Lords Sitting of 19 July 1934

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Duke of Wellington—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM):: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. It is moved merely in order to enable the business which was down for Tuesday to be taken on Monday, so that we may take the Road Traffic Bill Report stage on Tuesday, as far as possible without interference. I beg to move.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Motions for the House to be put into Committee on the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill, for the Second Readings of the Colonial Stock Bill, the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, and the Public Works Loans Bill, and for the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Shops Bill [H.L.] (which stand appointed for Tuesday next) to Monday next.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and leave given accordingly.

SELBY GAS ORDER, 1934.
LORD TEMPLEMORE:: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name with reference to this Order.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DINDINGS AGREEMENT (APPROVAL) BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, this is a Bill to obtain the approval of Parliament in respect of an Agreement which has been concluded
778
with the Sultan of Perak, one of the Federated Malay States, for the retrocession to Perak sovereignty of the territory of the Dindings. The territory has an area of 180 square miles on the West Coast of the Malay Peninsula, and a population of about 20,000. It comprises the headwaters, creeks, and inlets of the Dindings River together with some small islands to seaward. Territorially it is an integral part of the State of Perak, but in 1826 it was ceded to the Honourable East India Company by the Sultan for the purpose of the suppression of pirates who operated from the river and islands in that area. Piracy on this coast has long been a thing of the past, and the desirability of restoring the Dindings to Perak has been under consideration since the end of last century, when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was at the Colonial Office.
The territory is an enclave in the State of Perak, and the Dindings River is the only good access to the sea which the State possesses. In present circumstances it is administered as part of the Settlement of Penang, one of the Straits Settlements, but for various reasons this has been proved to be an inconvenient and uneconomical arrangement. Topographical considerations render administration of the Dindings from Penang far more inconvenient and expensive than would the administration under the Government of Perak. The territory can be reached from Penang either by a sea journey of some 100 miles, exceedingly rough during the South-west monsoon, or by an overland journey through Perak. Further the convenient way to travel from the southern to the northern section of the Dindings lies for some distance through the Sultan's State. In addition the inclusion of the Dindings for administrative purposes in the Settlement of Penang has become definitely undesirable since the wide extension of customs tariffs in the Federated Malay States, as it facilitates smuggling from British territory into that of the States. The frontier between the Dindings and the State of Perak is a purely artificial one and renders not only customs restrictions, but also such matters as quarantine and immigration, difficult of supervision.
The conditions which were present at the time of the cession of the Dindings

779
to the East India Company have long ceased to exist, and the retrocession of the territory, which would of course give the greatest pleasure to the Sultan, would be a fitting mark of appreciation for the steadfast loyalty to the Crown which he and his predecessors have exhibited since the British Protectorate was established in 1874. In the administration of the State the Sultan consults the British Resident and acts upon his advice on all questions other than those touching Malay religion and custom. I might mention that Perak is one of the four Malay States in the Federation which presented this country with His Majesty's Ship "Malaya" and more recently with a gift of £2,000,000 towards the cost of the Singapore base. As regards the terms of the Agreement and the procedure for retrocession it is particularly provided that the transfer of the sovereignty shall not affect the national status of the present inhabitants, and that existing rights in property shall be maintained. An agreed payment to Colonial funds of a sum of approximately £10,000 will be made from Perak revenues in respect of Straits Settlements Government property which will be taken over. The date contemplated for the effective restoration of the Dindings to the State of Perak is three months after this Bill is passed into law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MILK BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
The Earl of Plymouth.
Clause 3:
Exchequer payments in respect of milk converted into cheese at farms.
3.—(1) Where, by means of such evidence as may be prescribed, the board administering a milk marketing scheme satisfy the Minister that any quantity of milk produced by a registered producer in the area to which the scheme applies has, in any of the twenty-four consecutive months falling between the end of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, and the beginning of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, been used by him in manufacturing cheese at a farm in his occupation, then if the cheese-milk price for that month, as certified in accordance with this Act, is less than the standard price for that month, the Minister shall, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay to the board, in respect of each gallon comprised in that quantity of milk, a sum equal to the difference between the two prices aforesaid:
Provided that, as respects any particular milk marketing scheme, the Minister may from time to time by order direct that no sums shall be payable under this section to the board in respect of milk which has, in any month to which the order applies, been used by a registered producer in manufacturing cheese at a farm, unless the board satisfy the Minister that, at the beginning of that month, the registered producer had in his possession, in the area to which the scheme applied, not less than such number of milch cows as may be specified in the order; and the Minister may by order vary or revoke any previous order made by him under this proviso.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "such number of" and insert "four." The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises the question of whether it is desirable to have a limit of twelve cows before any cheesemaker can get the subsidy. Why do I say twelve cows? I do so because there was a letter written to farmhouse cheesemakers by the Milk Marketing Board. They say that:
"the Board will purchase the farmhouse cheesemakers' milk at the regional 'pool' price, and re-sell it to them at a price per gallon equal to the 'pool' price less the Government's grant per gallon for milk for farmhouse cheese, and the sum of Id. per gallon for 'hard' cheese and ½d. per gallon for Caerphilly cheese."
At the end of the letter they say:
"The minimum number of cows to be kept by a cheesemaker to be eligible for this contract is twelve. This condition would be embodied in a ' sub-sale ' contract which would contain the terms requiring the cheesemakers to manufacture the milk into cheese on their farms, and such other conditions in that connection as the Board thought fit to impose."

781
It is entirely in the discretion of the Minister for the time being to say what the limit should be, but I take it that it is most likely that the limit will be that which is imposed by the Milk Marketing Board in the circular letter from which I have read.
I do not see why there should be this limit of twelve because undoubtedly cheese is made in much smaller quantities than would be produced by twelve cows. The British Dairy Farmers' Association, in 1933, had an exhibition and the schedule contained one class for cheeses not exceeding 8 lbs. each, and they had another class for smallholders, for cheeses not exceeding 8 lbs. each, confined to those occupying not more than 50 acres. Then they had another county competition with exactly the same restriction, that the quantity must not exceed 8 lbs. It is. quite clear that this proviso, if the Minister carries out what the Milk Marketing Board evidently desire, will make it impossible for any smallholder to receive a grant under the Cheesemaking Order. I cannot see why that should be necessary, because I have seen these cheeses at the British Dairy Farmers' exhibition at Islington. They make very good cheeses indeed, and instead of discouraging smallholders to make cheese, I think we ought to encourage them.
Then again, as I read the letter of the Milk Marketing Board, it would mean that the cheese must actually be made on the particular farm. Smallholders who have fewer than twelve cows might combine and send their cheese to another farm, but I am very doubtful whether they would be allowed to do so. I should not so much object to this if it were not that we cannot tell what kind of a Minister of Agriculture we may have at some future time. We may have some Minister who takes quite different views from the present Minister in this matter. The reason why I press this is that orders under this clause would not be laid before both House of Parliament. It would remove many of my objections if an order had to be laid, and if it were thus possible for Parliament to make any objections they desired to this limit.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 42, leave out ("such number of") and insert ("four")—(Lord Strachie.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): I think this Amendment and the next Amendment in the name of the noble Lord can be taken together, the second one being consequential. Their effect would be to incorporate in the Bill, instead of in the; order that will later be made by the Minister, the number of cows which would qualify the Board to draw an advance in respect of cheese which is manufactured on farms. In our view this Amendment would be very inadvisable, because once you insert a number in an Act it becomes unalterable except by an amendment to the Act, whereas, if we leave it to the order, the figure inserted in the order is a figure that can at any time be easily altered.
The noble Lord has read out a letter from the Milk Marketing Board on this subject, indicating that the number of cows at the present moment is twelve. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that that letter is not from the Ministry of Agriculture but from the Milk Marketing Board, and it is our view that it is far better that the Milk Marketing Board and the National Cheese Committee, as representing the farmhouse cheesemakers, should settle this matter by agreement between themselves, and that then the Minister should simply come in with an order and give ratification. For that reason I would ask the noble Lord not to press this Amendment. If the noble Lord feels that the number twelve is too great, then surely it would be very much better to make representations to the Milk Marketing Board and to the National Cheese Committee, who could then, deal with the matter.
LORD STRACHIE: I do not think the noble Earl has given me a satisfactory answer, and I also notice that he carefully avoided giving an answer to the question as regards orders being laid on the Table of this House and in another place. But I will raise that again when we come to another Amendment of mine, dealing with the laying of orders, because if I were to divide the House now there would not be a quorum. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment for that reason.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Definition of "cheese-milk price" and "standard price," and certification of cheese-milk price.
4.—(1) For the purposes of this Act—
(a) the cheese-milk price for any month shall be the excess over one penny three-farthings of the average price per pound at which cheese such as is commonly known at the commencement of this Act as "New Zealand finest white" and "Canadian finest white" was sold wholesale in Great Britain during the immediately preceding month; and
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (1) (a), to leave out "average price" and insert "average of the prices." The noble Earl said: This may-look like a drafting Amendment, and so to some extent it is, but on the other hand it is rather important, because in paragraph (a) the cheese-milk price for any month is defined as "the excess over one penny three-farthings of the average price per pound" at which certain cheeses were sold wholesale in Great Britain during the immediately preceding month. The words "average price" might be open to two interpretations. They might mean the simple average between the two prices, or the weighted average after taking into account the weight of cheese sold at each price. The custom of the trade has been to use the simple average, and this is the intention of the Bill, and the purpose of this Amendment is to make that point quite clear.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, leave out ("average price") and insert ("average of the prices).—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Provisions for enforcing payments due to Exchequer]:
EARL DE LA WARR: The Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 34, after ("those") insert ("registered ").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Provisions as to revocation of schemes.
(3) If, in a case where a milk marketing scheme is revoked in the manner mentioned
784
in the last foregoing subsection it appears to the Minister that the revocation of the scheme was demanded by the registered producers for the purpose of evading any liability to make payments to the Minister which, but for the revocation, the board might have incurred by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Minister, within one month from the date on which the revocation takes effect, may by order direct that, notwithstanding any limitation imposed by the scheme on the amount which a contributor is liable to contribute to the payment of the debts and liabilities of the board and to the payment of the costs and expenses of the winding up, that amount shall be increased to such extent as appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Treasury, to be necessary for enabling any debt due under the last foregoing subsection from the board to the Crown to be paid in full.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This Amendment raises an important point and one that may be of interest to noble Lords, even those noble Lords who are not immediately concerned with the details of the Bill. In the subsection that my Amendment proposes to delete will be found certain words which I shall read, if I may:
"… the Minister … may by order direct that, notwithstanding any limitation imposed by the scheme on the amount which a contributor is liable to contribute to the payment of the debts and liabilities of the board and to the payment of the costs and expenses of the winding up, that amount shall be increased to such an extent as appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Treasury, to be necessary …"
These words are evidence of the intention of the clause. They are also evidence of the fact that the registered producers at their poll in which they declared in favour of the scheme declared in favour of a certain limited liability, and the purpose of this clause is, after the approval of the registered producers has been given to a scheme of limited liability, to increase by Act of Parliament that limited liability to an unlimited liability.
The clause therefore raises a principle that goes beyond the mere administrative provisions of the Bill. The question is one that, I admit, has been and must continue to be very difficult for the Ministry of Agriculture to decide. It has been argued that if the producers and those who administer the scheme found they were under necessity to wind up the scheme owing, let us say, to unrestricted imports of milk products making it impossible to carry on, and they used that

785
excuse (shall we put it?) for bringing the scheme to an end, they might do so frivolously, and the Treasury would in the absence of this provision find itself unable; to recover moneys to which it would otherwise be entitled. There arises immediately a question as to whether in fact the Treasury, through the Ministry, should consider itself entitled to the repayment of moneys which, in effect, have been given as a subsidy to maintain the manufacturing price of milk because, by reason -of the Government's own action at Ottawa, it has been found impossible to give that protection to the dairying industry which other industries have found it possible to enjoy.
Other industries, so far as I know, are not being called upon, and have no likelihood of being called upon, to refund the advantages given to them by a straightforward protection. It would be a remarkable development if they were. But here we have the dairying industry disabled by the action of the Government at Ottawa—I am not criticising that action; I merely state the fact—from receiving a straightforward protection, yet being called upon in certain circumstances to refund State moneys which have been given to them as a substitute for the protection which otherwise they would have received. These are the moneys that are in question, and it is proposed, under the subsection that I desire to delete, to increase the liability of producers—the liability to which they agreed at the poll—to such an extent as may be necessary in certain circumstances to refund these subsidy moneys which have been paid to them under the conditions I have described. I deeply regret that the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House is not here, because I was rot entirely without hope that his trained mind would have at once found it necessary to intervene in this matter in order to give an expression of legal opinion; but it is certainly most remarkable that the Government think it right to accept the vote of the producers in respect of the scheme of limited liability and then, in an Act of Parliament, deliberately to increase that liability to an unlimited extent. That cannot be equitable. Naturally it can be legal if it finds its way into an Act of Parliament, but it is the kind of provision which would deeply offend any legal luminary with whom I have ever had contact.
That is the situation. I seek by my Amendment to delete the subsection and so avoid this peculiar and wholly undesirable precedent from being established by Act of Parliament. In another place my honourable friend Colonel Ruggles-Brise dealt with this matter, and sought to introduce an Amendment enabling the producers to poll again before they became liable to this unlimited liability. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture gave a reasonable answer, which was couched of course, most courteously, to the effect that "you are willing to accept a subsidy so long as it runs, but when you have got to repay you are going to cut out." That was very sound so far as it went, and to a certain extent not unreasonable, but the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will find I have a further Amendment on page 12, line 7, that seeks to provide for a poll of the producers being taken before any subsidy is received. If it suits the convenience of the noble Earl to deal with both my Amendments in the same reply I am quite agreeable. My second Amendment would of course go behind the Minister's argument, and would not make it possible for him to say the producer had taken money which he was unwilling to refund when he became liable.
Personally I would prefer to see the subsection deleted, because the principle of compelling a man who has agreed to one thing to agree to some further liability by Act of Parliament, and without his consent, is one which, as I have already said, is highly undesirable. If, on the other hand, the House so belies its tradition as to permit the insertion of such words in an Act of Parliament, then I suggest it is only right and proper that the producers should be given an opportunity before they receive this money of saying whether they accept this further liability. I do not think there is anything more I can add to the argument, and I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will be able to give me such a reply as will meet the very reasonable objection and fears of producers, who do not think that in this matter they are being fairly treated. I think if the Government were to consult any lawyer in the Kingdom they would find he would hold up his hands aghast at the proposition that finds its way into the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 40, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I quite understand the misgivings to which the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has given expression, but I really do think they are based on a total misunderstanding of the situation. The noble Lord read out to your Lordships words which appear on page 11 of the Bill:
"…. the Minister …. may by order direct that, notwithstanding any limitation imposed by the scheme on the amount which a contributor is liable to contribute to the payment of the debts and liabilities of the board …. that amount shall be increased to such an extent as appears to the Minister, after consultation with the Treasury, to be necessary …."
That sounds a very drastic provision taken by itself. He went on to remind your Lordships that this was inserted in the Bill after the registered producers had voted themselves into the scheme without any idea of this provision coming along. If the noble Lord had looked at the Bill only a few lines before he would have seen that it referred to
"any liability to make payments to the Minister which, but for the revocation, the board might have incurred by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this Act …."
If your Lordships will turn to the Bill you will see that the "foregoing provisions" deal entirely with the terms of payments from the Exchequer to the milk producers and arrangements for repayment by the Milk Marketing Board.
The position, therefore, is this. The Milk Marketing Scheme was brought forward; there was a poll of producers on that Scheme, the majority of producers voted for it and it was put into operation. After that it was found that the Milk Marketing Board required further assistance and, accordingly, assistance was negotiated between the Government and the Milk Marketing Board. That was an entirely new arrangement. It is true to say that the terms of repayment are new. The Milk Marketing Board were perfectly free to say that they did not like the terms of repayment and that the assistance was offered in such a form that they could not accept it, but they did not do so. They have expressed themselves as being prepared to accept the assistance of the Government, and the Government have laid down terms on which they are prepared to grant that
788
assistance. The words in this Bill deal purely with this later bargain. I can further reassure your Lordships and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, that not only the terms for payment, but the terms for repayment, have been fully accepted by the Milk Marketing Board. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Earl has given a perfectly straight answer to the circumstances which I have brought forward, but he has carefully avoided touching on the feelings of the producer. The noble Earl would not have stated, if it was not correct, that a new arrangement contemplated by the producer has been entered into between the Ministry and the Marketing Board. I agree that the Ministry were perfectly entitled, in the. interests not only of good government but of every other interest, to make terms. I do not find fault with the terms. What I do find fault with is that the producer himself has not been consulted in the interim, and that, by an Act of Parliament, the producer will be made responsible, perhaps against his will, for an action of the Milk Marketing Board which may, or may not, work out in his interests. That is really what it comes to. The producer is being taken advantage of to an extent which is really, I submit, not fair. If the noble Earl thinks the matter will be best met by taking a poll of the producers before they have received any money, and that happens before they have become parties to the engagement entered into with the Ministry by the Milk Marketing Board, then the point is met. I am not one of those who believe that the producers are going to turn down four years' subsidy because of the unlimited liability which they may have to meet in the end. My desire is that we should not create a grievance.
You want to start this machine as far as possible with well-oiled wheels. If you start with a lot of producers compelled by an Act of Parliament to accept a liability without having voted for it, you will start with disgruntled individuals who will throw sand into the machine from the beginning. I want to avoid that. Rather than that should come about I think it would be better to delete the whole subsection. If the noble Earl thinks otherwise, then I would

789
ask him to accept the alternative proposal which stands in my name later on the Paper. I am afraid I cannot accept the answer which he has given as conclusive. We admit that the Milk Marketing Board and the Ministry have arrived at an arrangement which they think fair and equitable and right, but the producers have not had a chance of expressing an opinion upon it. I am afraid at the moment I must adhere to my Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Lord is right in saying that if there is to be a poll on this question it must be before any money is handed out. I venture to suggest that we must get into the habit, and fanners must get into the habit, of looking upon the Marketing Board as a body of men appointed by the producers to take responsibility, and if every time an important decision has to be taken the members of the Board have to go back to the producers and have a poll then the whole thing is going to fall into chaos. It would be like saying that before any Act of Parliament was passed there should be a referendum of the electors. I suggest that the best thing for us to do is to use our personal influence to explain these provisions to the producers, so that they may realise that this is merely part of a bargain by means of which they receive a benefit in return for certain repayments. I am quite sure this Scheme will start out without any sand in the wheels when it is realised by the producers that they have been given very generous treatment.
LORD HASTINGS: I am reluctant to detain the Committee further, but it will not be for more than a moment. The noble Earl and I are in complete agreement on the whole matter. I am just as anxious as he to see that this Scheme is started under favourable conditions, and I want to see it started without complaint from the producers. I agree that to be continuously going back to the producers to take polls upon this, that and the other would be a confounded nuisance, to put it in the mildest possible way. It is better that the producers of the article should be brought up to trust their representatives in the corporate body such as that which has been constituted, but I still think that there will be large numbers of producers who will feel that they have not had a fair deal in this matter. The
790
words of the Bill are in themselves evidence of that. My action in the matter must depend upon whether other noble Lords in the House who have heard the arguments on both sides feel with me in the matter, or whether the balance of opinion lies with the noble Earl. In the latter case I shall withdraw my Amendment having made my protest. If, on the other hand, I get any support, I think, in view of the fact that local bodies have expressed themselves with great strength and force on the subject, I shall have to proceed to a Division. It must depend upon whether I get any support from the Committee or not.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Payments for securing pure milk supply.
9.—(1) During a period of four consecutive years beginning on a day appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction, the said Minister or Secretary of State may, subject as hereinafter provided and in accordance with arrangements made by him and approved by the Treasury, expend out of moneys provided by Parliament such sums as he thinks fit, with the object of securing so far as practicable that the milk supplied for human consumption in England or in Scotland, as the case may be, is pure and free from the infection of any disease:
Provided that—

(a) the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries shall not make any arrangements for the purposes of this subsection except after consultation with the Minister of Health; and

(b) not more than seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds in the aggregate shall be expended under this subsection.

(2) Not later than the end of the period mentioned in the foregoing subsection, the Minister may, after consultation with the boards administering any milk marketing scheme for the time being in force, make an order for securing that where the board administering any such scheme are satisfied, with respect to any quantity of milk produced after the end of that period in the area to which the scheme applies, that it has been produced by a registered producer in such circumstances as the Minister may prescribe in the order with the object mentioned in the foregoing subsection, the board shall pay to that registered producer, in respect of each gallon comprised in that quantity of milk, such sum not exceeding one penny as may be specified in the order.
Any order made under this subsection may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in like manner as the original order.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in proviso (a), in subsection (1), after "Health," to insert "and with the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales or the Milk Marketing Board for Scotland as the case may be." The noble Lord said: If your Lordships will allow me I will move this Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth. The purpose is quite simple. The Amendment is put down, not because of any childlike faith in the capacity of the Milk Marketing Board, but because of a very great lack of faith in the Ministry of Health from the standpoint of the agriculturist. There is in the Bill really no form of protection for the milk producer, who is to be handed over in very large measure to the Ministry of Health, which, I say with all respect, is very largely under the influence of the medical profession. Now the medical profession and the Ministry of Health together know nothing whatever about milk production, and I fancy they care very much less. In so far as that is so they are the enemies of the producer. That is a statement of fact.
Our proposal is that some kind of protection to the producer should be given by providing for consultation with the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales, or the Milk Marketing Board for Scotland, before administrative orders are made at the instance of the Ministry of Health to the disadvantage of the milk producer. I think it is a reasonable request. The Milk Marketing Board include representatives of the producers. The noble Earl the other day addressed to us a little homily on that subject. He pointed out that the producers should learn to trust their own representatives on the Board. I am entirely with him, but I think they would trust them a great deal more if the Board is given a little more authority. If it be found possible to insert this quite humble Amendment, which seeks to offer some protection to the producers through the medium of this Board against the attacks of the Ministry of Health, and in fact the urban interest, agriculturists will be very much obliged.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 32, after ("Health") insert ("and with the Milk Marketing Board for England and Wales or the Milk Marketing Board for Scotland as the case may be.")—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I should very much like to accept this Amendment because most of us must feel a very friendly disposition towards its object. The only objection is that we do not like to specify any one body in an Act of Parliament because that seems to exclude others. If one body were specified no doubt the proper body would be the Milk Marketing Board. I hope we shall not be pressed to insert this Amendment. I would like to give the noble Lord and the Committee a very definite undertaking on behalf of the Minister and the Ministry as a whole, the permanent Department, that it is our very definite intention always to consult with the Milk Marketing Board on this matter in which they are so deeply involved. Indeed, the work of the Department would be quite impossible if we attempted to deal with milk problems in the future without consulting this particular body. I hope the noble Lord will be satisfied with that undertaking and will not press for the insertion of the Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: I think that when the OFFICIAL REPORT is printed in the morning and the words of the noble Earl are read, it will be agreed that they entirely meet the case. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(c) such proportion (not being less than one half) of the said sum as the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction as aforesaid, may determine, shall be allocated for the purpose of making grants to the councils of administrative counties in aid of the expenditure incurred by them in providing and maintaining a whole-time veterinary service for their areas."
The noble Lord: This Amendment is put down on behalf of the County Councils Association who for some years have taken great interest in seeing that there should be a pure milk supply in this country. As the clause now stands a sum of £750,000 is to be paid to secure a pure milk supply. Apparently the object of the clause is to secure milk pure and free from the infection of any disease. Perhaps we shall have an explanation from the noble Lord of how

793
he expects this is going to be done. I must confess I do not think the proposals in the Bill are likely to have the desired effect, which I am sure we are all most anxious to secure—namely, that dairy herds shall be thoroughly cleaned up and able to produce clean, pure milk. Apparently, what is to happen is that producers who supply that milk are to get a sum not exceeding 1d. per gallon extra from 1he Milk Board. That is all very well. No doubt a certain number of producers will get this penny, or may be only a halfpenny, out of the £750,000. But that will not have the effect which I imagine all your Lordships desire. What we want is not that a certain number of people should produce pure milk in order to get an extra penny. What we want is that all the dairy herds of the country should be in such a condition that there should be always pure milk free from any infectious disease.
If you are going to achieve that ideal it is necessary that there should be cooperation by the county councils. County councils are already the authorities for administering the Diseases of Animals Act and for inspections of cattle and milk under the Dairies Order, 1926. I should like to remind the Committee that up to the present time no grants have been made to county councils to help them to carry out those duties. The work is done at their own expense and therefore there is little inducement for them to spend money, especially in these hard times, for agriculture. The County Councils Association take great interest in this matter, as I have said, and on March 12 this year the chairman of the agricultural committee of the Association wrote to the Minister of Agriculture asking for a proportion of this £750,000. He did that because after evidence had been given by the County Councils Association before the Cattle Diseases Committee of the Economic Advisory Council, the Council had reported to this effect, as appears in paragraph 23 of their Report:
"To assist the expansion of the veterinary service, the Exchequer should make a contribution to the local authorities apportioned among the various counties in such a way that those on which the burden would be most severe would benefit the most."
The Minister's reply to that was only chat it was under consideration.
Up to now the County Councils Association has not heard from him what his
794
views are with regard to that resolution passed by the Economic Advisory Council. In his letter he said that he would not say anything at that moment because he was waiting for that Report. No doubt he has had the Report now, but at the same time he has made no reply as regards that point. I am not for one moment finding fault with the Minister for not doing so, because we are all perfectly well aware that the Minister has had a very strenuous time. Not only are questions and difficulties arising over prices affecting the Milk Board, but lately he has no doubt been worried to death over the question of beef. It is no fault of his that owing to the Ottawa. Agreements this awful muddle has been made as regards both milk and beef. It was not the fault of Mr. Elliot, it was the fault of the previous Minister of Agriculture, Sir John Gilmour, that this Ottawa Agreement was made, which has caused such great trouble to the Minister himself. I should think he is very sorry indeed that that Agreement, which hampers agriculture so seriously, was ever made.
What is the present position? Only a very few counties have appointed a whole-time veterinary officer. If I may refer to my own county, the county of Somerset has actually appointed a whole-time veterinary officer to look after the health of the dairy herds in that county, and also in addition there are 22 part-time veterinary surgeons. There is no regular routine inspection of the 121,000 cows in milk or in calf or heifers in milk in the county of Somerset, and no auxiliary bacteriological work is undertaken; but at the same time the present average expenditure is the sum of £2,500 a year. I am given to understand that if there were a systematic veterinary inspection it would cost about £13,000 a year, and if there were bacteriological work it would cost something like £1000 to £1,500 a year. I think that shows that if the county councils are to undertake this work it is indeed very necessary that the Government should be prepared to give them some share of this £750,000 grant.
I venture to say that if you are anxious that every county should appoint a whole-time veterinary officer—and it is undoubtedly desirable that they should go further and have a routine inspection of

795
all the dairy cattle in their area—it is absolutely necessary that some large grant should be made either from this fund or from some other source. The Government have given, this large amount of money to clear up disease among cattle, and I venture to think that there could not be a better way of doing it than applying some of it, as the County Councils Association have asked, for the benefit of the county councils, so that county councils like that of Somerset may be encouraged to spend more and to have a routine inspection of all the dairy herds, and also that the backward counties and the poor counties—because some counties cannot afford it, though they seem to be backward—should be encouraged in this matter by being allowed to have some share in this grant.
I venture to think that the proposal of the Government just simply to give a certain amount of money to the Milk Marketing Board in order that they may give a premium to those who produce pure milk under the conditions imposed by the Ministry will not effect the object at all. No doubt it will produce some pure milk, but it will not do what I believe the majority of your Lordships are most anxious for; that is, ensure that we should have a national system by which we should be able to clear the dairy herds from all disease which is communicable to a human being. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 35, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SITULBREDE: My noble friend Lord Snell, who is detained elsewhere with his public duties, has asked me on his behalf to support the Amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie. He would have explained, had he been here, that the London County Council, from their long experience of sampling milk arriving in the county from sources outside the county, are impressed with the great importance of ensuring the provision of a milk supply free from tubercule bacilli and other contaminating organisms, and are of the opinion that if part of the Exchequer grant could be allotted to county councils for the purpose of improving the veterinary service in their areas, the result would be to assist in improving at the source the milk supply
796
which comes into London and to ensure to a great extent the purity of the London milk supply. For this reason I beg to support the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: We are in some difficulty in this matter because we have not yet had the advantage of seeing the scheme under which the £750,000 is to be expended. That in itself is natural enough, because the scheme cannot be prepared, or at any rate it cannot be presented, until this Bill becomes the law of the land. But there is a good deal, not necessarily of confusion of thought, but of contrary opinion in this matter. As we understand—and upon this I am hoping that the noble Earl will give us further information—the £750,000, or by far the greater proportion of it, is to be allocated to the purpose of making payments to the producers of milk which reaches certain standards. I will not specify or attempt to define at the moment what those standards are to be, but the purpose seems to be that the great bulk of the £750,000 should, over a term of years, be paid to the producers of milk of certain standards.
There is of course another way of achieving the same result, and that is by devoting a large proportion of the money to the cleaning up of the dirty herds 'at the bottom of the roll rather than giving the whole of the money to the clean herds at the top. I do not know that a body representing farmers could very well support this Amendment, but looked at from the widest national standpoint I think there can be no doubt at all that to apply funds to the institution of an efficiency veterinary service, which will eliminate the offending herds at the bottom of the health list, would be better than giving the whole of the money to those who are prepared to enter the market as producers of clean milk. There is nothing at all said about it in the Bill, but I have been told that a relatively small portion of this £750,000 is to be earmarked for the provision of a central administrative veterinary service—a service which will co-ordinate the services which are to be established by county councils and local authorities. I do not know whether that is so or not, but the noble Earl will tell us.
It is perfectly evident that in order to implement the terms and conditions of this Bill when it becomes an Act of

797
Parliament a very large veterinary service will have to be established and maintained. How the veterinary service is to be enlarged at short notice is not so very obvious. We are none of us quite convinced that the number of veterinary surgeons is sufficient to meet the demand. But whether they are efficient or inefficient, whether they are qualified or unqualified, there is nothing more certain than that whoever is employed will have to be paid. That is perfectly inevitable. As they have to be paid, somebody has to pay them. Whether the Ministry is going by order to compel the county councils and local authorities to incur this additional expenditure or not I do not know, but by some means or other pressure will obviously be brought to bear upon the county councils and local authorities to incur it, unless provision is made to meet the expense out of moneys provided by Parliament.
The purpose of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Strachie, I take it is to diminish the sum available for the payment of one penny and sometimes two-pence to the producers of the milk, and to divert a sum, which shall not be less than half of the whole, to the payment of the veterinary service which will have to be provided. Whether he moved his Amendment because he thought that that was the most effective way of securing a pure milk supply, or whether he moved it because he disliked the placing of an additional charge on the local authorities, I am not sure, but it is unimportant. If there is no such provision as his Amendment seeks to make there will fall upon the local authorities a heavy additional expense. Whether compelled thereto by the Ministry or by circumstances matters little, but the expense which arises will have to be met by the ratepayers. The ratepayers will say that this is a national service, in which the big towns are interested, and that it is the duty of the nation to see that the big towns are supplied with pure milk at the expense of the State and not of the poor ratepayers. It is an argument which has a good deal to be said for it. When the noble Earl replies I hope he will tell us a little more about how the £750,000 will be spent, and the Committee will then be able to form an opinion as to whether the Amend-
798
ment is one which should be passed. For the moment I beg to support Lord Strachie's Amendment.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, before I deal with the merits of the Amendment I think I must make it clear to your Lordships that this Amendment is really dealing with a matter falling within the Privilege of the House of Commons, and therefore a matter which naturally we discuss in this House with some diffidence, although we realise that it is not in any way ruled out of our discussion. There is one other foreword. I am rather sorry that Lord Strachie should so continually be speaking abusively of my late chief, Sir John Gilmour, and generally speaking on occasions on which I should be just as irrelevant in replying as he is in raising the question. With regard to the Amendment before us I think there is some misunderstanding lying behind it, but a misunderstanding for which one could not attempt to blame any one, because I would be the first to admit, as Lord Hastings has said, that the scheme for cleaning up herds has not been before the House in full detail. Lord Hastings mentioned the difficulty there has been in carrying on negotiations with a number of bodies and in not being able to commit ourselves.
The misunderstanding arises here because there are two quite distinct schemes. There is the scheme which is affected by the finance of this Bill, the Ministry's scheme for building up a supply of tubercle-free herds—what we call the attested scheme. In order to enter into that scheme a herd-owner will have to satisfy the Ministry that he has had two successive tests at six months' intervals, which show his herd to be completely free. Immediately on receiving notification of that fact the Ministry, within sixty days, would proceed to carry out its own test at the Government expense, with its own service, the central service to which Lord Hastings has already referred. On entering into that scheme the owner will be entitled to a premium of a penny per gallon, to be paid out of the £750,000. While it is very difficult indeed to estimate the number of herds which are likely to come in, and therefore the expense which is likely to fall upon that sum, we estimate that it would be

799
approximately £450,000. That is over the whole period of four years.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Will the noble Earl make it quite clear whether that covers the expenditure on the State veterinary service as well as the penny per gallon paid to the owner?
EARL DE LA WARR: I give £450,000 as the approximate estimate of what the penny per gallon will come to. It is impossible to be tied to anything. In addition, there is a further scheme which does not come under this Bill at all. The accredited herd scheme is a scheme to be prepared and administered entirely by the Milk Marketing Board. There are still, I understand, some details of that scheme to be settled and negotiated, but it will be approximately on the line that every herd shall be open to clinical inspection twice a year, and that the milk produced from those herds shall have to come up to Grade A standard. For entry into that scheme there will also be a premium of one penny per gallon to be paid out of the funds of the Milk Marketing Board. That means that a herd owner in the Ministry's scheme will automatically be put on the Milk Marketing Board scheme, and will be receiving a premium of 2d. for his milk. Your Lordships will see from the outline of these two schemes that no expense whatever is to fall on the county council under the Ministry's scheme. It may be that under the Board's scheme the counties might find it necessary to provide more veterinary officers, but that scheme does not come in any way under this Bill, and if the counties do in this respect find themselves faced with expense, your Lordships know that the new system by which local authorities are financed is that they shall receive a block grant from the Government, settled for four or five years, and at the end of that period the additional expenditure is brought into computation.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Will the noble Earl say whether that block grant is included in the sums in this Bill?
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the last settlement was made last year. All new expenditure, whether for veterinary officers or education or whatever it may be, will, as the noble Lord knows, have to be carried by the county until the next settlement somes in 1937 or 1938.
800
But let me stress the point that if noble Lords are dissatisfied with that arrangement it is a dissatisfaction which should be expressed with regard to the general system of local authority finance; it is not a matter that is in any way concerned with this Bill. Under this Bill not a single county veterinary officer will have to be appointed, and in view of that fact I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment, which really has nothing to do with this Bill.
LORD CRANWORTH: I should like to be a little more clear about the accredited herd scheme. That scheme, as far as I know it—and as the noble Earl has said, it is not out in its full particulars yet—entails three things, not two things. One is the clinical examination at least twice a year by the county veterinary officer; the second is a certificate provided by the agricultural staff of the authority to the effect that the methods employed in connection with the production of milk on the applicant's farm have been examined and approved; and the third is the certificate which he mentioned with regard to Grade A milk. For that milk 1d. a gallon is going to be paid. What I am not clear about is who is actually going to pay that penny? Is it coming out of the £750,000? He has made it clear that the penny for the attested herds will amount in his opinion to £400,000 out of the £750,000, but the accredited herd scheme will undoubtedly be far more popular, and cost a great deal more, and will come into operation much sooner. I should like the noble Earl to tell me whether that fund is going to receive any of this £750,000, because it is at all events clear to me that, if it is, the £750,000 will melt like the snows of yesteryear.
EARL DE LA WARR: I meant to make it quite clear that the accredited herd scheme has nothing whatever to do with our scheme, and therefore no payment has to be made out of the fund. The noble Lord asked whether the accredited herd fund is going to receive any of the £750,000. That is entirely the affair of the Milk Marketing Board, but I should say that the money will be found in exactly the same manner as the additional sum paid for good pigs is found by the Pig Marketing Board. It is simply a matter of the allocation of the fund.
LORD CRANWORTH: I thank the noble Earl for his information. I would

801
only tell him that I have just come from the Milk Marketing Board, and the information he has given us is entirely contrary to that which was given me there.
LORD HASTINGS: What does the noble Earl propose to do with the balance of tie £750,000? He has earmarked £400,000 for the attested scheme so that £350,000 will be available for something else. What for?
EARL DE LA WARR: We shall have a good bit in reserve and in a year or two we shall be able to see how things go on.
LORD STRACHIE: I cannot say that I am satisfied with the reply of the noble Earl. He certainly did not seem to think that there was going to be a very great demand at first on this large sum of money. I understood that a very small amount would be spent in the first year, and I understood further that before the dairyman gets the extra 1d. a gallon there-would have to be a clinical examination of the herd. That is one of the conditions that would be imposed by the Ministry. No doubt that would be a very proper thing. Then he went on further to say that there might probably in the future be clinical examinations. That, is an im-
portant point. In the future we are going to have heavy expenditure put on the county councils. The probability is that a very small amount would be required for the first year or two from this £750,000, and why should not the county councils have the benefit of some of that expenditure, in order that we might have a national system of dealing with disease among dairy cattle? If it were found afterwards that more money was required certainly for a great national object the Minister would be perfectly ready to come forward and help the county councils.
It will be remembered that as regards all additional expenditure now the county councils get no help, because we have the block grants, and all additional expenditure has to fall on the county rates. It is not like the old days when a certain proportion was given by the State as a contribution to the county councils. I regret that I can get no satisfactory answer from the noble Earl, and I must therefore press this to a Division.
On Question, Whether the proposed new paragraph shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS.

Argyll, D.

Mersey, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Phillimore, L. [Teller.]

Reading, M.

Arnold, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam)

Rathcreedan, L.

Airlie, E.

Rhayader, L.

Bathurst, E.

Clwyd, L.

Sanderson, L.

Denbigh, E.

Denman, L.

Snell, L.

Strafford, E.

Hastings, L.

Stanmore, L.

Middleton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Onslow, E.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Plymouth, E.

Kilmaine, L.

Wellington, D.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Marks, L.

Melchett, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Elibank, V.

Merrivale, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Merthyr, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hailsham, V.

Mount Temple, L.

Halifax, V.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

De La Warr, E.

Playfair, L.

Feversham, E.

Amulree, L.

Remnant, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Rennell, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Elton, L.

Rockley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Erskine, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Midleton, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Morton, E.

Greville, L.

Templemore, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think it would be convenient at this stage

803
to resume the House for a few moments in order that the statement to which I referred yesterday may be made. I beg to move, that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed accordingly.

THE ROYAL AIR FORCE.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY): My Lords, I think your Lordships will desire to hear the statement—the identical statement—which has been made in another place by the Lord President of the Council:
"Ever since the War, successive Governments in this country have actively pursued a policy of international disarmament. In our efforts to further this policy by example as well as precept we have reduced our own armaments to a dangerously low level in the hope that others would follow our lead. But the disarmament negotiations have been drawn out longer than any one anticipated. The Preparatory Commission lasted from 1926 to December, 1930, inclusive. The Disarmament Conference opened on February find, 1932,' and has pursued its labours ever since. During these eight and a-half years misgivings have arisen from time to time in many quarters at the increasing accumulation of deficiencies in our Defence Services, particularly in view of the increased expenditure on armaments in many other countries.
"Most of the Leaders of all three Parties are familiar with the position in its general outline, not only from knowledge acquired while in office, but also from a Three-Party Conference on Disarmament in 1931, in the privacy of which all the facts of the situation were disclosed in confidence. The Government's policy remains one of international disarmament, and we have by no means abandoned hope of reaching some limitation. As mentioned in the debate on July 13, we are even now making fresh efforts to break the virtual deadlock that exists at Geneva. Unfortunately, however, particularly in view of past experience,
804
we cannot count on an early result, and in view of our commitments under the Covenant of the League and the Locarno Treaty, the many symptoms of unrest in Europe and elsewhere, and the failure of other Governments to follow our example by comparable reductions, we have for some time felt that the time has come when the possibility of keeping our armaments at their present low level must be reconsidered in the absence of comparable reductions by other Powers. This is a situation which I believe Leaders of all Parties have foreseen must sooner or later be reached.
"In the light of these considerations the whole question of Imperial Defence and the part to be played in it by the three Defence Services has been for some months under review by the Government. It is not necessary to-day to give any complete account of our inquiries or of the detailed conclusions at which we have arrived. The deficiencies which it will be necessary to make good are largely deficiencies in equipment and stores which, as I mentioned in my speech on March 21"—
it is the Lord President of the Council speaking—
"have grown up owing to financial stringency and the discussions on disarmament. In these respects the results of our inquiries will be reflected in the Estimates for future years, and can be more conveniently discussed when those Estimates are debated.
"So far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, however, the position is rather different. Here it is a case of the need for further development, which has time and again been postponed, in addition to the need for making good deficiencies. We have come to the conclusion that we cannot delay any longer measures which will in the course of the next few years bring our Air forces to a level more closely approaching that of our nearest neighbours. Moreover, in the case of the Royal Air Force specific undertakings have been given that an announcement will be made before the end of the present Session. Before coming to the programme we have decided to adopt, I would emphasise that many factors which have influenced our decision are

805
still fluctuating and liable to change. This applies equally to the future of disarmament and the whole international situation. Consequently our defensive position will have to be kept constantly under review, and we reserve the right to modify or adjust the programme in the light of new factors that may arise.
"Subject to this caveat, we have decided on a programme covering the present and the four ensuing years under which the Royal Air Force will be increased by 41 new squadrons, including those already announced in the 1934 programme. Of these 41 squadrons 33 will be allotted to Home Defence, raising the existing 42 squadrons at home to a total of 75 squadrons. The remaining squadrons are for service with the Fleet Air Arm or abroad. The rate at which this programme can be carried out within the five years must depend upon various considerations, including finance, which I cannot specify now. We hope, however, so to space out the work as not to make an unmanageable addition to the Estimates in any one year."

MILK BILL.
VISCONT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on the Milk Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[House in Committee accordingly:]
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 9 [Payments for securing pure milk supply]:
EARL DE LA WARR: The next two Amendments standing in my name are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("scheme") and insert ("schemes approved by him which are")
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("such scheme") and insert ("milk marketing scheme approved by him ").—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (2), immediately before the last paragraph, to insert:
"Provided that before the day appointed under subsection (1) of this section as the beginning of the period of four years mentioned in that subsection the boards administering any milk scheme for the time being in force shall cause a poll of registered producers to be taken in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, relating to the amendment of schemes on the question of whether the boards shall accept the liability to make-the payments mentioned in this subsection and unless the result of such poll is in favour of the boards accepting such liability no order shall be made under this subsection."
The noble Lord said: I really argued this Amendment on the Amendment which stood in my name earlier on the Paper. On that occasion I endeavoured to point out the impropriety of compelling the producers who had agreed to a limited liability scheme to accept without reference to them the implications and obligations of an unlimited liability scheme. I did not then divide the Committee, because there did not seem to be sufficient support for my argument. Here we have an alternative which will enable the producers to be given the opportunity of going to the poll to state before any subsidy moneys are paid on their behalf whether they will or will not accept the subsidy moneys together with the unlimited liability which is the corollary of them, or whether they will forego subsidy moneys rather than accept the unlimited liability. This is a variant of the Amendment which was moved in another place and which sought to give the producers the opportunity of this poll after they had received the subsidy money and before they became liable. That was obviously not a very acceptable proposal to the Minister or the House. This Amendment, on the other hand, proposes to give them the opportunity of expressing an opinion before they have received the subsidy moneys. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 7, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. It would completely destroy all sense of continuity in the scheme. It would mean that liabilities would be entered into and farmers would be persuaded to go to

807
very considerable expense and trouble in obtaining a tuberculosis free herd and then, at the end of it all, they would find that the scheme was not being continued. It would really mean that the £750,000 which the Government have put up would be virtually wasted on an abortive scheme.
LORD HASTINGS: I am inclined to agree with the noble Earl. Having lost the first Amendment I think it would be better to withdraw this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, after subsection (2), to insert the following new subsection:
"(3) No arrangement or order made under this section shall impose upon any council of an administrative county or upon any local authority any obligation to make any payment or incur any financial liability for the purposes of this section."
The noble Lord said: I put down this Amendment partly to elicit information from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and partly for the protection of the county councils. If I understand the noble Earl aright, he is in a position to tell me that the accredited herds are not influenced or do not come under this Bill in any shape or form, and no money is provided for them in this Bill either. In fact we might never have heard of accredited herds so far as this Bill is concerned. That is one point as to which I wanted information. Probably also the noble Earl is able to say that no arrangement or order made under this scheme can impose upon any council any obligation to make any payment and if that is so there is no point in my pressing my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 10, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Phillimore.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I can give the noble Lord that assurance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Amendment of 12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. 54]
LORD. CRANWORTH: I can only express my apologies to the noble Earl for not being present for my previous Amendment. I understand his reply to that was thoroughly satisfactory, and in those circumstances I will, with your
808
Lordships' leave, not move the Amendment I had put down to this clause.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Extension of functions of milk marketing boards.
(3) The board administering any milk marketing scheme may from time to time determine the places or areas at or within which milk produced in the area to which the scheme applies, or any description or quantity of milk so produced, may be sold or offered for sale by any registered producer, and the provisions of the scheme which relate to penalties shall apply with respect to any determination of the board under this subsection as they apply with respect to determinations of the board under the scheme which regulate sales of milk.
Provided that no determination shall be made under this subsection by any board except after consultation with such a committee as the Minister may have approved for the purpose as representing the interests of purchasers of milk by wholesale.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "determine" down to, but not including the proviso, and insert:
"the places or areas at, to or within which milk produced in the area to which the scheme applies, or any description or quantity of milk so produced, may be sold, or offered or consigned for sale, or delivered on sale, by any registered producer, and if any registered producer deals with any milk in contravention of any determination made by the board under this subsection, then, subject to any provisions of the scheme which prescribe procedure in connection with the imposition and recovery of penalties, the board shall impose on, and recover from, that producer such monetary penalty as the board think just, not exceeding one hundred pounds or such greater maximum sum (if any) as may be prescribed by the scheme in relation to such a contravention as aforesaid."
The noble Earl said: This is quite a simple Amendment. The first part of it is in order to bring in the word "consigned" the absence of which left a considerable hole in the scheme. The second part deals with the penalties. At first we thought we could manage it by legislative reference back to the original Act, but we found we could not and, therefore, we have inserted the specific penalty, which is the same amount as before.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 4, leave out from ("determine") to the end of line 12 and insert the said now words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to omit the proviso in subsection (3). The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment I desire to press very strongly. Your Lordships will observe that in this subsection no determination shall be made by any board except after consultation with such committee as the Minister may have approved for the purpose as representing the interests of purchasers of milk by wholesale. This subsection grants complete control over the production and retailing of milk. The Milk Board can diminish the amount of milk produced in the area, it can diminish or even eliminate the amount; of milk sold in the area. Those powers have nothing whatever to do with the interests representing purchasers of milk of wholesale. The great distributing companies ought not to be allowed to have any finger in this particular pie. Why do they want it? It pays the distributing companies to promote a glut of milk in any area because it cheapens the price to them, and the whole purpose of this particular subsection would be to limit production to the requirements of the area and to limit the area within which that production can be sold. There can be no conceivable reason why the interests of the purchasers of milk by wholesale should be admitted here and those concerned with the producers' interests strongly resent this proviso. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 13, leave out lines 13 to 17.—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I am aware that certain farming interests are worried at the insertion of this particular provision in the Bill, but I think that they are under a misunderstanding. At the present moment they have certain very strong powers of determining how milk shall be sold. Under the Act of 1931, Section 5 (e), it will be found that the Board can determine the persons to whom milk can be sold. That might theoretically give them full control, but it does not do so in fact. Therefore we want this addition to the powers of the Board. The Board are given power completely to divert milk now from one
810
area to another. The noble Lord questions the reason for bringing manufacturers into this. A manufacturer with a milk factory in a certain district could be completely deprived of supplies of milk by the Board acting in an unreasonable manner. Of course we do not anticipate that they will act unreasonably, but surely it is not asking very much of the Board to be prepared to discuss with the distributors before taking any decision. The ultimate decision is left in their hands. Most of us who are reasonable people are prepared to go into a great deal of consultation provided we have the last word left to us.
I know what is the real fear. The real fear is that the distributors may operate this subsection unreasonably and may be continually and unreasonably asking for consultation. But just as it must be assumed that the Milk Marketing Board is composed of reasonable men we must assume that distributors will be reasonable men. They are just as busy as the Milk Marketing Board and they will not want to be engaged in eternal consultations. I can give an undertaking on the part of the Minister himself that if it is found that the milk distributing interests are unreasonable we should be prepared to use all the influence we have to make it clear to them that this power was given them to operate reasonably and not to operate unreasonably. I hope the noble Lord, in spite of his strong feeling, will not press this Amendment but will accept the assurance of the Minister that he will do everything possible to see that this is operated reasonably.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I speak on behalf of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, whose position is a little different from that of the English Board in regard to this proviso. We have at the present moment in Scotland a joint committee of distributors and other interests and any matter of the movement of milk can be discussed if necessary. As I read the proviso it appears to wipe out all the powers given under the clause. The clause gives to the Board practically no powers which they have not got already and which they have not exercised in the past year in reference to transfers of milk. Most transfers of milk are done by agreement at the present time. Only

811
this week the Scottish Board was requested by a large distributor in Glasgow to change the destination of a matter of 500 gallons of milk a day because the Glasgow fair holidays were taking place and he could not get rid of the milk. The whole transaction was done by wire or telephone and the milk was diverted to manufacturers. As I read the proviso it would prevent a transaction of that sort without, possibly, consultation with a committee. If every such transaction had to be referred to a committee the Board could not carry on unless the committee was sitting permanently. I have been assured by some of the permanent officials that my view is not correct, but I cannot see it.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think the noble Earl really answered his own point when he said that the Board already possessed powers. It must be made quite clear that in so far as they have existing powers they do not come under the proviso at all.
THE EARL OF STAIR: At present we have a case of transfer of that sort before a committee of investigation in Edinburgh, and I understand this proviso was put in because of objection from one of the large manufacturing interests to our giving a supply from one place instead of another.
EARL DE LA WARR: There will be two ways of operating. The first is under the existing law. If that is done no alteration is made whatsoever. If producers are not satisfied with the powers they have under the existing law they are given much stronger powers under this Bill. But if they operate under these new powers they will have to grant consultation to the distributors. Considering the extent of these powers I think it is only reasonable that the producers should be prepared to discuss with the men whom they are going to deprive of milk. There are the powers of a machine gun in this case. Surely, when you point a machine gun at a man you might discuss with him before you shoot.
LORD STRACHIE: I hope the noble Lord will press this Amendment. It does not seem to me that the noble Earl has given any reason for this special protection of the wholesale purchaser. We have had sufficient experience of the advan-
812
tages given to wholesale purchasers. We know how producers under the milk scheme had fixed for them the prices at which they might sell, while, on the other hand, the distributors were left to charge whatever price they liked. In some cases that had a very detrimental effect on the small man who retails milk. We ought to be very careful not to give further powers to committees for the benefit of the purchaser. The Minister always seems more anxious to look after the interests of the purchaser than the interests of the producer. I hope the noble Lord will press this Amendment to a Division.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I hesitate to intrude in this debate among experts and I only do so in order to ask a question about a matter which I think is left a little in doubt. I am not sure that I heard all the arguments of the noble Earl and so I may be covering ground which has been already covered. I only wish to ask for information on one point. The proviso, I take it, docs not mean that the committee to be appointed must approve. Some observations which have been made were somewhat misleading in that respect I think, because it was suggested that unless the committee approved nothing could be done. I do not so read it. I am only-speaking of the language of the proviso. It is, in effect, that there shall be a consultation with the Board, that is, that nothing shall be done by the Board except after consultation with the committee appointed. That does not mean that the committee must approve. What it means is that there must be consultation.
It may still be said—it was said by the noble Lord who spoke just now for Scotland—that that would mean that there would have to be a committee always sitting. I do not know whether that is true, but of course if it is it would be a very serious objection. I would like to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill, or the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment, to give us some information upon that point. As it strikes me, if it merely means that all that is to happen is that there must be consultation with the committee appointed, and assuming that it does not entail a committee continuously sitting but only called together when occasion arises for the exercise by

813
the Board of some of these powers, that is a totally different matter. One course would no doubt be somewhat impracticable as it appears to me, that is to say, if you had had to have the committee always, sitting; but apart from the merits of the questions, into which I do not eater, I really do not see the difficulty if all that is to happen is that the committee appointed should be consulted before the Board puts into operation the powers given to it. I really would like some information, because I am in a difficulty as to which way to vote if there is a Division.
EARL DE LA WARR: The noble Marquess is quite right. I am sorry if I did not make myself heard just now. It is purely a matter of consultation. My own view of what will actually happen is that in general, the day to day management of this concern will be carried on under the powers of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, without any question of consultation coming in. But there will be certain cases when there is to be rather a major control of a very large section of the milk of this country, and it is then that complications may arise; and when those complications arise of course they will have to be settled in consultation with this committee.
THE MABQUESS OF READING: Not settled in consultation?
EARL DE LA WARR: Settled after consultation.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: That is a vital difference. There must be a consultation, but the point is that after the consultation the Board can go on notwithstanding that the committee does not agree. That is the vital point.
THE EARL OF AIRLIE: I had not intended to intervene, in this discussion, but it seems to me that we have missed, or are apt to miss, the point. As I understand, we all agree on the principle of consultation, but the point is that in the instance which the noble Earl, Lord Stair, gave there would not have been time to consult; the whole deal would have been lost. If you have got to have a consultation every time a case is brought forward, you will have to have that committee sitting the whole time, or practically so. To my mind it is that which is of the essence of the question; it is a question of time.
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but may I point out that cases such as those which the noble Earl, Lord Stair, has instanced are already being carried out under the existing powers without any need of consultation? It if when the additional powers conferred by this. Bill are brought into question that consultation is provided for.
LORD HASTINGS: I deeply regret that I am quite unable to withdraw this Amendment. Those who have been responsible for the framing of the Amendment have framed it after being pressed thereto very strongly by all the interests concerned. There is no doubt at all in their minds or in our minds that this is a grave, gross, and wholly unnecessary spoke to put into the wheel of the simple and easy working of this Board. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, has drawn the attention of the Committee to the word "consultation," but he better than anyone will know perfectly well that when you give to a body the right to be consulted, that body considers that after it has been consulted its opinion has got to be taken. There would be very serious and sad trouble if its opinion were discarded after having been obtained. I think that must be so, and the experience of this particular body of persons has gone to show that this is their view of the matter. I am afraid I cannot withdraw the Amendment, and I shall have to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.
LORD MERRIVALE: As there is no member of the Government present who speaks with legal experience, I hope I may be allowed to say that I do not think any lawyer would have any doubt that the noble Marquess is absolutely right when he says that the obligation to consult does not involve or entail any obligation to accept an opinion which is offered. (When I rose I had not observed that the Leader of the House was present; I was not able to find him.) The only possible obligation is to consider it before determining the question, and as between honest people one is perfectly certain that would be done. That is all I wanted to say.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 22.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Plymouth, E.

Marks, L.

Melchett, L.

Argyll, D.

Elibank, V.

Merrivale, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Merthyr, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Hailsham, V.

Mount Temple, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Halifax, V.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Reading, M.

Mersey, V.

Playfair, L.

Amulree, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Buxton, E.

Biddulph, L.

Rennell, L.

De La Warr, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rhayader, L.

Feversham, E.

Denman, L.

Rockley, L.

Iveagh, E.

Elton, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Gage, L. (F. Gage.) [Teller.]

Stanmore, L.

Midleton, E.

Greville, L.

Templemore, L.

Morton, E.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Onslow, E.

Kilmaine, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Palmer, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

Phillimore, L.

Hastings, L. [Teller.]

Rathcreedan, L.

Airlie, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Remnant, L.

Denbigh, E.

Marley, L.

Sanderson, L.

Macclesfield, E.

Middleton, L.

Snell, L.

Strafford, E.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Strabolgi, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Strachie, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, after Clause 12, to insert the following new clause:
". All orders made under this Act shall he laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent forty days on which that House has sat next after the order is laid before it praying that the order may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order. If the Session of Parliament ends before such forty days as aforesaid have expired, the order shall be laid before each House of Parliament at the commencement of the next Session as if it had not previously been laid."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment can be explained very shortly; it simply is that all orders should be laid before both Houses of Parliament. In moving my first Amendment I said to the noble Earl that I did not so much want to press it if I could have an assurance from him that orders would be laid, but he could give me no assurance at all upon that matter. I cannot understand why it is that in this Bill, for the first time in the many Bills coming from the Ministry of Agriculture, it is not provided that all orders and regulations shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament. I remember very well in previous
816
Parliaments that Lord Salisbury, when Leader of the House or when he was leading the Opposition, constantly supported me in this matter, that orders should be laid, and I expect I shall have his support now if he is present.
Under Clause 3 the Minister may from time to time by order direct, etc. Now the noble Earl said, when I raised a question about the smallholder and the manufacture of cheese, that it was better to leave it entirely to the Minister to make an order. I have no objection to the Minister making an order, if it comes before both Houses of Parliament, because if the smallholder is not properly treated it will be for Parliament to say that the order of the Minister is not fair and that the smallholder ought to be encouraged to make cheese. The general feeling in the country is that we should do everything we can to encourage cheese being made, in' order to keep up this large supply of milk which is to be used for manufacturing purposes. I see in Clause 9 the curious statement made that particulars of the arrangements made by the Minister of Agriculture are to be laid before each House of Parliament. Why are only particulars of arrangements, and not orders, to be laid? It seems a very curious thing indeed. What is the objection to laying orders? It will be interesting to hear from the noble Earl what is the real objection. If

817
orders are good in themselves then there can be no objection, because the House will not take an adverse view.
It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that many orders have to be laid, and it is very rarely that they are objected to. The reason is that the Departments are careful to draw up orders which are reasonable, so that the House shall not object to them. There is one objection, and I think the strongest of all, to this procedure by orders without the approval of Parliament. The Lord Chief Justice not long ago said, with regard to orders, that they were constantly being made by Ministers, who were thus given too much executive power. He said, in effect, that his objection was to a Minister having power to impose liability on the subject by order, and not by any Act of Parliament. That is what is going to happen in the present case, and I cannot see what particular reason there is why the old practice of requiring the approval of Parliament should be departed from. I shall press this Amendment, because I
Clause 13:
Interpretation.
(2) For the purposes of this Act a farm shall be deemed to include the farm house
think the Bill, as drafted, interferes with the rights of Parliament in this matter.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 12, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strachie.)
EARL DE LA WARR: I fully understand the object of the noble Lord in bringing up this matter, but if he looks into the clauses under which orders have to be made he will see that in each case it is only a question of laying down administrative details, how to carry out principles which have had full discussion in the House. In those circumstances I do not think your Lordships would desire that they should be subject to the approval of Parliament.
LORD STRACHIE: If the orders were desirable, nobody would want to discuss them. My only object is not to give this power, which the Lord Chief Justice has said is so objectionable, of doing by orders what should be done by legislation.
On Question, Whether the said new-clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 14; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS.

Reading, M.

Mersey, V.

Phillimore, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Buxton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Rhayader, L.

Onslow, E.

Denman, L.

Stanmore, L.

Strafford, E.

Merthyr, L.

Strachie, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Elibank, V.

Kilmaine, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Marks, L.

Argyll, D.

Hailsham, V.

Marley, L.

Halifax, V.

Merrivale, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Dufferin and Ava, M.

Alvingham, L.

Mount Temple, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Amulree, L.

Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)

Arnold, L.

Palmer, L.

Airlie, E.

Biddulph, L.

Remnant, L.

De La Warr, E.

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Rennell, L.

Denbigh, E.

de Clifford, L.

Rockley, L.

Feversham, E.

Elton, L.

Sanderson, L.

Iveagh, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Greville, L.

Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

Mar and Kellie, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Snell, L.

Midleton, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Morton, E.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Templemore, L.

Plymouth, E.

Jessel, L.

Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

and all buildings occupied together with the farm.
EARL DE LA WARR EARL DE LA WARR moved, in subsection (2), at the end, to insert, "but not to include any premises which are for the time being approved as manufacturing premises by the Board administering

819
a milk marketing scheme." The noble Earl said: This is a very small Amendment, and is merely an alteration of the definition. At the present time a certain kind of small factory on a dairy farm would not be defined as a farm cheese maker or as a factory, and this makes the definition right.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be again put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 23 [Amendment as to use of vehicles on special occasions]
THE EABL OF PLYMOUTH: The first Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 6, leave out ("a") and insert ("the ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Arrangements between members of societies for carnage in motor vehicles]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 27, leave out ("had been") and insert ("were").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Amendment as to public sittings of Traffic, Commissioners]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: There is another drafting Amendment here.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 40, leave out ("of greater frequency than six") and insert ("operated
820
on more than six days").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved, after Clause 26, to insert the following new clause:
Interpretation of certain provisions of s. 90 of the principal Act.
". For removing doubts it is hereby declared that the powers conferred on a local authority by subsections (2) and (3) of Section ninety of the principal Act (which relate to the appointment of a parking place as a station for public service vehicles and confer amongst other powers a power to make certain charges) are in addition to and not in substitution for the powers conferred on a local authority by Section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act 1925 (which relates to the provision of parking places and confers amongst other powers a power to make regulations as to certain charges) and that the local authority shall have power to make reasonable charges for the use of a parking place as a station for public service vehicles in addition to the charges for accommodation referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Section 90 of the principal Act."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to remove doubts which have arisen as to the application of certain sections of the Public Health Act, 1925, and the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in regard to the use of a station adapted by a local authority for the purpose of receiving public service vehicles. Section 68 of the Public Health Act, 1925, provides that:
"Whore for the purpose of relieving or preventing congestion of traffic it appears to the local authority to be necessary to provide within their district suitable parking places for vehicles, the local authority may provide such parking places …."
and that they may acquire land suitable for that purpose, and utilise any lands which may lawfully be appropriated for the purpose, subject to certain restrictions.
Subsection (6) says:
"A local authority may make regulations as to the use of parking places …."
and other matters, including
"the charges to be paid to the local authority in connection with the use of any parking place not being part of a street."
Subsection (7) says that in the case of any vehicle using a parking place the driver may not ply for hire. The definition of a "parking place" is:
"a place where vehicles, or vehicles of any particular class or description, may wait."

821
It is obvious therefore that under the Public Health Act, 1925, the powers of the local authority to provide parking places apply to places where vehicles may wait but may not ply for hire, and further that they may make charges for the use of the parking place where the parking place is on private land or owned by the local authority, and not in a street.
That was altered by Section 90 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. The Act of 1925 referred to vehicles generally. The Act of 1930 introduced a classification of vehicles, and Section 90 deals with public service vehicles. It enables the local authority to make provision for appointing parking places as stations for such vehicle, and also declares that public service vehicles may, in the discretion of the local authority, ply for hire in such a parking place. It goes on to provide that they may, with the consent of the Minister, adapt the parking place for use as a station for public service vehicles
"and in particular provide and maintain waiting rooms, ticket offices and lavatories and other similar accommodation, in connection therewith."
Further they may make reasonable charges for the use of any accommodation so provided.
The question that arises is this. Where a local authority has provided private land or adapted private land as a parking place, as a station for the use of these public service vehicles, can they make any charge for such adaptation? It is obvious that they have no power in Section 90 to make such a charge, because a charge is only authorised by that section for the use of waiting rooms, ticket offices, and similar accommodation. It has been contended that there is power under the previous Act, the Public Health Act of 1925, to make a charge. On the other hand it is contended that the only charge that can be made is for the use of a parking place as a place to wait and not as a station for picking up passengers. In these circumstances, where local authorities have gone to the expense of providing a station, and these public service vehicles are making use of this station, it is only reasonable that the local authority should make a charge.
The matter is not without authority. The Cardiff Corporation Bill was before
822
Parliament this Session, and the question arose there. It was contended that the existing provisions were sufficiently clear and that there was no necessity to insert any special provision giving the Corporation power to make a charge, but after argument the Committee found there was sufficient doubt, on the subject and they inserted a provision authorising a charge to be made. It is the same point which is raised by this Amendment, which I am moving on behalf of the Association of Municipal Corporations. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill has put down an Amendment to my Amendment providing that a reasonable charge may be made for a parking place "not being part of a street." My noble friend Lord Mount Temple suggests certain Amendments too, but I think he agrees that there should not be power to make a charge where a station is in a public street, and I understand he is satisfied with the Amendment put forward by the noble Earl. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 26, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Amulree.)
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: As I think the Minister in charge of the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and myself are in substantial agreement, I shall be extremely brief. It is a matter of some importance which has been raised by my noble friend. In the beginning of his Amendment he says that the Act of 1930 shall be in addition and not in substitution for the Act of 1925, and I think it is very important that this should be made clear. As to the other point, it is this: Shall or shall not the local authorities have power to make a charge for the use of a parking place when that parking place is on a public highway? It seems to me quite obvious that that power should not be given. I understand the noble Earl in charge of the Bill agrees with that, and that the point will be made clear. There is a substantial business reason why they should not take money for private vehicles in a public parking place. If they take money the local authority would be liable for anything that is stolen from the cars, and therefore they would assume a very great responsibility. As to the last point—namely, that public service vehicles should be compelled to pay a small fee for the use of these

823
parking places—that may be all right, but I think it might leave the local authority again open to a civil action if anything was stolen from the public service vehicles while these vehicles were changing passengers at the station. That, after all, is a matter for the local authorities, and I do not press it.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved in the proposed new clause, after "parking place," to insert "not being part of a street." The noble Earl said: The noble Lord explained very clearly the object of this Amendment, and it requires very few words from me to make clear our attitude in regard to it. The Amendment I am moving now is in line 13, after "parking place," to insert "not being part of a street." The noble Lord (Lord Mount Temple) has said that one of the points at issue in connection with this particular Amendment is whether or not a local authority should be allowed to make a charge for the use of stations which form part of a public highway, and we are in entire agreement that it is undesirable that they should be allowed to do so. My Amendment is moved with that object. In view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, has not moved his Amendment I need say very little. The purpose of the Amendment he put down was to prohibit a local authority from making a charge in respect of the use of a coach station by a coach which merely comes into the station for the purpose of setting down and picking up passengers, and which does not remain in the station for any longer period than is necessary for that purpose.
I am advised that this power is inherent in the statutory provisions as they stand, and the declaratory clause is necessitated solely by the action of Parliament in inserting a special provision in this sense in the Cardiff Corporation Bill, which leaves some risk of its being interpreted that the powers under the existing law extend only to the making of a charge where a station is used as a parking place and not merely as a point for the picking up and setting down of passengers. If the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, had been passed the effect would have been the reverse of what is proposed by Lord Amulree, and instead of making clear the powers of local authorities to
824
charge for the use of stations as such, it would have destroyed those powers and left them merely the power to charge for parking places. I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Amulree, together with my small Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Line 13, after ("parking place") insert ("not being part of a street").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.
On Question, original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28:
Licences of drivers of heavy goods vehicles.
(12) In this section the expression "licence" means a licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle granted under this section, and the expression "heavy goods vehicle" means a vehicle of any of the following classes which is constructed or adapted for hauling or carrying goods or burden of any description, that is to say, a heavy locomotive, a light locomotive, a motor tractor, a heavy motor-car and a motor-car so constructed that a trailer may by partial superimposition be attached thereto in such a manner as to cause a substantial part of the weight of the trailer to be borne thereby.
THE EAEL OF PLYMOUTH: I have a drafting Amendment to this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 35, leave out from the first ("Act") to ("for") in line 36.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DE CLIFFORD LORD DE CLIFFORD moved, in subsection (12), to omit all words after "heavy motor car and a" and to insert "heavy articulated vehicle which consists of a motor car and trailer so constructed that the trailer is by partial superimposition attached to the motor car in such a manner as to cause a substantial part of the weight of the trailer to be borne by the motor car, the total weight of the articulated vehicle so constructed being greater than four tons unladen." The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Earl Howe I beg to move this Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is to draw a distinction between the heavy articulated vehicle and the light articulated vehicle,

825
and to limit the application of the clause requiring a special licence to the drivers of the heavy vehicles. As the clause stands, the last four lines in sub section (12) would make the requirements for a special driver's licence apply to all classes of articulated vehicles. There are many such vehicles in ordinary use with weight considerably less than two and a-half tons, and they are capable of being driven as easily and as safely as any other design of vehicle of the same weight on four or six wheels.
This point was raised in Standing Committee in another place on June 5, when an Amendment was moved extending the clause to articulated vehicles, and the Minister made objection to the form of Amendment exempting a light articulated vehicle. The Amendment has now been redrafted to try to meet that objection. The Amendment now proposed makes it clear that the special driver's licence will be required when the complete articulated vehicle weighs over four tons, but a vehicle of less than that weight will rank in the light vehicle class. It must be remembered that under the clause as it stands a goods vehicle weighing under two and a-half tons unladen and drawing a trailer may be driven by a driver without the special licence which is proposed by this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 3, leave out from the first ("a") to the end of line 6, and insert the said new words.—[Lord de Clifford.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: As a matter of fact as far as I know there has been no challenge of the proposal that the driver of a heavy motor car—that is a vehicle of over two and a-half tons unladen—should require the special vocational licence. Under the present Amendment the special licence will still be required if the drawing part of the vehicle is over two and a-half tons. The Amendment is clearly designed to meet the case of the relatively light drawing vehicle with a trailer exceeding one and a-half tons unladen weight although the total unladen weight is not to exceed four tons. The reason which led the Minister to require the driver of the light articulated vehicle to hold the vocational licence is that light drawing vehicles are used today to draw heavy loads, such as a 1,000 gallon tank, which weighs over three tons
826
when filled; and the driving of such a combination, with a light drawing vehicle and a heavy load behind, calls for a very special degree of skill. I understand that this point is going to be raised by the British Road Federation, of which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is Chairman, with the Minister at an interview to-morrow, but it might perhaps shorten discussion on this and other similar Amendments to-day if I made a quite short general statement with regard to the position.
I would like to say that it is not intended that the present classification of vehicles for taxation and speed purposes is to be stereotyped for all time, and the Minister will be led in future, as his predecessors have been in the past, to give the fullest consideration to reasoned proposals of the industry for further modification of the Schedules, or, indeed, for their recasting on different lines. I understand that the Minister has received an indication that the organisations representing the industry are themselves considering the desirability and the possibility of adopting bases of classification quite different from the present bases, but I am informed that these proposals are at present in quite a preliminary stage. The Minister, therefore, cannot here and now adopt piecemeal Amendments of the existing classification which may well run counter to the proposals put before him by the industry in the near future. In any case we are really dealing with a very complicated and a somewhat new problem in connection with this type of vehicle, and I would suggest to your Lordships that for that reason it is the more necessary that we should proceed cautiously in this matter and not legislate, or even by regulation prejudge the case with regard to which we are not completely informed at the present moment. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved to add to subsection (12): "and a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods (not being a vehicle classified as a motor car under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act) and the weight of which unladen exceeds one ton ten hundredweights." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to extend these licences to lorries of

827
unladen weight of one and a half tons and over instead of two and a half tons. It is designed purely in the interests of safety. A lorry built three years ago is practically obsolete to-day in its performance. Present day lorries of well under two and a half tons can draw a heavy load of four tons at a very high speed, and it is felt by the drivers of these vehicles themselves and by the Transport and General Workers Union that this Amendment is necessary in the interests of safety. I therefore venture to hope that the Government will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 6, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I am a little surprised that the noble Earl opposite should say that this Amendment is designed purely in the interests of safety. Let me in a few words explain the position as it is at present. In the case of vehicles over two and a half tons the age limit is already twenty-one years, and drivers of these vehicles will require the new type of vocational licence. I am now dealing with the noble Earl's two Amendments which really are in fact connected. A person of seventeen years of age or more may drive a commercial goods vehicle of unladen weight less than two and a half tons. Of the 9,612 drivers involved in fatal road accidents in 1933, only 153 were drivers under twenty-one years in charge of motor vans and lorries. These are the figures in the Fatal Accidents Return. The present proposal has been discussed in some detail between representatives of the Transport and General Workers Union and the Ministry, and I understand that the Union have suggested that past statistics are not a sure guide in view of the increasing tendency to build vehicles of high load capacity which come within the limit of two and a half tons unladen weight.
On the basis of the 1933 census, the total number of vehicles whose drivers will be subject to the new vocational licence as provided in the Bill is approximately 60,000. On the same census basis the additional number of drivers who would be affected by the proposed Amendment of the noble Earl are the drivers of some 110,000 vehicles. A large number of vehicles coming within this additional group are
828
genuinely light vehicles. Furthermore, the youthful and irresponsible driver is more frequently to be found in the case of the driver of the tradesman's delivery van of under 30 cwt. who would not be affected by this Amendment. The youthful and rash type of driver is found in this class of vehicle rather than in the heavier type of vehicle In these circumstances I cannot see my way to accept the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: The noble Earl referred to drivers of tradesmen's vans. He has put his finger, if I may say so, on the danger that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull was trying to remove. When the errand boy carried a basket and then went on a bicycle he was not so dangerous. Now the errand boy drives a fast, powerful motor vehicle and, though my noble friend's Amendment would not meet the whole of the case, it would at any rate prevent irresponsible youths from driving these modern fast heavy vehicles of a ton and a half and over. I cannot understand why, when we have a campaign waged by the Ministry of Transport itself at the present moment, a proposal put forward for greater safety on the roads from this side is rejected by the noble Earl.
On Question. Amendment negatived.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved to add to the clause:
"() Subsection (1) of Section seventeen of the principal Act (which relates to requirements as to employment of drivers and attendants) shall apply to heavy motor cars as it applies to heavy locomotives and light locomotives, and the provisions of the said section shall have effect accordingly."
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, in his statement a few minutes ago on the question of future adjustments of special licences, said we should proceed cautiously, and it is in that spirit that I put down this Amendment. I owe the noble Earl an apology for not having put it down earlier. I had it ready but, through a misunderstanding, it did not reach the Table in time. I am sorry if I have inconvenienced the noble Earl or his advisers by the Amendment not having been printed sooner.
The present law is that locomotives—heavy locomotives and light locomotives—on the roads must have a second man as look-out and for the general assistance of the driver and for general safety. But a heavy motor vehicle of two and a-half tons and over, although subject to other

829
restrictions, is not required to have a second man on board. I would remind your Lordships that heavy locomotives have a speed as a rule of only a few miles an hour. I believe the fastest speed is only about eight miles an hour. Yet such a locomotive has to carry a second man. But these increasingly powerful speedy large heavy motor vehicles can go all over the country with only one man, who has no assistance in case of emergency, no look-out, no one to see that the cargo has not fallen off or to deal with any of the exigencies of the journey. The object of my Amendment is to ensure that a second man shall be on board. He need not necessarily be a driver. All that is asked for is for an extra man in the interests of safety to assist in the matters which I have mentioned. I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the National Union of Railwaymen which has 10,000 members who are drivers of these big motor lorries on the road.
I will only trouble your Lordships with two figures to show the tremendous increase in fatalities and accidents on the roads caused by these heavy commercial vehicles, but they are very striking figures. In the last five years the deaths on the roads—what the new Minister of Transport has referred to as "mass murder"—caused by heavy commercial vehicles, the ones I am talking about, have increased by 23 per cent. Cases of injury have increased by 65 per cent, during the same period. Those are very remarkable figures, and I think it must be admitted that such a provision as I now propose would add something at any rate to the safety of these vehicles and prevent some of these accidents. In the case of motor vehicles drawing trailers a second man is required, but there is no such requirement in the case of a motor vehicle over two and a-half tons which is not drawing a trailer. The matter has been discussed before but we have been told that there have been negotiations. I hope that in view of those negotiations it may be possible to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 6, at end insert tho said new subsection.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It is for the reason that negotiations are still proceeding that I cannot accept this Amendment. It is really impossible for the Minister to accept piecemeal Amendments
830
of this kind when the whole matter is under immediate consideration and may be dealt with comprehensively in the comparatively near future. Furthermore, I honestly cannot see that the noble Lord opposite has produced any real reason why this Amendment should be accepted. He really has not made out his case. The position is that under Section 17 (1) of the principal Act road locomotives are required to carry two persons, who shall be employed in driving or attending the locomotive whilst being driven on any highway, and in addition an attendant for each trailer. Under Section 17 (2) an attendant is required in addition to the driver to be carried in cases where a heavy motor vehicle is drawing a trailer. I was interested to hear that the noble Lord does not think it necessary that the attendant should be able to drive, because I think it was argued in another place by one of his friends that the second man should be able to relieve the driver when he had driven for a reasonable period of time. The Amendment he has moved does not provide for that. It merely requires an attendant and not another driver. I hope, however, that in view of the fact that negotiations are proceeding and that it is possible that the matter will be dealt with comprehensively at a later stage, the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Transitional provisions as to certain drivers' licences]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 7, leave out ("Section twenty-eight of this Act") and insert ("the last foregoing section ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following new clause:
Trials for manslaughter and dangerous driving.
". Upon the trial of a person who is indicted for manslaughter in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle by him, it shall be lawful for the jury, if they are satisfied that he is guilty of an offence

831
under Section eleven of the principal Act (which relates to reckless or dangerous driving) to find him guilty of that offence, whether or not the requirements of Section twenty-one of the principal Act (which relates to notice of prosecutions) have been satisfied as respects that offence."
The noble and learned Lord said: When the Bill was in Committee two days ago I ventured to explain that I had given Notice of two Amendments of which this was the major Amendment and the noble Earl was good enough to say, as I understood, that he would accept both. The minor Amendment was accepted and introduced into the Bill that day. It is sufficient in the circumstances for me to say now that the object of this clause is to simplify the proceedings where a casualty upon the road has been attended by loss of life and there is doubt whether the person who is involved in it, and is guilty of an offence, is guilty of manslaughter or only guilty of the minor offence of driving to the public danger. This Amendment will simplify the matter and will enable the case to be dealt with on the spot without complications which must have been introduced otherwise having regard to a recent decision in the Court of Criminal Appeal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 30 insert the said new-clause.—(Lord Merrivale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Light signals (presumption of compliance with statutory requirements)]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 29, after ("deemed") insert ("to be of the prescribed size, colour, and type, or of another character authorised by the Minister under Section forty-eight of the principal Act and").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
LORD DE CLIFFORD LORD DE CLIFFORD moved, after Clause 33, to insert the following new clause:
Publication of the Highway Code.
". Notwithstanding the law of copyright or any like privilege or custom the Highway Code may be published by any
832
person without the grant of a licence for that purpose or the payment of any fee."
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to try to get the Highway Code taken out of Crown copyright. One of the greatest factors making for safety would be, I submit to your Lordship, that the Highway Code should be known by every single person who uses the roads. I understand that the Code is being redrafted. My submission is that the widest possible publicity should be given to the Code and I think that if it is withdrawn from Crown copyright, and one might almost say taken out of the red tape of a Government Department, some publishers would issue it in an attractive form. It is in order that wider publicity to all the statements contained in this document shall be given that I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 33, insert the said newclause.—(Lord de Clifford.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. I only want to say as a preliminary that it is after all the general duty of the citizen to be acquainted with every Act of Parliament which may concern him. The Legislature has never yet given a general permission to private citizens to publish Acts of Parliament, and the reason for that is that there is undoubtedly a risk of inaccurate reproduction of Statutes by people who are not at all responsible. I think the same principle ought to apply in the case of Statutory Rules and Orders. Although the Highway Code does not technically form part of the body of Statutory Rules and Orders it is a Code published by the authority of Parliament and has certain legal effect. I want to assure the House that it will be the policy of the Minister to allow any responsible person to reproduce the Highway Code, and to take steps to give him that permission without delay, but I do think there is some objection to giving a general consent to the reproduction of such a code as that, which might easily enable garbled versions of it to be reproduced with the object of advertisement and for suchlike purposes. I think that that is a risk against which we ought to guard. I hope that with the assurance which I have been able to give the noble Lord

833
will be content and that he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: In the circumstances I shall be only too pleased to withdraw the Amendment, and I hope that great notice will be taken of two words in the noble Earl's speech. When an application is made for permission to publish the Highway Code I hope the attention of the Department will be directed to the words "without delay."
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved to insert after Clause 33:
".— (1) It shall not be lawful to sell, offer for sale or supply a motor vehicle or trailer for use on the road, if the use thereof on a road would be unlawful under Section 3 (1) of the principal Act.
(2) If a motor vehicle or trailer is sold, offered for sale or supplied in contravention of this suction, any person who so sells, offers for sale or supplies the same or causes or permits the same to be so sold, offered for sale or supplied, shall he guilty of an offence under the (principal Act. The expression ' person ' in this subsection shall include a body corporate.
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to the bonâ fide sale, offer for sale or supply of any motor vehicle or trailer for export from Great Britain."
The noble Lord said: I know your Lordships will all regret, and certainly nobody will regret more than I, that you are not to have the advantage of hearing this (as I think) fairly important Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Horder, who speaks with such very great and deserved authority on all matters affecting tie public health. Unfortunately Lord Horder is not able to be present, and in his absence I can only attempt to explain as briefly and as clearly as possible this Amendment, with which I venture to think as soon as your Lordships have read it most if not all of you will find yourselves in sympathy. The object of the Amendment is to reduce the dangerous public nuisance of the excessively noisy exhaust of the motor car or motor cycle. The facts of the present position are simple but I venture to think rather startling. It is already illegal to use on the roads a motor vehicle with an inefficient silencer, but it is not illegal to supply such a vehicle. Consequently the purpose of this Amendment is to make it henceforth illegal to supply what it is already illegal to use.
The principal Act, the, Road Traffic Act, 1930, empowered the Minister of Transport to draw up regulations for the construction and equipment of motor vehicles. One of those regulations—I think it is Regulation 16 of 1931, but I spare your Lordships its technical language—did in effect provide that motor vehicles should be equipped with efficient silencers. That is a very reasonable regulation, as I think your Lordships will agree, and I spare your Lordships any argument as to the threat to the public temper, nerves, and health of the constant roar of the unsilenccd exhaust very often through the whole of the twenty-four hours of the day. Unfortunately this reasonable regulation has in fact become a dead letter. It is openly, constantly and deliberately flouted, and under the anomaly of the existing law must be flouted. The user of a vehicle with an illegal silencer may be brought into court, and theoretically on the first conviction be may be fined (I think) £20, and on the second conviction £50 with the alternative of three months imprisonment. But what happens? He has only to satisfy the court that he has bought in all good faith the standard production of a well-known firm publicly, regularly and without restriction exhibited for sale, and although I believe that defence is not good in law, very few magistrates are likely to impose a deterrent sentence on one who is obviously so innocent a defendant. Meanwhile the manufacturers remain entirely immune from the operation of the law.
May I upon that point—and I have only a few more points to put and shall be very brief—refer to a letter which appeared in The Times of September 9, 1933, written by a manufacturer and one of the principal suppliers of silencers to motor car manufacturers? I am not quoting his exact words, but he said in effect that he received daily proof of the fact that there was a consistent demand among purchasers of sports cars for unnecessary noise, and that in effect the silenced sports car was unsaleable. If I may interpolate, I need perhaps hardly remind your Lordships that with the public which purchases sports cars and sports motor bicycles it is a very great attraction that the noise of the exhaust of the sports car, which is made for use on the road, should as closely as

835
possible resemble the noise of the exhaust of the racing car, which is made for use on the racing track.
The letter went on to say that in order to meet that constant demand for noise the firm of the writer was manufacturing what he called "partial silencers"— which in the context obviously meant silencers which were not silencers at all—to the tune of thousands a year, and that in spite of the fact that there is, so the writer said, no mechanical difficulty in making efficient silencers and in spite of the fact that efficient silencers are no more expensive to make. He finally ended up by deploring the fact that this should be the case, but suggested that manufacturers could not be blamed for meeting what no doubt was an illegal but nevertheless was a very consistent demand. I do not know what your Lordships think about the logic of that last contention, or whether it would be a satisfactory defence to a prosecution under the Dangerous Drugs Act to say that there was a consistent public demand for cocaine.
In face of these facts I suggest that this Amendment is a simple and obvious solution of the problem. It proposes to make it illegal to supply that which it is illegal to use, and it is not very easy to see what are the arguments against such a proposal. I say that after having read with considerable care the arguments advanced in another place by the Minister of Transport, which were, firstly, that it would be unenforcible, and secondly, that some of the offending manufacturers, who are of course only a small minority, would dislike the passage of this Amendment so much that they would not in future be likely to co-operate with the Minister in reducing this nuisance by agreement. I think there is some inconsistency there. It is no doubt true that a small minority of manufacturers would dislike the passing of this Amendment, but I think the reason they would dislike it is that they believe, and rightly believe, that it would be in fact enforcible.
The reasons the Minister gave for thinking that it would be unenforcible very largely rested on the fact that it could not be enforced unless powers of inspection were given. The Police at present have no special powers of inspection to enable them to prosecute the user of an
836
illegal silencer, and one cannot help thinking, as a layman, that it ought to be fairly easy to secure the inspection of an article which is regularly and publicly exposed for sale. Even if it is necessary, to secure prosecutions, to give powers of inspection to the Police, is not that rather an argument for giving such powers of inspection than for continuing to allow it to be legal to supply that which it is illegal to use? We have heard it said in the course of debate that it is undesirable to enact that which you cannot enforce. That is an argument with which I entirely agree, and I cannot help thinking that if it is not to be illegal to supply these things which are illegal to use, then perhaps it is to be regretted that it has been made illegal to use them.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 33, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Elton.)
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am in sympathy with the point made by the noble Lord, and I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. The noise on the roads is often intolerable. I think one reason for interfering with silencers is that you may get a little more speed out of the car, and the second is that you appear to be going faster. In regard to the inspection by police of cars, I do not know exactly what the law is at the moment, but certainly police officers can pull you up in the street and examine your car. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this is really a very complicated matter, and I do not think the solution is quite as easy as is suggested. I think the Government have already shown great sympathy with the sentiments which have prompted the movers to put this Amendment on the Paper, and they view with great concern what is admittedly the unsatisfactory position which obtains at present with regard to the enforcement of the law in these cases. Perhaps I might explain a little further. The Minister, in accordance with assurances given by his predecessor in another place, has taken steps to appoint, jointly with the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, a special Committee to investigate the question of noise arising in the use of motor vehicles and he is pressing for an early report by

837
that Committee, which will have at its disposal the facilities of the National Physical Laboratory. The present difficulty of enforcement is largely due to the lack of practical means of quantitative measurement of noise, and the special Committee are being asked to give particular consideration to this point. The Minister is glad to acknowledge the readiness of the motor manufacturing industry to co-operate in this work. So soon as definite and adequate "performance specifications" can be laid down, the Minister, under the powers which he already possesses, will not hesitate to include them in the regulations as to the construction and use of motor vehicles.
But the point is that the new clause would not in fact give the authorities greater powers than exist to-day. It is to-day possible for observation to be kept on the production of any motor works as it is put out on the road, and to take legal proceedings for excessive noise if in fact evidence of excessive noise, likely to be accepted by the courts, is forthcoming. That is one of the difficulties. It is difficult to get convictions under these provisions. It may be added that in fact excessive noise is often due to misuse, deliberate or otherwise, of the engine, rather than to the construction of the engine itself. The late Minister emphasised in another place the fact that improvement in this, important matter was more likely to be achieved by cooperation with the industry rather than by threats, and I might draw attention to a passage in a letter sent by the present Minister to the Oxford Anti-Noise Conference a few days ago:
"Not least of your troubles is the silencer which belies its name. We shall not get rid of this nuisance by adding a few more lines to the Statute Book. More exact knowledge of what really causes noise and how it can be quantitatively measured, may make it less difficult to enforce the law against unreasonable offenders. To this end we have invoked the best scientific assistance at the Government's disposal. I have asked for a report at the earliest possible date and I have every hope that the public spirited loaders of the motor manufacturing industry will co-operate with us in a determined effort to find a remedy. "
In those circumstances, and after the assurances I have given, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope the noble Lord will press his Amendment, and I hope it will be supported by your Lordships. The whole trend of the motor industry to-day is to silence the car. Tyres are made silent and engines are made silent, and yet there are a small class who demand a noisy car and who are catered for. The noble Earl says: "Oh, we must co-operate with the industry." Surely this Amendment would strengthen the hands of people who are trying to lessen the noise of cars and are not working for the benefit of those who have no consideration for anyone's feelings. I really cannot understand the attitude of the Minister. I should have thought that this clause, or something like, it, would have strengthened the hands of the Minister and the great majority of the trade.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I suspect that the rather hostile tone of the speech made by my noble friend below me does not really represent the full attitude of his Department. I believe they are more friendly than his words indicate, and I am at least glad that this subject is to be examined at Bushey. It may take a good long time to settle the methods of quantitative measurement of noise. Meanwhile it will be a great encouragement if the Ministry conduct prosecutions against people who leave their cars roaring in the street, for twenty minutes at a time, at two o'clock in the morning. It is a very serious thing that late at night these noises should go on quite uninterruptedly, and even if it is difficult to secure convictions it is not a bad thing that the Department should take action, even if they know that they are not going to secure a conviction.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I cannot help hoping that the respectful address of my noble friend will have considerable weight with the Government. He does, represent, and other noble Lords have represented, a feeling which is very strong and is growing. I am sure the public will not continue to put up with all this noise. I recognise, of course, that the Government have addressed themselves to this subject on a point which I hope will lead to action, and they have appointed a Committee. I understand from my noble friend Lord Plymouth that if the Committee report

839
favourably they have power as matters stand not only to act against the users of noisy cars but against the makers of them. That is what is essential in the Amendment. The Amendment, I think, is a very well constructed one, and its effect is that it shall be illegal to sell what it is illegal to use. If my noble friend says the Committee will really come to a conclusion rapidly, and that if they report the matter can be done then the Government have power as the law now stands to do what my noble friend who has moved the Amendment asks them to do, that would be a great comfort to many of us.
As matters stand we feel that this is an opportunity which ought not to be allowed to pass, if the expression of opinion of your Lordships' House is likely to have effect on public opinion, both to stimulate those who object to this evil and also to restrain the offender. It is not, I think, quite sufficient to say that it is difficult to enforce clauses of this kind. Parliament also acts as a vehicle for making quite clear what is the view of the public on such matters. It, as it were, formulates public feeling, and your Lordships are now asked to act in that respect. I think it might be of great value to the Government and the Ministry of Transport to have behind them a solemn Amendment passed upon great authority to restrain noise. I have said on "great authority." My noble friend who moved the Amendment did it, I thought, admirably, but he also speaks in the name of an authority even greater than himself, and when a very distinguished physician has told the public and told your Lordships' House that this evil is really antagonistic to the public health, then the time has arrived when something ought to be done. If my noble friend can assure us a little more I for one shall be very happy.
LORD JESSEL: I am very glad that Lord Crawford has raised this question of noise and of leaving exhausts on in the streets. Frequent complaints are made in London about this matter. I know that Lord Crawford suffers from it because he is a neighbour of mine, and when these exhausts are left on they make night hideous. I really do not understand why the Government cannot take action as the law stands now. I do not think you need go to a Depart-
840
mental Committee to know what is noise and what is not noise. We all know pretty well what the noise from exhausts is, and also from the motor cycles which go down the roads at a thousand miles an hour—the most dangerous of all the motor vehicles on the roads. What has been said about sports cars is also quite true. The drivers delight in making a noise. I do not know whether it is to charm their female friends, or what it is, but they make a tremendous noise. This noise is getting an intolerable nuisance, and I am really rather disappointed by the reply of the noble Earl, because he says it is difficult to get a conviction, and yet evidently the Ministry seem rather terrified about a minority of motor manufacturers. I hope that, after the strong expression of opinion on both sides of the House on this matter, the Government may, after all, accept this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: May I ask whether, in fact, it is necessary to make this an offence and therefore have to go through the procedure of getting a conviction? Would it not be quite easy for the Minister simply to put in a clause to say that every motor manufacturer has to have each new model approved by the Minister as being silent? Would not that cover the ground completely and make it very easy for the Minister to do what we all desire?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I need hardly say that I fully appreciate the feelings of the noble Lords who have spoken, and I should like to assure your Lordships that the Minister is gravely concerned, and is determined to pursue the subject as quickly and as energetically as possible. But I would appeal to your Lordships not to press this Amendment at this stage. This matter has been referred to a scientific Committee, and this is to a very considerable extent a scientific matter. The Minister has asked this Committee to report at the earliest possible moment, and as soon as definite recommendations can be obtained from it he will not hesitate to make use of the powers which he already possesses to include these provisions among the regulations with regard to construction and use of motor vehicles. This Committee is composed of scientists of eminence, and I think it would perhaps be wiser to refrain from taking action of this kind

841
until we have had their report. The Minister has exactly the same objects in view as your Lordships have.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I really cannot appreciate the view that this is a scientific matter. It requires no knowledge of science to be aware of this din which deafens one day and night in the streets of London. That there should be research into the matter may be advantageous, but I think that the whole population are aware of this evil, and I think if a lead were given by your Lordships' House to-night by the passage of this Amendment, the general public would feel that the Government are taking this matter properly in hand, because scientific Committees may report in two or three years time, and in the meanwhile we shall find that this evil has got beyond bearing. I think it is injuring the health of the people of this country, and certainly the health of children.
THE EAEL OF PLYMOUTH: I quite agree that in many cases it is perfectly easy to tell when an excessive noise is being made, and under the law as it stands at present there are powers of proceeding against people who use these noisy motor cars. I have referred to the difficulties which exist in obtaining convictions, but this is a matter which is, of course, primarily one for the Police. With regard to what the noble Lord opposite says, from one point of view this is not a scientific matter, but from another point of view it is. It is difficult to lay down what is to be considered an excessive noise, and these investigations which are being made are being made primarily with a view to discovering, if possible, a means of estimating quantitatively the noise being made. In reply to what the noble Marquess said, as to whether the Minister would have power under the law as it at present stands to take action against the manufacturers of motor cars, I am advised that he would not be in a position to do that. The Police could not take action directly against them, but they could wait outside the works where these cars are made, and stop the cars at once and impound them, and proceed against them in that way. I do hope that your Lordships will not press this Amendment at this stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LOKD ELTON LOKD ELTON moved, after Clause 33, to insert the following new clause:
".—(1) It shall not be lawful to alter any motor vehicle or trailer in such a manner that the use thereof on a road would by reason of such alteration be unlawful under Section 3 (1) of the principal Act.
(2) If a motor vehicle or trailer is altered in contravention of this section, any person who so alters it or causes or permits it to be so altered, shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act. The expression 'person' in this subsection shall include a body corporate.
(3) It shall be a good defence to any person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had reasonable cause to believe that the motor vehicle or trailer as altered would not be used on any road in Great Britain."
The noble Lord said: This is consequential.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 33, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34 agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following now clause:
Amendments as to licences of drivers and conductors of hackney carriages, and of certain stage carriages, in the Metropolis.
". Section eight of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, as amended, extended, or applied by, or by any order made under, any subsequent enactment (including Section fifty-one of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933), shall have effect, as respects licences granted under the said Section eight after the date appointed for the coming into operation of this section,, with the substitution of three years for one year as the period during which a licence granted under the said section is, if not revoked or suspended, to be in force:
Provided that, with a view to spreading the work of granting such licences, where an application for the grant of such a licence is made within four years from the passing of this Act, the authority by whom the power of granting the licence is exercisable may direct that any licence granted on the application shall, if not revoked or suspended, continue in force during such period, being a period of not less than one nor more than three1 years from the date on which the licence is expressed to take effect, as the authority may at the time of the granting of the licence determine."
The noble Earl said This Amendment requires some little explanation. Hitherto the special (vocational) licence granted to drivers and conductors of public service vehicles of all kinds (omnibuses and

843
coaches, trams, trolley vehicles and taxi-cabs) has had a currency of one year only. In the interests alike of the licensees and of the licensing authority, provision is made in the Bill for the extension of this period of one year to three years in the case of drivers of "public service vehicles" strictly so called, that is to say, omnibuses and coaches. It has been represented that there are equally good grounds for an extension in the case of drivers of tramcars, trolley vehicles and taxicabs, who are licensed by the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police; and this new clause provides accordingly. The second half of the clause is in the nature of transitional provision and deals only with the period of change-over from the present system to the new system.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Application to Scotland]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert:
"() For subsection (5) of Section two the following subsection shall be substituted:—
'(5) Any reference in subsection (6) of Section ten of the principal Act to an offence under the said section or to an infringement of the provisions thereof, and any reference in subsection (8) of Section one hundred and nineteen of the principal Act to an offence against that Act or against Section ten thereof, shall be deemed to include a reference to driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under any enactment.'"
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 3, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 16, at end insert ("and any reference to a borough, an urban council or a rural council in a county shall be construed accordingly").—(The, Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert:
844
"(6) For Section twenty-one the following section shall be substituted:—

'(1) A county council shall have the like powers with regard to the lighting of any road in the landward area of the county not included in a special lighting district as they have with regard to roads so included, and the expenditure incurred by a county council in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall be defrayed out of a rate to be levied in equal proportions on owners and occupiers throughout the landward area of the county exclusive of any special lighting district.

(2) In this section the expression "special lighting district" means a special lighting district formed in pursuance of Section forty-four of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894.

(3) Section forty-nine of the Lanarkshire County Council Order, 1925, is hereby repealed.'"

The noble Earl said: This Amendment is necessary for the purpose of adaptation to Scottish legal procedure.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 34, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment is a similar Amendment to the last.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 38, at end insert ("(7) Section thirty-one shall not apply").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 37 [Short title, citation, construction, commencement and extent]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 6, after ("Act") insert ("and The Road Traffic Amendment Act, 1931").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This next also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 7, leave out ("and") and insert ("to ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert:
"(2) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, any reference to any other enactment shall be construed as a refer-

845
once to that enactment as amended by any subsequent enactment, including this Act."
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 7, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule [Limits of speed]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My first Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 11, leave out ("all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres and the vehicle ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: This also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 13, after ("trailer") insert ("and if the first condition as to tyres is satisfied ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 17, leave out from ("and") to ("30") in line lit and insert ("if the first condition as to tyres is satisfied").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Another drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 21, leave out from ("vehicle") to ("and") in line 23 and insert ("as respects which the first condition as to tyres is satisfied").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 2, to leave out all words after "When not drawing a trailer" and insert:

"(a) Motor cars and motor cycles if the first condition as to tyres is satisfied; and motor cars not exceeding one ton in weight unladen and motor cycles if the second condition as to tyres is satisfied

30

(b) Motor ears exceeding one ton in weight unladen if the second condition as to tyres is satisfied

20

846

(c) Heavy motor cars, if the first condition as to tyres is satisfied and the vehicle—

(i) is constructed or adapted for the conveyance of horses and their attendants and used solely for that purpose; or

(ii) does not exceed five tons in weight unladen and is not fitted with a body and is not carrying any load other than that required for the purposes of testing

30

(d) Other heavy motor cars, if the first or the second condition as to tyres is satisfied

20"

The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 31, leave out from the the beginning of the line to the end of line 18 on page 33 and insert the said new paragraphs."—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
LORD DE CLIFFORD: I think an Amendment which my noble friend Lord Howe has down to the original Bill becomes an Amendment to this Amendment. Lord Howe's Amendment is designed to increase the speed limit of pneumatic tyred motor cars from twenty miles an hour to thirty miles an hour leaving the speed of solid-tyred vehicles at twenty miles an hour. Under the Bill the latter's speed is an increase from the speed under the Act of 1930 which for solid-tyred vehicles now stands at sixteen miles an hour. The effect of the Amendment is to provide the same speed of thirty miles an hour for heavy motor cars used as goods vehicles as when they are used as omnibuses and horse-boxes. There are many motor vehicles on the road to-day with the same chassis used as omnibuses and horse-boxes and also as goods vehicles, and it would seem to be a rather anomalous position. When equipped, the weight of a standard omnibus or coach chassis will often be just under ten tons or, with six-wheeled double deck omnibuses twelve tons, yet the same chassis carrying a goods vehicle is only allowed to proceed at twenty miles an hour while the omnibuses can proceed at thirty miles an hour. Another point in this respect is that the alteration of speed of heavy cars in comparison with lighter vehicles is producing a dangerous state of affairs in the matter of overloading. The- load haulier is being forced by the restriction of twenty miles an hour and the heavy tax on heavy cars

847
to use a lighter vehicle paying a lower tax and is overloading it to a dangerous degree. I would ask the Government to consider whether the road hauliers are using safe and suitable vehicles for the loads they have to carry and which can be carried at thirty miles an hour. I hope the position will be considered carefully. I beg to move.
THE EAEL OF PLYMOUTH: I informed the Committee earlier that the Minister did not look upon the present classification of vehicles for taxation and speed purposes as stereotyped for all time, and I also assured the Committee that the Minister would be ready in future to give the fullest consideration to reasoned proposals of the industry for further modification of the Schedule, or indeed for their recasting on different lines, but, as I said then, he is not prepared at this stage to accept piecemeal Amendments in this Schedule. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord will accept the Amendment which I have put down on the Paper and which I have just moved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 20 (leave out from ("if") to ("or") in line 22 and insert ("the first condition as to tyres is satisfied").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: All the remaining Amendments in my name to the First Schedule are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 33, line 27, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("20") in line 29 and insert ("the second condition as to tyres is satisfied")
Page 33, line 30, leave out from ("if") to ("12") in line 33 and insert ("the trailer is not so attached to the drawing vehicle as aforesaid and the second condition as to tyros is satisfied")
Page 33, line 34, leave out ("In any other case") and insert ("If neither the first nor the second condition as to tyres is satisfied")
Page 33, line 40, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("12") in line 42 and insert ("the first or the second conditon as to tyres is satisfied")
Page 34, line 4, leave out from ("if") to ("20") in line 6 and insert ("the first or the second condition as to tyres is satisfied")
Page 34, line 7, after ("a") insert ("single ")
Page 34, line 8, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of line 13 and insert:

("(i) if the first condition as to tyres is satisfied

20

(ii) if the second condition as to tyres is satisfied

12")

Page 34, line 14, at end insert:
("For the purposes of this Schedule—

(a) satisfaction of the first condition as to tyres means that all the wheels of the vehicle in question and. where the vehicle is drawing a trailer or trailers, of the trailer or trailers, are fitted with pneumatic tyres;

(b) satisfaction of the second condition as to tyres means that the first condition as to tyres is not satisfied but that each of the wheels aforesaid is fitted with one or other of the following types of tyre, namely pneumatic, soft or elastic.")—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Third Schedule [Consequential and, minor amendments]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert in the references to the principal Act:
"Section twenty-seven.
In subsection (4), the references to the erection and maintenance of weighbridges or other machines shall be deemed to include references to the provision and operation of weighbridges or other machines.
In subsection (5), the references to the erection of weighbridges or other machines shall be deemed to include references to the provision of weighbridges or other machines."
The noble Earl said: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 10, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert:
"Section forty-eight.
In subsection (2), after the word 'erection' there shall be inserted the words 'or retention.'

849
In subsection (3), after the words 'no traffic signs' there shall be inserted the words '(other than traffic signs placed by a council or local authority in pursuance of an obligation imposed by or under this Act or the Road Traffic Act, 1934).'
Section forty-nine.
After the words 'to be followed by traffic' there shall be inserted the words 'and being of the prescribed size, colour, and type, or of another character authorised by the Minister under the last preceding section'; and the words 'in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding section' shall be omitted."
The noble Earl said: This is not entirely a drafting Amendment. It is intended to meet a particular case which has given rise to some difficulties, that of the traffic sign for which the Minister's authorisation was given only after the erection of the sign. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 21, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to add to the reference to Section 57 of the principal Act:
"In subsection (3), after the word 'erection' there shall be inserted the words 'provision, maintenance, or operation.'"
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 26, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment to this Schedule in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 10, at end insert—
("Section one hundred and nineteen.
In subsection (3), after the word ' erection ' in both places where it occurs there shall be inserted the words ' or provision'.").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved to add to the Schedule:
"London Passenger Transport Act, 1933. At end of paragraph 1, Twelfth Schedule, add:
One by the Minister after consultation with such persons as he may think fit to represent the interests of pedestrians;
850
One by the Minister after consultation with such persons as he may think fit to represent the interests of cyclists."
The noble Lord said: This is a very brief and modest Amendment, and I think if the Minister objects to it he will object to it only on the ground that it travels perhaps a little wide of the Bill by seeking to amend the London Passenger Transport Act of 1933, although I am advised, for what it is worth, that it does not travel too wide. The point is this. There is a London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and this Amendment seeks to add to the approximately forty representatives on that body one representative of pedestrians and one representative of cyclists. Of the forty existing representatives more than half represent local authorities. There are also on the Committee representatives of the London Passenger Transport Board, of the railway companies, of mechanically-propelled road vehicles, of horse-drawn vehicles, and of taxicabs as well as of labour employed in the industry. I think, therefore, there is some ground for claiming that those whose stake in the roads is their own lives should also have representation. There is one useful analogy, the Road and Rail Traffic Act, under which there is a Transport Advisory Council on which pedestrians and cyclists are represented. That Transport Advisory Council has within its purview matters which affect pedestrians and cyclists far less than do the matters which come under the purview of the London and Homo Counties Traffic Advisory Committee under the Act of 1933. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, after line 11 insert the said words.—(Lord Elton.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: It is difficult to say that anything in your Lordships' House is out of order, but I should think this Amendment gets as near that as possible. It certainly was ruled out of order in another place. To begin with the London Traffic Advisory Committee, to which this Amendment refers, has really no functions at all in relation to this Bill. It is, as a matter of fact, mentioned in Clause 1, but that is almost incidentally. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. This was only considered a comparatively short time ago—perhaps twelve months ago. It was very care-

851
fully debated, and Parliament, after full consideration, eventually decided upon the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee as it appears in the Schedule of that Act. I can hardly feel that we should be justified, after so short an interval, in amending that Act.
The point is this. There are 23 representatives of the local authorities and three representatives of the Police on the London Traffic Advisory Committee, and they are all concerned with the interests of pedestrians and cyclists as well as with those of all other users of the roads. It is perfectly true that separate representation is given to road users such as taxicabs, horse-drawn vehicles and mechanically-propelled vehicles, but if separate representation was given to pedestrians and cyclists as well, all the various motoring organisations would, without the slightest doubt, press for their own claims to representation to be considered. This Committee is already a Committee of considerable size—there are some forty members of it—and I venture to say that there is hardly a ease for altering its constitution after so short an interval has elapsed.
LORD ELTON: I thank the noble Earl for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

LENGTH OF SPEECHES.
LORD KILMATNE LORD KILMATNE had given Notice that he would move to resolve, That it is desirable that a time limit be imposed on all speeches delivered during debates in the House of Lords except those of the occupants for the time being of the two Front Benches. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I want to ask the leave of the House to make a slight alteration in the wording of my Motion as printed. I want to leave out the word "two" so that it will read "the Front Benches" instead of "the two Front Benches." I hope that I may find support from many noble Lords who, like myself, feel that the length of speeches delivered in this House might be curtailed with advantage. I have had the honour of being a member of your Lordships' House since I was elected in 1911 and I have sat through some long and important
852
debates. I take the debates on the Parliament Bill, the Irish debates, and the debates on the disestablishment of the Welsh Church and Prayer Book revision as examples. In such long debates lasting two or three or four days, a great number of Peers desire to speak, but after two speeches have been delivered by the Government spokesmen and two by the Opposition there remains very little of importance that has not been said. Most of the other speeches are simply a rehash, as a rule, of what has been said before, but put perhaps in rather different language.
The result is that noble Lords leave the Chamber and go and sit in the Library until the end is in sight. I am perfectly sure that the main reason why the average number of Peers attending our debates is so small is on account of the long speeches. On a fine summer evening or afternoon any one accustomed to an open air, active life finds it a considerable strain to come and sit here for several hours listening to speech after speech, for one has to be specially trained, I think, really to enjoy this sort of thing after the novelty has worn off. I think a good many noble Lords, after sitting through one or two of our major debates, make up their minds then and there not to attend the House again unless they have a very urgent Whip. I have listened in the past with pleasure and enjoyment to speeches in this House of more than an hour's duration by great speakers like the late Lord Rosebery, the late Lord Morley, Lord Curzon and others. I have also had to listen to others of half that length which were a weariness of the spirit. Quite recently I listened to a speech in this House during which the speaker repeated himself at least five times.
In bringing forward this Motion I have in mind another debating assembly to which I had the honour to belong for many years. I refer to the General Synod of the Church of Ireland in Dublin, which sits for four days every May. In that assembly there is a President and an Assessor who govern the procedure. There, as in every other debating assembly, when an important subject comes up a great many members have something to say; after a time the large audience gets impatient and there are cries of "Vote, vote." Then when a

853
speaker rises in his place the President asks him if he desires to speak. If he says "Yes," the President says "You may speak, Mr. So-and-so, but as time presses I can only allow you ten minutes"; and so on with any subsequent speaker. Now we have no President in this Chamber, but the Lord Chancellor or whoever occupies the Woolsack in his absence is in fact in much the same position as the Speaker in the House of Commons.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
LORD KILMAINE: Well, I only mean to suggest that the Lord Chancellor, when he is on the Woolsack, is in relatively the same position. Perhaps I am wrong. It occurred to me that possibly the House might consider entrusting the Lord Chan cellor with the regulation of our debates—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
LORD KILMAINE: —and give him authority to impose a time limit on all speeches except from the Front Benches. I exclude the Front Benches because it is inevitable that introductory speeches and winding up speeches must be fairly lengthy. As for the rest, it has been my experience that a speaker should be able to say all that he has to say that matters, without undue padding or vain repetitions, in fifteen or twenty minutes, or sometimes less. I would like to see the Lord Chancellor empowered to request members to limit their remarks to ten or fifteen minutes when he considers the subject of the debate has been sufficiently ventilated. There are various forms of speeches—lectures, addresses, sermons and speeches at any public debate or assembly. Some have to be long, but in most cases the shorter they are the more they are appreciated. I have listened to sermons, for instance, the only effect of which was to make me wish to go out and break all Ten Commandments one after the other. I see by the comments in the daily Press that the House of Commons is supposed to need curtailment of speeches far more than this House does and than various, efforts to bring that about have been tried but have failed. But, my Lords, they are not quite as polite in another place as we are here, and I fancy that when a speaker goes on longer than is welcome the Members can call "Divide, divide." It
854
has to be a pretty hardy speaker who can go on for long in face of obvious opposition.
The real point is that a love of debate is a gift or the result of careful training. May I instance the noble Viscount who leads the House? He always appears to me thoroughly to enjoy the proceedings. It is not so with many of us. We come to this House, not because we enjoy coming, but because we think we may be doing the country or the Government a bit of good by coming. This Chamber is not a restful or soothing place to begin with. The atmosphere to many of us is overheated; there is a glare of light in the eyes; the colour of the benches is one which is never found in any hospital or nursing home; and we come here in clothes which we would far rather not be wearing. Then, when we listen to speaker after speaker, mostly on the lengthy side, till the subject of debate becomes absolutely threadbare, the deadly feeling of extreme boredom comes over us and our one desire is to escape—and we do escape to the Library or the tearoom.
Possibly it is not fully realised by many people what a very important part boredom can play in people's lives. It is a matter of temperament. To highly strung or nervous people the feeling sometimes becomes so acute that they simply must escape somehow from the surrounding cause. Many girls leave their homes for this reason; for better or worse, wives leave their husbands; and husbands leave their wives and families sometimes for the same reason—sheer, desperate boredom. Nobody can look at any photograph or picture of the Prince of Wales without feeling that His Royal Highness must have suffered intensely from many of the things he has had to do. But the members of the Royal House are trained from infancy for public duty and service, and the way in which they carry out those onerous duties wins the love of most and earns the respect of all. Many members of this House have not been so trained. Some, perhaps, like myself, were brought up to think that to excel in field sports and games was the main duty of a gentleman. In these days of rush, slowness in any form is irritating—a slow train, a batsman taking an hour to make sixteen runs, and so on. But far the most irritating thing of all is too prolonged an oration. It is in the hope that if this

855
Motion is adopted it may lead to a better average attendance in this House and to the shortening of debates that I have ventured to bring the Motion before the House. I leave it to the judgment of the House.
Moved to Resolve, That it is desirable that a time limit be imposed on all speeches delivered during debates in the House of Lords except those of the occupants for the time being of the Front Benches.—(Lord Kilmaine.)
THE CHAIKMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): Before my noble friend replies I should like to say one word. The Motion apparently excludes those matters which are dealt with by the noble Lords on the two Front Benches; that is to say, Government Bills and Government business; but I wish to oppose the Motion very strongly on behalf of those of your Lordships who wish to discuss Private Bills. Your Lordships will remember that a short time ago there was a Bill introduced in this House with regard to the Sussex Downs. That Bill was the subject of a debate of some length in your Lordships' House, a debate in which a large number of speakers took part. If a Motion of this kind were adopted by your Lordships' House, the desire of many noble Lords to put their views before the House would be frustrated. In the interests therefore of the promoters and opponents of Private Bills, I very much deprecate this Motion being agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Lord who has put this Motion on the Order Paper I think failed to realise the true reason for the length of time taken in. the delivery of speeches in this House. It is the practice of reading speeches, contrary to the accepted rules of this House, which makes the debates as long as they are to-day. It is perfectly true that the responsible Ministers on the Front Bench are under a practical obligation to read much of their speeches, for the reason that they have to quote figures accurately and they are certain to be held liable at some later stage of their careers for every word which they utter, in the responsible positions which they hold. But that does not apply to noble Lords on the Back Benches, and if the noble Lord will take a little advice and will refrain in future from reading his speeches, and other noble Lords will
856
do the same, the debates in this House will proceed very much more rapidly than they do. Having made that remark I have nothing further to say; but the practice is not one to be encouraged, and I regret that the noble Lord should have moved the Motion which he has moved and have taken so long to do it from his brief.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has moved this Motion and asked for your Lordships' acceptance of it has delivered a speech in which he has narrated to us many of the drawbacks and sadnesses which are inherent to life. He has developed them all from his antipathy (if I may use the expression) to long speeches in your Lordships' House. He thinks that some step should be taken, and I think he would attribute the authority to the Lord Chancellor, to curtail the speeches which members of your Lordships' House are allowed to deliver. When I saw the Motion on the Paper I was glad to read the last portion of it, because I should have thought the noble Lord's indictment might have been properly directed towards myself. In recent years I have ventured to trespass on your Lordships' indulgence at great length on many occasions, and your Lordships have always treated me with that great consideration and indulgence which I hope that the speeches I have delivered on behalf of the Government have deserved.
The noble Lord exempts the occupants of the Front Benches from his censure— because I look on this more as a Motion of censure than as anything else—and he allows them to continue their headlong career of long speeches while the other members of your Lordships' House are to be restricted. I am sorry to think of the empty Benches which I see around me at the present moment and also on many occasions when there are important debates in this House. The noble Lord desires to curtail the speeches which fall from noble Lords who occupy the Back Benches. I believe that this is quite a novel Motion in your Lordships' House; in fact I have not been able to find that a debate on this subject has ever taken place in this House. The noble Lord has discovered a wrong which he is hoping to right by obtaining your Lordships' acceptance of the Motion which is on the

857
Paper. This is a subject which has been raised elsewhere on more than one occasion, but I am inclined to think that chore is a great distinction between your Lordships' House and not only another place in this country but legislative assemblies in different parts of the world.
The procedure in another place is that debates are curtailed, not by the laying down of some definite length of speech, but by methods which we all deplore, such as the closure and the guillotine. On balance it has been decided that it is necessary that those methods should be adopted for the purpose of bringing to an end debates which might go on for an undue length of time. My noble friend who sits on the Cross Benches (Viscount Ullswater), when ho exercised authority in another place, was very instrumental in curtailing debates taken part in by those who were not altogether actuated by a desire for the progress of business. His authority on those occasions was exercised with such consideration and such skill that I am sure that the youthful obstructors (if there were such people at any time in another place) found their activities curtailed by his friendly authority. But whilst there might be such instincts in the minds of members who sit in another place, that has never been a feature of your Lordships' House.
During the time while I have had the honour of occupying a seat in your Lordships' House I have never seen anything approaching what goes by the familiar name of obstruction. I think your Lordships will agree that our debates are very much on the short side rather than on the long side; and I venture to say, as one who is not at all a young member of this House, that I regret that there are not more and longer speeches delivered in your Lordships' House. After all, the whole object of the existence of legislative assemblies is not really exactly what their names would imply. We look on them as assemblies for the purpose of the ventilation of the views and the expression of the opinions and the grievances of the nation. While it is unfortunate that debates in another place must for other reasons be curtailed, still I do feel that when we have opportunities of free discussion in this House, and when the experience of every one of us is in the direction of inspiring the feeling that there are members of your
858
Lordships' House who can make contributions of a very valuable character to debates, it would be a great misfortune if we laid down that by some authority accorded to the Lord Chancellor there should be a curtailment of those speeches, which I think most of your Lordships are only too anxious to hear.
The noble Lord has made the assertion that the reason of the small attendances in your Lordships' House on most occasions is that Peers are not willing or anxious to come and listen to speeches which he thinks are unduly long. I am inclined to think, and I believe your Lordships will agree with me, that that is not the reason for the small attendances in your Lordships' House. That is a subject on which there is perhaps a great deal to be said, and I am sure that there are many grounds which could be put forward for the opinion that the reason the attendance is not as large as one would like it to be is the great change which occurred in this House some twenty years ago. That may be said to be, and it is my opinion that it is, probably the main reason why the attendances of noble Lords in this House are not very large. But I think that we must also remember that a great many of your Lordships occupy their time in carrying on day in and day out work in those parts of the country where they live, which perhaps is not of so obvious a character as the work in this House, but which is a great contribution to the service of this country. There are also financial considerations. Many of your Lordships' predecessors were in a position to come up to London, and spend their time in attending the House and carrying out their duties as legislators. Their successors have probably found themselves unable to do that, and prefer, and have of necessity, to reside in those districts in which they have lived for probably generations past.
When one considers all these reasons one will find that the reason put forward by the noble Lord for the small attendance in this House is one which would not have occurred to any of your Lordships. I can think of no occasion on which a speech from the Back Benches could really come under the condemnation of any one of your Lordships, and speaking as one of those who sit on the Front Bench, and who is desirous of obtaining from

859
your Lordships all the assistance we can get, I wish it were possible to encourage more of your Lordships to attend this House, and more of your Lordships who are in the early days of your existence to take part in our debates. I wish something could be done, not to deter such members from speaking, or to induce them to curtail their speeches, but to encourage them to make speeches 'and to put forward their views. I think that the views which are put forward before your Lordships are of an instructive and very valuable character, and I wish that more could be done to encourage the placing of those views before our Legislative Assembly.
I think one can say that the debates which take place in this House have a distinct value. I think the fact that our debates are reported in the newspapers means a great deal to the people of this country. They look to this House for its opinion on all the great subjects of the day, and I think one can say that in the debates which we listen to in this House they are not disappointed. There is no subject on which some of your Lordships are not able to make a valuable contribution, either from your own personal experiences or from your knowledge, and I feel that I am carrying your Lordships with me when I say that I sincerely hope that no Motion will ever appear in the annals of this House which suggests that we should curtail the speeches which your Lordships desire to deliver to your fellow members. I have nothing to add but I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not accept the Motion.
LORD KILMAINE: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Report of the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
That the Committee have met and considered the Standing Orders of the House, with a view to any amendment or revision of the same which may result in a saving of expense, having particular reference to the daily reprinting and re-circulation of Motions or Notices which are left for considerable periods on the Order Paper.
The Committee have heard evidence of the Clerk of the Parliaments on this sub-
860
ject, and recommend that Standing Order No. XXI be amended as follows—
Standing Order No. XXI, line 17, after ("renewed") insert:
("When any Notice shall have remained on the Minutes of Proceedings for one month, exclusive of any period during which the House may stand adjourned for more than five days, without any Lord giving notice of appointing the same for a date, such Notice shall not any longer appear among the Notices and Orders of the Day, and shall not again be included among the Notices and Orders of the day until any Lord shall give notice of appointing the same for a date.")
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I do not think I need detain your Lordships in moving that this Report be considered and agreed to. It will be within the recollection of this House that a few days ago Lord Ponsonby raised a question as to whether it might be possible to effect a saving of expense, by adopting some other procedure with regard to the method by which Notices appear on the Order Paper, and on the Motion of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, Lord Hail sham, a Committee was appointed to go into the matter. That Committee has considered it, and this is its Report. The effect of the Report is that an Amendment of the Standing Order is recommended, and I may perhaps briefly explain how that Amendment would operate.
Your Lordships are aware that when any member of this House desires to put down a Motion or Question, and he has not determined the day on which he will bring it forward, he puts it down for "No day named." Under the present Standing Orders such a Motion or Question may remain on the Order Paper indefinitely, and for a very long time indeed, until the noble Lord can find a day on which to discuss it. It is thought that it is desirable that your Lordships should have opportunities of studying the Order Paper and seeing the nature of the business which is coming forward, even although a date has not actually been named for the discussion. But there is perhaps a limit to all things, and it occurred to the Committee that it would be sufficient if such Notices and Motions remained on the Order Paper for a month, in order to enable every member of this House fully to acquaint himself with what appears on the Order Paper, but for no longer than that, in view of

861
the expense which would be entailed by leaving Notices on the Paper.
Therefore it is proposed that no Notice shall remain on the Paper for "No day named" for more than a month. When the month has expired it will automatically come off the Paper. I think there will be a notice on the last day on which it appears to say that it will be automatically removed, because there are occasions when you wish to take a Notice off the Paper altogether, and it would lead co some confusion if there were no distinction made between the two forms. Then, when the noble Lord has fixed a date, his Motion will reappear on the Paper, not for "No day named" but with a date fixed. That is the suggestion of the Committee, and if your Lordships accept the Report doubtless in due course an Amendment of the Standing Orders will be made. I beg to move that the Report be now considered and agreed to.
Moved, That the Report of the Select Committee be now considered and agreed to.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
LORD PONSONBST OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, as I was responsible for calling attention to this small matter I should like to express my agreement with the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, in his explanation of the Report come to by the Select Committee, and at the same time to express my gratitude to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for having so readily facilitated a method by which we can correct what I think was really a very undesirable practice—namely, using the Order Paper for publicity purposes.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I doubt whether the Report of the Committee goes far enough. I cannot see what is the object, day after day, of issuing these Parliamentary Papers with at the end a number of Resolutions put down for "No day named." Surely once a week would be quite sufficient for the issue of a Paper of that kind. What we want when we look at the daily Parliamentary Papers is to see what is coming on to-day and to-morrow. We do not care what is coming on next week, or the week after. If we get that once a week it is quite sufficient. I am certain that great saving might be made of printing and paper if attention were given to this. There is also another matter which I am sorry the
862
Committee did not deal with. It is a great waste of printing and paper when a single Amendment is circulated on a big sheet of paper. During the last two or three days we have had full sheets of paper circulated with a small Amendment in the middle of each. Can there be a greater waste than that?
EARL PEEL: My Lords, may I ask one question of the noble Earl, the Lord Chairman, because I am not sure that I quite understood the effect of the Report. I understand the object is that a noble Lord who desires publicity shall not obtain that publicity so easily by placing a Motion on the Paper for "No day named," and that after a month it will disappear automatically from the Paper. Is there anything to prevent a noble Lord who is animated by such a passion for publicity as is described putting a Motion down for a particular day, and then when that day approaches moving it on to another day? If ho did that he would obtain publicity, and also, it seems to me, defeat the rule. Perhaps the noble Earl can answer me on that.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: When the noble Earl speaks of a month in his Report does he mean a calendar month, or does he mean four weeks on which the House has sat, because obviously in the case of Christmas and the Easter holiday it will make a very great difference?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I can answer the noble Lord by reading the proposed Standing Order:
"When any Notice shall have remained on the Minutes of Proceedings for one month, exclusive of any period during which the House may stand adjourned for more than five days …."
So that if Whitsuntide or Easter comes in, that will not count. Then the noble Earl, Lord Peel, has certainly put a poser to me. Perhaps the ingenuity of noble Lords in evading Standing Orders is very considerable, but I think that, with the expression of opinion which was given by my noble friend opposite and by the Leader of the House, the un-desirability of the practice of putting down such Questions and Motions on the Paper will be apparent, and the fact that your Lordships do not approve of it will curtail the desire of noble Lords to evade the Stand-

863
ing Order. I think it is the practice of your Lordships' House when your Lordship's are aware of the general wishes of the House to endeavour to carry out its decision, and I think this Standing Order amply notifies the wish of your Lordships. But of course I quite agree with Lord Peel that it might be got round in that way. In fact, other ways have occurred to me which I was careful not to mention—
EARL PEEL: I thought of several others.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: —but I think that perhaps until some noble Lord takes advantage of those other methods we might endeavour to get on with the Standing Order as it stands. We did, as a matter of fact, discuss this in Committee, and we thought that probably this Standing Order would meet the wishes of the House. Then I think the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, made two suggestions. One was that the amount of printing and paper used for the Amendments in Committee might be curtailed. I have been into that, and I think that probably we shall be able to curtail it to some extent. There are certain difficulties, with which I do not think I need trouble your Lordships at present, but we will do our best to curtail the amount of paper and printing. As a matter of fact, I think the question of Amendments in Committee would not come under the Standing Orders, it would come more under the administrative authority of the learned Clerk of the Parliaments.
The other suggestion made by the noble Viscount was that we might have the Notices printed once a week only. I must say I do see some difficulty in that, because noble Lords, when they receive their Papers, like to look at the business, and if it varied, we will say on Tuesdays and Thursdays, from that which appeared on Wednesdays, possibly some confusion might be caused. But I do not think this matter was considered by the Committee. Still, it might be gone into privately, and, if there is any possibility of curtailing expense by adopting the suggestion of the noble Viscount, I feel quite sure that your Lordships will be willing to accept it.
THE EARL OF STAIR: My Lords, with regard to the remarks of the noble. Viscount, Lord Ullswater, I may say that-one of the reasons for non-attendance of
864
Peers in this House is that a great many of us who live a long way off and have a great many other occupations very frequently do not get our Notices of what is coming on until after it has taken place. If some of the Notices could reach us earlier rather than later it would make a great deal of difference.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think it would be rather difficult to do that, because, supposing that my noble friend wishes to put down a Motion on a Tuesday, to come on on a Wednesday, it could not possibly reach noble Lords in Scotland in time. Very often a Motion is not put down until the day before. Of course, as much as is possible appears on the Paper, but you could not be sure that the Orders of the Day would be fixed three or four days beforehand.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, may I ask one further question? When this Standing Order becomes operative, are we to assume that it will be retrospective and that certain Questions which your Lordships have for some considerable time seen on the Order Paper would then automatically disappear?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think that if your Lordships adopted the Standing Order it would be immediately operative.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY asked His Majesty's Government whether they will undertake, the printing and publication of the history of the institution and personnel of Parliament which is being prepared under the direction of a Committee consisting of members of both Houses. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, there is a remarkable gap in the historical records which have to do with Parliament. Much has been written upon the nature of our Constitution, much has been written on the great events which mark its development, but the records of the actual living individuals whose life and work, whose function, whose offices, have gradually built up the Constitution—those records have never been put together. They exist in scattered form all over this country—much, of course, in the hands of the State, but much in private hands; and they have never been collected, they have never been put upon record.
These persons, of both Houses of Parliament, stretching back perhaps to the reign of Henry III or further, are the people who have actually made the Constitution as we know it. It has grown under their hands, by their action, by their views; and yet no record has been made of it. They had no design; the Constitution has arrived without design; that is its great merit. They never looked forward, of course, but we may profitably look back and trace the steps by which these wonderful institutions have been evolved. And therefore a very distinguished Committee has been formed under the patronage of the Prime Minister and of all the ex-Prime Ministers who are alive, of Mr. Speaker, the Lord Chancellor, and many other persons of great prominence and distinction in both Houses of Parliament, and this Committee is intent on gathering together these records. It will be a work of very great importance, and all that we ask is that we should have the co-operation of the Government. We do not want more than that. My Question is merely to ask them for that co-operation in the form in which I have put it. I feel quite certain I shall receive a favourable reply.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, for the second time to-day I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Marquess—I am getting rather nervous. But I should very much like to support the Question which he has addressed to the Government. I was on the original Committee that brought this matter before the Government of the day, and it was a matter of surprise to me that there should be no complete record of that personnel of the Mother of Parliaments. Some of the great names in our history—I found their constituencies were entirely unknown. Some of the great Divisions that have taken place in Parliament and the numbers of the people who voted in them were not known. That is gradually being corrected. A mass of information is being brought together, and I think it only right, in addition to those whom the noble Marquess has mentioned, to mention very specially the name of my right honourable friend Colonel Wedgwood—
NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE—who has been quite indefatigable in pursuing this matter, in stirring up
866
interest in it, and in collecting a body of willing helpers, many of whom are doing research work for nothing. I only hope the Government will give a sympathetic response to the Question which the noble Marquess has addressed.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I feel that from these rather empty Benches some humble support ought also to be accorded to what the noble Marquess has said. History is so tremendously important in the education of every one of us—and I am afraid it is rather neglected—that anything that can encourage its study is worthy of the greatest consideration. I would only add that I hope your Lordships' House will receive as much attention in this history when it is published as will another place.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think no one can entertain any doubt as to the importance and permanent value of the work which is being done by the Committee to which my noble friend Lord Salisbury referred. The names of those who form the Committee are perhaps the best guarantee of their adequacy for the labours that they have undertaken and the satisfactory and complete results we may expect from their work. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord special reference to my right honourable friend Colonel Wedgwood, to whose initiative so much of this work has been due. On behalf of the Government the discussion with the Committee has been undertaken mainly by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Your Lordships will appreciate that Treasury considerations are necessarily involved in the sort of question which is being submitted by the noble Marquess, and the answer which I have to give is an answer with I have received from him and which I deliver with his authority.
My right honourable friend tells me that he has been assured by the Committee that the proposed history will not involve a net charge on public funds, and with the object of assisting the undertaking my right honourable friend has agreed, on behalf of the Government, to an arrangement which is accepted by the Committee as satisfactory and likely to produce the results hoped for. This is the arrangement which has been reached: Provided that there is secured beforehand from sources other than public funds

867
a minimum sum of £15,000 towards the cost of compiling the history, the Government, while they cannot pledge Parliament or future Administrations to a continuing expenditure of public money, will be prepared for their part to authorise the publication and placing on sale by the Stationery Office, at the public cost, of volumes of the history up to a maximum number, varying, proportionately with the amount collected, from twenty, if only the minimum sum is secured, up to the total of forty if £.30,000 is secured. It is anticipated by the Committee that receipts from sales, which will be credited to the Stationery Office Vote, will cover the cost of publication. It is understood that the Government cannot take any responsibility for raising the above sums, but my right honourable friend is sure—and I know his feeling is shared in this House—that there will be a general hope that the Committee may be successful in their efforts.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, I desire, as a member of the Committee which has been referred to, to say one word of thanks to the noble Viscount for the statement he has made and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the promise he has given. I might point this out: The State is prepared to pay for the printing and publication of historical manuscripts. It has issued a great number of volumes of historical manuscripts. Surely the history of Parliament itself is quite as important as the manuscripts, which are the documents relating to what was done in the Parliaments, documents written some by official, others by non-official, persons; but surely the history of who the persons were who came here, how they came here, what they did when they got here, and what their decisions were is just as important as, if not more important than, the historical documents which the State has already published. In these days particularly, when it is the fashion to derogate from the position of Parliament and to suggest dictatorships and various other things, surely a history which records how our Parliament grew from small beginnings to the great position which it now occupies is not one which ought to be neglected or despised. It is one which should be of vast interest not only to the people of this country, but to the people of the Dominions and the people of the United States as well.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should like to ask the Leader of the House if he can tell us about the business for next week and at the same time to ask him, with apologies, whether he has been able to provide time for the Motion I desire to put down for Monday next. The reason for such short notice is that I understand the Notice Paper is filled up for the whole course of next week, and as this is a matter of very great gravity, consequent on the declaration made by the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State for Air, to-day, I have felt obliged, with the approval of my noble friends who act with me, to put down this Motion at this short notice.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I appreciate the urgency which necessitated the Motion going down at short notice, and I only hope that everybody will this time at any rate have time to read the Notice that the Motion is coming on before it is actually discussed. I think the best plan would be that we should meet on Monday at three o'clock instead of at 4.15. There has to be taken a certain amount of Government business. There is the Committee stage of the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill, the Second Reading of the Colonial Stock Bill, the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill, and the Public Works Loans Bill. These four are almost formal. Then there is the consideration of the Commons Amendments to the Shops Bill. After that, which ought not to take long, we shall have the rest of the sitting available for the discussion of the Vote of Censure of which Notice has just been given.
On Tuesday, we have the Sheriffdom of Perth and Angus Order, 1034, and the County Courts Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill and which my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack desires to take through all its stages in order that it may get to another place. Then there is the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill and the Milk Bill, the Committee stage of the National Maritime Museum Bill and the Dindings Agreement (Approval) Bill, and the Third Reading of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill. I think the only substantial thing there would be the Report stage of the Road Traffic Bill.
On Wednesday there is the Third Reading of the National Maritime Museum

869
Bill; and there will be perhaps the Third Reading of the Road Traffic Bill. I should like to get it on Wednesday, but it there are many alterations on Report then, probably, we shall have to take it on Thursday. I thought we would wait and see how much the Bill was modified on Report stage. Then there are a number of Questions in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and of my noble friends Lord Danesfort, Lord Lamington, and the Duke of Montrose, and there are certain Church Measures which will, I think, fill up the rest of Wednesday. On Thursday we shall have further stages of the Bills I have already referred to and there will be the Second Reading of the Cattle Industry Bill which is coining from another place at the beginning of next week and which it will be necessary to pass through all its stages before the House adjourns.
If I may go on to the following week I think I can give all the business. On Monday, July 30, we propose to take the Committee stage of the Cattle Industry Bill, the Third Reading of the Colonial Stock Bill and of the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill, and the consideration of any Amendments from another place with regard to the various Bills which will have gone down there. On Tuesday, July 31, we propose to take all stages of the Appropriation Bill which, in this House, is little more than a formality, the Third Reading of the Cattle Industry Bill, and then, after a Royal Commission to give His Majesty's Assent to such measures as we have passed, I hope the House will be able to adjourn to some date which I hope then to be able to announce.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for giving us the full programme for the next ten days, but there is one detail I should like to ask him. On Thursday next, owing to a certain function taking place, I do not
870
know if the House will meet at a different time.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: If it would be for the general convenience there would be no judicial difficulty about meeting at three o'clock on that day. I do not think any of the business for Thursday, except the Cattle Industry Bill, will be of a contentious character. That may take a little tune, and it might well be convenient to meet at three o'clock. I will communicate through the usual channels and ascertain what are the general wishes of the House with regard to the time of meeting.

LOWESTOFT CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION (TROL- LEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.