Lords Sitting of 21 June 1934

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

RAMSGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I beg to move that Standing Order No. 171 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the Ramsgate Corporation Bill, and that the Bill be now read a third time. This was a late Bill, the principal object of which is to authorise the Ramsgate Corporation to take over the harbour and some of the sands, and if your Lordships will consent to suspend the Standing Order it will enable it to save a week of Parliamentary time.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 171 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOUTH MOLTON GAS ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Temple-more, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.— (The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SHREWSBURY GAS ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, again on behalf of my noble friend Lord Templemore, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved with a modification.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved with a modification.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRIDGEND GAS ORDER, 1934.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I move this Motion also on behalf of my noble friend Lord Templemore—that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved with a modification.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved with a modification.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PALESTINE LOAN BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I do not think that it will be necessary for me to trouble your Lordships with a long explanation of this Bill. In fact, it authorises the Treasury

113
to guarantee a loan not exceeding £2,000,000, to be raised by the Government of Palestine, but I think I should remind the House of the events which led up to the present position. It was in 1930 that His Majesty's Government announced their intention of guaranteeing a loan for the purposes of land development in Palestine, and in addition to provide, as a, grant-in-aid, the interest on that loan for a period of years. A little later Mr. Lewis French was appointed Director of Development in Palestine, and was entrusted among other things with the task of examining the question of Arab families displaced in consequence of land falling into Jewish hands. Later the High Commissioner made certain recommendations, and in July, 1933, these recommendations were accepted and approved by the Government. In the light of financial conditions both in the United Kingdom and in Palestine, His Majesty's Government decided that it was impossible for the British Government to make a contribution by way of a payment of loan interest for land development in Palestine as was contemplated originally in 1930; but they decided that the financial position in Palestine was now sufficiently satisfactory to enable the country to finance its own requirements.
It was proposed that Palestine should raise a loan of £2,000,000 to defray the cost of resettlement of Arab families who had been registered as "landless" by the Director of Development, and the cost also of an extensive programme of urgent public works and other measures which had the full approval of His Majesty's Government. It was at the same time stated that these works were of substantial value, would produce considerable revenue, and were necessary in the general interests of the country. It was announced that, as in the case of the £4,500,000 loan raised by Palestine in 1927, the new loan would receive the formal guarantee of His Majesty's Government, and the necessary legislation would be introduced in due course. The Bill now before your Lordships follows the precedent of the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act, 1926, but I should like to emphasise the point that the security for this loan is far better than in 1926 owing to the great improvement in the financial position in Palestine, an improvement which, as I have already
114
stated, makes it unnecessary for His Majesty's Government to offer the free grant of interest during the first few years, as was contemplated in 1930. The Government guarantee itself will be of considerable value since it will enable the Palestine Government to raise the loan at a much lower rate of interest than it could otherwise do.
It should be remembered that the £4,500,000 of Palestine Government guaranteed stock which was issued in 1927 ranks as first charge, and noble Lords will appreciate that this first charge would make it difficult for the Palestine Government to raise a new loan on reasonably favourable terms without the Government guarantee. I should like to say a few words about the security for the proposed loan. I can best illustrate the great improvement that has taken place in the financial position by explaining that in 1930, when the issue of a new loan was first contemplated, Palestine had a deficit of £146,000. In 1932–33 that deficit had been converted into a surplus on the year of £500,000. On 31st March last the gross surplus was estimated at £2,200,000. Of this £600,000 was ear-marked for various liabilities, including a working balance. That left a free surplus of £1,600,000. It is intended to build up a Reserve Fund of one year's revenue—approximately £3,000,000—which would be drawn upon only in a serious emergency such as a heavy and unforeseen decrease of revenue. For this purpose £1,500,000 will be placed immediately to reserve, and during the current year a further sum of £150,000 will be added to the Reserve Fund. The annual revenue of Palestine has increased from £2,389,000 in 1930 to £3,700,000 in 1933–34, which was the last complete financial year. The estimate of revenue for 1934–35 is £3,500,000. In the circumstances I do not think any one can have reasonable doubts regarding the soundness of the security for this loan.
I should like now briefly to refer to the objects to which this loan is to be devoted as they are set out in the Schedule of the Bill. First of all £250,000 is provided for the resettlement of "displaced" Arabs. I must explain that all claims for inclusion in the register of "displaced" Arabs were carefully examined by a tribunal consisting of the Director of Development and a legal

115
assessor. The tribunal decided to admit as entitled to resettlement Arabs who had been displaced from the land which they had occupied owing to those lands having passed into Jewish hands and who had failed to obtain equally satisfactory occupation; this was with certain exceptions which I do not think it is necessary to enumerate. But I ought to point out that the owners of land who deliberately sold their land are not entitled to benefit under this scheme. I think your Lordships will agree they are clearly in an entirely different category to tenants. This sum of £250,000 which is provided for this purpose represents the estimated cost of the resettlement of 821 Arab families and the provision of a camping site for 68 families of an Arab tribe who, though not strictly registrable, are considered by the High Commissioner to deserve special consideration.
Then there is the provision for water supplies and drainage schemes. I think this requires a little explanation from me. The chief items under this head are water supply and drainage schemes for Jerusalem and Haifa. The deficiency of water in Jerusalem is historical, and during the past few years the rapid increase of the population has greatly increased the gravity of the situation. It is hoped that the present scheme, which provides for the pumping of water from distant springs at a cost of £370,000, will for the first time provide Jerusalem with an adequate and reliable water supply. At Haifa the position is only a little less serious owing to the rapid development and increase of the population that is taking place, and the provision of a fresh water supply for ships using the splendid new harbour is absolutely essential.
In both Cities the provision of modern drainage systems has for long been an urgent need and has been impracticable pending the provision of ample water supplies. £200,000 is provided for the water supply at Haifa, and £150,000 and £130,000 for the drainage schemes at Jerusalem and Haifa respectively. £10,000 is provided for a new supply at Hebron, £22,000 is provided for the investigation of additional underground sources of water, and £45,000 for improvements in the water supplies of a number of villages. A complete survey and compilation of the water resources of the country, which is of special importance in
116
connection with the operation of proposed new legislation relating to irrigation, will be carried out at a cost of £6,000. It is expected that, after the construction period, the annual charges in respect of the water supply and drainage schemes at Jerusalem and Haifa will be covered by receipts from water and drainage rates, and that annual charges will be partly covered in the case of Hebron and the villages. In the case of certain of the works assistance will be rendered from the Colonial Development Fund by way of free grants of interest during the construction period.
The item of £200,000 for agricultural credits includes a sum of £150,000 which will enable the Government of Palestine to assist in the formation of an agricultural mortgage company for the provision of long-term credit for Arab and Jewish agriculturists, and a sum of £50,000 which will be devoted to the provision of long-term loans for Arab cultivators in the hill districts. I do not think that any one will question the desirability of assisting the development of agriculture in Palestine, and, in the case of the Arab cultivator, of diminishing the power of the moneylender, by the provision of these facilities. While dealing with this particular question I should like to take the opportunity of paying a tribute to the unremitting care which has been devoted by the present High Commissioner, Sir Arthur Wauchope, since he assumed office in 1931 to improving the position and raising the standard of agriculture of the fellah by a variety of methods.
Then I take No. 4, which is the next item. It is an item of £210,000, and includes the sum of £150,000 which will be spent on the construction of an oil berth in Haifa harbour, and £60,000 on the reclamation of land in connection with the construction of the berth. These works are being carried out on behalf of the Iraq Petroleum Company, under a contract by which the company will pay a minimum annual charge of £30,000 on oil exported and will also pay rent for the reclaimed area which will be leased to them. Under the last item, one of £407,000, is included a sum of £156,000 for a new post office and telephone exchange at Jerusalem. I ought to say in this connection that the accounts of the Posts and Telegraphs Departments of Palestine show a large and increasing

117
excess of revenue over expenditure, which should suffice to cover the annual charges of the new building. This item also includes £27,000 for the construction of a new building for the Government Arab College, and £106,000 for new Government schools in the chief towns. The expenditure on new school buildings, though it is not directly remunerative, will result in a saving since the Government will be relieved of the heavy rent charges payable in respect of the present hired buildings, and larger classes will be possible. This will enable more children to be educated without any considerable increase of teaching staff. This same item includes £40,000 for a Government technical school at Haifa, which will be available to both Jews and Arabs, and £20,000 for the purpose of making grants for capital expenditure on buildings and equipment to various Jewish institutions concerned with technical education.
The actual clauses of the Bill itself require little explanation. They follow generally the form of the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act of 1926. Subsection (2) (a) of Clause 2 provides that fair conditions of labour shall be observed in the execution of the works, and paragraph (b) of the same subsection, which has not, as a matter of fact, a parallel in the earlier Act, provides for the manufacture in the United Kingdom of imported plant, machinery and materials, except in special cases. This provision is reasonable considering the advantage which Palestine will derive from the guarantee, and it is estimated that orders amounting approximately to £600,000 will be placed in this country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WHALING INDUSTRY (REGULA- TION) 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, this is quite a small Bill and I do not think I need detain your Lordships long in discussing it. Its object is
118
to enable Great Britain to ratify a Convention for the regulation of whaling which was concluded in September, 1931. The object of the Convention is to prevent the wasteful destruction of whales, particularly in the Antarctic, by ensuring that the carcases of whales killed shall be utilised to the fullest extent so that no more whales than are absolutely necessary for economic purposes shall be destroyed. Although this Convention has been ratified by many nations it has not yet come into force, as it provides that it shall not do so unless it is ratified by Norway and Great Britain, two of the countries most intimately concerned with this question. Norway has already ratified, and the Norwegian Government are at the moment criticising us rather severely for having failed to do so, more particularly as Great Britain was largely responsible for the initiation of the Convention. For this reason it is most desirable that the Bill should pass into law at the earliest possible moment.
It is proposed under the Bill to enforce regulation by means of a system of licences to be issued in the name of the Board of Trade by the Fisheries Departments. It is made an offence under the Bill to engage in whaling without the necessary licence, and a licence may be withdrawn in the event of non-compliance with its conditions. For the purpose of seeing that the conditions of licences are complied with, in Clause 8, your Lordships will see, power is taken to place Government inspectors on board whaling ships. The Bill also provides for the payment for licences of fees which shall be sufficient to meet the expenses of the administration of the measure. The length of the Bill—it was hoped to make it somewhat shorter—is due to the necessity for provisions regarding penalties, and for this reason it was not possible to confine the Bill to one or two clauses ratifying the Convention.
This Bill goes no further than was agreed in the Convention, except in regard to one or two comparatively small points. In Clause 2 there is a provision dealing with the United Kingdom waters. That, of course, is not included in the International Convention. In Clause 6, subsection (4), your Lordships will see a provision dealing with the taking of whales during certain close seasons. That is outside the Convention, but we con-

119
sider it a desirable provision. There is only one further point—it is really a Committee point, but it has been raised by certain noble Lords—and that is whether in Clause 1, which deals with the descriptions of whales to which the Act shall apply, the definition is satisfactory or complete. We are inclined to agree that it could be improved and we will see that that is done on the Committee stage. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends have asked me to welcome this Bill very wholeheartedly and I may say it is a great pleasure to me to support a Bill introduced by the present Government. It is all the more refreshing an experience because I am afraid it is not very common. The intention of the Bill is altogether excellent in every way and I only want to raise a few questions upon it. I have given the noble Earl notice of some of those questions, but there is one point about which I did not give him notice because the matter only came to my knowledge since the noble Earl began speaking. I did not realise, and my noble friends did not realise, that this Convention was concluded in September, 1931. I should like to ask why it is only being implemented in a Bill brought before your Lordships' House in June, 1934. It seems rather a long interval.
From the noble Earl's remarks it appears that we are the last nation, or at least the last of the important nations, concerned to ratify this Convention. Ratification has been waiting until England and Norway were agreed—Norway being of course the leading whaling nation and England, I suppose, the second—and the Norwegians have been waiting for us. In view of the general acceptance of this Convention His Majesty's Government might have been a little more expeditious. I think some explanation is due to your Lordships' House on that point. May I in connection with that ask how many nations have now ratified the Convention and whether those nations include the United States? Is the United States a party to this Convention? I believe the Convention was come to under the auspices of the League of Nations or
120
one of its Committees. It is a very fine achievement for that much assailed body.
The questions of which I gave notice to the noble Earl and which I think are of general interest, are as follows. First, is it known how many licences will be grained altogether? Your Lordships are aware that this Bill is urgent because by the use of modern methods the stock of whales has been depleted throughout the seas, especially in the Antarctic. Secondly, of the licences granted how many will go to British whalers? The reason I ask that is that there was a time when we led the world in the whaling industry, when great prosperity was brought to Dundee and Hull and other ports by whale fishing. Then the supply of whales became depleted until modern methods enabled certain whales to be taken which it was impossible to take before. After that the Norwegians stepped in and they have taken the predominant position in the industry once occupied by this country. My question is how many licences will be granted to British ships. I hope the number will be sufficient to enable us to recapture part of this very valuable trade which offers, among other advantages, a great training for seamen even under modern conditions.
The third question has a bearing on the other two. How many modern whaling ships are there in commission now? Your Lordships will know that the modern whaling ship is comparatively small, but that a very large floating factory is sent out to deal with the whales caught by a number of the smaller whalers. The information which I should be very grateful for is as to the number of these factories at present in use and the number of whale fishing vessels in commission. That will have a bearing on the future issue of licences. Obviously if we are going to issue through the International Committee licences broadcast then the position will be little bettered from the point of view of preservation of these very valuable mammals. Of these ships and factories how many are British? I understand the international edible oil firm of Unilever have a great interest in this industry and that whale oil is very largely used for the making of margarine for the British markets. It would be interesting to know how many British ships are engaged apart

121
from the financial interests, which I believe are predominantly British.
I would like to raise this further point. I do not know if the noble Earl is in a position to say how it is intended to enforce this Convention, this system of regulation against foreign ships. It is not quite clear from the Bill itself. Under the Bill inspectors will have the right to board any whaler under the British flag and a commissioned officer in His Majesty's Navy will have a similar right. Will there be any power enabling them to board a whaler suspected of fishing without a licence—a poacher, in other words—under a foreign flag? Under the old slave trading Convention any commissioned officer of any man-of-war could board any ship suspected of carrying slaves. I hope that it has been agreed, or will be agreed, amongst maritime Powers, that any commissioned naval officer shall have authority to board any whaler suspected of poaching or of fishing without a licence. I think some safeguard of that sort is necessary.
The noble Earl referred to the definition of whales in Clause 1. I rather think that that excludes the killer whale. I suggest that it would be a very good thing to encourage the destruction of the killer whale. It is practically useless for commercial purposes, but it does enormous damage. It attacks the young sperm whale and calves of the right whale and it does terrible damage amongst seals. It is altogether a horrible and dangerous brute. If something could be done to encourage the slaughter of the killer whale it would help in the preservation of the more valuable mammals. Those are the questions which I should like to put to the noble Earl. The Bill is, in our opinion, of very great importance and altogether admirable, and we are very glad to support it.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I have to thank the noble Lord for the warmth of his support of this Bill. He has asked me why it was not brought forward before. Really the reasons are partly Departmental—we have been extremely busy on other fishery problems—and of course partly Parliamentary, because, as I think the noble Lord will admit, there has hardly been a Session of Parliament during the last two or three years when the officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries have not made very
122
considerable demands on the Whips' department. The noble Lord asked who have ratified the Convention? He will find at the end of the Convention a list of those who have signed, seventeen of whom have ratified. He asked also a number of questions with regard to the number of vessels which would be affected. I have the figures here, but they really are somewhat numerous. I do not know whether it would satisfy him if I gave him the particulars rather than read them out?
LORD STRABOLGI: Can they not be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
EARL DE LA WARR: Yes, I will circulate them in that way.* The noble Lord raised a further point on the question of policing. Each country will be responsible for policing within its own coastal waters. The noble Lord's last point on the question of killer whales is one which I should like to look into. I have already said that the whole question of definition in the first Clause has to be revised. It is undoubtedly not quite satisfactory as it stands at the moment, and at the same time as I am going into that matter I will go into the question of the killer whale.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before the noble Earl concludes may I say that I do not think I made quite clear my question about methods of enforcement? Will a British fishery inspector have the right to board a suspected whaler under another flag, or will an officer of His Majesty's Navy have a similar right? It is not a question of coastal waters.
EARL DE LA WARR: I think that is quite clear, as the noble Lord will see if he will look at Article 13 on page 12 of the Convention:
"The obligation of the High Contracting Party to take measures to ensure the observance of the conditions of the present Convention in his own territories and territorial waters …"
I think that shows that each High Contracting Party has full responsibility within his waters, no matter what flag the particular ship is flying. I think that is the reply to the question of the noble Lord.
LORD STRABOLGI: Factory ships can operate outside the three mile limit, and do.
EARL DE LA WARR: That is a point which I think I would like to look into.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
*Following are the figures referred to by Earl De La Warr:

Number of vessels affected by Convention, if accepted.

Factory Ships.

Catching Ships.

(1) All Nation

57

367

(2) British, including Dominions and Colonies.

12

111

3) United Kingdom

6

39

Number of vessels operating during season 1933–1934.

Factory Ships.

Catching Ships.

(1) All Nations

19

123

(2) British, including Dominions and Colonies.

8

49

(3) United Kingdom

3

18

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Constitution of local fisheries committees.
1.—(1) The Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888 (in this Act referred to as "the principal Act") shall, so far as regards any local fisheries committee to be constituted or reconstituted after the commencement of this Act, have effect as if for subsection (2) of Section one of the said Act of 1888 (which subsection relates to the constitution of local fisheries committees) there were substituted the following subsection:—
(2) The local fisheries committee for a sea-fisheries district shall be a committee of such county council, or a committee of such borough council, or a joint committee of such councils, being county councils or borough councils, as may be determined by the order creating the district, and shall consist of—
124

(i) such number of members to be appointed by the council, or by the constituent councils in such proportions, and

(ii) such number of additional members, being persons acquainted with the needs and opinions of the fishing interests of the district, and including one representative, at least, of any fishery board having jurisdiction within the district,

as may be so determined.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (1), in paragraph (ii) of substituted subsection (2), after "least," to insert "chosen by the fishermen in the locality or nominated by the Minister from persons having special knowledge of the needs of the fishermen, and including one representative at least".
The noble Lord said: I have only this one Amendment on the Order Paper, but I think your Lordships will agree that it is rather important, and I hope the Minister will agree that it is acceptable. At present the paragraph, if your Lordships will permit me to read it, runs as follows:
"such number of additional members, being persons acquainted with the needs and opinions of the fishing interests of the district, and including one representative, at least, of any fishery board having jurisdiction within the district."
If the Amendment is accepted it will then read in this way:
"such number of additional members, being persons acquainted with the needs and opinions of the fishing interests of the district, and including one representative, at least, chosen by the fishermen in the locality or nominated by the Minister from persons having special knowledge of the needs of the fishermen, and including one representative at least of any fishery board having jurisdiction within the district."
That would make it obligatory to find in some way some person or each committee who could speak directly for the fishermen themselves, which at present is not allowed for under any existing Act or under this Bill.
On the Motion for the Second Reading I raised this matter and the noble Earl was very sympathetic indeed and said he would look into it; but he pointed out—as indeed I admitted in my own remarks—that it was very often difficult to get the working fisherman, the active fisherman, or his direct representative to serve on such a committee. That is admitted, of course, but arising out of that I have

125
here a letter of which I will, with your Lordships' leave, read one short paragraph, from the Transport and General Workers' Union, who organise the fishermen at all the principal fishing ports. They say, referring of course to this Bill and to the debate in your Lordships' House on the Motion for the Second Reading:
"The question of representation upon the committees is an important one, however, and if it were possible to secure direct representation of fishermen it would be an advantage. I notice that Earl De La Warr referred to the difficulty of getting practical fishermen to take part in these committees, but if it were an instruction from the Minister to consult the organisations of the men, the difficulty could be overcome. In a number of the ports the crews are now well organised. Milford Haven, Swansea, Fleet-wood, South Shields, Hall and Grimsby have well-established organisations or branches of this union, and I am quite sure that with consultation adequate representation could be found."
This is one of the largest unions in the country, and they are very easy people to deal with in these matters, as everyone of your Lordships who has had dealings with them knows.
They deal with fishermen, dockers, and waterworkers on the inland waterways. They are a very well-led union under Mr. Ernest Bevin, and they always try to work with the local authorities, with the Ministry, and with all the other people concerned in their particular industry. They are a most terrible fighting union when it comes to a strike, as anyone who has had anything to do with dockers knows, but, perhaps for that reason, they always try to smooth over difficulties and to look after the interests of their members by negotiation and consultation. If I may suggest it, I think the noble Earl would be well advised to accept this Amendment, and to try to find his suitable people by consultation with the Transport and General Workers' Union. That is done in the case of other joint bodies dealing with the interests of workmen and employers, and there is no difficulty at all. Since the original committees were set up the fishermen have become much better organised, and there is now somebody to speak for them in many fishery districts. For that reason I commend this Amendment to your Lordships.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, after ("least") insert the said new words.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
EARI, DE LA WARR: I should have very much liked to accept this Amendment, because I think we all realise that the noble Lord who has just spoken is entirely friendly to the Bill, and he has brought forward a point with which I think we must all have the very greatest sympathy; but unfortunately the purpose of his Amendment goes in a direction exactly opposite to that in which the remainder of the Bill goes. That is not to say that we are anxious not to have fishermen's representatives on the committees, but we are anxious that the Minister should have a freer hand in the choice of representatives, for the very reason that the noble. Lord has put forward, that it is difficult as things are to obtain representatives. The noble Lord suggested that we might consult the Transport and General Workers' Union, the fishermen's organisation, but that really does not help us in dealing with the in-shore fishermen, who are not in any way organised.
I think the real point of substance in what the noble Lord has put forward is the question of payment—not payment of travelling expenses, because that can be done, but payment for loss of time and subsistence. Upon that point, if we were dealing with a question which would be confined entirely to the fishery representatives, I think I may tell the noble Lord that he would meet with very great sympathy from the Ministry of Agriculture; but unfortunately, it raises the whole issue of the payment of subsistence allowances. I am quite prepared to admit to the noble Lord that there is a great deal to be said for it, but if we do it with regard to fishery representatives, why not on all the local authorities? The noble Lord would be in favour of that, and he might find some of us not unsympathetic, but I think he will agree that we cannot deal with it on a Fisheries Regulation Bill. It is a matter of general policy with regard to the whole local government of the country. To come back to the specific Amendment, I hope the noble Lord will not press it, but will be content with the very definite and sincere assurance on our behalf that we do intend, as we have done in the past, to do everything we can to see that we get hold of representatives of the fishermen themselves. I can give him that very genuine assur-

127
ance, that we will do all that we can, but we are faced with the difficulty which I have already mentioned.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I would like to say a word in favour of the Amendment of my noble friend, and after the sympathetic way in which it has been treated by the noble Earl, I feel sure that if he will consult with those who advise him on the subject, on the Report stage he may be able to yield to the representations made by my noble friend behind me, because although of course we accept his assurance in a quite unqualified manner, an assurance by a Minister is not the same thing as a clause in a Bill. We feel therefore that we are justified in pressing this matter just a little further.
LORD STRABOLGI: I do not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (APPEALS) BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 1:
Restriction on appeals from Court of Appeal to House of Lords.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect any restriction existing, apart from this Act, on tine bringing of appeals from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY) moved in subsection (3) to leave out "Act" and insert "section." The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, there is one small Amendment which it is necessary to make in this Bill, and it is really a technical matter. It is in Clause 1, page 2, line 2, where unfortunately we put in the word "Act" and we ought to have put in the word "section." The object of the Amendment is to leave out the word "Act" and insert the word "section." The object of subsection (3) of Clause 1 is to preserve all existing restrictions on the right of appeal from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords. The subsection was drafted on the assumption that all these restrictions were contained in Acts other than this Bill.
It was unfortunately overlooked that one of these restrictions is contained in paragraph (k) of Section 31 (1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, which is being amended by Part II of the Schedule to the Bill. This paragraph at present provides that no appeal shall lie from the decision of the High Court on any appeal from a County Court in a probate cause or matter. In future, under Clause 2 of the Bill, appeals from a County Court in a probate cause or matter will lie to the Court of Appeal instead of the High Court, and consequently the paragraph is being amended by Part II of the Schedule to the Bill by substituting the Court of Appeal for the High Court. It follows that one of the existing restrictions on the right of appeal from the Court of Appeal is now contained partly in this Bill. This Amendment is therefore necessary in order to prevent subsection (3) of Clause 1 conflicting with the Amendment made by Part II of the Schedule in that paragraph. It is hardly more than a drafting Amendment, and I apologise to your Lordships for its necessity.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("Act") and insert ("section").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (CRUELTY TO DOGS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
COTTON MANUFACTURING IN- DUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVI- SIONS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments (according to Order), and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee read.
The Committee reported as follows:
1. The Committee sanctioned the payment to Mr. R. A. Muir Mackenzie, Clerk Assistant, of a salary of £l, 500 per annum, as recommended by the Committee in their Second Report 1889, and of a salary at

129
the existing scale to Mr. R. L. Overbury, Reading Clerk, us from 5th June, 1934, the date of their appointments. They further sanctioned the payment as from 2nd June of the salary as Principal Clerk of Public Bills to Mr. F. W. Lascelles on the scale laid down by the Committee in their First Report 1919.
2. The Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod informed the Committees that Mr. E. Davies, the 2nd Principal Doorkeeper, had not reported for duty since 11th May and that he had appointed Mr. S. C. Pitt as the junior messenger to fill the vacancy on Black Rod's staff.
The Committee sanctioned the payment to Mrs. Davies of £9 9s. 10d., being the amount due to Mr. Davies up to 11th May, and were of opinion that the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod should bring before the Committee at a later date the question of any further payments to which Mrs. Davies might be entitled.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted. In moving this Resolution I do not think there is anything to which I need particularly draw the attention of your Lordships. The Report is consequent upon the retirement of the late Clerk of the Parliaments, and the appointment of the existing Clerk, and other changes, and the necessary adjustments of salaries which have to be sanctioned by the House of Lords Offices Committee and to which this Report gives effect.
Moved, That this Report be now considered and adopted.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, before we adjourn may I ask the noble Earl if he can make any statement about the business for next week?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for asking this question. Really there is practically nothing to add to the business which is already down on the Order Paper. It includes on Tuesday next the Second Reading of the Marriages Provisional Orders Bill and the Adoption of Children (Workmen's Compensation) Bill, the consideration of Commons Amendments to the Gas Undertakings Bill, and the Committee stage of the Trustee Savings Banks (Special Investments) Bill. I understand that the Third Reading of the Road Traffic (Compensation for Accidents) Bill will also be taken on that day. On Wednesday, Lord Templetown has a Question with regard to the recognition of the Arabs and their rights as a nation, Lord Elibank has a Question with reference to an Imperial Air Force, and Lord Mottistone is calling attention to the inadequacy of the air defences of this country. I understand that in addition, on Wednesday the House will be in Committee on the Palestine Loans Bill. On Thursday the further stages of the Whaling Industry (Regulations) Bill and the Sea Fisheries Regulation Bill will be taken. I understand there is no other business at present down on the Paper.
House adjourned at ten minutes past five o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
[From Minutes of June 21.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
National Maritime Museum.
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

CHAILEY RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee adjourned on Tuesday last and pray leave not to sit again until Monday next: Read, and leave given accordingly.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Earl of Haddington and the Viscount Mersey be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Earl of Shaftesbury and the Lord Tweeddale (M. Tweeddale); and that the Viscount Mersey be Chairman of the said Committee: Read, and agreed to.

MAIDSTONE WATERWORKS BILL.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORA-TION BILL. [H.L.]
STOCKPORT EXTENSION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

CENTRAL ELECTRICITY BOARD (EASTWOOD LANDS) ORDER, 1934.
Special Order in respect of the compulsory acquisition of easements or other rights for overhead main transmission lines in and over certain lands situate at Eastwood in the County Borough of Southend-on-Sea:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

KING'S LYNN ELECTRICITY (EXTEN- SION) ORDER, 1934.
Special Order in respect of parts of the rural districts of Marshland Down-ham and Freebridge Lynn, all in the County of Norfolk:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.