Lords Sitting of 7 June 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Selby—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Viscount Long—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2ª, and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STEYNING AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MILFORD HAVEN) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MORLEY) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BURNHAM AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HERRIARD AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SHEPPEY WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

TITHE BILL. [H.L.]
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, my attention has been drawn, as has doubtless that of other of your Lordships, to a statement in that usually well-informed paper, The Times, with regard to the Tithe Bill. As I have still a Question on the Paper with regard to tithes, and as it is a matter of very deep importance to the part of the country from which I come, I venture to ask if the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House has by any chance any statement which he would be prepared to make to your Lordships' House.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for asking me this question, and it would be convenient, although slightly irregular, if I ventured to answer it at this stage. Your Lordships will remember that the Bill to which my noble friend refers did not purport to deal with the whole position of tithe in this country. It was avowedly a compromise. The first clause was designed to give relief to the tithe-payers in cases of real hardship, and the second clause was designed to assist tithe-owners by rendering the collection of their due less cumbrous. Before bringing these proposals before Parliament the Government had grounds for believing that these proposals would recommend themselves to the great body of moderate opinion both of tithe-owners and of tithe-payers. In the event, however, it has proved that this belief has not been justified. Possibly the fact that neither party is satisfied is an argument in favour of the view that the proposed compromise was essentially fair. The Government, however, have come to the conclusion that they would not be justified in attempting to force these proposals upon the contending parties when neither of them professes to desire them, and they do not intend to proceed with the Bill.
This involves that the existing conditions will continue. The Government, however, have reached the conclusion that it would not be right to leave that

909
position indefinitely, in view of the complaints which both sides have put forward. But before bringing any proposals of their own before Parliament to deal with the general position of tithe in this country, they think it would be right to give to all parties concerned a full opportunity of putting the facts and contentions which they desire to have considered before an impartial tribunal. Accordingly the Government are proposing to set up a Royal Commission with the widest terms of reference—namely, to enquire into and report upon the whole question of tithe rentcharge in England and Wales and its incidence, with special reference to stabilised value, statutory remission, powers of recovery, and method and terms of redemption. The Government hope to be in a position to announce the names of the persons serving on the Royal Commission at an early date.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the very full answer he has given to my question, and I hope that neither he nor your Lordships will think me presumptuous if I venture to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the decision they have taken. It will be no doubt a decision that will occasion the greatest satisfaction to thousands, not only of tithe-payers but of tithe-owners. It may be that there will be bodies, or even individuals, who will claim this as a personal triumph for themselves. Speaking for the body on whose behalf I some times address your Lordships' House, I can say at once that that will not be their attitude in the least. If there is any cause for anybody to regard it as a triumph I think we should regard it as a triumph for His Majesty's Government, because, as I know your Lordships will agree, it takes not only a good Government but it takes a good man to reverse an opinion that has been formed when further evidence is brought forward. If I might venture to express two hopes, they would be, in the first place, that the utmost expedition may be used with regard to this matter, because the thorn is still rankling in the countryside, and in the second place, that the terms of reference, as I gather they will be, will be sufficiently broad to allow that Commission to look at all aspects of the case in the present situation in order to effect a lasting peace in this unfortunate contest.
LORD PONSONBY or SHULBREDE: My Lords, we on this side of the House note that the Government are dropping a Bill owing to the opposition of the parties who would have been affected by that Bill, and I congratulate the noble Lord on having succeeded in inducing the Government to do that. His proposition that there should be a full investigation, which he urged on the Second Reading of the Bill, has now been adopted by the Government. May I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether the Government will continue that practice and drop the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, against which there is a very large body of opposition?
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies may I associate myself with the noble Lord who expressed the hope that all expedition may be shown in this matter? I am afraid I am not able to associate myself with everything that fell from him, because we fear that this delay may foster the scenes of disorder which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack so very much deprecated when he framed one of the clauses of the Bill which at present has been abandoned. There is no question of anything so petty as a personal triumph in this House or in your Lordships' minds, but I cannot help thinking that outside, where passions are less regulated and where enthusiasm is apt to run wild, it may be that those who agitated against the payment of tithe and against the due processes of law will be encouraged to continue the practices which this Bill, had it become an Act, would have tended to reduce.
I am a governor of Queen Anne's Bounty, and I am well aware of the way in which the conciliatory attitude adopted by the Tithe Committee of Queen Anne's Bounty has led to a deal of contentment and success. I have access to the figures available in the Bounty office, and I am able to say that the tithe rentcharge collected in recent months has steadily and quietly improved. I attribute that more than anything to the way in which the law has been clarified in the Courts. A year ago there was a great deal of doubt in regard to the powers that might be exercised by the tithe-owners against the tithe-payers, and especially by Queen Anne's Bounty, which, as an administra-

911
tive trustee, is interested in collecting the tithe due to the clergy. In recent months cases have been heard in the Courts and decisions have been given which have led to the satisfactory conclusion that the tithe has been flowing in contentedly and in a far greater amount than at this time last year.
What I am afraid of is that if there is any delay in appointing the members of this Royal Commission and their reporting, there may be, while the delay continues, a cessation of payment on the part of tithe-payers, and that the conciliatory attitude adopted by Queen Anne's Bounty may become stultified in its results. Meanwhile, large numbers of the clergy are wholly dependent upon the payment of tithe and, as there are a great many arrears, many of the clergy, as we all know, are in rather a bad way in consequence. I confess that I look with some anxiety on what the position of the clergy dependent on tithe may be during the course of the inquiry. I quite agree with the noble Lord that it is very desirable that a Royal Commission should look into this very intricate matter. It is an intricate matter. One can approach it from a great many different points of view, and the whole subject bristles with the difficulties that belong to any very ancient institution. I am glad to hear that a Royal Commission is to sit. I had hoped that the inquiry would have taken place after the Bill had become an Act. We have, however, heard from the noble Viscount that this is impossible. I consider that there should be no delay therefore in setting up this Royal Commission.
There is another point which fills me with some distress. What will happen to the arrears that Queen Anne's Bounty have been trying to collect, which have been spread over a great many months past? It is unlikely that arrears will be paid, and I think that it is more than probable that the clergy will suffer a greater loss than they have in recent months, not to say years. There is another interest involved, which will no doubt be represented upon the Royal Commission, and that is the interest of the clergy. Only to-day or yesterday, if I am not misinformed, there was complaint in the Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury that they had not been consulted about the proposal to
912
change the compromise arrived at in 1925. I am afraid that on the part of the authorities of the Church—by that I mean those who are the appointed representatives of the beneficed clergy—some anxiety will he felt owing to the delay which must follow the appointment of a Royal Commission.
I do not know whether it would be proper to enquire whether during the meantime anything can be done to see that the law does stand and is enforced as the noble Viscount said it does still stand. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will feel as much regret as I should if the appointment of a Royal Commission, which we all welcome, leads to a repetition of those unpleasant scenes with which we have become familiar. I was not able to be present when tile Bill was first introduced and I want to say that I believe that delays will be very dangerous. Speaking still as a governor of Queen Anne's Bounty, I would like to say that we are in the position of administrative trustees. We have no wishes in the matter except to carry out the duties imposed upon us and to help the clergy in any way that is possible.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Order, order.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: I beg your Lordships' pardon if I am travelling beyond the question. I will only say with what pleasure I have heard of the appointment of the Royal Commission and that I trust that delays will not be considerable.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I venture to hope that the members of His Majesty's Government who have been questioned on this subject will not think it right to reply, because I am sure your Lordships will allow a very old member of the House to say that this discussion is in its nature very irregular.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is quite usual, of course, for a question to be put on private notice to the Leader of the House or to any member of the Government, and the Minister, out of courtesy to the questioner and out of respect for the House, always replies. But it is not correct for a long discussion to arise upon a mere question on private

913
notice. I hope, if I may say so very respectfully, that your Lordships will see fit not to continue this discussion, which places the Government in a very difficult position and is really contrary to the practice of the House.
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say one word.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, as I had placed upon the Order Paper a Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, may I say that I think that would have been the better course to adopt in order to have an inquiry into the whole question? I have served on Select Committees and I cannot help thinking that such a Committee would have been better than a Royal Commission. A Select Committee would contain representatives of all sections of the House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order.
LORD STRACHIE: I cannot help thinking that a Select Committee would have been better than a Royal Commission. As the noble Viscount said—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to Order. I ventured to call attention just now to the fact that this discussion was an irregular one and I hoped, and I think the majority of your Lordships hoped, that members of the House would obey the Order of the House and not continue a discussion which is in its nature irregular. I beg to submit that this is out of order.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, venture to support that appeal from my noble friend who has a far wider experience than I have in this matter. Of course, if any noble Lord feels that this is a matter which ought to be discussed, he can put a Notice on the Order Paper.

COTTON MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER): My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is "to make temporary pro
914
vision for enabling statutory effect to be given to rates of wages agreed between representative organisations in the cotton manufacturing industry." It is even less contentious than the Bill which we have been discussing during the last two days. The proposals which are in the Bill represent an experiment and are designed to provide the cotton industry with an opportunity for which the organisations of both employers and workers in the industry have asked. If it is said that an experiment of this kind should not be tried upon a great industry such as the cotton manufacturing trade, I would remind the House that in the history of industrial relations no part of this country and no industry has given earlier or more constant support to collective principles than Lancashire and the cotton trade.
Permit me to state briefly the circumstances in which this request has been made for assistance by the organisations in one of the most highly-organised industries in the country and one which has always been put forward as a notable example of voluntary collective arrangements. In this industry 15 per cent. of the production in times of prosperity is for export, largely to the East. The lowered purchasing power of those countries, mainly agricultural, has transferred trade to the lowest priced goods from whatever source. Again, some of those consuming countries have become large producers and thus the export of cotton goods from this country has fallen to a calamitous extent. There have also been great changes due to the growth of the use of artificial silk and other textiles. This has affected the financial situation of the industry and accentuated the difficulty of securing new capital for its organisation and development to meet modern competitive needs.
For our present purpose the effect in this country which has chiefly to be taken into account, as the result of these circumstances, is the scramble for business between the mills irrespective of the ultimate result. There has been reckless price-cutting which has wasted the capital resources of the industry and has not added to the total volume of trade. In short, in face of the most serious and well-organised competition abroad which the industry has ever had to face 'and at a period when the most effective use of

915
its combined resources in technique and finance was necessary, it has been disintegrated by internal dissension. Amongst the reasons for this are that the transition from the misleading trade boom after the War to the difficult conditions which have followed has necessarily involved changes in costs, including wages. When I tell your Lordships that the total number of persons employed in the cotton industry has been reduced from 485,000 in 1924 to 374,000 in 1933, I think your Lordships will appreciate that such a change could not take place without affecting wage standards; but in the chaotic conditions prevailing, the normal resistance of the workers' organisations to changes in wages has been accentuated by their lack of confidence that reductions would be used for the general good of the industry. In fact, they have felt that these reductions have been frittered away in uneconomic competition between mills and have not been passed on in such a way as to increase trade and employment.
The result has been that the adjustment of working conditions to the circumstances of the industry has become more and more difficult because of the prospect that any wages agreed will immediately be undercut by individual employers. In recent years there has been a complete stoppage of the industry every other year, with immense loss to both sides and a permanent loss of trade to the industry and to the nation. That loss has fallen with greatest severity upon those better elements in the industry who wish to make and to keep reasonable agreements and who are now being driven to think only of themselves. In the negotiations for the settlement of the great dispute in 1932, the proceedings were greatly hampered by the feeling that, whatever the terms agreed, there was no assurance that they would be generally observed, and the reluctance of the unions to agree to reduction of wages was thereby greatly increased. A special section of the agreement was devoted to the subject of the honouring of agreements and, in view of the importance of this and of its close connection with the joint application which has led to the introduction of this Bill, I crave your Lordships' indulgence that I may be allowed to read that special section of the agreement.
916
It states:
"(1) it is essential, if agreements are to be honoured, that they shall embody conditions which are suited to the circumstances of the industry and therefore will not cause either employers or operatives to have any adequate reason for departing from them. Continued failure to reach agreements on adjustments required by either side may produce a tendency to depart from agreements, and, in proposing additions to the Joint Rules, the parties have the intention of removing this obstacle to the effective operation of collective agreements.
"(2) Industry requires for its proper regulation, and for the preservation of equitable arrangements as between employers and employers and as between employers and operatives, the effective operation of collective agreements throughout the whole industry.
"(3) It is necessary to consider means by which the conditions agreed upon by the responsible organisations can be made generally operative, and that this subject shall be further explored in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour on the termination of this dispute.
"(4) Nothing but harm can result from the unfair competition within the industry which arises from the operation of working conditions different from those settled by agreements, provided always that those agreements are maintained in relationship to the general circumstances in which the industry has to he carried on."
These statements embody, I think your Lordships will agree, the whole case for collective agreements in this country, and this Bill is founded upon a belief in the principles set out in this agreement. It will be seen that there is emphasis upon the necessity of the agreements being in accord with the requirements of the industry, and the provisions of this Bill are such as to ensure that no agreements will be made which are against the welfare and progress of the industry and of those engaged in it.
The events since this agreement was made have emphasised the need for getting such order in the industry, particularly as regards such changes as the introduction of the more-looms-perweaver system. I am sure your Lordships will agree that every legitimate and practicable method for putting the industry in a better position to compete with lower prices abroad should be adopted, and it has been recognised by the operatives that such new methods should be adopted under proper conditions. Those employers who have competed unfairly with others by not observing proper conditions for the working of the more-looms

917
per-weaver system have done a disservice to the adoption of further new methods. Whatever gain they individually have secured has been paid for by other employers and the operatives. The limit of the resisting power of groups of operatives, in the midst of a large body of unemployed, cannot be regarded as the proper basis for settling conditions of work, especially when the immediate object is to take an order from another employer who operates fair conditions, an order which in any case would be given to the industry. This, of course, is entirely to be distinguished from that proper exercise of individual enterprise which is necessary for the health of the industry. Trade Boards Acts were made necessary for just those conditions which are rapidly, growing in the cotton manufacturing industry.
It was hoped, my Lords, that in the course of the exploration of the position which was provided for by the 1932 agreement, those in the industry would be able voluntarily to find means of securing order in the industry. In order to get down to brass tacks, if your Lordships will excuse the expression, my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour caused a special investigation to be made into the wages position, principally in those mills where the more-looms-perweaver system was in operation. In this he had the co-operation of both employers' and workers' organisations, and it is believed that the report which was made confidentially to both sides gave a basis of facts as opposed to theory, which was of considerable assistance in indicating the real position. Unfortunately, in the fairly long period which has since elapsed the organisations have had to confess their failure to deal with the situation by their own unaided efforts, and have thus had to seek the temporary assistance of the Government as embodied in this Bill. The Government, after full consideration, have felt it necessary to give such assistance, and that is the raison d'être of this Bill.
Let me now summarize in a few words the proposals in the Bill. In the first place the scope of the Bill is confined to the weaving or manufacturing side of the industry. It does not cover the spinning or finishing branches in which conditions are different. Further, the Bill is only to operate in a particular geographical area defined in the Schedule to the Bill. This
918
is the area covered by the organisations whose agreements as to wage conditions this Bill is designed to uphold. I think I should add that cotton manufacture is so defined in Clause 7 as to exclude any possibility of including woollen or other textile industries. In the second place, the Bill leaves the existing voluntary machinery in the industry for reaching wage agreements entirely untouched. There is nothing whatever in the nature of a compulsory balancing element, such as is provided by the appointed members of a trade board, put in to tip the balance arid prevent deadlock. There is, that is to say, no element at all of compulsory arbitration. Having made their agreement, and only when they have made it, the organisations are then empowered by Clause 1 to apply jointly to the Minister for an Order to give legal effect to the agreed rates. They are required to give public notice of such application and to specify a time for objections. The Minister must thereupon, unless it is clear that the joint applicants do not respectively represent majorities, appoint a board of three persons not connected with the industry to report upon the application.
The board will be assisted by six representatives from each side, sitting as assessors. In this way they will be assured of all the technical assistance they may require. The first duty of the board will be to satisfy themselves that the joint applicants represent respectively employers controlling a majority of the looms in the industry and a majority of the persons employed in the industry of the class or classes affected by the agreed rates of wages. If they are satisfied on this point, they must then report to the Minister, after considering objections and taking evidence, upon the desirability of making an Order to give statutory effect to the provisions of the agreement relating to wages. Any recommendation to the effect that an Order should be made must be unanimous, and a further point to which I would call your Lordships' attention is that neither the board nor the Minister will have power to modify the terms of an agreement. Nothing has been included in these proposals which would in any way impair the freedom of voluntary agreement. If the board report in favour of an Order it will be for the Minister to decide in the light of all the facts whether an Order should or should not be made.

919
Clause 3 provides that an Order, when made, shall have the effect of making the agreed rates, wherever they apply, a term of the contract between employers and workers. Any employer, organised or unorganised, who pays less than the legal rate is to be subject to a penalty on summary conviction not exceeding £10 for each offence. Employers are further required to exhibit a notice of the statutory rates, and to keep records to show that they have paid not less than the legal wage. There is no provision for Government inspection. The whole object is to give the industry power to help itself. Its purpose is to ensure that rates of wages, once they are agreed, are really observed, provided a disinterested tribunal has first been satisfied that they should be made legally binding. It will be for the associations themselves to decide what rates should be made the subject of an Order, and whether the Order should include "piece" as well as "time" rates, and whether it should be coterminous with the whole field covered by an agreement, or should be limited to one or two simple basic rates. It might, of course, happen in spite of all the safeguards provided in the Bill, that the rates scheduled in an Order, or some of them, prove unsatisfactory. Clause 4 accordingly provides that either of the parties may at any time apply for revocation, either in whole or in part; and the Minister is thereupon required to revoke the Order, or the part in question, after three months notice. It is further provided that after a period of twelve months the Minister himself, after proper notice, may refer the question of revocation to a board for inquiry and report.
I must frankly admit to your Lordships that in giving statutory effect to voluntarily agreed rates of wages, as is here proposed, a new departure is being taken. It is an experiment called for by a particular situation; and it is provided in Clause 8 that the Bill shall remain operative only for three years. If the Bill is to be continued after that it will be necessary to ask Parliament for further authority. Before I sit down I should like, if I may, to refer to three points of criticism of the Bill that have come to my notice. In the first place it is suggested that unless a very high and definite percentage of membership of
920
organisations is required on each side there is a danger of substantial minorities being unfairly coerced. In point of fact there is in every industry a large proportion of employers and operatives who, while faithfully observing agreed conditions, do not, by reason of apathy or for other Causes, become members of organisations. The requirement of at least a majority on each side is sufficient to give the organisations the right to have their agreements considered for the purposes of an Order. The board of three impartial persons will then consider the objections, and it is obvious that the larger the number of reasonable objections the greater will be the onus upon the board in reaching a decision. In fact it is certain that in all cases there will be an attempt, before agreements are reached, to bring the whole industry into counsel, and I may say that the first result of even the presentation of this Bill has been that non-affiliated employers have been invited to confer with the affiliated employers' organisations. I cannot help feeling that much of the present trouble would have been avoided if a similar instrument to stimulate such co-operation had been available earlier.
A second criticism which has been brought to my notice and which I intend to meet quite frankly on the floor of this House is that this Bill will destroy the voluntary system. What I have already said is a reply to that, but I would go further and say that the voluntary system in this industry would appear to be approaching the point of collapse, and that without such support as this Bill gives, collapse may possibly occur. As I have said, this Bill is a temporary measure for three years and is intended for the purpose of giving the voluntary system time and opportunity for re-establishment. It is not expected that the powers of the Bill will be used for more than a minimum and necessary amount of statutory enforcement, but that the greater part of the operations of the industry will remain under voluntary arrangements, loyally observed.
The third objection, and the last I will refer to this afternoon, is that elasticity of conditions and innovations of method will be jeopardised. I submit that there is no ground for such fears. It is not the case that enterprise and initiative are found only among unorganised employers,

921
and it may be accepted that, in making their agreements, the organisations will provide for changes in the industry to be met. As a final safeguard the Minister himself has power to initiate action to revoke an Order if it is shown to him that such action is desirable. I would emphasise that it is not likely that the Bill will be used to bring rigidity into all the complex conditions in the industry. To suggest that is to suggest that common rules in highly organised industries are unworkable, for all this Bill does is to enable the industry to regulate its conditions as if both sides were fully organised. To come to the example which has been most quoted by critics, it is not piece-rates, which may be Changed from time to time, which will be the subject of regulation, but the basic conditions upon which those rates are fixed. In fact it is fully anticipated that this Bill will give an impetus to a simplification of wage-fixing in the industry which has long been recognised as necessary but which, by reason of the circumstances, both sides have been reluctant to tackle.
I trust that I have succeeded in this necessarily brief summary, in making it clear to your Lordships that the provisions of the Bill have been drawn up with the single aim of strengthening and unholding the principle of voluntary agreements, freely negotiated, and loyally observed. It is, I think, altogether auspicious that, as I have said, since the drafting of this Bill the very first, step taken upon the employers' side has been to send an invitation to the employers in unfederated districts, inviting them to send representatives in order that all parts of the industry may join together in considering the steps which should be taken to put the machinery provided by these provisions to the best practical use in the interests of the whole industry. All that we can hope to do is to provide this great industry with such machinery. It is for them, relying on the sturdy principle of self-help, to put the opportunity provided to the best and most effective use. In doing so, it is necessary to ensure that all minority and individual interests will be safeguarded and that the progress which arises from individual enterprise will not be jeopardised. It will be seen that the Bill makes such prevision and the favourable reception which it has received throughout the industry encourages me to
922
submit this Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Rochester.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I am not surprised at the Minister introducing this Bill. He frankly says that it is an experiment, and it is clear from the Bill itself that it is a Bill of agreement. The proposed terms cannot be altered by the Minister. It says expressly:
"No such Order shall modify the terms of the agreement."
Further, it is agreement which is to cover the industry as a whole and to be in the best interests of the whole of the industry. The noble Lord says that there has been criticism on the point whether minorities are being sufficiently protected. On reading and studying this Bill and from my knowledge of the cotton industry, I should have thought that they were more than amply protected. The difficulty in the cotton industry over and over again has been that there have been, either within the association itself or outside it, persons who cannot come up to what is wanted by the majority as wages in the weaving and other sections of the industry. Particularly there has been under-cutting from outside, very often by persons who have left the association, in a manner that puts those members who try to keep loyal to agreements in the most difficult position.
At the present time the cotton industry has fallen into a very bad way indeed. It has been attacked by fierce competition from the Far East, which may be only the begin-ling of still worse competition. It is an industry that requires some support horn the Government, and I am glad that the Minister is trying this experiment, guarded and hedged in as it is, in the hope that it may be of some advantage to the cotton industry. There is only one clause to which I might call attention, which it seems to me might be more clearly expressed, and that is Clause 7 (2), where it says that
"…other classes shall be determined in like manner by reference to the several occupations of the persons employed."
That is a rather difficult phrase to understand, and I confess I do not quite understand it myself. Years ago I was engaged in a very big dispute in the cotton trade, where with great difficulty

923
a general strike was averted on the single question as to whether a man was a grinder or whether, as a grinder, he was entitled to be a picker or cleaner of flax. That nearly upset the whole industry.
This difficulty was so much recognised during the War that in one of the Munitions of War Acts it was expressly laid down that the courts of arbitration should decide what industry a man belonged to and what section of it. While much else was swept away, that particular arrangement was still maintained in the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act of 1918, in a clause which stated that:
"Where a difference as to whether a workman is a workman of a class to which a prescribed rate of wages is applicable.…"
that matter shall be decided by arbitration. There is no method of deciding here, and there might possibly be considerable difficulty in deciding to which class of weaver a workman belonged. It might be left to the Minister of course to decide, but I should be very glad if the noble Lord would look into the matter.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I undertake on behalf of the Government to bring in an Amendment on the Committee stage substituting the word "grade" for "class". I think that would meet the noble Lord.
LORD ASKWITH: Very probably.
LORD ROCHESTER: I will look into it further, but I think that will probably meet the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving that the House do now resolve itself into Committee, I should like to make one general observation. Three years ago your Lordships were good enough to give a great deal of attention to this Bill and in the process of Amendment it was made in Committee a
924
thoroughly watertight measure. I fear, however, that in the text presented then there was an oversight in that the finance for running the council and committee was not provided during the first few months of its operation. This Bill, by universal consent of all those concerned in education and registration, makes that omission good. The Home Office have also pointed out to me that the drafting of Clause 3 is inadequate in so far as application to Ireland is concerned, and accordingly I shall submit two drafting Amendments in due course. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of s. 14 of principal Act.
1. Section fourteen of the principal Act (which relates to the provision of scholarships and maintenance grants) shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as if the words "from and after the first day of January nineteen hundred and thirty-five" were inserted after the words "in each calendar year."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDmoved to leave out "from and after the first day of January nineteen hundred and thirty-five" and insert, "after the year nineteen hundred and thirty-four." The noble Earl said: This is the Amendment to which I referred. It authorises that half the amount of fee shall start on and from the first of January next.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("words") to the end of line 10 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Short title and construction.
3.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Architects (Registration) Act, 1934.
(2) This Act shall be construed as one with the principal Act, and the principal Act and this Act may together be cited as the Architects (Registration) Acts, 1931 and 1934.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDmoved to add to subsection (1) the words "and the

925
principal Act and this Act may be cited together as the Architects (Registration) Acts, 1931 and 1934." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the third Amendment on the Paper are drafting Amendments, making a more correct form of the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) It is hereby declared that this Act extends to Northern Ireland, but, for the purposes of Section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, this Act shall be deemed to be an Act passed before the appointed clay." —(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to secure in proper cases adequate compensation for pedestrians, pedal cyclists, and other non-motoring persons who are killed or injured on the roads, in view of the entirely inadequate compensation which, under the existing law, they are able to receive. The Bill is substantially, almost verbally, identical with the Bill which was unanimously recommended by the Report of the Select Committee to which it was referred last year. That Committee made certain recommendations which were accepted and adopted by the House. From the Bill as drafted to-day there are certain omissions which do not touch the main principle of the Bill at all and to which I shall refer later on. I am not going to weary your Lordships to-day with a recital of the very lengthy arguments which were used in the many discussions that took place on the Bill last year, but may I deal with some of the more serious points which arise today?
The first point is this: the necessity for the Bill. The reason why this Bill is, as I think, absolutely necessary is this. It was conclusively proved during the course
926
of the debates in this House and by the evidence which came before the Select Committee that under the present law pedestrians and pedal cyclists in many cases obtain wholly inadequate compensation. May I quote the words of Lord Iveagh who was Chairman of the Select Committee? Speaking in this House on the 18th of July last year, after the Select Committee had reported, the noble Earl said:
"…. we had overwhelming evidence of great hardship, in many cases amounting to injustice in the ordinary common-sense. meaning of the word."
The noble Earl is not a person who ia generally inclined to indulge in exaggerated expressions, but that was, his view after hearing all the evidence put before us, and if any one wishes to read the statement he will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Volume 88, column 880.
May I mention two of the main reasons why under the existing law pedestrians and pedal cyclists are unable to obtain adequate compensation? One reason is this, that they very seldom can get adequate evidence. If a pedal cyclist is killed he is not there to give evidence; if he is seriously injured it is quite impossible for him to give complete or satisfactory evidence of the circumstances in which he was injured. That is one reason. The other reason is that the pedestrian or pedal cyclist is generally a poor person, and he is quite unable to fight the rich insurance company which is always behind the motorist. If that be the necessity, as I think, for this Bill, may I now suggest what the main purpose of the Bill is and how the object is sought to be attained? I do not to-day propose to go into the question of the total number of these appalling accidents, of people killed and injured on the road, but I may mention one fact which struck me as really appalling. Between 1926 and 1033 there were no fewer than 50,837 people killed on the road and very nearly 1,500,000 people injured.
What I propose to do to-day is to deal very shortly with the figures for pedestrians and pedal cyclists. This year the necessity for the Bill is not less but greater than it was last year, when your Lordships were pleased to give it your favourable consideration. I find, as regards pedestrians and pedal cyclists, that whereas in 1932 there were 4,431

927
killed on the road, in 1933 the number went up to 4,858; and whereas in 1932 125,000 odd persons were injured, in 1933 that number went up to 135,000. In the case of deaths alone something about two-thirds-67 per cent. to be quite accurate—were cases of children under ten or of men over sixty. Your Lordships will find these facts set out in the Return made by the Minister of Transport for the first half of the year 1933. It can be said with truth that many of the cases of these pedestrians and pedal cyclists killed or injured suffered through their own negligence. That is quite true, but it is undoubtedly equalled by the fact that an immense number of them suffered through no fault of their own whatsoever.
It is not suggested to-day—it has never been suggested in connection with this Bill—that it will materially reduce the number of accidents on the road. That matter is being dealt with in a Bill which has been introduced by the Government in another place. The object of this Bill is to provide compensation, and it is an undoubted fact that the greater the number of persons killed or injured, the greater the necessity, the absolute necessity, for further compensation being found. The principle on which this Bill is founded is that the injured party is not bound to prove negligence on the part of the motorist before launching his claim. That has been shortly, and not quite accurately described, I am afraid, as shifting the onus of proof. This is fundamental to the Bill, and as there have been difficulties felt about this fundamental principle by members—though not very many—of your Lordships' House and persons outside, perhaps your Lordships will allow me very shortly to quote some of the statements made in the course of discussion upon this point by persons of unquestioned authority.
My first quotation would be from the speech of the Lord Chancellor which he made when a similar Bill was brought in on the 2nd of June, 1932, and the quotation is to be found in Volume 84 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, column 552. The substance of his statement was that this was not a new principle in our law and that there were many cases in which a similar principle had been applied. This is what the noble and learned Viscount said:
"This is no new principle, but a principle which has been in our law for
928
generations, and it does not seem to be a very alarming or revolutionary change to apply it to a potentially dangerous machine like a motor vehicle. At any rate it does not seem unjust to say that where a motor car has injured a pedestrian the onus should at least he on the driver to establish some lawful defence."
Discussions in this House turned far more largely upon what should be allowed than upon the general and fundamental principle to which I have referred, and which was agreed to by most speakers in your Lordships' House.
The other utterance of the Lord Chancellor was made on the 7th March, 1933 —your Lordships will find it in Volume 86, column 1066—and emphasised what he said the previous year. He then said:
"At present a man has to go into the witness box, and he has to prove, first of all, that the accident has taken place, and then he has to prove negligence, but he is the very last man who can prove it."
The noble and learned Viscount went on to say:
"Surely, it is only fair in those circumstances that the onus should he shifted."
Your Lordships will perhaps pardon me for going a little further into this, because it is the fundamental principle of the Bill, and if anyone can prove that that fundamental principle is wrong the whole Bill drops. I asked your Lordships to say it is right, and your Lordships said so by a large majority, last Session.
May I quote a very short passage from an ex-Lord Chancellor whom we regret very much is not here to-day, I think owing to illness; I refer to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. Speaking on March 7, 1933, Volume 86, column 1057, Lord Buckmaster said the reason why this Bill was necessary was that
"by special legislation and special privilege people have become entitled to put upon the roads machines which they may drive at any pace to the public peril."
I know that it is proposed in another place to limit the speed in a certain limited number of cases. Lord Buck-master went on:
"The result has been a lamentable list of figures referred to by more than one speaker this afternoon. It is in return for that privilege that this Bill is required, and it is for that reason that the ordinary rules that affect ordinary questions of negligence have no application here."

929
Then you have the further fact that this principle was unanimously agreed to by all the members of the Select Committee to whom your Lordships referred the question. The Committee was composed of people chosen from all Parties.
Then comes What is really an important fact, and it is this. As I read the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, on the Second Reading of the Bill on the 7th March, 1933—this Will be found in Volume 86, column 1072—I find that Lord Plymouth said:
"As I have said, in a large majority of European countries the practice already exists that the onus of proof is upon the defendant motorist rather than the plaintiff."
That is the principle of this Bill. He goes on:
"I am quite prepared to go as far as that."
That is a pretty definite statement.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): I do not think, if I may be allowed to intervene, that the noble Lord has really given the interpretation of the speech which I intended. All I intended to say was that I was prepared to go as far as to admit that that was the case in many European countries. I did not mean to convey that the Government themselves would be prepared to go as far as that.
LORD DANESFORT: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Earl. It is quite true that in other parts of the discussion he said he was not prepared to agree to all the details of the Bill, but I cannot find in any speech that he made, and he made several—I am not complaining, in fact I am very glad of it—that he said he objected to the fundamental principle of the Bill. If I am wrong in that of course I can be corrected. But that was not tire only passage in the noble Earl's speech of tlhe 7th March of last year that I want to draw your Lordships' attention to. He also said:
"There are questions which we must ask ourselves on which, I think, we should come to a considered opinion before we pass any legislation which will make fundamental changes in the present law. With regard to the first point I want to say this. In my opinion the argument on the side of shifting to some extent the onus from the plaintiff to the defendant in the case of motor injuries is a very strong one. I entirely agree with what the noble and learned
930
Viscount on the Woolsack said in that respect."
I have told your Lordships what the noble and learned Viscount said, and I am extremely gratified to find that the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, agrees with him. That is not quite all, because this so-called shifting of the onus has been adopted in motor legislation in no fewer than eleven out of thirteen Continental countries, and it has also been adopted in all or nearly all the provinces of Canada. That is the position as to onus.
May I tell your Lordships as shortly as I can what the history of this Bill is because it is rather significant. In 1932 I introduced a Bill upon the same fundamental principle but rather less favourable to motorists than the present one. It came on for Second Reading on the 2nd June, 1932, and was read a second time by a large majority in your Lordships' House—twenty-two to eight. The Government did not oppose or vote against me on the Bill, but suggested that I should not, go further with it that Session so as to give the Government time to consider the question. I acted on that suggestion and did not go further. Early in 1933 I reintroduced the Bill, slightly altered, with the same governing principle. That came on for Second Reading on the 7th March, 1933. On that occasion the Lord Chancellor made the statement which I have already quoted. He suggested that the motorist should have further defences than the Bill gave and the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, for the Government, made the statement I have read. He supported the Second Reading but urged that the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, that the Bill should go to a Select Committee, should be agreed to, and to that the House agreed. That being so the Second Reading was carried by thirty-one to two, the Government not only supporting but voting for the Second Reading.
On the 22nd March of that year the Select Committee was appointed, consisting of seven persons with the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, as Chairman. We sat nine days and heard twenty witnesses from the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Health, the Home Office, the Police, pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and insurance companies; so that we got fair evidence from all quarters both from sup-

931
porters and from those not in favour of the Bill. In July the Select Committee unanimously reported and produced an amended Bill, adhering to the fundamental principles but altering—and I think for the better—some of the defences that were to be allowed to the motorist. That amended Bill came before your Lordships' House on July 18 last year and the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, speaking for the Government, said he regarded the Report as a very valuable one which contributed largely to the solution of a difficult question. He promised to bring it before the notice of the Government. It is quite true that he did not commit himself to the details of it, but he did not condemn the fundamental principles.
On July 25 the Bill as amended passed through Committee with some slight alterations and on November 9 it came up on Report. Certain Amendments were moved arid were opposed and then an unfortunate event happened. An Amendment was defeated by twenty-five votes to two and unfortunately twenty-seven members do not constitute a quorum in your Lordships' House so the matter had to be adjourned. It was very late in the year and we were unable to finish the Bill. It had passed through all its critical stages and all that remained to be dealt with on Report and Third Reading were some relatively small points.
Before I come to the provisions of the Bill itself I should like to say one word as to cost. Insurance companies have been asked to what extent this Bill if it became law would increase the cost of premiums. The insurance offices have absolutely refused to give any estimate whatever as to cost. No doubt there may be some increase of cost, but there is no evidence to show that it would be large. I think it is only necessary to refer briefly to the provisions of the Bill. The seven clauses in the Bill are the same as those approved by the House last year with only one or two verbal alterations. Clause 1 says that a claim may be made by an injured person or his representatives, but certain defences are given to the motorist. The first is that if the injury was solely due to the negligence of the person injured the claim shall be wiped out. The second is that if there was contributory negligence on the part of the person injured, that shall not wholly defeat the claim, but, follow-
932
ing certain precedents set out in the Report of the Select Committee, damages should be reduced accordingly. The third defence is that if there was a third party responsible the motorist should be entitled to indemnity.
Clause 2 is a small one dealing with the case of the death of a child. It was put in on the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, so that persons responsible for the child should be reimbursed medical and funeral expenses. Clause 3 merely provides that the motorist shall insure against his liabilities under the Bill. Clause 4 is a definition clause and Clause 5 is a saving clause in reference to the recovery of damages apart from this Act, such as, for instance, under Lord Campbell's Act. Clause 6 deals with the application of the Bill to Scotland. Clause 7 was rather an important one in the last Bill. It provides that the measure shall not come into operation for six months after its passing so as to give insurance companies and others time to make proper provision. That is really the whole of the present Bill.
Certain clauses which were in the Bill of last year have been omitted and I think I ought to tell your Lordships in a few words why they are omitted. The first was known as the Hospital Clause. It was very favourably received in this House and was viewed so favourably by the Government that they inserted the whole clause in one of their own Bills which they passed last year. That is why the Hospital Clause is omitted from this Bill. There were two clauses in the Bill of last year which dealt with agreements between solicitor and client, when a solicitor wanted to make an agreement with his client as to what he should receive out of any damages that might be awarded, and what costs he should be entitled to Charge. Since last year the Law Society have very carefully considered these clauses and as I understand it, while they were anxious on the one hand to prohibit improper agreements made between solicitor and client, they were anxious on the other hand, and I think very rightly anxious, to preserve the right of a solicitor to make a proper and reasonable agreement with his client. They examined the clause for the purpose of seeing whether it could be amended so as to prohibit improper agreements while preserving the right of a

933
solicitor to make a proper agreement. They found it impossible to devise a method by which both those results could be obtained. In those circumstances we thought it right, in deference to the views of that exceedingly important body, the Law Society, which administers discipline in the profession with great discretion and satisfaction, to drop those two clauses. That is the case for the Bill and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Danesfort.)
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the case for the Bill has been thoroughly covered by my noble friend Lord Danesfort, but as I was, I think, the first member of your Lordships' House to take up the question of the increasing number of motor accidents, I should like to say a few words. Last year the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, opposed the Bill on the ground that it would reverse the law of tort in this country. The law of tort really does not operate in this case, it seems to me. The whole conditions of life have changed. Circumstances have altered, and you have this frightful number of accidents taking place and increasing year by year, and apparently no method of preventing their occurrence. Surely something must be done for those who are hurt and injured, and for the relatives of those who are killed. Unless you say that the individual pedestrian should insure himself, I see no remedy other than that a Bill of this character should be passed, to give some retribution to the unfortunate sufferers.
My noble friend Lord Danesfort will agree that it is not likely that this Bill will prevent accidents, but its purpose is to give some relief to those who suffer. The number of people who suffer is not likely to be lessened, judging by the opinion of the motoring world. In a paper called the World's Carriers, in a leading article on February 15, it is stated:
"Deaths on the road are, emphatically, remarkably small in percentage, and so long as the roads are used as they are, not only fur transport, but every conceivable purpose, neither education nor restrictive regulations, which cannot be completely enforced, are likely to result in any material reduction."
It is not a very cheerful outlook for those who want to walk along the road or to cycle along the road, if we, are to look
934
forward to a still greater number of accidents in the future. As my noble friend said, last year there were 1,517 pedestrians killed, and those under fifteen year of age and over fifty-five years constituted 78 per cent. of the number killed in that appalling massacre. I am sure your Lordships will agree that some consolation, even if is only financial, should be given to those who are maimed and to those who have suffered the loss of their friends or relatives.
In a very notable speech recently made. by the ex-Minister of Transport, Sir John Pybus, at the meeting of the Phoenix insurance Company, he made the following remarks:
"The toll of fatality upon the highways is unfortunately still increasing, and it may not be out of place if I refer to the Report on fatal road accidents which has been issued by my successor at the Ministry of Transport. It contains a warning that the particulars given of estimated speeds of vehicles involved in accidents should be interpreted with caution, and points out that in nearly 68 per cent. of the cases analysed the pedestrian or pedal cyclist was dead or fatally injured and was, therefore, unable to give his version."
That is a strong argument in favour of my contention that some provision ought to be made for the families of those who suffer death. He goes on, in a passage which is not quite so germane to the point with which I am now dealing:
"For the first time, however, we are in possession of reliable information concerning the circumstances in which accidents occurred; 70 per cent. of the accidents analysed occurred on straight roads or bends with a good sight line. Nearly two-thirds occurred in daylight or in clear weather with normal visibility; 60 per cent. happened on roads carrying only very light traffic at the time and only 3 percent. on densely trafficked roads.…
"No free people will long tolerate a state of affairs in which every waking hour a human life is lost; its amelioration is everybody's business. The Minister of Transport can rest assured that the great insurance undertakings of this country will continue to help him in his humane but supremely difficult task."
I would draw special attention to what I am going to read now:
"Occasionally the tragedy on the road is intensified by the subsequent failure of the dependants to secure compensation under a third-party risk policy, and, as a result of one or two cases reported in the Press or in Parliament, the general public are prone to impute to the insurance companies a desire to evade liability on obscure legal points. In the case of our

935
own company and almost the entire majority of other insurance associations, a humane and generous attitude is invariably adopted, irrespective of the strict letter of the law."
That is a very satisfactory statement to be made by the chairman of one of the most important insurance companies. I might say in this connection that the Irish Free State last year passed an Act in connection with road traffic which makes provision against those cases where insurance companies—presumably weak ones—have done their best to avoid paying compensation. In Ireland the money is paid to the insurer only when he has compensated the person injured. That is not a provision which I hope to see introduced into my noble friend's Bill, but it is one which the Government might secure in that other Road Traffic Bill with which they are now dealing in another place. I have now mentioned the two or three points which I wanted to make. I am very glad indeed that my noble friend has perservered with this Bill and I trust that it will be passed unanimously by your Lordships' House.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I desire on behalf of the motoring element in the community to offer the most vigorous protest that I possibly can against the Bill which has been introduced into your Lordships' House this afternoon. I wish to protest not so much against the details as against the whole principle of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Danes-fort, in introducing the Bill said that it was one for non-motoring persons. In fact it is a Bill to single out one class of road user from all others and to place upon him the whole responsibility for the accident, if an accident happens, even though he was in no way to blame. I see that there is a clause in the Bill which perhaps waters it down a little; it is the proviso in subsection (1) of Clause 1 wherein it says that the amount of negligence on the part of the injured person may be taken into account in assessing the damages. None the less the motor driver—one section of road users—is held to be entirely responsible for an accident caused very likely by no fault of his own.
I will give your Lordships an instance of a case which occurred, I understand, to a member of your Lordships' House only so recently as yesterday. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, when
936
going down to the Derby had an unfortunate experience in his motor car. I read in the newspapers that owing to another car swerving to avoid a cyclist his Lordship's car went into the ditch. His Lordship was fortunately not hurt, and I am sure we all congratulate him and are very glad to hear that he did not suffer any injury. Nothing very much is said about the cyclist, but supposing that by any chance the cyclist had been knocked over, it might have been due entirely to the fault of the cyclist, but notwithstanding that, he would have been able to claim either against the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, or against the driver of the other car, although it was in no sense their fault.
LORD DANESFORT: There is an express provision in the Bill which says that if the accident is due entirely to the fault of the cyclist he cannot recover anything; the motorist is free.
EARL HOWE: As long as the Bill singles out one section of the community, as I understand it does when I read the first page of the Bill and as I gathered when I listened to the discussions on the same measure in former Sessions—as long as it contains a clause to the effect that
"damages shall be recoverable from the motor vehicle in respect thereof without proof of negligence or intention or other cause of action as though the injury had been caused by his wilful act, neglect or default…."
I shall contend that it is an intolerable injustice to one section of road users.
LORD DANESFORT: Will the noble Earl read the rest of that clause?
EARL HOWE: There then occur the words to which I have already drawn your Lordships' attention. With regard to the speeches which have been made in support of the Bill, I listened to Lord Danesfort and to Lord Lamington. Both of them referred to the deplorable casualty roll, and to the deplorable number of accidents which take place on the roads to-day, which every section of our people, whether in a motor car or on foot, or in whatever capacity they use the roads, equally deplore. We all want to find a way out of the trouble, and I say without hesitation that we shall never find a way out of our troubles on the highways unless we lay down in legisla-

937
tion that there must be equal responsibility all round. One must be able to bring home to every road user the consequences of his action. Lord Danesfort and Lord Lamington both cited casualties, but they have not told your Lordships in how many of those cases the injured parties failed to secure compensation under the existing law. The noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, desires in this Bill to amend the existing law and to put the blame on the driver of the motor car, or, to put it in another way, to transfer the onus of proof of negligence.
The fact remains that you are trying to place one section of road users in a privileged position as compared with others, and what I hope and pray for is that the Government will finally lay it down that everybody who uses the road is responsible, individually and severally, for his acts. To-day you will see pedestrians take the most absurd risks. You will see them neglect to use the refuges and crossing places and entirely ignore the traffic signals. Compare what happens in Germany and other countries. I happened to be in Berlin the other day and I saw pedestrians being stopped in large numbers for ignoring the traffic lights. In this country pedestrians ignore both Police and traffic signals. They sail out into the middle of the traffic, and if a pedestrian gets knocked over the only thing which happens is that he may be held guilty of contributory negligence and fail in his action for compensation; but there is no responsibility upon him, although other people may lose their lives or be endangered. I beg to offer the most energetic and vigorous protest that I can against this Bill. I think it will have a bad effect on the mentality of certain sections of road users who already fail altogether to realise their responsibility. I think it will destroy the sort of co-operation that we really must get if we are to do something in the public interest to save life on the highways.
As to what effect the Bill will have upon insurance premiums, neither of the noble Lords who have spoken in support, of the Bill has been able to give us any sort of idea. The humble, or perhaps I might say noisy, motor-cycle, as well as the motor on four wheels may be in question. These may be called the vehicles of the people, because the motor is no
938
longer a sign of wealth, as perhaps it used to be considered. It is owned by large numbers of wage earners, and if the passage of this Bill has the effect of increasing insurance premiums—and there is no guarantee against that—then I think it would open up a very serious question indeed. There will be vigorous protests from owners, and the Bill will deal a serious blow at a great industry which has done a great, deal in difficult years to maintain the modicum of prosperity which has been attained in this country. I therefore move as an Amendment that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months"). —(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF IVEAGH: My Lords, I hope you will not adopt the Amendment, because I think it will be a very sad thing if your Lordships come to the conclusion that this Bill should not go forward with your endorsement. The members of the Select Committee spent very many hours on this question, and I am afraid I cannot remember all the evidence although I can carry it in my hands. A great deal of it was conflicting, but I am convinced in my own mind that there is a great deal of injustice being done to the inhabitants of this country under the existing law, because it is almost inevitable that the individual who is hurt—obviously if he is killed he cannot give any evidence—is in a less good postion to remember what happened than the driver of the motor car, who, we will presume, is not hurt. I was convinced that there was a very considerable grievance in the community, because, as the law at present stands, the individual hurt has to take action in Court, supported no doubt by solicitors and all the paraphernalia of the law, and if he is a pedestrian he has to prove negligence on the part of the driver. If he is a motorist no doubt he will be insured himself.
The arguments which have just been placed before your Lordships would lead us to this conclusion, if carried into effect, that everybody who goes on the road, whether man, woman, child or dog, ought to insure, so as to be able to be responsible for whatever accident he, she

939
or it may cause. I do not think it is within the province of your Lordships' House to put such a burden on the whole community. I dare say the Government might find some way out of the difficulty, but that is not within our province, nor do I think the Government are likely to take this burden upon themselves. I do not think the suggestion made is one which we as a Select Committee could have considered. That not being possible we still had to face the fact that there was a large number of individuals who had been hurt through no fault of their own and who could not prove negligence on the part of the driver of the car which hurt them, not necessarily because the motor car had not been negligent. We had to consider how on earth we could get some proper compensation for those individuals.
It seemed to me, and I think also to my colleagues, that the only possible way was to assume that the motor car had been negligent, and then let the Court protect the motor car owner from that assumption. The individual who was hurt would therefore have always a possible action against the motorist. This sounds as though we would increase the volume of burden on the insurance company very considerably, but we were assured that there was a very large portion of the population always looking out for motor accidents, who went to the individual who had been hurt and said: "Leave it in my hands, and I will get you what I can out of the company that has insured the car which caused this accident." We were assured that a great many actions were brought in this way. It seemed to me that. it was a very undesirable state of affairs that a person should arrive at the bedside of someone who was ill in consequence of an accident and persuade him to take an action, though possibly he could not produce any real evidence of what had happened, in order to try to compel the insurance company to give some compensation.
For my part I was very much impressed by certain arguments placed before me by someone, I think called the Controller of the Metropolitan Police, who looked after all the people who were in trouble from accidents. He also had under his supervision a very
940
large fleet of cars in the Police service. He pointed out to me—and I drive a motor car myself pretty considerably—that if an accident occurs it is extraordinarily difficult to know what has happened. The thing is over in a flash. You did not think it was going to happen. He gave us an example of most conflicting evidence, which he was sure had been given in perfect good faith, and he argued therefore that it really was almost impossible to get reliable evidence of what actually happened and who was to blame.
That influenced me a great deal in my belief that the only way was to assume that one party, obviously the one that can be insured, was at fault. I quite agree that logically you ought all to be insured and then this trouble would not occur, but it is almost impossible to imagine such a state of affairs; therefore you must assume that a certain individual has been at fault—the one that can be insured. The community decided some years ago that everybody who owned a motor car should insure against third-party risk, and it seems to me very extraordinary that in doing so it never took any precaution to see how compulsory insurance, which it put on the motorist, was really working, what it really did, and whether it did what was wanted, which was that anybody who was hurt by a motor car would really get his proper compensation if he had received injury through no fault of his own.
That is what I should have thought, but I have found since I have been Chairman of this Committee that it is by no means that. Anybody can get compensation who can prove that the driver was negligent. But because somebody else causes the car to swerve that rules out the car and the insurance of the car. He cannot recover from the cyclist on the other side of the road which caused the car to swerve into the ditch because the cyclist is not insured. I presume that the noble Earl, like all of us, is insured for himself and his car, so that is all right. But the individuals who are hurt through no fault of their own and who have great difficulty in knowing whether they are entitled to bring an action are, it seems to me, distinctly to be pitied, and it also seemed to members of the Committee that some time ago the community must have intended that these people should receive compensation. We could devise nothing

941
better than the provisions which we reported last autumn, and the main provisions of which stand in the Bill which has now been introduced. It seems to me that we have no alternative but to ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading, and, I hope, a Third Reading too. Let us hope that some day it may be passed and that the Government will not be adamant about time.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): May I ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Danes-fort? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that the Bill would, make the motorist, even when entirely innocent, responsible for compensation to an injured person. May I draw attention to the two lines of Clause 1 (1) where it says that damages shall be recoverable for an accident without proof of negligence "except where the injury was solely due to the negligence of the injured person." Therefore if the injured person was the guilty party then he does not get compensation. If he is contributory to the negligence, if there is dual negligence, then the pedestrian will only get half of the compensation. Am I correct in understanding the Bill in that form?
LORD DANESFORT: Perfectly correct. The two lines of Clause 1 to which the noble Earl referred distinctly provide that where the accident was solely due to the injured party, the motorist does not pay a farthing.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to state what the position of the Government is in relation to this Bill. The main feature of this Bill is that where fatal injury to a person is caused or arises out of a motor accident, or rather the use of a motor vehicle on a road, damages shall be recoverable from the owner of that vehicle "except where the injury was solely due to the negligence of the injured person." I am afraid, in view of the speeches which have been made, it is necessary for me to refer quite shortly to the history of this Bill. It was introduced originally in April, 1932, and an amended form of that Bill eventually received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House in June of that year by 22 votes to 8. On that occasion the Government abstained from voting, and the Bill made no further progress that Session.
942
Then a slightly revised Bill was introduced, again by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, in February of last year, and that received a Second Reading by 31 votes to 2. On that occasion it is true that the Government supported the Second Reading, but they did so with a specific object in view, and that was that it should be referred to a Select Committee for examination. I confess quite freely that I did, on the Second Reading of the Bill, express sympathy with some of its objects and some of its provisions, but I made it perfectly clear that the Government were not committed to the Bill in principle or in detail. Indeed, I was not in a position to commit the Government definitely, either to principle or to detail, because the Government had not at that time come to any definite decision. That Bill was referred to the Select Committee of which Lord Iveagh acted as Chairman. The Committee examined the Bill very carefully, and I should like once again to acknowledge the very thorough and conscientious way in which they carried out their work. They reported to the House and said that the Committee were in favour of a change in the law in the direction of the provisions of the Bill which had been submitted to them, but they modified the arrangement of the Bill and made certain Amendments to it.
These Amendments included, firstly, one to enable the medical and funeral expenses of a child killed in a road accident to be recoverable; secondly, one to amend Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and enable hospitals to recover £50 in respect of patients to whom treatment has been given; and, thirdly, one to prevent certain abuses such as ambulance chasing on behalf of speculative solicitors. Later on further debates were held on the various stages of this Bill, during which additional Amendments were made, but eventually, as my noble friend Lord Danesfort has told your Lordships, he withdrew the Bill while saying that he intended to reintroduce it in another Session.
I should like to refer for a moment to the main principle of the Bill. It has been argued that the principle that the driver of a motor vehicle is prima facie responsible for any accident in which he may be involved has been adopted in most European countries. I admit that that as a general statement may be looked upon

943
as true, but the position really varies very greatly between one country and another and no exact comparison is therefore possible. I do not want to weary your Lordships with a repetition of information which has been given to the House on a number of occasions before, but I would like to say this, that if the position in other countries in this respect were carefully examined it would be found that in nearly every instance there exist additional provisions and circumstances which must lead one to modify very greatly the somewhat sweeping generalisation which has been made on this subject.
I am not going to argue, and I have never argued during the course of these discussions, that the present position is entirely satisfactory. It is perfectly evident that it is not, but there are one or two considerations in connection with the Bill before your Lordships to which I feel bound to draw your Lordships' attention. To begin with we have had reference once again this afternoon to the question of accidents upon the road. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, it is quite clear that this Bill is not going to have the slightest effect in reducing the number of accidents upon the road. In fact, I think that if there is a tendency of any kind it would probably be in the opposite direction, for, by making it immaterial whether the motorist is negligent or not, the Bill might very well produce an undesirable state of mind in certain motorists. The very fact that a motorist is cast in damages as the result of an accident will no longer imply that he has been found to be negligent, and the force of the existing deterrent to reckless behaviour may in the result be considerably weakened.
Then again, it would certainly lead to some increase in insurance premiums. It is quite true we have not been told —no one has offered any definite suggestion—as to what that increase might be, but I think it is generally accepted, and was accepted by the Select Committee, that some increase would undoubtedly take place if the provisions of this Bill were put into operation. Another difficulty, a very important difficulty, in connection with the Bill, is that it involves a serious departure from the Common Law principle that in order to obtain damages an injured person must prove negligence on the part of the defendant.
944
I am well aware, as I have already said, that I have during the course of these discussions admitted that very strong arguments can be adduced in favour of shifting the onus of proof to the defendant in such cases. There are undoubtedly precedents in this country in other connections and there are precedents in other countries in this particular connection, though admittedly the circumstances in other countries differ considerably from the circumstances here at home.
But I must say that a departure of this kind from the generally accepted principles of our law cannot lightly be undertaken, and I must therefore point out to your Lordships certain other features in connection with this Bill that are very pertinent to our discussions. In the first place the Bill does not merely put upon the motorist the onus of proving that he was not to blame; it goes a very great deal further than that. If no one at all is to blame the motorist is, notwithstanding, to be held liable in damages to the third party, and where there is contributory negligence that no longer affords a ground of defence, although I agree it can be urged as a factor to be taken into account in the assessment of the damages to be paid. We must also remember that in its endeavour to make the position of the injured party as easy as possible this Bill has been forced to the expedient of throwing the responsibility, not on the driver of the vehicle, but on the owner of the vehicle. In some cases this might be a reasonable thing to do, but in others the owner might be in no sense legally responsible for the acts of the driver of the vehicle, and unless the driver had been negligent the owner would have no claim to indemnify himself against any claim in respect of injury. All these points are very relevant to our present discussions.
The Government have given the most careful consideration to the Bill and to its predecessor and to the Report of the Select Committee, but they have come to the definite conclusion that they cannot support this Bill or afford any facility for its further progress. Indeed it is, I think, perfectly obvious that at this stage of the Session it would not be possible in any circumstances to find time for its passage through another place. This Bill makes a proposal which,

945
while aimed at removing one kind of hardship, creates another, and it will impose upon careful motorists, in circumstances in which they are quite innocent of blame or responsibility, the liability to pay damages merely because they have had the misfortune to be involved in an accident. I need hardly say that it is for Parliament to balance the hardships or the grievances on the one side against the hardships and the question of principle on the other, but I must repeat that, for their part, the Government cannot give any support to this particular measure.
There are just a few words more I want to say. The Government have not been unsympathetic to those injured or affected by road accidents. The Hospital Clause, which has been referred to during the course of this debate and which was previously included in the Bill now before your Lordships, was incorporated in the Government's Road and Rail Traffic Act last year, and is now actually in operation. Then the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which was framed as the result of the Committee appointed by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has passed through the House of Lords and will no doubt receive the Royal Assent before the end of the summer. One of the provisions of this Bill will remove what was a very real grievance arising out of the maxim Actio personalis moritur cum persona. Again, there are certain proposals for strengthening Part II of the Act of 1930, in the direction of giving further protection to injured third parties, which are now before Parliament in the Road Traffic Bill of the present Session. In those circumstances I maintain that it cannot fairly be said that the Government have turned a deaf ear to the cause of those injured or affected by road accidents.
I should like to mention one point in conclusion which seems to have escaped the notice of the noble Lord who introduced this Bill, and it is this. As he has told the House, the Bill in its previous form gave effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee for dealing with certain abuses arising out of the activities of speculative solicitors. For reasons which the noble Lord has given this afternoon he has dropped this clause, but he has not gone far enough in his
946
deletion. Clause 6 (b), if he looks at it, still contains the Scottish adaptations required by the clause which he has dropped.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I have listened with some surprise to the speech of the noble Earl representing the Government. All of us who take an interest in this question, had thought, after the consideration which this Bill has received in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion, and after it has been before a Select Committee which was unanimous in its recommendations, that we should not have had from the Government a non possumus attitude. The noble Earl has made some comments in regard to Amendments of the Bill, but if it is desired no doubt further Amendments could be made to meet any objections that there may be. The noble Earl's main objection to the Bill, as I understand, is this, that it does alter in a way the onus of proof, shifting it from the pedestrian to the motorist. That, he says, is a change of the law. But, after all, the law is made to be changed when it is found that the law leads to inequality and injustice. We have listened to the appalling figures of injuries and deaths, and most of them are undoubtedly due to the fault not of the pedestrian but of the motorist, and I think it is time to consider whether under those circumstances the law ought not to be altered when it is shown that at present it is grossly unjust.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred, I think, to the increase in the insurance premium to be paid by the motorist which would be involved. What does that mean? Surely, the argument that an additional premium would have to be paid is an argument for the Bill. What it means is that the burden of paying compensation for these injuries is to be removed from the shoulders of the pedestrian and placed on those of the motorist where in any case it is shown that the pedestrian is injured by the action of the motorist. To my mind that is an argument in favour of the Bill and not against it. The mere fact that it may raise the premium and to a certain extent injure the motor trade is surely an argument which ought not to weigh with your Lordships in a matter of this kind. I hope that my noble friend, in spite of the Government's attitude, will go to a Divi-

947
sion. It is true that the Bill on this occasion has not much chance of succeeding because we are near the end of the Session, but my noble friend is persistent, and he has carried his Bill through successfully on previous occasions, and he may do so again. I hope the Government in further considering the matter, as the noble Earl said that they would further consider it, will come to the conclusion to which the Select Committee came. When that Committee was first formed some of its members did not think a Bill on this subject would be successful, but in the end they were unanimous in their view, and I regret very much that the Government cannot see their way to go further than has been stated by the noble Earl.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I confess I have been very greatly surprised by the action which the Government have taken on the Second Reading, and before I go further I should like to ask the noble Earl who speaks for the Government whether he will leave this to a free vote of the House. If he feels a difficulty himself in supporting this Bill, will he leave it to noble Lords who have already voted for it several times to enable them to be consistent and vote for it again, or would he urge his followers in this House to vote against it? If the noble Earl would kindly answer that it would probably shorten the discussion.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Indicated dissent.
LORD DANESFORT: I am still more surprised. What does the noble Earl want to do?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I do not know what the noble Lord is referring to. He talks about supporting this Bill. As I have pointed out before, the Government on the Second Reading voted in favour of it with the specific object in view of sending it to a Select Committee.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I realise that the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, is entitled, if he thinks fit, to alter the views which he expressed on previous occasions, but the question I wanted to ask was: Will he leave it to a free vote of the House? The position is this. The House has already by large majorities, not once but several times.
948
approved of this Bill, and voted for it, and in that majority, not once but several times, the Government themselves supported the Bill and voted for it. The only passage in which I can find there was a sort of guarded word by the noble Earl is one spoken on July 18, 1933. When the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, said that the noble Earl had given his blessing to the Bill as a whole and that as far as the Government were concerned they were in favour of the proposals now contained in the measure, the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, intervened and said:
"I did not commit myself to every detail."
I have already pointed out that they have voted for it not once but several times. They voted for it in March, 1933, when they sent it to a Select Committee. Then when it came back with the recommendations of the Select Committee, which the House adopted, the Government supported those recommendations and voted for them, and amongst those recommendations was the proposal which we call shifting the onus. Now, for the first time in all these two years, or rather more, the Government say they cannot support the Bill.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I do not think that is a fair statement of the position.
LORD DANESFORT: I hope I am not unfair.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: We did not support the recommendations of the Select Committee but at that time I made it perfectly clear in the debate that in my opinion it would be better that the Bill should go forward substantially in the form that the Select Committee recommended, so that the Government could at the same time examine the report of the Select Committee and the Bill as it left that Committee.
LORD DANESFORT: The last thing in the world I should desire would be to misrepresent the noble Earl. I merely stated the fact that the Bill came from the Select Committee with Amendments and that the Government supported them. In view of that it is very strange that they now say that they cannot support the Bill. Everyone is entitled to vote as he thinks best, but I trust that the rest of the members of the Government

949
will feel themselves in a position to act consistently and to vote as they have voted formerly. In any case I hope that the noble Earl will allow his followers, those who act under his suggestion, to vote as they voted last year time after time. I would ask them not to stultify themselves now by saying that their previous votes were wrong and that they must Vote exactly to the contrary. I hope the noble Earl will not use any influence he has to get his followers to take that course.
The only other comment I would make is on the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. If I may say so, he always makes an admirable speech, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that his speech to-day was in substance practically the same speech that he made last year, and that the House then voted against his recommendation. I gathered from his speech that he would like to see every one insured—not only the motorist, but the poor pedestrian and the pedal cyclist who goes to work every day on his bicycle because it is cheap and he has no other means of transport. All these people should be insured and be prepared to pay if they cause damage.
EARL HOWE: I hope the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting him. I know that he does not want to misrepresent me, but I never said anything of the sort.
LORD DANESFORT: That was the impression I gathered from the noble
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Earl's speech. If he says he did not mean that, I accept his statement. I understood that his recommendation was that every person should be responsible for every injury which he caused, and if that is so I should have thought it necessary for them all to insure. However, if the noble Earl says that is not his intention I accept his statement. There is one other point in his speech to which I wish to refer. He said that I did not give any estimate of what would be the increase in insurance premiums. It is not for me to do that. The insurance companies have been asked from time to time, but they could not give any estimate and there the matter stands.
I ask your Lordships most earnestly not to go back upon the decision reached last year after long and careful discussion. Why should you? Your Lordships' House decided by considerable majorities up to the very last moment, just before the Bill was stopped at the close of the Session, that the Bill was a right one. Surely your Lordships will not now stultify yourselves by saying, although no new facts have been discovered and no new arguments brought forward, that you were then wrong. I ask your Lordships to adhere to your former opinion and to give the same decision as last time.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Exmouth, V.

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Bathurst, E

Clwyd, L.

Newton, L.

Buxton, E.

Danesfort, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Iveagh, E.

Daryngton, L.

Rennell, L.

Onslow, E.

Dunleath, L.

Rhayader, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Levan, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

De La Warr, E.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Howe, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham, V.

Marley, L.

Lucan, E.

Rochester, L.

Plymouth, E.

Cranworth, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Stanhope, E.

Denman, L.

Templemore, L.

On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, the primary object of this Bill is to increase the penalties for illegal fishing. The sea fisheries committees have for some time contended that the maximum penalty under the present law is quite inadequate as a deterrent in the case of illegal trawling, which is the most serious offence that commonly arises. The committees have also requested that the penalty for obstructing fishery officers in the performance of their duty shall be increased. I will state the increased penalties proposed by the Bill. In Clause 3, subsection (1), the penalty is increased from £5 to £50 in respect of offences for refusing to allow a fishery officer to exercise his powers. Section 3 of the Act of 1888 enables a local fisheries committee to impose as penalties for the breach of any by-law fines not exceeding £20 and in the case of a continuing offence an additional sum of i:10 for every day during which the offence continues to be committed. This Bill substitutes for these penalties the penalty of a fine not exceeding £50 for the first offence and not exceeding £100 in the case of a second or subsequent offence. Subsection (4) of Clause 3, as your Lordships will see, amends the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, which relates to offences by foreign sea fishing boats entering within the jurisdiction of this country, by increasing the penalties in the same mariner as I have already mentioned in regard to home fishing boats. Confiscation of catch and gear is no longer provided for in the present Bill as it is preferable and sufficient to rely on the increased amount of the fine that may be imposed. In spite of these increases the penalties are still very much lower than those which are in force in other countries, including Scotland, the Irish Free State, and such foreign countries as Norway, Denmark and Iceland.
At the same time advantage is being taken of the presentation of this Bill to deal with two difficulties of an administrative nature which arise under the existing
952
law. The first is that in practice great difficulty has been experienced in finding suitable persons with the necessary qualifications who are able and willing to attend the meetings of the sea fisheries committees. Clause 1 of the Bill, therefore, gives the Minister a wider discretion as to both the number and the qualifications of the additional members whom he appoints to the committees. The second point is dealt with under Clause 4 of the Bill, by which the Minister is given the same power to revoke a by-law relating to sea fisheries as he has in the case of salmon and freshwater fisheries under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with a point which was overlooked when the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act was passed, and it removes the doubt as to whether migratory trout is to be treated as sea or freshwater fish by putting it into the latter category. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.— (Earl De La Warr.)
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the Bill at all, but I was staggered at the comparative indifference with which the noble Earl who introduced it referred to the increased penalties. He said that the main purpose of the Bill is to raise the penalties which are inflicted for breaches of the present law. He did not tell us that these breaches were very frequent, or that difficulty had been caused because they found that offences were continually repeated by the same person because the penalty was too small. I venture to suggest to the noble Earl that to bring in a Bill to increase penalties from £50 to £50—a tenfold increase—without any proof of necessity, without any proof that offences are frequently committed nor any evidence that increased penalties are going to diminish the number of offences, does seem to be a somewhat strange proceeding. The noble Earl quoted other countries to us. I hope that we in this country are more law-abiding than they are in other countries. I do not think that it is the existence of high penalties which prevents British subjects from breaking the law. I think that you will probably find that when penalties are too high, that fact has not the effect of diminishing the commission of offences but only leads to

953
greater ingenuity in avoiding conviction. I have made this small protest because I think that a Bill of this kind, mainly for imposing fresh penalties on British subjects, requires rather more justification than the noble Earl gave us in his rather light-hearted speech.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends have asked me to say a few words on this Bill, and particularly to give our point of view on one important aspect of it; but first of all I would like to protest on grounds quite different from those of the noble Lord who has just addressed the House. My protest is as to the way in which this Bill is drawn. It is a very bad example of legislation by reference, and when it is remembered that this Bill has to go to all kinds of people on these local committees, it is very unfortunate that it cannot be understood—for I defy any noble Lord to understand this Bill—without reading through at least three old Statutes, of 1883, 1888, and 1891. I have a suggestion to make to the noble Earl, whose great interest in fisheries and legislation concerned with fisheries is, I am sure, known to everyone. My suggestion is that when this Bill finally passes, if it does pass, through Parliament and receives the Royal Assent, you should issue with it to the public, at an extra charge of a halfpenny over the penny which the Stationery Office charge, an explanatory memorandum giving a reasoned account of the old Acts of Parliament which are amended. It may be said that all the existing sea fisheries committees have the old Acts with them, but then all kinds of other people are concerned—fishermen, fishing vessel owners, and so on—and I throw out the suggestion to the noble Earl, and to the Government in the case of all similar Bills, that information and guidance and assistance should be given to the people affected by this legislation.
The second point, which I will make very briefly in view of the lateness of the hour, is a point on which my noble friends place considerable importance. It is that extra persons are to be appointed as additional members of these local fisheries committees, who are to have knowledge of the industry or of the needs of the industry. The actual words are these:
"such number of additional members, being persons acquainted with the needs and
954
opinions of the fishing interests of the district, and including one representative, at least, of any fishery board having jurisdiction within the district."
Although I know there are certain difficulties in many parts of the country in carrying out what I am now going to propose, I think it should be laid down a little more clearly, nevertheless, that wherever possible fishermen themselves should be represented on these committees. You might have committees composed of local county council representatives, none of whom might be fishermen, and of the local trawl owners, or net owners, or private people with no general knowledge, and no representative of the fishermen in the area coming within the jurisdiction of the committees. The difficulty, of course, is in finding suitable or retired fishermen, or representatives of the fishermen, who could give their time and afford to sit on these committees.
That brings up another point. Under the existing regulations and laws I think I am right in saying that the local fisheries committees can only pay travelling expenses. I am not now referring to the county council or the local authority representatives. The additional members can only be paid their bare travelling expenses in certain cases. Now the whole trend of modern legislation, in controlling the other industry under the noble Earl's Department, and in order to get the best and most suitable people who cannot afford to serve, is to pay not only travelling expenses but compensation for broken time. You cannot be sure otherwise of getting representatives, in this case of fishermen, as has been recognised in the case of agriculture. In the case of agriculture you cannot get the small farmers or the milk producers. In this particular case of fishing I think the Ministry of Fisheries itself might perhaps try to do something to help the representatives of the fishermen where such help is needed. I should be very much obliged if the noble Earl would look into that question and see whether anything can be done. If there is no great objection, and the Government see their way to accept it, we would like to move an Amendment, not to implement what I have just said about expenses and compensation for broken time, but to insert some form of words that wherever possible representatives of the fishermen themselves shall be appointed.

955
There is one other point that I have to make, and that is that this Bill is at present incurring serious opposition from the deep sea fishing section of the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, was surprised at the light way in which the increase of the fines was apparently dealt with by the noble Earl, and the noble Earl did not want to keep your Lordships waiting, but I am sure he is aware how this is looked upon by the trawler owners. I have a letter here from which I am only going to read two brief extracts. I will leave out the other part, which is highly complimentary to myself. It comes from the Hull Fishing Vessels Owners' Association, Ltd. Hull is the second fishing port in the world, and in some years has been the first fishing port, having in the value of its catch exceeded its great rival Grimsby. The Hull fishing vessels are those which specialise in long-distance voyages. We have gone in for very fine sea-going vessels, and they have suffered from this tendency to come down most heavily upon fishing vessels who contravene the by-laws.
These are the extracts which I feel it my duty to read to your Lordships:
"I am to state that the producing side of the fishing industry has decided at the various ports that the Bill should be opposed on principle, and the British Trawlers' Federation has been asked and will take such steps as may be possible, when the Bill comes before Parliament."
The second extract is as follows:
"The industry objects to any increase in the penalties, which are considered to be sufficiently ample to meet the situation. The number of cases of alleged illegal fishing in the last five years is insignificant, and certainly does not justify the proposed increase. The Bill is regarded as an attempt to follow the lead of the Scottish Fishery Bill, and there is no justifiable reason why it should be followed to create an ever-widening circle, ultimately spreading to the Scandinavian countries, whose penalties are already excessive and out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence."
That is a very strong letter, and I have felt it right to read it.
At the same time I want to say that I believe there is some misapprehension in the minds of the leaders of the fishing industry as to the real extent of the penalties. My reading of the Bill—and here we come to the disadvantages of legislation by reference—is that in the case of British fishing vessels, under the old
956
Act they were fined £10 and £20, and £5 and £10, and their gear, nets, trawls, and so on were liable to be confiscated. Now, the part dealing with confiscation of gear and catch, which may come to many hundreds of pounds on the modern fishing vessel of the latest type, is repealed. Therefore, if my reading is correct, the increase of penalties is not so heavy as might at first appear. Equally, in the case of foreign fishing vessels, under a section of the Act of 1891, which is not repealed, a foreign vessel still can have its trawl and catch and gear generally confiscated. So the foreign fishing vessels stands to be fined more heavily than our own. Lord Rhayader is a great internationalist. Nevertheless, I presume he would like to see foreign vessels which poach more heavily fined than British vessels which, generally by accident, contravene some by-law.
This Bill wants explaining to the industry and I ask the noble Earl to give us this assurance, that when these Bills are brought in every possible step shall be taken to ascertain the views of those intimately connected with the industry. I think that should be done in all such cases. I know that the officials do their best in all these matters, and I know that the noble Earl would not close his doors to any representation made to him from the industry, but in this case there certainly does seem to be a misunderstanding which ought to be cleared up. I would therefore ask for an assurance that this very hard-pressed and important industry will really be satisfied that it is not being treated unjustly, before the Bill is proceeded with further.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he has raised, because they are very important points and require to be dealt with. I am sorry if I was not quite clear to the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, as to the reason why this increase of penalty was required. But I certainly meant to mention—I am not sure that I did not—that we are bringing in this Bill at the express request of the sea fisheries committees, which are the bodies specifically responsible for administering the existing law controlling fishing in territorial waters. Further, I would emphasise the point again—although he said he does not think it important—that actually it will still leave

957
our penalties in this country lower, I believe, than in any other fishing country. That includes not merely foreign countries, but also Scotland and the Irish Free State.
LORD RHAYADER: Do I understand that they ask for an increase because the offences are numerous and they think that the penalties are insufficient? Do they give any evidence of the existence of the necessity for the increase, or is it merely a request which comes from them without reason given?
EARL DE LA WARR: I should not like to say that there has been a large increase, but there has certainly been no diminution. It was considered necessary therefore. But I can confirm the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that Clause 3 (3) does repeal the liability to have the gear confiscated, and therefore to that extent the increase is very much less than it might seem to be under the Bill. With regard to the drafting of the Bill, I do not think that Lord Strabolgi will expect me to give him any assurance at the moment. I will look into that matter, but the language is not really so difficult to read as he thinks, because, after all, it is very largely a matter of the alteration of figures from 5 to 50 and so on, and is comparatively easy to understand. With regard to the constitution of committees, of course the real difficulty is the difficulty we have of getting anybody at all to serve on these committees, and that is why under this Bill we are taking power to give the Minister greater freedom of choice. We do at the moment pay travelling expenses, but nothing more. Whether we could get a representation from the fishermen themselves I do not know. I am inclined to think it would be difficult to get them to attend. But I note the point that the noble Lord has put about the payment of the expenses. I will go into that.
LORD STRABOLGI: And broken time?
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not know whether I can hold out very much hope at present. It is something we are prepared to consider.
LORD ST. LEVAN: On the fisheries committee on which I sit there are representatives of the fishermen—there are
958
actually fishermen representatives on the committee.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very much obliged. That is not required by Statute. It is only the good sense of the local people.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

THE TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR SYSTEM.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have had a report from the B.B.C. as to the experience of the working of the twenty-four-hour system; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to say anything at this juncture except that it is surprising that the Government referred this matter to the B.B.C. They have already got a Department, the Post Office, working it in a minor degree, and they have some experience there. The introduction of this system only concerns the Post Office, and it is surprising they could not have taken their advice from the Post Office, or from the Navy and the Air Force, who also operate the twenty-four-hour system.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise only for the purpose of making an earnest appeal to the Government Department concerned—though I have considerable doubt which Department it is—not to expose this country to the derision of the civilised world by paying attention to the arguments brought forward by those who are protesting against the experiment now being conducted by the B.B.C. I observe that the B.B.C. have expressed the opinion that these objections are founded on a mistaken impression. That, of course, is a polite way of saying that the people who write these letters are incapable of understanding a simple fact or a simple question. Personally it strikes me that these objections which have appeared in the Press with regard to this experiment are a most painful exhibition of ignorance and prejudice. You find people actually proclaiming to the world

959
that they cannot count beyond twelve. If I were unable to count beyond twelve, I should prefer to keep the fact to myself.
I wonder what foreign nations will think of education in this country, more especially as the kind of people who write are people upon whom thousands have been expended in a vain endeavour to educate them properly. If they do not write and complain that they cannot count they produce other reasons. They complain in brokenhearted accents: "Am I supposed to sacrifice my grandfather clock? Because it is not going to be any further use to me. And, if I do so, I shall have to invest in a twenty-four-hour dial watch or clock in order to ascertain the time." I expect I have seen as much of foreign countries as those who write those letters, who I suppose must be largely old men, or perhaps old women, who are suffering from imaginary grievances, but I am bound to say that in the course of my experience I have never come across a twenty-four-hour dial clock or watch. I suppose they do exist, because I have heard them spoken of, but everybody manages to get along without them.
This clotted mass of ignorance, as I cannot but call it, is reinforced from another quarter. My noble friend Lord Cranworth, for whose intelligence I have considerable respect, the other day in a debate that took place on this question in your Lordships' House, solemnly stated that in his neighbourhood particularly there was a vast number of people of all ages who were firmly convinced that the institution of summer time was responsible not only for drought but for floods—and I dare say that if an earthquake took place that would be attributed to the same cause. Is it possible to argue with people who hold that sort of view? It seems impossible to make them understand that there is no occasion to pollute their lips by talking about 14 or 15 o'clock or whatever it is. It is not an oral matter at all, it is merely a matter of alterations of time-tables and postmarks for the purpose of arriving at greater correctness. As for investing in twenty-four-hour clocks, of course that is pure nonsense. Nothing of the kind is necessary. It really seems to me that if you are going to listen to these people and be swayed by their arguments you might just as well say that physical geography should no
960
longer be taught in this country because it might hurt the feelings of the people who believe that the earth is flat.
Apparently, the public is divided into two schools on this subject. There are those whom I have mentioned, and on the other side there are the scientific people, the scientific societies, men of great experience in administration in different parts of the Empire, and, I might add, all foreigners. Somebody is going to decide between those two schools of thought. I wonder how they will arrive at their decision, and I wonder what their decision will be. I do not know which Department is going to decide, but judging from the fact that they have been unable to take any action for something like nearly twenty years they will probably find it difficult to come to a decision now. I should not wonder if, in the long run, they invoke the assistance of the Whips. The Whips, being people of notoriously little imagination, will probably, when they are consulted, say: "Upon the whole the opinion of the Astronomer Royal, for instance, ought to be considered, and it is just possible his opinion might be a better one than that of the man who thinks summer time is responsible for floods and all the rest of it." But on the other hand each of them has a vote. The Astronomer Royal has a vote and the old woman who thinks that her grandfather clock may become useless has got a vote, and they balance one another. I am very much afraid that the stupid people are in the majority, and it is possible that the decision may be given on their side. I hope that will not be the case, but it seems to me there is an unfortunate probability that that is what will happen. Various Governments have tried to tackle this question, but no Government has shown to much advantage.
Either the thing is wrong or it is right. If it is wrong the Government ought to have said at once that this is an impracticable proposition and that they would have nothing to do with it. If, on the other hand, it is good—and it is good, as everyone knows in his heart who has any common sense—they ought to enact it without having recourse to this particular experiment. This experiment seems to be quite inconclusive. Everyone who cannot count and is probably supremely ignorant of most questions is entitled to express his or her opinion, and that will

961
be thrown into the scale against those who really know what they are talking about. It is possible, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we may make ourselves an exhibition of futility to the world at large. If the Government are afraid to deal with this question themselves obviously what they ought to have done was to have gone to a railway company and asked that company to try the experiment without waiting for an official lead. I venture to say that if they had done that everyone would have recognised the value of this extremely modest innovation. In a very short time it would have been universally recognised as a thing that ought to have been adopted long ago, and everyone would have found it a vast improvement on the system in existence, at the present moment as far as reckoning is concerned.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, we have had a amusing little debate on this subject, especially the speech of my noble friend who has just sat down. He will not, I am sure, expect me to enter into any argument with him or to comment in any way on his diatribe against those who happen to disagree with him on this particular subject. I must say that my noble friend Lord Lucan and I were rather hurt at one stage when he suggested that Whips were people with no imagination, but the noble Lord from the trend of his further remarks seemed to indicate he was referring to the Whips in another place and not to those in your Lordships' House.
I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Lamington a specific Question, and to that I have been asked to give the following reply. Your Lordships will remember that my noble friend Lord Feversham stated on the 7th of March that a certain experiment would begin with the B.B.C. for an indefinite period a month later, and that the Government proposed after that experiment had been given a thorough trial to ask the Corporation for a report on the matter with particular reference to the attitude that the public had taken up towards the innovation. The present position is that the experiment is still proceeding. No date has yet been fixed for its determination, and therefore the B.B.C. have not been asked to furnish, and have not yet furnished, a report.
LORD LAMINGTON: May I ask when they are likely to report?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I cannot say. The period has not yet been determined.
LORD NEWTON: Would the noble Lord inform me which Department is responsible for the decision of this question? We have never been able to ascertain that.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I have answered the Question on the Paper, and I am afraid I cannot answer the question which the noble Lord puts to me.
LORD NEWTON: The question has been going on for fifteen years or more, and somebody must know by this time which is the Department concerned.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am replying at the moment as the representative of the Post Office, because that is the Department which has dealings with the B.B.C., but I believe that the Department which is usually in charge of this matter is the Home Department.
LORD LAMINGTON: Why the Home Department? What have they got to do with the Post Office and with dies that stamp the time of the arrival of telegrams and with the times shown on post boxes and that sort of thing? Why should it be the Home Office? There is one minor point I should like to make. I see in some reports of the B.B.C. experiment the statement that four figures should always be employed to designate the hours. I do not quite see the necessity for that, and I think it alarms the public more than anything to think that 9.5 in the morning should he 09.05. I do not see why that is necessary at all. If you look at Bradshaw's Continental Guide or Cook's Continental Guide you will find that a.m. trains are shown simply as 9.5 and so on. Four figures may be necessary for scientific purposes—I do not know—but I think it is very complicated and confusing to the public, and I hope the noble Lord will ask for information on this point.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I think I can answer that question in a way, though I am not sure I am right. As the noble Lord knows, various Government Departments use this system, especially the War Office and the Admiralty. I know something about the War Office, and I

963
know that four figures are invariably used in the Army.
LORD LAMINGTON: I am talking about the effect on the general public who, as my noble friend suggested, are so ignorant and dense that they will think they will have to alter all their times for social purposes. Of course in no single instance will that be necessary, but I consider this proposal is prejudiced by the fact that the Government propose to insert four figures instead of two in a.m. times.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: May I remind my noble friend that the Commission over which I think the noble Lord, Lord Stone-haven, presided, recommended that the four-figure system should be adopted? That was the reason.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD MARLEY: May I ask the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, if he can tell us the business for next week?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl there is really
964
very little business in addition to what has already appeared on the Order Paper. On Tuesday there is the consideration on Report of the Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, the Report stage of the Betting and Lotteries Bill and the Report stage of the Workmen's Compensation (Coal Mines) Bill. In addition there has been put down for Tuesday the Architects (Registration) Bill, which passed through Committee to-day, and there will also be taken then the Second Reading of the Bill which has just been read a first time, the Licensing (Permitted Hours) Bill. On Wednesday Lord Strabolgi is moving a Resolution recommending the Government to institute an immediate investigation of the monetary system. Your Lordships will see the wording of it on the Paper. There are also the Second Reading of the Adoption of Children (Workmen's Compensation) Bill and the Second Beading of the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) (Scotland) Bill, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is moving. On Thursday there is the Administration of Justice (Appeals) Bill in Committee, and the Committee stage of the Unemployment Bill. In addition, the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, is asking a question of the Government as to the creation of an Imperial Air Force and the assembling of a defence conference for that purpose in London. I understand the Committee stage of the Road Traffic (Compensation for Accidents) Bill will also be taken on Thursday.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past seven o'clock.