a wholly unassailable foundation. In the next place, I want most sincerely to thank the Government who have found time, notwithstanding all their anxious and arduous duties, to do what perhaps may not inappropriately be described as taking this Bill under their wing. This Bill was sent out from this House on its perilous journey to another place, and it has returned to the Ark from which it was despatched with only two small Amendments in its beak, which I shall ask your Lordships to consider in a few moments if you agree to give consideration to them.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments he now considered.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bile No. 60.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 13, at end insert ("other than close-ringed specimens bred in captivity ").
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTERMy Lords, the first Amendment is a small one, to which I do not think any close attention is needed. It is to provide that there should be excepted from the Bill what are called "close-ringed specimens bred in captivity." I very much doubt whether it was necessary to put this in. Apparently there are special birds, specially bred with rings which describe their ancestry. They have a variety of other qualities and people are anxious to safeguard them, and anxious that the Bill shall not affect these birds. It was never intended that it should.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 1, line 21, at end insert ("being birds of a British species, and for the purposes of this Act a species shall be deemed to he British if, and only if, it is a species resident in or visiting Great Britain in a wild state").
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the next Amendment is a definition of birds of British species, and it states that "for the purposes of this Act a species shall be deemed to be British if, and only if, it is a species resident in or visiting Great Britain in a wild state." I should have thought that was obvious, but that is no reason why we should disagree with this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Schedule, page 3, line 2, column 2, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 7, column 1, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 19, column 2, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 20, column 2, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 24, column 2, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 25, column 2, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 26, column 1, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 31, column 2, leave out ("all British species")
Schedule, page 3, line 35, column 1, leave out ("all British species")
Leave out lines 37 to 39.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the whole of the Schedule Amendments are identical, and with your Lordships' permission I will move them together.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Buckmaster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN SOMERSET.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE rose to call attention to the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Somerset, and to ask His Majesty's Government whether they intend to stop the importation of anything likely to cause an outbreak of this disease; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I desire to draw the attention of the House to the recent very serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the County of Somerset. The outbreak took place in one part, and

441
afterwards spread to seven other places. Your Lordships will realise how serious the outbreak was when I tell you that the number of cattle actually slaughtered was 286, and the compensation paid was £6,075. No doubt, that compensation was arrived at perfectly fairly, but, owing to the very low price of stock, undoubtedly the compensation will not repay the unfortunate farmers who suffered the loss. In one particular ease the loss was very serious. There was a man who had spent the whole of his lifetime in building up a very fine herd of shorthorn cattle. The present tenant farmer is a daughter of this man, and the loss in that particular case was enormous. Then, of course, it is well known, especially in a dairying country, that when you have built up a herd of good milking cows it is very difficult to replace them, and monetary compensation is of very little value. With regard to sheep there were 248 slaughtered, and the amount of compensation paid was £496. In the ease of pigs seventy-four were slaughtered, and £159 was paid in compensation. The total number of animals slaughtered was 608, and the total amount of compensation was £6,730. That is not a small item, but it does not at all represent the loss sustained by the persons who owned these animals.
The origin of the outbreak is, I am informed, entirely unknown at the present moment. That is one of the reasons why I am drawing your Lordships' attention to the present state of things. We are always informed by the Ministry that it is not known how the infection is brought into this country. Of course, the Port of Bristol being very near, the disease may possibly have come over from Ireland, but I have been told that there is no foot-and-mouth disease in Ireland to-day. I should like to have an assurance from the noble Earl officially that that is so. I am given to understand that cattle are brought from Ireland and placed in quarantine for a certain time. I should like to know the length of time, and what precautions are taken to see that no persons who have to feed these cattle or deal with them in any way are allowed to move about on other farms. It is undoubtedly the case that human beings can carry the infection from one district to another. I know one case in which foot-and-mouth dis-
442
ease was spread in this way. Foot-and-mouth disease at that time was rampant. in Ireland, and a man went to Bristol market, came home, and went about his farm, and a few days afterwards there was an outbreak of the disease, clearly showing that it can be spread by human beings.
Then there is a report—and I should like to know if the noble Earl has heard anything of this report—that the outbreak was not reported for a whole seven days after it had occurred—that is to say, apparently the person who saw it either did not understand what it was, or did not take the trouble to report the matter. It is, of course, of the utmost importance that when an outbreak occurs it should be reported immediately. In this ease it is said it was a veterinary surgeon who did not report the case. This may be only a rumour, but there is a strong feeling in my part of the country regarding the matter, and it would be very satisfactory if the noble Earl could say there is no truth in that report. I think it has never been denied that hay and straw for packing purposes have been the cause of bringing foot-and-mouth disease into this country. The noble Earl will perhaps remember the case in the island of Sark, in which the disease was spread through the packing in which a piano was brought to the island; and we know the precautions which are taken in the Channel Islands to keep out infection.
There is also the question— to my mind the very serious question—of bagged meat from the Argentine. What is done with these bags afterwards? As far as I know, they are not destroyed, and there is always the danger of feeding stuffs being put into them, or any other kind of produce. It is well to remember that from a country like the Argentine, which is simply teeming with foot-and-mouth disease, infection may be brought over in these bags in which the meat is carried. It is very interesting to note that in America no kind of meat is allowed to be brought into the country, and America at the present moment is entirely free of foot-and-mouth disease since they spent £1,000,000 on stamping it out. And there is Canada. We all know that it is perfectly free from foot-and-mouth disease, so much so that even now breeding cattle, under the Ottawa

443
Agreement, are brought into this country, though not with the approval, as the noble Earl knows, of the breeders in this country, nor of the great societies which deal with shorthorns, red polls and various other breeds. I venture to say to the noble Earl that if Canada and America are by certain regulations enabled to keep out foot-and-mouth disease entirely, is it not incumbent upon our Government to enquire into this matter and see whether we should not be able to have such regulations as would prevent any chance of the disease being brought into this country?
In the old days we used to be told that it could not be done owing to birds bringing the disease into this country. The remarkable thing is that that explanation has now been dropped because, during the War, there were no outbreaks in this country, although, as every one knows, birds continued to come to this country during the War just as much as they do in times of peace. It is remarkable, too, that during the War, when there was hardly any importation from such countries as France, Germany and Holland, where foot-and-mouth disease is always rampant, there was no foot-and-mouth disease in this country.
I should like now to draw the attention of the House to a resolution which was passed only to-day at the Council of the Central Landowners' Association, of which so many of your Lordships are members. That is a body which represents over ten thousand farmers and landowners in this country. It is a very important body from the point of view that there are so many owner-occupiers who are members of it, small men who might be ruined if they had a serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease on their farms. If they are renting under a large landowner it would be difficult for the latter to do what used to be done in the old days, assist his tenant considerably in such cases. In the case of some owner-occupiers there is no one to give help, and an outbreak of disease very often may mean complete ruin. I was, therefore, not at all surprised, that the Council of the Central Landowners' Association should pass this resolution:
"That immediate steps should be taken by the Ministry of Agriculture to pie-vent outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease by stopping the importation of anything which might introduce foot-and-mouth disease into Great Britain."
444
I think that resolution is worthy of some consideration. As I have already said, it comes from a great body of landowners, large and small. Of course, the noble Earl cannot give any details, but I hope he will go into this matter and that the Ministry will consider whether it is not possible to keep foot-and-mouth disease out of this country in the same way as it is kept out of great countries like Canada and America. I beg to move.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think we must all feel grateful to the noble Lord for bringing up this most important subject. I only wish that it had been possible for me to have had a little more time to consider the answer to be given to so important a question. Before dealing with the general subject, I will try to answer one or two of the questions which the noble Lord has addressed to me. One is, with regard to the delay in reporting a certain case. I think the noble Lord said that it had not been reported for seven days. I find that the facts are these. The owner of a sow noticed lameness on October 19 and on October 21 he called in a veterinary surgeon, but the veterinary surgeon was not convinced that it was foot-and-mouth disease until October 23. Therefore, there were two days delay and not seven in the veterinary surgeon coming to a decision. Although the noble Lord did not actually say so, I think the tenor of his remarks at the beginning of his speech was that the compensation was not really sufficient to compensate the stock owners.
LORD STRACHIE: I was not complaining as regards that. I said that no doubt they gave the largest amount possible, but in the circumstances of the low prices they could not give what would really be the value. What I laid most emphasis on was that it would ruin a man's business and that it was difficult to replace these cattle.
EARL DE LA WARR: I appreciate the noble Lord's point. I did not think he was complaining. It struck me that if others read his remarks they might take it, if I said nothing, that the compensation was not sufficient. As a matter of fact, the sufferers are compensated according to the full market value, even if the stock are pedigree stock. That means that if prices are low to-day, the compensation is low, and equally the re-

445
placement value is low. The only pedigree breeder to whom I have spoken of this matter in the last month or so, who has just had his stock slaughtered, told me he was more than satisfied with the compensation he had received. I fully admit the point of the noble Lord, that a man who has taken possibly a lifetime in building up a herd, can never in fact feel himself truly compensated for that tremendous effort.
The recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Somerset involved eight infected premises on which disease was declared to exist between October 23 and October 27, and the secondary outbreaks were due to the spread of infection from the initial case, before the imposition of restrictions on October 23, when that case was first discovered. Twenty days have now elapsed since the last case in that County and it may therefore be assumed that the disease has been successfully eradicated by our established policy of immediate slaughter, accompanied by restrictions on the movement and marketing of stock in the infected area, and if—this may interest the noble Lord—no further outbreak occurs, the intention is to withdraw the restrictions entirely on the 25th of this month. That in nowise commits us to any action at the moment because anything might happen. The usual exhaustive inquiries were conducted as to the source of infection, but without any definite evidence being obtained identifying the origin.
Some facts were, however, revealed. Firstly, bones were found in the field in which the infected animals were grazed. They were probably carried there by a dog from adjoining cottages, the occupiers of which obtained meat and bones from local butchers, but the evidence tends to show that these bones were from home-killed carcases. As regards feeding stuff the only item requiring investigation was some pig-meal supplied by a large manufacturing firm, but there was no reason to suggest that the goods supplied by this firm were in any way implicated. As regards the question of sacks, several sacks were found on the premises labelled "Produce of France.' They were obtained from a local cider factory, prior, however, to the first importations of cider apples this year. They must, therefore, have been
446
imported from France some considerable time ago. Further, the sacks were kept where neither cattle nor pigs had access to them. The onset of the disease in the first animal only four days after the arrivals of the sacks, would suggest that as a means of indirect infection, the sacks were unlikely to be responsible for the introduction of the virus.
In September, 1932, the Somerset County Council suggested that foot-and-mouth disease might be introduced by bags containing apples, large quantities of which were imported for cider making from the Continent. The Ministry carefully examined the circumstances connected with the initial outbreaks of this disease over a number of years but could find no evidence incriminating sacks used in this trade. It is the invariable practice of the Ministry on the occurrence of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, to conduct exhaustive inquiries with a view to ascertaining the origin of each initial outbreak, that is every outbreak for which there is no discoverable connection with any other case in this country. The inquiries embrace investigations into the movements of animals, rodents, persons, vehicles, etc., and also into the source of supply of animal feeding stuffs, household purchases of meat, vegetables and other produce, sacks, meat wrappers, packing materials, etc., brought on to the infected premises or into the locality, and the presence of refuse dumps in the vicinity.
As regards the other four recent centres of disease during the past month in the outbreak at Barkway, Hertfordshire, the owner was cutting up and distributing imported meat on his premises, and in the Wirksworth (Derbyshire) case, imported meat scraps were involved. Suspicion in these two cases would therefore be attached to imported meat, although this could not definitely be proved. On the other hand the cases in the Isle of Ely and Lincolnshire approximately at the same time revealed no clue whatever to the source of infection, no imported meat or other imports from abroad being involved, nor could any connection be traced between these cases and the Hertfordshire series of outbreaks.
The most potent means of the introduction and spread of foot-and-mouth disease is through the agency of live animals and the importation of live ani-

447
mals from all countries infected with foot-and-mouth disease is definitely prohibited. The other possible channels through which the virus may be introduced are:—Carcases or other animal products, feeding stuffs, hay and straw and packing materials, vegetables and fruit, migrating birds, and movements of human beings. In 1926 disease was definitely discovered in fresh pig carcases imported from Belgium and Holland in connection with outbreaks in Lanarkshire that year. As a consequence, the importation of fresh carcases from the Continent of Europe was prohibited by the Importation of Carcases (Prohibition) Order of that year. The effect of this Order has been appreciably to reduce the number of initial or primary invasions of the disease. Following that Order investigations were conducted by the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee which proved that the virus could remain infective in the bone marrow of chilled beef for forty-two days and in the bone marrow of frozen beef rather longer, and in pork, after dry or wet salting, for forty-two days. These results were discovered by laboratory experiment but the virus of the disease has never been definitely found in any imported carcase other than the fresh carcases imported from Europe in 1926, on which discovery the Ministry at once took action. Nevertheless, in view of the risks proved to exist by the experiments of the Research Committee, negotiations were entered into with the South American Governments of Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Chili, all of whom in consequence made regulations prohibiting the exportation to Great Britain of carcases or parts of carcases of animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease or of animals forming part of the same troop as the diseased animals. Special arrangements were made by those Governments for the inspection of the animals before slaughter and a recent inquiry has indicated that those regulations are being complied with.
As regards feeding stuffs, in addition to the inquiries made in each initial case, a special inquiry was conducted in the series of outbreaks some years ago, when outbreaks were more numerous, into the character and origin of the feeding stuffs used in those cases and the conclusion was reached that the possibility of feeding stuffs being the origin of in-
448
fection in any general sense was extremely remote. Further, the process, of manufacture of linseed and cottonseed cakes in this country includes the subjection of the seeds to a temperature sufficient to kill the virus of foot-and-mouth disease. Further, although Scotland is a big consumer of artificial feeding stuffs unexplained outbreaks of the disease occur very rarely in that country. The importation of hay and straw for use as fodder or litter for animals from infected countries is prohibited by the Foreign Hay and Straw Order of 1912. These materials may be used, however, as packing for imported goods and, although this packing is not entirely free from risk, the danger is probably exaggerated and adequate protection against it has been provided by the Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Orders of 1925 and 1926, which prohibit all such packing material, whether of home or foreign origin, from being brought into contact with animals and require its destruction when its use as packing is finished.
As regards foreign vegetables inquiries show that in only five cases over a period of ten years could imported vegetables possibly have been involved in initial outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease and in four of these hotel refuse and swill containing scraps of foreign meat were also used, and it is equally possible that the latter might have been the origin of the disease. In the remaining case some of the vegetables were imported in sacks which might have been contaminated, but in that case also other circumstances existed pointing to possible alternative methods of infection. It was impossible really to bring infection home to any one cause. The noble Lord suggested that birds are not an important source of infection, but we have to admit that they are one possible cause. Birds are capable of carrying infection over comparatively short distances and it is highly probable that in this country infection is sometimes spread in this manner. It is doubtful, however, whether migratory birds are the usual, or have been a common vehicle of infection from abroad. The initial outbreaks in this country do not correspond regularly with the migratory seasons. The relative freedom of Scotland and Ireland from initial outbreaks of obscure origin supports this view. As I have mentioned Ireland perhaps I might at this point inform the

449
noble Lord that I have made inquiries on the point of his question with regard to Ireland. We are satisfied that Ireland is free at the present moment. There is no quarantine, hut in our attempts to trace these outbreaks we have been quite satisfied—I can say this officially and definitely—that there has been no importation of the disease in recent periods from Ireland. The introduction of infection from the Continent by human beings who may be in direct contact with the virus shortly before leaving for this country is a possible method. No outbreak has been traced to this source.
I am afraid I have made a very long speech on this subject but it seems to me to be a most important subject which should be dealt with as fully as possible. Your Lordships will realise that it is extremely difficult—in fact, usually impossible—to obtain very conclusive evidence as to the manner in which this disease is introduced. Often a week elapses between the introduction of the virus and the reporting of the case. Consequently there is ample time for material Evidence to be lost because the disease does not show itself immediately. I can, however, assure your Lordships that every possible step is taken to discover the origin from the evidence available in each case. Some of your Lordships may think that we frequently read in the newspapers of such outbreaks, but the reason we read of them is really that they are such rare occurrences in this country.
If we attempt to start comparing the number of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in this country with those in other countries where no real steps are taken to deal with this matter, I am sure your Lordships will realise what a tremendous difference there is in this country. The Ministry is determined to continue taking every step to deal with this scourge, and I can only say that we are fortunate in having a most devoted band of officials, who devote themselves to this task. One of the few satisfactory events of the last month or two in connection with the last few outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease was the receipt of a number of letters from farmers and breeders who had suffered from the scourge and had their herds slaughtered. Every one of them paid a very high tribute to the thoroughness and determination, and also to the courtesy, of our officials, and I can assure your Lordships that they were letters
450
which made one feel very proud of working with the Department.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the very useful information that he has given to the House on the matter, and the great care with which he has gone into the whole question. I can at once say that I entirely agree with him as regards the way his officials act. In the old days I had something to do with them, and I know how they labour night and day; but however determined and efficient his staff may be, it does not prevent outbreaks occurring in this country, and the only thing that I regret with regard to the statement he has made is that no answer has been made to my inquiry whether the Minister of Agriculture would not carefully go into the question of how Canada and America are now able completely to keep out this disease. It is no good saying that we can stamp it out with a great deal of expense and trouble. I am sure he would have given satisfaction to agriculturists if he were able to give an indication that the Ministry was prepared to go into the matter in order to see whether anything has been left undone which might have been clone to stop this dreadful infliction of foot-and-mouth disease. I would therefore ask him whether he will urge the Minister to make inquiries how it is that for many years the disease has been kept out of Canada and America, although at one time it was breaking out continuously, just as in this country. I would ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

JOINT COMMITTEE ON INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.
Report, being a Report that the Committee have been unable to complete their inquiry, from the Joint Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed.
ROAD AND RAIL TRAFFIC BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAHSHAM): My Lords, it would be convenient that I should men-

451
tion that it is proposed that we should meet to-morrow at eleven o'clock. I do not think there will be any business except formal business. There will be a Royal Commission at 11.15 for giving the
452
Royal Assent to Bills which have passed both Houses, followed, I understand, by the prorogation of Parliament.
House adjourned at five minutes before six o'clock.