Lords Sitting of 26 March 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Monteagle (M. Sligo)—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

CLACTON-ON-SEA PIER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
SHEFFIELD AND SOUTH YORKSHIRE NAVIGATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

LEEDS GAS ORDER, 1935.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROMFORD GAS ORDER, 1935.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PORK (IMPORT REGULATION) ORDER, 1935.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to introduce the Pork (Import Regulation) Order, 1935. Before this Order came into operation there was no statutory regulation of the imports of pork, although for some time, as your Lordships are aware, imports of foreign bacon have been regulated under the provisions of the Bacon (Import Regulation) Order, and imports of foreign beef, mutton and
322
lamb, under the provisions of the Ottawa Agreements Act of 1932. It was recognised last year that it was necessary, in connection with the measures which were being taken to regulate the supplies of meat coming on to the British market, to arrange for some regulation of imports of pork, particularly in view of the largely increased rate of importation in that year. In 1934 about 580,000 cwt. of foreign frozen pork were imported into this country—more than double the amount imported in the preceding year and four times the quantity imported in 1932. The Bacon Marketing Scheme contains provisions designed to control the amount of imported pork which is put into cure and sold as bacon in Great Britain by registered curers, but it has been found difficult satisfactorily to implement these provisions in view of the abnormally large quantity of frozen pork which has been imported into this country. It is hoped that one consequence of the new Order will be to make it easier for the Bacon Marketing Board to implement these provisions of their scheme.
In August of last year it was decided to ask the importers to observe a voluntary arrangement for the limitation of imports of foreign pork in the last six months of that year. It was found, however, owing to commitments already entered into by the importers, that it was not practicable to keep imports within the desired limits. Consideration was given to the question whether it would be feasible to control imports by a voluntary arrangement this year, but the conclusion was reached that it would not be possible to arrange for the desired measure of control without a licensing system. This Order has, therefore, been made under Section 1 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, which enables the Board of Trade to make such Orders, after consultation with the other Ministers concerned, provided they are satisfied that the conditions laid down in the section are fulfilled. The Board of Trade have satisfied themselves on these points and, with the concurrence of the other Departments concerned, have made the Order, which is subject to the approval of Parliament.
This Order came into operation on the twelfth day of this month. The terms of the Order are similar to those of other Orders which have been made under the same Statute and have received the

323
approval of Parliament. If your Lordships will turn to the Order you will see that paragraph 1 provides that it shall not be lawful to import into the United Kingdom, except under licence, any pork produced in any foreign country. Paragraph 2 provides that a licence may take the form either of a licence issued by the Board of Trade or of a certificate in an approved form given by an association to which the Board of Trade has issued a licence. The principal foreign countries from which pork is imported into the United Kingdom are the United States of America and Argentina. Pork is imported from the United States of America by a number of firms, and the trade is substantially represented on the Liverpool Provision Trade Association. It has been found convenient to grant to the secretaries of that Association a licence under the provisions of paragraph 2 of the Order. By virtue of that licence the secretaries of the Association will issue certificates authorising individual imports. A similar procedure has been adopted under the Potato (Import Regulation) Order, 1934, and, in respect of imports of bacon from the United States, under the Bacon (Import Regulation) Order, 1934. Imports of pork from Argentina are handled by three firms which have received licences from the Board of Trade. Small quantities are imported from time to time from other foreign countries, such as Brazil and Uruguay, and such imports will be dealt with by the issue of ad hoc licences by the Board of Trade.
Paragraph 3 follows the lines of provisions inserted in previous Orders, and provides that pork prohibited to be imported may be dealt with under procedure laid down in the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876. Paragraph 4 again follows precedent and provides for the revocation of licences or certificates and for the imposition of such terms and conditions as the Board of Trade may think proper. Paragraphs 5 and 6 also contain provisions similar to those which have been inserted in previous Orders. Paragraph 5 empowers the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to require proof of origin. Paragraph 6 provides that the Order shall not apply to pork imported for exportation after transit through the United Kingdom or by way of transhipment, subject to conditions imposed by the Commissioners of Customs. Paragraph 7 defines
324
"pork" for the purposes of the Order. According to that definition the Order will apply to uncured pig carcases or parts of carcases with the exception of the head, feet, rind, and offals, and of canned products. This Order does not affect the prohibition of the importation of meat, including pork, from the Continent of Europe under the Importation of Carcases (Prohibition) Orders made under the Diseases of Animals Acts.
The Order applies only to pork produced in foreign countries. Voluntary arrangements have been made with the Dominions for the regulation of their shipments of pork sent to the United Kingdom. The arrangement made for the first six months of this year is that imports of pork from foreign countries should be limited in each quarter to the average quantity imported in the corresponding quarters of the three preceding years. The effect of this arrangement will be to reduce existing imports by about 48 per cent. as compared with the abnormally large imports in the first six months of 1934, although the amounts to be imported will still be substantially larger than the quantities imported in the corresponding periods of 1932 and 1933. I think I have explained all the salient points in the Order, and I beg to move that it be approved.
Moved, That the Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templernore.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, we on this side of the House take a rather serious view of this Import Regulation Order. The information given to your Lordships' House is singularly scanty. There has been no indication of any considered discussion of the effect of the Order. There has been no issue of a White Paper such as the excellent White Paper issued in regard to meat importations, and we really are unable to gather from the information available what exactly will be the result. That point was raised in another place by Sir Percy Harris, who complained that the information given was utterly and hopelessly inadequate, and I must say, after reading through the information which is available, that I think there was substance in his complaint.
First of all, I should like to deal with the question of the quantitative

325
regulation of imports. I think it is a little misleading to tell your Lordships only of the rise in the importation of pork during the years 1932, 1933 and 1934. From the Trade and Navigation Returns of the United Kingdom we find that in the months of January and February this year, compared with those months in previous years, the imports of pork from foreign countries actually went down very substantially. From the United States the imports in those two months were only half what they were a year ago. Not only are they not going up, but they are going down very substantially. From the other country mentioned by the noble Lord, the Argentine, imports were down by 30 per cent. in those two months. Why, then, is it necessary to introduce import regulations? I suggest that we really ought to have a clear picture of what is going to be the effect of this Order instead of being given merely the import figures for 1932, 1933 and 1934.
We are told that the effect of the Bacon Order has been to restrict the importation of bacon and that it is intended that the importation of pork shall be restricted in the same way. But when we examine these two products together, we find that the increased import of pork does not nearly make up for the loss in bacon imports from Denmark and other countries. For instance, I see that in 1932—I am taking the years to which the noble Lord referred—the sum of the two products, pork plus bacon, was 12,000,000 cwt. In the year following it had gone down to 9,900,000 cwt. and last year it had gone down again to 8,800,000 cwt. It is absurd, therefore, to pretend that because imports of pork have gone up the increase is going to make up for the loss in bacon imports. It does not make up for the loss. It does not account for more than 15 or 20 per cent, of the loss in bacon imports. The increase in pork is negligible compared with the decrease in bacon.
So much for the quantities; but now, my Lords, look at the effect on prices. The effect of the bacon restriction—this is very important to realise; and the Government have realised it, as I shall show in a moment—has been that the importation of bacon has gone down between 1932 and 1934 by no less than:3,400,000 cwts. That is a drop from 7,600,000 cwts. to 4,300,000 cwts. approximately.
326
But the cost of bacon has not dropped in anything like the same proportion, and the amount of money that we are sending to Denmark for an infinitely reduced amount of exports is not very different. In other words, we were paying to Denmark nearly £21,000,000 in 1932 for 7,600,000 cwts. of bacon, and we are now paying £18,000,000 for only 4,000,000 cwts. Expressed in pounds per cwt., we were paying £2 15s. in 1932 for Danish bacon; now, with reduced imports, we are paying the Danes over £4 per cwt. In other words, if we had purchased the same amount of bacon at the price of 1932, instead of paying to Denmark £17,750,000—nearly £18,000,000—we should only have paid £11,000,000, and the Government might very well have had £6,000,000 in pocket to help the industry instead of coming down on the taxpayers.
Now, if in fact pork had fallen or was falling in price, that might be an argument for this restriction. But the price we are paying for imported pork is going up, and has been going up for several months, and in fact for several years. In 1933 we were paying £2 10s. per cwt. In 1934 that sum had gone up to about £2 11s. 6d. or £2 12s. In January of this year we were paying £2 14s. per cwt.; in February of this year we were paying £2 16s. per cwt. The price is going up and up. What is going to be the effect on the lives of the people of this country when we impose the heavy restrictions on pork indicated by the noble Lord, when already the price is going up without restrictions? We shall have the price rising by perhaps two or three times as much as people are having to pay now for this consumable commodity. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, said, speaking on February 5, that cheaper and better food was his goal. All I can say is that, if that is the goal of the noble Earl, he is going by a very curious way to get at it. He is going in the opposite direction, and it would be interesting to understand what he means when he says that cheaper and better food is his goal, when the proposal of this restriction on pork will simply mean an enormous increase in the price which the people will have to pay.
I cannot understand why this extension of the Pork Order should be brought in now. We are learning by the Bacon Order some of the disadvantages of this

327
licensing scheme. I noticed that in another place a Member, dealing with the licences, pointed out that when licences are granted, foreign producers, instead of importing at the time when we want it, wait until a shortage has. caused a rise in price, and then come in and sneak the advantage of the rise in price which ought to have gone to our own producers. That is constantly going on and is apparently not being corrected by the Board of Trade. I saw in a report of a speech by the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Baldwin, yesterday, that he said:
"As far as I can see, the tendency of this Government is now to turn away from quotas and restrictions of trade and to support a system of duties."
Why, then, are we suddenly having this extension of the system of quotas and restrictions in face of that decision of the Government Or is it just that the Board of Trade does not know what the Government have decided and is automatically putting into force a restriction without adequately considering the matter?
Then I think that we should have had some information before this restriction was brought in as to how the marketing business is working for bacon. We have had nothing to tell us how the matter is going on. I see that the point was raised by Sir Francis Acland in another place; he said that in his opinion all practicable steps—to quote the Order before your Lordships—for the efficient re-organisation of the pig industry by means of marketing schemes had not been taken. He claimed that they had not been taken, and that in point of fact agricultural marketing as regards pigs was not running an efficient scheme.
We feel that your Lordships' House has not been treated absolutely fairly in this matter. An Order was in force on the 12th March; we are now at the 26th March, and there has been no Paper published giving the reasons for this sudden decision. We feel that the effect on the lives of the people who are eating and needing pork is going to be serious if the price rises to double what it is now. I am not exaggerating at all: if bacon has gone up from £2 15s. to over £4 there is nothing to prevent pork going up from its present price to double what it is. When with an unrestricted entry the price is going up, how infinitely more is it
328
likely to go up if we impose restrictions? We feel that it is inopportune to bring in this Order now before we have fuller information. We therefore propose to oppose the approval of this Order, and to ask the Government to publish a White Paper explaining the real position and to put it before your Lordships' House with a reasoned case before your Lordships' House approves this Order.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, we have listened to a very interesting speech, which would have been a little more impressive if it had been based upon the facts of the situation. What are the facts of the situation? We have heard about the rising prices of pork and the dangers to the consumer of the steps that have been taken. Actually retail prices to-day—to take an average quotation, the quotation on the Liverpool Corporation Market—have been from Id. to 2d. per lb. lower in the first three months of this year than in the first three months of last year. That does not look as though retail prices were rising.
LORD MARLEY: I quoted the wholesale prices from the Trade and Navigation Returns.
EARL DE LA WARR: But the noble Lord was talking about the effect on the consumer, and I think he will agree that the retail prices are of infinitely greater interest to the consumer than are the prices given by the noble Lord. Of course we all know that it is perfectly possible to select convenient figures for this purpose, but in this case the figures of the noble Lord are not really the relevant figures. What is going to be the effect of this Order—a tremendous decrease in the supply of pork to this country as compared with the last few years? Not at all. The actual effect is going to be more pork in the market than in 1932 or 1933. What are the facts of the situation? Last year the figure of imports of foreign pork was 580,000 cwt., twice what it was the year before, and four times what it was the year before that, and what we are doing is restricting imports to the average of those three years, and the result will be 50 per cent. above what the figure was in 1933.
That is with regard to foreign imports, and the Dominions, on a voluntary basis,

329
are actually regulating their imports on a somewhat less reduced scale even than that. The noble Lord says there has not been a crash in fie market yet. Quite so, but does he suggest that the Government should always wait before taking action until disaster occurs? It is obvious from the way imports were increasing that we were working up to a crash. The noble Lord mentioned the first two months of this year, when there was a decrease in foreign imports and an increase in Dominion imports. Surely we all know that these monthly figures—especially with regard to countries situated a long way away, from which imports take a very long time to travel—are of very little importance, and we have to take the broad annual figures. On those figures it is perfectly clear what is happening to this market.
Then the noble Lord went on to the question of bacon prices. It is not really strictly relevant to this Order but perhaps your Lordship would wish that I should deal with the points he has raised. He complained that the supply of bacon to the market from imports has been reduced. That is perfectly true—by something over 3,000,000 cwt. Of course he will realise, also, that the home supplies have increased very largely, though admittedly not to that full extent. Surely we all of us appreciate what was the situation in the bacon market when this scheme was brought into operation. The bacon market had dropped to a level of prices which was spreading ruin not merely throughout this country but throughout Denmark, which, I think, is admittedly the most efficient bacon producing country of which we know. Actually in that year the Danish sow population had gone clown by between 15 and 20 per cent., and we were working up to what really, in a year or two, would have been a bacon famine, when prices would have gone up to a level far above the prices to which they have been taken to-day.
What this Government are aiming at in the whole of their marketing policy are not high prices for the producer, or low prices for the consumer, hut fair, stable prices, going right through. That has been, so far as I know, the policy also of the Labour Party itself. I find here, in an interesting little pamphlet entitled The Land and the National Planning of Agriculture, issued in 1932
330
by the Labour Party, on page 19, a reference to that policy, as follows:
"Regulation of Imports—
…The adoption of a policy of price stabilisation involves, therefore, the acceptance of the principle of regulating imports where necessary."
That is precisely the policy which the Government are pursuing—namely, regulating imports in the interests of fair stable prices—a fair price for the producer, and a fair price for the consumer. In view, therefore, of these facts I have no hesitation in asking your Lordships to support the Motion proposed by my noble friend.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, I would like, if I might, very respectfully, to say a word in support of this Order. Agriculturists regard it as part of the general policy of developing and expanding the industry of agriculture as a whole in this country. In the words of the White Paper, the Order is introduced because "without this Order the effective organisation and development of the said industry cannot be brought about or maintained." It seems to me that that' is a convincing argument of the necessity of an Order of this kind, and I believe there is general agreement in the nation as a whole as to the need of re-establishing as far as may be practicable the industry of agriculture. In this branch of the industry—namely, the production of pigs and pig products—you have a branch which is applicable to almost every class of worker on the soil. It is a branch of the industry in which the large farmer participates, and in which the small holder plays a big part, and in which even the villager is able to add to the quota. In fact, it is said in certain counties that in driving through a village you can tell what is the price of pork, because the aroma from the various pig sties tells you whether or not the industry is prosperous.
I venture to think that it is a very humble and modest step which is contemplated by this Order. It reduces the supplies of frozen pork from foreign countries to a level still above that of 1932 and 1933, and it is essential, if the regulation of meat generally is to be carried out effectively, that power should be given to regulate the various competing products, because, as we are well aware, meat is interchangeable, and it is easy to upset

331
a balanced scheme if you allow free entry with regard to one particular section or product. I suggest that it is of no practical avail unless you take general steps for regulating the imports as a whole. I know that fears are often expressed by persons associated with the shipping industry and the import industry in this country, that their particular interests may be adversely affected. I do not share that view, because the imports of frozen pork, amounting to 580,000 cwts.
Resolved in the affirmative and Motion agreed to accordingly.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (COUNTY OF HOLLAND JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GUISBOROUGH JOINT SMALLPOX HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HUNTINGDONSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
from the U.S.A. and the Argentine, could easily be replaced by far larger imports into this country of foodstuffs, if the pork were produced in this country, as it well might be. I would therefore, with great respect, suggest that this is part of the general policy, and will, I hope, receive the assent and approval of the House.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 25; Not-Contents, 10.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Lamington, L.

Hailsham, V.

Merthyr, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Mount Temple, L.

Alness, L.

Palmer, L.

De La Warr, E.

Annaly, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Feversham, E.

Desborough, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Dickinson, L.

Munster, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Swinfen, L.

Stanhope, E.

Eltisley, L.

Templemore, L.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

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

NOT-CONTENTS.

Mersey, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Sanderson, L.

Arnold, L.

Ker, L. (M. Lothian.)

Stanmore, L.

Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH CHILTERNS JOINT SMALLPOX HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

JURIES (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to preface my exposition of the detailed provisons of this exceedingly simple measure of legal reform by one or two. observations of a more general nature. I am encouraged in several ways to introduce this Bill for a Second Reading in your Lordships' House. Your Lordships have already shown yourselves distinctly favourable to the general principle of legal reform, and this is amply demonstrated by the cordial reception you have given to the measure which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merrivale, brought before you to alter our present

333
crude and, I think it is no exaggeration to say, barbarous methods of dealing with matrimonial cases in our police courts. Again, the principles embodied in this particular Bill have behind them a very considerable volume of public opinion which has expressed itself both in Parliament and outside for quite a period of time.
I should like to mention one or two organisations which have shown themselves to be anxious that a measure of this kind should reach the Statute Book. There is, for instance, the National Council of Women which, with its affiliated branches and societies, includes a membership of about 2,000,000 persons. This organisation sent a deputation to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, in the summer of 1933, and it received an assurance that the matter would have serious consideration. The Bill is also supported by a number of branches of the Women Citizens Association. And to show your Lordships that this is not merely a whim on the part of the female element in the population, I should like to point out that 'a Bill drafted on these lines was introduced in another place about eighteen months ago, and it was owing to the lack of facilities for Private Members' legislation that it was unable to pass to a Second Reading.
Another general recommendation of this Bill, if I may suggest it, is that it is clearly a non-Party measure. It receives support from all who are anxious to improve our present legal system quite apart from the particular Party affiliations that they may have; and interesting evidence on this point is that when a similar measure was introduced in another place, out of the nine members whose names appeared on the back of the Bill, as is the custom there, seven were supporters of the National Government, one was a Liberal, and one was an Independent. I therefore venture to appeal to your Lordships to consider the provisions of this simple three-clause Bill entirely on their intrinsic merits and without any reference to the policy or the programme of any political Party.
May I very briefly and as clearly as possible enunciate the particular aims and purposes which this measure is calculated to promote? They are. I think, very clearly summarised in the Memorandum
334
which is attached to the Bill. The first aim is to increase the numbers of those who are eligible for jury service, and the second is to exempt from such service those who would suffer intolerable hardship and undue suffering owing to the particular obligations which this responsibility imposes upon them. If I may draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 1, which aims, as I said, at increasing the number of those who may be included on the jurors' panel, I should like to point out that, of course, the majority of those affected will be women, I think their case is partly one of right and partly one of expediency. It is accepted at the moment that those responsibilities and privileges which citizenship confers on both sexes should be shared equally in so far as physical and material differences do not make this equality of status impracticable. It is therefore to some extent a question of right that women on exactly the same footing as men in the community in this particular respect should be able to fulfil the same functions. It is also a question of expediency. I maintain that our jury service would be able to deal with the cases in our Courts which come before juries far more efficiently if the scope of the law affecting juries were expanded in this way.
May I just outline the present legal position? As the law now stands those women are qualified to serve—and of course this applies equally to men—who pay more than a certain sum annually in rates or—and this is equally valid as qualification—who receive more than a certain income from real property. That is the general qualification for all jurors. This particular property qualification means in effect, as applied to the female element in the population, that it is, practically speaking, elderly spinsters or widows who become eligible for jury service. This is simply the consequence of the fact that it is not the general mule for women to own real property or to be householders unless they have inherited such possessions from a deceased parent or husband. There are, I think, many practical diadvantages resulting from this state of affairs. The first is that women are in fact debarred from sitting on juries during the prime of life—that is to say, at a period when their faculties would

335
he best adapted to giving a considered judgment on the cases brought before them. It means, besides, that the existing law is often inoperative because it is impossible to procure the full quota of women who should sit on a particular jury in a particular court.
May I remind your Lordships of Rule 3 of the principles affecting women jurors as laid down by the Rule Committee in 1920? It reads as follows:
"The number of women appearing on any panel of jurors shall be in the same proportion, or as near as may be, to the number of men appearing thereon as the total number of women is to the total number of men in the jurors' book or other list of jurors from which the panel is drawn."
This proportion of women to men is very often unobserved simply because it is impossible to procure a sufficient number of women. This applies, naturally, to rural areas. Another serious handicap arising from the present condition of the law affecting jurors is that the effort to apply it, to keep to the spirit and the letter of the law, means that certain women are very often called to serve over and over again, so that they experience a great deal of hardship and are placed in an obviously inequitable position as compared with other women who serve on juries. Another difficulty due to the scarcity of women jurors is that it is impossible to pick and choose among those who are available in order that only individuals who are best suited to listen to cases and to judge in an impartial and dispassionate way, should be those who take a place on the jury. It is impossible for any choice of this kind to occur so long as the number of women is so lamentably small. That is why I may again draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 1. We include words that read: "every person and the wife or husband of such person" as is at present qualified. Subsection (2) simply applies the principle to London. The change would naturally affect the husbands of women who are at present qualified as well as women. The great majority of those concerned would be of the female sex.
The second aim is embodied in Clause 2. There is, I think, a very general feeling that unnecessary and unwarranted hardship is caused by a refusal to exempt from jury service those who have legitimate grounds for putting forward such a
336
claim. According to the present law such people can be granted exemption if they can show a good reason for non-attendance, but there is, so far as I know, no clear distinct definition of what this phrase "good reason" exactly means. We should naturally find its interpretation most easily by examining what actually happens. In practice permission not to serve has usually been granted only on grounds of ill health, and it appears to those who are in favour of this measure that ill health should be clearly laid down as a sufficient reason, and that two other grounds of exemption should be added thereto. The two other grounds, as your Lordships will observe, are business or household reasons, and these are a plain and simple addition to the present disqualification of physical unfitness and ill health.
These business or domestic grounds naturally only refer to what every one admits to be really hard cases. For instance, there is the one-man business—the tradesman who has to run his shop entirely by himself and who is unable to find a substitute while he is away. The person engaged in a one-man business is clearly enduring infinitely greater hardship than the ordinary citizen who serves on a jury. This would apply, if the measure were to reach the Statute Book, to a married woman who is alone in charge of young children. It would clearly be impossible for her, without very grave anxiety and without running certain risks, to leave her family entirely alone. Therefore, in view of the need that has been felt for some time that a measure should be introduced to deal with unwarranted sacrifices on the part of existing jurors, and in view of a similar need that has been felt for increasing the number of those qualified to serve on juries, I very much hope that your Lordships will give a favourable verdict on what is a small measure of legal reform such as, I think, appeals ordinarily to your Lordships' House. I therefore beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, in such comments as I have to make on this Bill it will be unnecessary for me to say anything on the general question of the desirability of securing the assistance of women on juries. The

337
principle that women should share with men the duty of jury service was settled by the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, 1919, and I suppose few, if any, people will even dare to question the decision which was then taken. I gather from what the noble Earl has said that the promoters of the Bill think that the machinery by which juries are called into existence under the existing law is unsatisfactory, because the number of women summoned to serve on juries is small compared with the number of men. The composition of any particular jury depends on two factors of which your Lordships no doubt are fully aware, first, on the proportion of men and women in the group of people from whom the jury is selected by ballot; and, secondly, on the accident of the ballot, which may in any particular instance result in the drawing of a comparatively large or a comparatively small number of women.
On the average, however, if a comparatively large number of the names which go into the ballot box are the names of women, the number of women chosen by the ballot to serve will be comparatively high; and the proposal in the Bill is to make a very large increase in the number of women summoned to serve, so that if the number of women should form, say, 50 per cent. of the persons whose names go into the ballot box the chances are that on the average juries would contain as many women as men. Some juries would no doubt consist mainly of women; others might consist mainly of men; but in the aggregate jury service would be divided equally between men and women. What the precise proportions would be of men and women respectively summoned for jury service under the provisions of the Bill cannot be estimated with accuracy, but so far as can be seen the effect of the Bill would be to make the number of women rather greater than the number of men. The Bill enlarges the number of persons who will be liable to be summoned by providing that in addition to the men and women who have the property qualification required by the existing law, there shall be added to the list of persons available for jury service the wives of all men who are qualified and the husbands el all women who are qualified. The effect would be, first, to increase very greatly, perhaps almost to double, the number of persons available for jury service, and, secondly, to make
338
the number of available women larger than the number of available men. This last effect follows from the provisions in the existing law exempting numerous classes of people, most of whom are men, from jury service by virtue of their profession or occupation.
For example, members of both Houses of Parliament, Judges, ministers of religion, the legal and medical professions, members of His Majesty's Forces, the Police, Customs, Post Office and Inland Revenue officers, as well as other classes of persons, are all exempt. Few of the persons exempted in virtue of these professions are at present married women; the great majority of them are men. Under the provisions of the Bill, doctors and barristers, for example, will remain exempt but their wives will be liable for jury service, except in the comparatively rare cases where the wife happens to be practising one of the exempted professions. The result will be not to make the number of each class available for jury service equal, as the noble Earl suggested, but to make the number of married women available greater than the number of married men available. It is true that in a certain number of cases a married man who is at present not available for jury service because his wife is the ratepayer would become available under the provision of the Bill: but the effect of this provision as regards men will be comparatively small.
The difficulties which will often be experienced by married women with families in serving on juries, especially when a jury is required to sit for several days, are obvious, and the promoters of the Bill have recognised this by a provision which is no doubt intended to enlarge the power of the Courts to grant exemption in any cases where special hardship would be caused on account of household considerations. Even on the assumption that a large number of married women will ask for and obtain exemption, the position will remain that the Bill will cause a very extensive change in the respective proportions of men and women composing the groups of people from whom juries are drawn by ballot: and that, as a result juries may sometimes be composed mainly of women, and that most juries, at any rate, will contain as many women as men. Admitting to the full the value of the

339
services of women jurors does it follow that there are any grounds for attempting to bring about at the present time so drastic a change in the composition of juries as the Bill contemplates? Have the promoters any evidence that amongst the persons whose cases are tried in the Courts, particularly those who are engaged in civil litigation, there is any general complaint that there are too few women on juries or that steps are desirable to increase the proportion of women to the extent contemplated by the Bill.
The Government have no information that there is any demand, or any case, for so large a change as is proposed in the Bill; and even if it were shown that there is a case for making some increase in the number of women available for jury service, the remedy would, I submit, have to be found by some method other than that proposed in the noble Earl's Bill. Under the scheme of the Bill the list of persons liable to jury summons will contain large numbers of married women living in small households whose domestic and family responsibilities will make it impossible for them to comply. All these women will have to obtain individual exemptions either by written application or by personal application after the summons has been issued and received. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the inconvenience and trouble thus caused to large numbers of married women will be great. The administrative difficulties caused to the Courts and their officers may be still greater. The provision in Clause 2 of the Bill, which is apparently intended to widen the power of the Courts to grant exemptions, will have to apply both to men and to women. Numerous applications for exemption; would therefore be made; each applicant would have to show "special hardship"; and the Courts would have to consider in each case whether special grounds for exemption had been shown. Apart from the difficulty of deciding what circumstances constitute "special hardship on account of business or household considerations," the trouble and expense involved, first, in issuing large numbers of summonses, and, secondly, in considering large numbers of applications for exemption would, I believe, be serious.
Moreover, as a matter of principle, if there is to be an extension of the number of women available for jury service, is it defensible to attain this object by making
340
marriage to a person who possesses the property qualification the criterion and thus throwing on the wives of these householders a large and disproportionate share of the burden or privilege of jury service? If it were shown that in practice insufficient provision is made under the existing law for securing the services of women on juries, the question how best to enlarge the number of women liable to jury service would no doubt require very careful consideration, but I submit to your Lordships that in any case there are no sufficient grounds for the large changes proposed in this Bill, which would cause great inconvenience to many married women and most serious administrative difficulties to those who are responsible for summoning juries and granting exemptions.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I need hardly say that this Bill is not an official Bill of the Labour Party. It is an individual Bill and as far as I am personally concerned there are one or two aspects of it which I do not altogether like. The noble Earl in his reply indicated that there were certain disadvantages accruing from jury service at the present moment which, if they were represented to the Government as seriously existing, would be sympathetically considered by the Government. One of those hardships that I should like to mention is the expense incurred by jurors. This Bill mentions hardships, and there is no doubt that people serving on juries nowadays suffer from considerable loss through the heavy expense they incur in attending. There was a letter in The Times yesterday on the payment of jurors, pointing out that special jurors might get one guinea a day but that common jurors in London got only is and in the country only 8d.: that County Court jurors received Is. and jurors at the Mayor's Court 2d. In olden days, of course, jurors were drawn from wealthier classes. To-day jury service is much more widely spread, and therefore, if the Government are considering the hardships of jurors, I hope very much they will take into account the expenses of jurors.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, T cannot help feeling that the noble Earl who replied on behalf of the Government was certainly aware that there are grievances, and grievances that should be examined, even though he does not consider

341
that the measure which I had hoped would meet the case was actually suitable. The arguments that he used against this particular Bill were, I thought, extraordinarily contradictory. So far as the service of women on juries is concerned, he started by saying that he and everyone else accepted the principle of equality of responsibility and duties of citizenship as between the two sexes, a principle that was applied in the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act, which added women to the number of those entitled to serve on a jury panel. Once that principle has been accepted, surely we must accept the logical consequences, and one logical consequence undoubtedly and inescapably, is that property qualifications which are sufficient to entitle a man to sit on a jury should also be sufficient to entitle a woman to fulfil the same function in society.
The noble Earl argued on the same point that juries would be swamped by the female sex. Those who are responsible for promoting this Bill are of course just as anxious as he is to prevent any preponderance of women on juries. I would suggest that, if that is what is really concerning the noble Earl, it would be very easy indeed to meet the difficulty by introducing some Amendment which would effect an equality between the number of men and the number of women who are called on to serve upon a jury.
So far as the second clause of this measure is concerned, the only obstacle which the noble Lord outlined was one which might be called technical. He said —without Challenging the contention that unwarranted hardship and unmerited sacrifice are incurred at the present moment by those who have to serve on juries—that applications to the sheriff or to whoever was responsible for deciding whether an individual should sit on a jury would pour in in such numbers that the expense to the State would be greatly increased. Surely that cannot be regarded as an impediment in the way of a social reform, once it is granted that the social reform is necessary. This purely technical difficulty is one which should be considered by those who are responsible for the administration of the law. The same difficulty, if I may suggest it, invariably arises when any of our social services are extended in any direction.
342
I am bound to say that the answer of the Government, which did not challenge the basic contentions of this measure that there are grievances which ought to be heard and which ought to be investigated, was not in the least satisfactory. I had hoped that the noble Earl would at least have considered that a Committee of Inquiry might be appointed, even if it was impossible for him to accept the Bill. What one is bound to call, in view of the extent of the opinion in favour of reform on these general lines, his negative and unconstructive attitude, is very deplorable indeed. Although I am naturally not prepared to press a measure which does not pretend to emanate from any particular political Party, I feel bound to deplore the unconstructive attitude which the Government have adopted, and I should like to express a hope that, in view of their acceptance of the fact that grievances and inequalities exist, they may be able at some future date to give their very serious consideration to the whole matter.
LORD MOUNT TEMPLE: My Lords, in view of the reply of the Government pointing out the many difficulties in the proposal, may I very respectfully make a suggestion to the noble Earl who brought in the Bill? There is no chance of his Bill passing into law this Session. There are many points of view: some entirely opposed to the extension, some entirely in its favour, others holding that the principle is good and the machinery bad. What does cry out for remedy, however, is the payment of jurors, a question which has been brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Marley. I do not often agree with the noble Lord, but in this matter I find myself in complete agreement. It is much better to deal with an existing evil in some practical manner. It is no doubt a serious burden on many men and women who have to serve on juries that they not only have to serve, which is onerous, but that they actually lose every day a considerable amount of money which they would otherwise receive. I put this to the noble Earl: that he and his friends—and I, in my humble way, will be glad to co-operate—should concentrate in the first instance on getting existing jurors better paid and then, when they have clone that, go on to see whether an extension is

343
necessary. It is generally better to do something practical, and I do not think that the noble Earl and his friends can do anything practical on the lines of this Bill this Session or in the present Parliament.
On Question, Motion for the Second Reading negatived.

REGIMENTAL CHARITABLE FUNDS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendment read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Amendment be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

REGIMENTAL CHARITABLE FUNDS BILL. [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT.
  [The reference is to Bill No. 31.]
  Clause 1, page 1, line 23, after ("shall") insert ("if and").
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill repotted without amendment.
POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
CRIMINAL LUNATICS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

POST OFFICE (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Templemore.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have not put down an Amendment to this Bill, in order to save expense, but I have given Lord Templemore notice that I intended to raise a point on Clause 10. This clause constitutes a new offence, and it is usual, where a new offence is constituted, for a proviso to be inserted in the Bill that no private prosecution shall be brought without, the consent of the Attorney-General. If your Lordships will look at subsection (2) paragraph (a), you will see that it says if any person
"sends any message by telephone which is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character"
he shall be guilty of an offence. It would be very easy for a crank to say that so-and-so had insulted him on the telephone, and it would be simply a question of evidence between the two parties as to which the magistrate believed. Even if the person against whom the prosecution was brought got off, the costs which he would incur would involve a great deal of money. I therefore urge my noble friend seriously to consider whether, on the Third Reading, there should not be inserted an Amendment such as I have suggested.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am not quite sure that this discussion is very regular at this particular stage, because the present Motion is that this House shall resolve itself into Committee, and this is a Committee point. I should like to assure the noble Viscount that it is a mistake to suppose that wherever a new offence is created it is the practice to provide that no prosecution shall take place without the consent of the Attorney-General. It is true to say that there are some occasions on which it is thought desirable to limit the ordinary right of the private individual to institute criminal proceedings, and when a case is made out it is true that in certain cases the magistrate will wish to obtain the fiat of the Attorney-General, but these cases are the exception rather than the rule. It is my recollection that

345
during my term of office I had a list made out which showed that only in something between fifty and sixty Statutes, out of a number of hundreds, was such a proviso inserted. Normally the rule is that anybody can institute a prosecution, but in certain cases Parliament thinks it right to limit that power to public authorities.
With regard to this particular case I think all I can say, or that my noble friend. Lord Templemore could say, if such an Amendment were moved, would be that one would necessarily communicate with the right honourable gentleman whose Department is immediately concerned, and let him know of the suggestion put forward. I cannot pretend to answer what view the right honourable gentleman would form about the Amendment or suggested Amendment. Unfortunately it is not a very long time before this Bill is expected to become law, but the suggestion of the noble Viscount will certainly be conveyed by my noble friend, and I am sure will be received with that respectful consideration with which any suggestion from your Lordships' House ought to be received by a responsible member of the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to: House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL BUILDING ADMINISTRATION.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI rose to draw attention to the lax administration by certain local authorities of the present law with regard to the materials and methods used in the building of dwelling-houses and the need of a further extension and strengthening of the laws relating to house-building; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion which I have on the Paper does not raise any Party issue—at least I hope it does not—and it is in no way a reflection on the Government or on the Ministry of Health; but it does seek to draw attention to what I believe will be agreed by your Lordships to be a very
346
considerable scandal. I refer to the numbers of houses in various parts of the country, and not only in the South of England but also up in the hardheaded North as well, built for the most part by unassisted private enterprise and which, in spite of Statutes and by-laws, are built of disgracefully shoddy materials, and in some cases begin to fall to pieces within a few months of completion and occupation. I have sent to Lord Gage, who speaks with such ability and charm for the Ministry of Health in this House, if I may say so, a whole sheaf of the worst cases, and also some remarkable articles in a newspaper of very wide circulation, John Bull, which give chapter and verse, without mentioning names, of these cases. Since those articles appeared that newspaper has been inundated with similar cases of a most scandalous nature.
What happens is this. A glowing advertisement appears in the newspapers offering beautiful houses, on easy terms of payment, in a desirable neighbourhood. This catches the eye of a young married couple, or a couple intending to be married. They are taken down in high-powered car by the house agent to see a house. The high pressure salesman takes them round a show house and then gets them to sign on the dotted line, agreeing to take over a. similar house on deferred terms of payment. Of course they ought to have an independent surveyor's or architect's opinion, but owing to their enthusiasm or inexperience they do not always think—and perhaps they do not know—of these things, and when they have paid their deposit, which probably they have taken time to save up, and have settled in the house, they find in a few months that the ceilings are cracking or the walls are crumbling or giving way, or the roofs leaking; and then they realise that they have put themselves into a trap. The original jerrybuilder who built the house is in many cases a man of straw, mere speculator, in some cases not a practical builder at all, who has had the house built by a sub-contractor. In many cases he has disappeared, or his limited liability company has been wound up.
Then they are expected to continue their payments to the building society, and the building society refuses any responsibility. The building society has

347
surveyed the house, it is true, but apparently certain building societies—not all, of course—only take care that the people going into the house as prospective householders are financially sound, and not that the house is structurally sound. The young people soon find themselves with a heavy repair bill to meet, or else with a house that leaks or is insanitary or unhealthy. They cannot possibly pay for the necessary repairs; in many cases they are struggling young couples whose budget is very closely balanced, and they cannot possibly meet these heavy repair bills in addition to the weekly payments on the house. What happens? In many cases quite honest and respectable people are forced to do what is known, I believe, as a "moonlight flit"; that is, they move their goods and furniture in the middle of the night, and they go back to the slums from which they came. There are dozens and dozens of those cases up and down the country. People have simply been ruined because of the heavy cost of repairs on houses that have been inefficiently built of the worst and shoddiest and cheapest materials. We used to say in Yorkshire "clogs to clogs in three generations." Now it is a case of slums, into the new garden suburb, and back to the slums in about six years in some cases.
It may be asked: But what are the local authorities doing? That is why I put this Motion on the Paper. In many cases—not all by any means, but in a minority of cases—the local authorities neglect their duty. The local surveyor is either overworked or inefficient. In some cases, I am told, he is a friend of the jerrybuilder, and he does not do his duty. Plans are passed by the local authority which look very fine on paper, but when the plans are passed that is apparently the end of the activities of the local authority; because, although the plan looks all right, there is nothing in it to specify the materials used. I shall give some actual cases of the kind of inefficient materials used. Now there are local by-laws. The noble Viscount will correct me if I am inaccurate, but I believe I am right in saying there are something like 1,400 authorities up and down the country, and the by-laws differ in a great many districts; in some cases the by-laws are not really
348
up to date and do not meet modern conditions.
I believe it is true that 90 per cent. of the country is now under various Town Planning Acts, but those Acts have not really come into force yet, and the local authorities have not been alive to what has been going on, with this tremendous boom in building in certain parts of the country. The Public Health Acts date from 1875, and there are a number of them, but I suggest that they really need bringing up to date to meet this particular case. Where you have the local authorities themselves building houses there is a different story. They have a clerk of the works, and if there is any scandal the local councils have to answer for it. Generally speaking, those houses are excellently and properly built. What I am now referring to are the houses built by what is known as unassisted private enterprise—by speculators, financed by the building societies. And I am not generalising. It is admittedly only a minority of local authorities who do not do their duty, but in the aggregate the number of people affected is very great. The majority of building societies are conscientious. There is a minority who are more anxious to find an outlet for their money and who are not careful enough to check the activities of the jerrybuilders who are their clients. The majority of local authorities are conscientious and do their duty, but there is a minority who do not. Thus there is a minority of building societies who are not careful enough, there is a minority of builders who are not honest men, there is a minority of local authorities who are slack, and there is a minority of surveyors who for one reason or another—either from overwork or from incompetence—do not do their duty. The result is what we see in many parts of the country, and perfectly innocent people, who only suffer through their ignorance, have been ruined.
Let me give one or two examples. In London, the building by-laws lay down that partition walls must be a certain thickness, but they do not specify what the materials are to be in the partition walls, and one of the tricks of these unscrupulous jerrybuilders is to use a very cheap and objectionable form of breeze block. These are blocks made of

349
ground coke dust from gas coke, with just enough cement mixed in to hold these blocks together. The coke dust has not, been washed, and there is a considerable sulphur content. These breeze blocks are all right to look at when they are covered with a coat of plaster and paint, but presently chemical action takes place, the blocks burst or crumble, and the walls begin to fall to pieces. That is one thing that is done, and it is quite common, Another thing is that the timber used is sometimes of the cheapest and most, unsuitable quality—what the builders themselves call "thirds," or in some cases "fourths"—green, unseasoned timber which has been rejected by the builders' merchants. It is bought up by jobbers and sold to the jerrybuilders, and in the housing boom that is going on quite a large business, I am told, has been built up by particular jobbers, who buy these rejected lots of timber and sell them to the jerrybuilders. Well, the timbers warp" the wood is rotten when it goes in, or it is unseasoned, with results that your Lordships can imagine when the very first winter's gale comes to shake those houses.
Another thing that happens is that very had plaster is used. When covered up with cheap paint it looks all right, but very soon it begins to flake and deteriorate. Shoddy and cheap electrical fittings are used, and, worst of all perhaps, inferior materials are used as foundations. The local by-laws lay it down that the foundations must be of a certain thickness. That is adhered to; but the foundations, instead of being made of proper cement, are heaped up with rubble and rubbish of all kinds. A great many cases are detailed in the batch of documents which I have sent to-day to the noble Viscount, who was kind enough to tell me he would he glad to look at the details. I am going to trouble your Lordships with a few actual cases of what has happened in the case of different estates and building societies. I am going to give the names and places. There are a great many more I could quote, and a great many more that I have sent to the noble Viscount. I have only picked out some of the outstanding cases.
I am first going to quote the case of the Grove Park Estate at Littlehampton. This is a particularly bad case, because
350
the houses were built with a Government subsidy. £75 of Government subsidy was paid on each bungalow six years ago, and the houses were sold on deferred payments for £651 each. Six months after these bungalows had been completed, a number of them split, and had to be reinforced with cement. They are very damp; and they have since been independently valued. Their value is only about £250 each, and they were sold to the unfortunate purchasers for £651. In the other cases I am quoting there was no Government subsidy paid. At the Swan Side Estate at Liverpool a house was bought for £495. After a few weeks it began literally to fall to pieces; the details I have sent to the noble Viscount. At Warrington houses built with the assistance of the Leek United and Midland Building Society were full of defects which only appeared after the unfortunate purchasers had paid their deposits and made the first payments. At Cardiff houses that cost the purchasers from £450 to £650 each were found, on investigation, to have ceilings which were literally made of cardboard with a thin layer of plaster to cover them; and inner walls of cheap type of breeze block, with timber green and unseasoned, and doors of three-ply wood.
At Blackpool on Peel Avenue Estate the houses have faulty fireplaces, defective drains and structural weakness, which all developed within a month. These houses cost £650. After five years the roads on that estate have not been made, and the conditions described to me are appalling. Here is a case where the builder refuses to do anything and the building society, the Bingby Building Society, refuses to take responsibility. That is a, particularly bad case. If determined people, or people with money behind them, care to employ lawyers and fight building societies or companies, they may get redress, but a young couple not too well blessed with the world's goods, going into a house hoping it may become their home for twenty years, have no resources with which to fight these wealthy corporations. At Huddersfield houses were sold for £400 and £500 which are valued at £250. At Staines, Middlesex, dry rot has appeared in the floors after three years, and two new floors have had

351
to be put in. That was a case of a building society. At Ayling Estate, Plumstead, a house was bought for £625 in April, 1934, and it is now practically falling to pieces; all the details I have sent to the noble Viscount. A similar case is reported from Brighton. I shall not trouble your Lordships with details. They are unfortunately all too similar. My tenth case I particularly want to mention. It comes from Sand Bay, Weston-super-Mare. There £1,000 was contracted to be paid for the house, and all the roofs are defective through cheap and most unsuitable tiles being put in. All the roofs leak. These are just a few cases in various parts of the country, as your Lordships will have noticed.
What should be the remedy? One remedy, of course, is publicity. That is one reason why I have brought the matter before your Lordships' House so that unsuspecting would-be purchasers may be warned to employ their own independent surveyors. Another remedy, closely associated with the last, is that I hope the Ministry of Health will issue some warnings about these housing estates. I hope the Ministry of Health, if they are satisfied that certain local authorities have been lax, will admonish these local authorities or warn them, tell them to be more careful, tell them it is no use listening to fellow councillors who themselves are jerrybuilders, and tell them they have to go into matters for themselves. The investigations should be made by independent men and not by councillors in the building trade. The Ministry of Health are quick enough to pull up a local authority which pays too much in the way of poor relief; I wish they would be equally active in dealing with local authorities who neglect their duty and do not attend to their own building by-laws. I submit there is a case for a Consolidating Act applying all housing legislation nationally. I believe that the Acts are out of date. There is, of course, a Housing Bill going through another place, but that is more to deal with slum clearance and Government assisted private building. I think the by-laws applying to unassisted private enterprise houses require bringing up to date in certain respects, particularly with regard to the materials that should be used. There ought to be a minimum standard regarding materials that may
352
be used. It is no use saying foundations should be of a certain thickness if rubbish can be used. It is no use saying that partition walls must be of a certain thickness if unsuitable breeze blocks can be used.
Of course, it is very largely also an administrative question. I suggest that local authorities who err, or are lax, should be told it is no use simply passing paper plans and not seeing that the plans are adhered to. We have a system of punishing butchers who sell bad meat. Why should not the house-builder who puts in bad, shoddy, unsuitable materials be punished also? It is the policy of of all Parties in this country to encourage happy marriages and the bringing up of healthy, happy families. Our civilisation really revolves round the unit of the family. All of us take great pride in the development of these housing estates, some of them very attractive, round our great cities. It is delightful to think of people being able to move out from the crowded central slums into these healthier surroundings. But if they are to be fleeced and taken advantage of through their inexperience, then they might just as well have remained where they were in the middle of the towns and under conditions to which they were accustomed.
The present boom in house building has attracted a certain minority of unscrupulous people who are deliberately taking advantage of young people—small business men, clerks, artisans, commercial travellers—that type who are not very experienced in property matters, and palming off on them these inferior shoddy houses. It ought to be stopped. It is a scandal. Or the person might be a pensioner, an old soldier or sailor, or a retired civil servant with a small pension or some savings, who wants to give his children a chance in semi-rural surroundings. He is induced to buy one of these houses on the deferred payment system. He pays his deposit, he makes good his first few payments, and then finds that the house is built of cheap materials, that he has made a thoroughly bad bargain and has no redress. Somebody is to blame. I have hinted where I think the blame lies, and I suggest, with all diffidence to the Ministry of Health, that they could do a good deal in this respect. I am sure they are sympathetic. They probably know what is

353
going on, and I hope this matter will have your Lordships' support and that, by itself, it will provide the Government with an opening to take action to prevent this scandal continuing. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, if any member of your Lordships' House brings to the notice of the Government cases where local authorities are not fulfilling their statutory obligations, my right honourable friend would be justified in making inquiries. The noble Lord has stated he has given me full particulars, and I have no doubt he has, but I must explain to your Lordships that the particulars only reached me two or three minutes before the opening of this debate, and I have not had an opportunity to examine them. But I can promise the noble Lord that if it is found these are eases of the kind which he has suggested —that is to say, cases where local authorities have been lax—my right honourable friend will certainly look into the matter. Perhaps my right honourable friend would also be prepared to examine any cases where it is alleged that public health is in any way being prejudiced by the failure of any local authority to adopt by-laws. I think we all agree that local authorities should, as far as possible, fulfil their statutory undertakings.
When the noble Lord suggests that the evidence he has produced justifies extensive additions to the restrictions and the regulations at present exercised by local authorities, I think that is a proposal which needs very careful consideration. During the recent debate on Socialism in this House I could not help thinking of the history of housing legislation since the War. A very large number of experiments were tried out in connection with housing, combining public and private enterprise in all kinds of ways, and, although there may be some disagreement as to the lessons we can learn from that period, I think nobody can afford to disregard the extraordinary contribution to the housing shortage that has been made by private enterprise during the last ten years. When the noble Lord complains that a certain number of people have a grievance as to the sort of house they have acquired, I think we must also remember that a very much larger number of people have been supplied with perfectly satisfactory houses during that
354
period and are continuing to be so supplied to-day.
It might, indeed, be possible, by tightening up the by-laws and by adding more powers and restrictions, to put it within the power of local authorities to render it less possible for an individual to run the risk of acquiring a bad house, but I think it is open to the most serious doubt whether that can be done without slowing up the flow not only of bad houses but of good houses also. I would like to remind your Lordships of the powers that are exercised to-day by local authorities in regard to new houses. Houses are controlled to-day primarily in the interests of public health, and the inspections cover the structure of walls, foundations, roofs, chimneys, floors, hearths and staircases of new buildings. The noble Lord mentioned foundations, and said that in many cases they were not good. I would remind him that the by-laws do at any rate provide that the foundations should be of good material. In addition to that, they are inspected with a view to securing stability and the prevention of fires, and also in respect of the open spaces about the buildings, ventilation, drainage, water closets, earth closets, and the provision of cesspools.
In addition, under the town-planning regulations, they are controlled in regard to density, external appearance, and in other respects. I think that the amount of regulation which surrounds private-enterprise housing does appear to have reached already a fairly formidable size, and it really is hardly to be wondered at that such complaints as we have received have been complaints, not that the regulations are too loose, but that they are too stringent. The model by-laws which are issued for the guidance of local authorities are designed to meet a variety of different conditions.
LORD MARLEY: I wonder if the noble Viscount would for a moment elucidate that? Can he tell us whether inspectors are appointed, and whether he knows that local authorities actually have inspectors to see that the building by-laws are carried out?
VISCOUNT GAGE: Speaking from my own knowledge as a member of a local authority I can say that the surveyor is usually entrusted with that duty. It is, in fact, one of his main duties. I think it has been said on more than one

355
occasion in this House that the duties which have been piled upon local authorities are already more than they can bear and sometimes more than they can discharge. I must say, speaking as a member of a local authority in the South of England, which I regret to say the noble Lord compared unfavourably with those in the North, that I feel some sympathy with that point of view—at any rate, to the extent of believing that if further responsibilities are to be added to their shoulders the need for those responsibilities should be proved beyond any doubt, and furthermore, it should be clear that they are likely to be effective in doing what they set out to do. It is rather important, therefore, to examine the extent of the evil that the noble Lord alleges exists.
I must say at once that the Ministry have very little evidence that jerry-building on a large scale is prevalent. That in itself is not perhaps entirely conclusive evidence, because our chief sources of information are the local authorities whom the noble Lord alleges in some cases to be lax in their duty. We all know that immediately after the War a certain amount of bad building did take place, but I think the Town Planning Acts will largely prevent that bad type of building ever occurring again. So far as the last ten years are concerned, when some two million houses have, been constructed, I think it is a somewhat noteworthy fact that, as far as I can ascertain, no substantial complaints have been made in Parliament or have been brought to the notice of my right honourable friend until quite recently. Last November the Trades Union Congress discussed jerry-building and subsequently a deputation was received by the Minister. Again, Mr. Hicks, who speaks on these matters for the Labour Party in another place, referred to this question in his Second Reading speech on the new Housing Bill. I have also a fair recollection of a good number of debates in your Lordships' House on housing matters, and, with the exception of some criticisms from the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, who was dealing with the question from the town-planning point of view and made some reference to the spread of vermin to new houses, I do not recollect any general complaints on these matters. Certainly this is the first occasion upon which an extensive tightening
356
up of the law has been demanded in this House, so far as I am aware.
Perhaps I might now turn to the actual charges made by the noble Lord in his speech. I think they can be divided into three classes. The first is that existing public health legislation has not been adhered to. That, if substantiated, is, as I have said, a legitimate complaint, and would receive the attention of my right honourable friend. The second group of charges is to the effect that the Government have failed to provide additional safeguards for health in building legislation. That I have also dealt with. The third group seems to be simply that the owners have not had proper value for money. The noble Lord says, as far as I followed him, that, apart from health questions altogether, certain owners, when they paid £400, £500 or £600 for a house, did not get a house worth that money, and he seems to suggest that we should in future give the purchaser some guarantee in that respect. That is quite a revolutionary process for Parliament to undertake. It is true, as the noble Lord has suggested, that we do in certain cases guarantee, or attempt to guarantee, the quality of certain commodities offered to the public, again usually in the interests of health, but I do not think it has ever been suggested that we should guarantee both the quality and the price.
Your Lordships will perhaps remember what I said about the degree of inspection that is now being carried out in connection with new houses. Surely, if we are to give any guarantee that is worth anything at all, that the materials used in building houses are good materials, it would clearly mean imposing another big burden on the shoulders of the local authority, and also upon the potential builders of the houses. I am not a technical expert, but it does appear to me that in regard to such a matter as timber, for instance, an inspection of timber which is largely concealed in a house, would require to take place at frequent intervals during the period of construction, and would also require a fairly high standard of technical knowledge because, as Mr. Hicks himself pointed out, some of these defects do not make themselves manifest for several years. If you take all the materials—the timber, the coke breeze, the plaster and so forth—I think that what the noble

357
Lord is really demanding is that the surveyor should act as a sort of clerk of the works to every house constructed, because unless this is done the guarantee, actual or implied, would be worth very little. Even then I doubt very much whether the builder who really definitely intended to defraud would be entirely circumvented by such a procedure.
Last year 250,010 houses were constructed—a magnificent total—and if this rate can be maintained it will go a long way to satisfy the demands of the most rabid housing reformers. I cannot agree that it would be either right or proper or popular with the public to hold up all private enterprise, which, as I maintain, would be the effect of the method suggested, without more justification than we appear to have to-day. There remains the question of whether anything can be done to give purchasers any further protection by law against the dishonest builder. It seems to me doubtful whether legislation of this sort—which would certainly be controversial—would really be effective. In the first place I think the onus would be put on the purchaser of calling expert witnesses to prove that something existed which was more than trivial and that it was due to bad workmanship or defective material instead of to some such cause as traffic vibration, subsidence, unusual storm, or something of that kind. I think the effect of such legislation must be to raise the price of houses because even the good builders, against whom these practices are not alleged and who deplore them as much as anybody, would find it necessary to protect themselves against the possibility of claims. They would want to insure themselves and the cost of that insurance would be reflected in an increased price to the working-class purchaser.
So far, I must admit, I have dealt chiefly with objections to the noble Lord's proposals, but I do not wish it to be thought that the Government are not fully sympathetic towards the minority who may have suffered in this way. We all desire to see, quite as much as the noble Lord, that the members of the poorer classes do not suffer unduly. We only raise objections to what lie has proposed because we think the price to the community in general would be too high. But we do welcome this debate because we agree with the noble Lord that publicity in this matter is an excellent
358
thing. We hope it will serve as a warning to prospective purchasers to use reasonable precautions in buying new houses. We are not dealing with absolutely the poorest class. We are dealing with people who can afford to buy a house for £400, 1500 or £600. If people are prepared to spend that amount of money I think they might reasonably spend £2 or £3 extra in getting the house properly examined by an independent expert. I think it would be advisable also that they should deal with reputable building societies, because the building societies have a very considerable interest in the houses on the security of which they are advancing loans. What we feel is that the remedy to a great extent lies in the hands of the purchasers.
If I may summarise our attitude, it is that we agree that the by-laws already in existence should be adhered to, but we do not agree that any major extension of the by-laws is desirable because, in the light of such information as we have, we think that might have worse results than the defects we are trying to cure. We sympathise with the noble Lord in his desire to give publicity to the case and we recommend prospective purchasers to exercise reasonable precautions when buying new houses.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for the very full reply he has given me. I asked him this afternoon if I might send the letter to him; that is why I did not send them before. Although he is a quick worker I did not expect him to have gone through them all by this time. I could have sent him more. They are really only samples. I do not propose to press my Motion for Papers, but before withdrawing I must say that I cannot see why the Ministry of Health should not lay down definite standards of materials and construction, minimum standards that should be used. That would be something for the prospective purchaser to go upon. He could say to the builder: "In this house that you are selling me on the deferred payment system have you complied with the minimum standard of the Ministry of Health?" That would be something. I agree with the noble Viscount that it is a fairly recent evil. It is only in the last year or two that it has come to a head. Cases seem to have multiplied in quite

359
recent years. As I began by saying, I am not blaming the Ministry of Health either under this Government or under any previous Government. This business is the result of the tremendous boom in the building industry. We see it in ribbon building and we see it whenever a railway company opens up a new branch line. Huge housing estates spring up and amongst the builders there is this minority of rogues.
The noble Viscount advised the prospective purchaser to go to a reputable building society. If I may say so with great diffidence in the presence of experts like the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, the building societies are the key to this question. If they did not finance the prospective purchaser of such inferior property the jerry-builder would not be able to sell his jerry-built house. If therefore, instead of surveying the purchaser they surveyed the house properly, the evil would almost entirely
360
disappear. The trouble is that they have been more careful in some cases—not all of course—about the solvency of the people who are going to take the house on deferred terms than about the stability of the house or the honesty of the builder. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, but I do ask him most respectfully to watch this matter because we do not want to see the countryside in five or six years time littered with new slums. And that is what in certain cases is going to happen. Houses will be literally falling to pieces. I really raised this matter for the sake of the publicity which I hope it will bring. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for the trouble he has taken in his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at half past six o'clock.