Lords Sitting of 14 July 1936

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, THE EARL OF ONSLOW on the Woolsack.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER (LEEDS) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER (LANCASTER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER (RAMSEY AND SAINT IVES JOINT WATER DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER (TEES VALLEY WATER BOARD) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO- VISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (RIPON) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Select Committee made.
MALTA (LETTERS PATENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
RETAIL MEAT DEALERS' SHOPS (SUNDAY CLOSING) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

BUCKINGHAM'S CHARITY (DUNSTABLE) SCHEME CONFIRMA- TION BILL.
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the Bill of which I move the Second Reading is a Bill to confirm a scheme of the Charity Commissioners for the application or management of the Charity of Arthur Frederick Buckingham for a cottage Hospital in the Borough of Dunstable, in the County of Bedford. I do not think any words are needed from me to explain the scheme. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PRO- CEDURE (SCOTLAND) 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.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Amendments made by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills be agreed to en bloc.
Moved, That the Amendments made by Joint Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING RESTRICTION) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 2 [Partial Exemption Orders]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the first Amendment is consequential. I do not think I need weary the House with any explanation of it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, leave out from (" morning ") to (" in ") in line 9.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Special provisions in respect of the sale of meals and refreshments off the premises]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next four Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 15, leave out from the beginning to (" which ") in line 16, and insert (" As respects shops ")
Page 2, line 20, leave out from (" sold ") to (" the ") in line 21
Page 2, line 23, leave out (" such ") and insert (" those ")
Page 2, line 24, leave out (" such ") and insert (" those ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7:
Special provisions for persons observing the Jewish Sabbath.
(8) In the event of any change in the occupation of a shop registered under this section it shall be the duty of the person who becomes the occupier to serve on the local authority notice of the change, and in the event of any change in any partnership or among the directors of any company by which such a shop is occupied, it shall be the duty of the partnership, or of the company, as the case may be, to serve on the local authority a notice giving particulars of the change, and, whether or not such a notice is served, the
744
registration of the shop shall, upon the expiration of a period of fourteen days from the date on which the change occurred, be deemed to be cancelled, unless within that period, or within such further time as may be allowed by the local authority, a fresh application under this section is made in respect of the shop:
Provided that, where such a fresh application is made by reason of a change in any partnership or among the directors of any company by which the shop is occupied, the local authority may dispense with the statutory or other declaration or certificates required by paragraph (a) of subsection (2) and by subsection (3) of this section in the case of any person who has made such a declaration in connection with a former application in respect of the shop.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next four Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 33, leave out from (" shop ") to (" declaring ") in line 34 and insert (" in such form as may be prescribed ")
Page 5, line 29, leave out (" an offence under ") and insert (" a contravention of, or failure to comply with, any of the provisions of ")
Page 5, line 36, after (" occupied ") insert (", or not occupied solely,")
Page 5, line 38, after (" occupier ") insert (" or to the other occupiers, as the case may be,").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to the proviso in subsection (8) "either in person or by an agent." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I think it is usual when a person has leave to appear to be heard that leave is also given for him to be represented by an agent. I cannot for the moment produce any precedent, but I hope my noble friend will be able to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 38, at end insert (" either in person or by an agent ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, it is quite impossible for the promoters to accept this Amendment. I feel certain that if any of the Law Lords were here they would be horrified by the proposal that any one can be represented in Court by any Tom, Dick or Harry. There are certain phrases in certain Acts which do enable people to be represented, but those are all directed towards one purpose, and

745
that is to protect the high officers of State, chief constables and people of that kind, from the waste of time in having to be there all the time themselves. You cannot extend that principle to everybody. It seems to me and to the promoters that it is in the interests of justice that the Court should have before it either the actual occupier of a shop or a legal representative who is capable of acting on his behalf. Of course, the Rules of Court, as my noble friend knows, will allow the owner of the shop as it is to be represented by a solicitor or by counsel.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, to shorten the proceedings I will withdraw at once after the explanation given by our noble friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, leave out (" number of ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next Amendment is mainly drafting, and unless there is any desire for an explanation I will merely move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 44, leave out (" the shop ") and insert (" that shop or any other shop in the area of the local authority ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 15, leave out (" so ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8:
Special provisions for London.
8.—(1) If the Common Council of the City of London or the London County Council ore satisfied that any part of their respective areas—

(a) is a district in which it was, before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, customary to hold street markets on Sunday; or

(b) is a district, being a district within the City of London or the Metropolitan Boroughs of Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, or Stepney, in which it was customary before the said date for the majority of the shops in the district to be kept open
746
on Sunday and that, having regard to the character and habits of the population in the district, the application of the provisions of this Act requiring shops to be closed on Sunday would cause undue hardship,

they may, by order made in accordance with the provisions of this section, authorise such shops or classes of shops as may be specified in the order, being shops situated in the district or in such parts of the district as may be so specified to be open for the serving of customers on Sunday until two o'clock on Sunday afternoon subject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned:
Provided that before making an order applying to any district referred to in paragraph (b) of this subsection the council shall take steps to ascertain the wishes of the occupiers of such shops as appear to them to be likely to be affected, and if they are satisfied that a majority of the occupiers of any class of such shops are opposed to the making of the order the council shall exclude that class of shops from the operation of the order.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), to leave out "paragraph" and insert "paragraphs (a) and ". The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to cover a point which was discussed in Committee. The noble Earl, Lord Munster, assured me on this clause, then Clause 6 and now Clause 8, that all the points I desired were covered by his Amendment; but his Amendment did not cover paragraph (a) at the beginning of the clause. The leaving out of the shops and traders in paragraph (a) means that as the clause is now drawn the local authority—that is to say, the County Council and the City Corporation—can only administer this clause as regards Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, or Stepney, or the City of London. Surely, it is only right that those who are included in paragraph (a) should also have the advantage of the clause. It may perhaps make it a little more difficult to administer, but personally I have seen many Acts of Parliament much more difficult to administer than would be the case if my Amendment were agreed to.
It has been my lot to try to administer some very difficult sections of Acts passed by this House and another place, and I am quite sure that if this Amendment is agreed to it would not make the Bill any more difficult than some of the

747
measures we have successfully administered in the past. I cannot see why this privilege should be confined to these three Boroughs and to the City and also to shops. Moreover, the traders concerned are very anxious that it should be applied to them all over London, and, if they are willing, I should have thought half the difficulty of administration would disappear. My noble friend Lord Dufferin tells me that he is not inclined to accept this Amendment, but I cannot see why he should not be able to accept it after what the noble Earl, Lord Munster, said in regard to his Amendment—namely, that all my points had been covered. Perhaps the noble Earl can explain why his Amendment did not cover paragraph (a) and why it should not. I shall be interested to hear his explanation, and in the meantime I should like to move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 38, leave out (" paragraph ") and insert (" paragraph (a) and ").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, on behalf of the promoters I would like as strongly as I may to urge your Lordships to resist this Amendment. Clause 8 has certain provisions, first of all, for those areas in London where street markets have long been held and where long usage has entitled people to consider that they have almost a right to hold them; and, secondly, under paragraph (b), for those districts where in the past it has been customary for shops to keep open on Sundays. So far as the latter are concerned, those districts where shops have been kept open on Sundays, where there has been no long-established street market, it is provided in the Bill that local authorities shall take steps to ascertain the wishes of the shops concerned, and if the majority of the occupiers of any class of shops desire to be excluded from the order that order shall not apply to them. I would remind my noble friend that, following the procedure of the existing Shops Act, only occupiers of shops will be allowed to vote on this matter. If my noble friend's Amendment is carried, an exactly similar procedure would apply to the orders made for these street markets, and the result surely would be this, that whereas it is perfectly possible that the owners of
748
shops in these districts where street markets are held are not favourable to the markets, they nevertheless will have the right to vote as to whether they are to be allowed to be held on Sundays or not. That does not seem to me to be right.
It is a gross violation of every principle of justice that the people who are most directly concerned should not be allowed to vote in a matter of this kind, whereas those whose direct interest may well be for the closing of these markets should have the power to vote and influence the local authorities in making this Order. It seems to me, therefore, only just that this Amendment should be resisted. I would call my noble friend's attention to subsection (4) which instructs the local authority to give public notice of their intention to make an order, to specify the period within which objections have to be made, and to take into consideration the objections they receive. Surely the local authority, if sufficient objecttions were received from the shop owners and occupiers, would take them into consideration in making any such order. Surely the shop owner is perfectly well protected as it is, and I urge your Lordships not to accept this Amendment that so closely affects the interests of people who nevertheless are not able to vote. This Amendment, if agreed to, would make a great deal of difference to their livelihood.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 41 and 42, leave out (" a majority of ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this, too, is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 42, after the second (" of ") insert (" a majority of ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is also another drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 14, leave out (" during the whole of ") and insert (" on ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next is a purely drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, at end insert (" in like manner and for the like purposes as it would, but for the order, have been required by this Act to be closed on Sunday ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 35, leave out (" occupiers ") and insert (" occupier ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I have a drafting Amendment which I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 41, leave out (" common council ") and insert (" Common Council of the City of London ").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10:
Miscellaneous savings.
(4) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, any person carrying on or employed in the business of a hairdresser or barber may, at any time, for the purposes of that business attend any person—

(a) in any place, if that person is unable, by reason of bodily or mental infirmity, to go to the place where such business as aforesaid is carried on; or

(b) in any hotel or club, if that person is resident therein.

(5) This Act shall not apply to any sea going ship.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I beg to move this drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 18, after (" in ") insert (" Section one of ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFEERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFEERIN AND AVA moved, in subsection (4), to leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
" (a) in any place, if such attendance is necessary by reason of the bodily or mental infirmity of that person; or "
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this is a small but rather important point. As the clause stands a barber may attend a person on Sunday "if that
750
person is unable by reason of bodily or mental infirmity to go to that place "where the barber's business is carried on. This apparently means that a barber could attend on Sunday a person with no legs but would not be entitled to attend a person with no arms. I hope this Amendment will meet with your Lordships' approval.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 22, leave out paragraph (a) and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved to insert after subsection (4):
" (5) If the local authority are satisfied that any person engaged in handicraft at his home is dependent for his livelihood upon the sale on Sunday of articles produced by him in the course of his handicraft to such extent that the prohibition of such sale would involve substantial hardship, they may grant to him a certificate exempting him during such period as may be specified in the certificate from any of the provisions of this Act in respect of the sale of those articles during such hours and subject to such conditions as may be so specified."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I move in answer to a promise that I gave my noble friend Lord Phillimore. I do not see the noble Lord in his place, and I therefore imagine he is satisfied with the compromise I have made. I have attempted to include the man who would suffer a real hardship if the product of his own hand was not allowed to be sold upon a Sunday. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 26, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to insert:
" (6) Nothing in this Act shall apply to the carrying on on Sunday of the business or a retail dealer in butcher's meat as defined by the Retail Meat Dealers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Act, 1936."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to exclude from the scope of this Bill the business of a retail trader in butcher's meat. Your Lordships will recollect that we have passed a Bill entitled the Retail Meat Dealers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Bill and it is accordingly unnecessary to deal with

751
butcher's meat in the general Bill which is now under discussion.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 27, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Provisions respecting shop assistants]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the Amendments in my name on this clause are practically drafting, and unless any noble Lord wishes for an explanation I shall not say anything further upon them.
Amendments moved—
Page 11, line 23, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
" (a) in the case of a person so employed for more than four hours on any Sunday, that person shall—

(i) receive in respect of his employment on that Sunday a whole holiday on a day other than that of his statutory half-holiday, if any, and that whole holiday shall he on a weekday of the week beginning with that Sunday unless ho has, in respect of his employment on that Sunday, already received such a holiday on a weekday of the previous week;

(ii) not be employed about the business of a shop on more than two other Sundays in the same month; "

Page 12, line 1, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
" (b) in the case of a person not so employed for more than four hours on a Sunday in any month, that person shall receive in respect of his employment on any Sunday in the month a half-holiday in addition to his statutory half-holiday, if "any, and that additional half-holiday shall be on a weekday of the week beginning with that Sunday unless he has in respect of his employment on that Sunday, already received such a half-holiday on a weekday of the previous week."
Page 13, line 5, after (" the ") insert (" two ")
Page 13, line 23, at end insert (" about the business of that shop ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12 [Notices]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the Amendment in my name to this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 33, leave out from (" Sunday ") to the end of line 36 and insert (" who are entitled to any holidays prescribed by the foregoing section of this Act, and of the respective days of the week
752
upon which those persons receive those holidays ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Extension of provisions of this Act to retail trading elsewhere than in shops]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the Amendments in my name on this clause are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 4, after (" six ") insert (" and section eight ")
Page 14, line 13, leave out (" therein ") and insert (" thereat ")
Page 14, line 14, leave out paragraph (c).—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 14:
Enforcement.
14.—(1) In the ease of any contravention of, or failure to comply with, any of the provisions of this Act, the occupier of the shop shall be liable to a fine not exceeding—

(a) in the case of a first offence, five pounds;

(b) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, twenty pounds;

and Sections thirteen and fourteen of the Shops Act, 1912, which relate to the enforcement of that Act shall apply with respect to the provisions of this Act as they apply with respect to the provisions of that Act, save that in those sections the word "shop" shall, in their application to the provisions of this Act which apply to retail trade or business carried on in any place not being a shop, include a reference to any such place.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), after "occupier of the shop," to insert "and in the case where a shop is occupied by a partnership every partner and agent of the partnership and in the case where a shop is occupied by a company every officer or agent of the company besides the partnership or company." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is that the director of a company should not be able to get off scot free if he orders the company to contravene the provisions of this clause without being personally liable. I have taken the precedent from the Companies Act, 1929, Section 351, which reads:
" If any company to which part of this Act applies fails to comply with any of the foregoing provisions of this part of this Act the company and every officer or agent of the company shall be liable to a fine."

753
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 30, after (" shop ") insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment on behalf of the promoters, for two reasons. Firstly, I think that when an Act is passed we must taken into consideration all the other Acts upon the point. For instance, Clause 14 applies Section 14 of the Shops Act, 1912, which contains provisions with respect to offences. Subsection (2) of that section runs as follows:
"Where an offence for which the occupier of a shop is liable under this Act has in fact been committed by some manager, agent, servant or other person, the manager, agent, servant or other person shall be liable to a like penalty as if he were the occupier."
This enables any person other than the occupier who is guilty of an offence to be proceeded against. I hope that meets my noble friend's point. I feel that it is quite unnecessary to insert the rather vindictive provision which he has proposed in regard to an offence, which, after all, is no worse than the offence of depriving a shop assistant of his half-holiday. Why, therefore, single out this particular offence for so drastic a provision. I therefore hope my noble friend will see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, if as my noble friend says—and I am quite sure he is right—this point is covered in the 1912 Act, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 41, leave out (" in ") and insert (" at ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16:
Short title, citation, application, commencement and repeal.
(3) This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven.
THE EARL OR MUNSTER THE EARL OR MUNSTER moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "January" and insert "May". The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think you will appreciate that after the passing of this Bill there will be a certain amount of work to be done by the Home Office and local authorities, and it is thought better to postpone the date of the commencement of this Act from January 1, 1937, to May 1, 1937. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 33, leave out (" January ") and insert (" May ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule:
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Transactions for the purposes of which a shop may be open for the serving of customers on Sunday.
1. The sale of—
(g) medicines and medical and surgical appliances by any person who has entered into a contract with an insurance committee under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1924 to 1935, for the supply of drugs and appliances;
(h) aircraft, motor or cycle supplies, or accessories for immediate use;
(l) guide books, postcards, photographs, reproductions, photographic films and plates, and souvenirs at any gallery, museum, garden, park or ancient monument under the control of a public authority or university, and, if and to the extent that the local authority certify that such sale is desirable in the interests of the public, at any other gallery or museum, or at any place of natural beauty or historic interest, or at any zoological, botanical or horticultural gar dens or at any aquarium;
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (g), to omit all words after "appliances." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, under this paragraph as it stands it appears to me that no person would be able, unless he had entered into a contract with an insurance committee under the National Health Insurance Acts, 1924 to 1935, to supply drugs and appliances, and it seems to me rather hard that a man should not be able to have a prescription made up or be able to get a patent medicine to prevent a cough or something of that kind. My noble friend Lord Munster has an Amendment down which I believe will

755
cover the point that I am raising and if he will assure me that that is so I shall not press this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 22, leave out from (" appliances ") to end of paragraph (g).—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I will endeavour to explain to my noble friend the Amendment which stands in my name and which follows his on the Paper. It is an Amendment relating to the sale of medicines and medical and surgical appliances, and as the Schedule stands the exemption is confined to those chemists or drug stores who have entered into a contract with the local National Health Insurance Committee. Any chemist or drug store can enter into such a contract, but it has been pointed out by my advisers that certain chemists have not done, and have no wish to do, insurance work. At the same time they do desire to remain open on Sunday. It is in order to include this type of shop that it is proposed that the exemption shall apply also to any premises registered under Section 18 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933. This will have the effect of applying the exemption to any chemist shop irrespective of whether it is the subject of a contract with an insurance committee or not. I think that should meet my noble friend's point. But I must add that his Amendment, if your Lordships accept it, would mean that a grocer or an ironmonger's or a general shop which stocks a few bottles of patent medicine might remain open on Sunday and I am sure my noble friend does not wish that to happen. I think my Amendment will cover the point which the noble Viscount has in mind.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, it is not my intention that any grocer's shop should be open for the sale of drugs of any sort. I am not quite clear, however, whether under the Amendment which my noble friend is to move a person who wants a prescription made up can go into a chemist's shop and get a patent medicine also. Will he assure me on that point?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Very well, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 22, after (" appliance ") insert (" (i) at any premises registered under Section twelve of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933; or (ii) ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA moved, in paragraph (h), to leave out "for immediate use." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I do not consider this Amendment necessary, but I move it in order to remove the fears of some people who think that local authorities may interpret the words "for immediate use" in a very strict sense—so strict that a motorist who wanted to buy a spare tyre or to lay in a store of tyres before undertaking a long journey would not be entitled to do so. I cannot think that local authorities would be so crass as to prevent that being done, but I am prepared to move this Amendment in order to remove the fears.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, lines 26 and 28, leave out (" for immediate use ").—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to leave out paragraph (l) and insert:
" (l) guide books, postcards, photographs, reproductions, photographic films and plates, and souvenirs—

(i) at any gallery, museum, garden, park or ancient monument under the control of a public authority or university; or

(ii) at any other gallery or museum, or any place of natural beauty or historic interest, or any zoological, botanical or horticultural gardens, or aquarium, if and to the extent that the local authority certify that such sale is desirable in the interests of the public; or

(iii) in any passenger vessel within the meaning of Part IT of the Finance (1909–1910) Act, 1910, while engaged in carrying passengers; "

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to permit the sale of guide books, postcards,

757
photographs and other things on passenger-carrying vessels. I do not think I need weary your Lordships with a long explanation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 1, leave out paragraph (l) and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, may I ask in what manner specifically this Amendment differs from the original words in the Bill?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: This Amendment contains complete exemption for sea-going ships.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF DUEFERIN AND AVA THE MARQUESS OF DUEFERIN AND AVA moved to insert:
"(o) fodder for horses, mules, ponies and donkeys at any farm, stables, hotel or inn."
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to carry out a promise I gave at an earlier stage in order that people who ride on Sundays should be able to obtain fodder for their horses. The Amendment has been carefully considered and it is the best we can do. I think it covers every conceivable eventuality and I understand that those who pressed the point most strongly are quite satisfied.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 14, at end insert:
(" (o) fodder for horses, mules, ponies and donkeys at any farm, stables, hotel or inn.")—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, there seems to be one defect in this Amendment. What about dogs? May I not give my dog his dinner on Sundays?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I have, an Amendment on the Paper to cover that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert:
" ( ) food for domestic animals at any hotel or inn."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for feeding horses, but if human beings, horses, mules, ponies and donkeys can be provided with refreshment on Sunday, I do not see why domestic animals such
758
as dogs and cats should not have the same privilege. I hope the noble Marquess will see his way to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 14, at end insert:
( "( ) food for domestic animals at any hotel or inn.")—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, the first question that I must ask my noble friend is whether he regards a goat as a domestic animal. That, I am told, is a very important point in this connection. To those of your Lordships who enjoy a classical allusion I will say that Viscount Bertie's attitude in relationship to the law appears to be very much the same as Cato's attitude in relationship to the gods. As your Lordships know, de minimi's non curat lex. It does appear to me that my noble friend in this Amendment is really pressing the matter a little too far. After all, any decent man will share his meal with his dog and any man having dinner at an inn would certainly find it difficult to separate the bill for his canine friend's refreshment from his own. That is common practice. Therefore I feel that in this particular matter it is unnecessary to have a separate provision of this kind.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, in replying to my noble friend's question whether a goat is a domestic animal, I must say that I have no idea. My noble friend said that any man will share his meal with his dog, but your Lordships will know that in many restaurants dogs are not admitted. Your Lordships may also know that cats are just as hungry as dogs. I do not see why they should not be provided for. On the whole I think that I really must press the Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I should very much dislike your Lordships to divide on this matter. It might appear rather trivial to the outside world. I feel that there is no reason why dogs should be treated as a separate item, and the man who takes a cat into a restaurant and is given a drop of milk would not expect to see on his bill an item "Fodder for cat." I do ask my noble friend to come down to reality and not press this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I can only speak again by leave of your Lordships, but I would like to point out that it would be an offence under this Bill to supply food if my Amendment is not included.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Second Schedule [Transactions in respect of which a partial Exemption Order may be made under Section Two]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 20, at end insert (" of this Act ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Transactions in respect of which an order may be made under Section Four of this Act]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, there is also a drafting Amendment to this schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 31, leave out (" four ") and insert (" five ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if at the beginning I give a broad outline of its provisions. It falls into two parts. The first deals with the raising of the school age, and the second contains a number of minor changes designed to improve the general fabric of Scottish education and to pave the way for a useful consolidation of the long series of Scottish Education Acts dating from 1872 up to the present day. As to the raising of the school age, I think your Lordships will be familiar with what is proposed since the provisions of the Bill are on the same general lines as those recently discussed when the English Bill was before your Lordships' House.
The age is to be raised to fifteen, but there are to be exemptions for beneficial
760
employment between fourteen and fifteen, and the date when the change comes into operation is to be September 1, 1939. There are numerous provisions designed to secure that the employment for which exemption is granted is really beneficial to the child. The decision as to whether a particular employment is beneficial for a particular child rests with the local education authority, who are required to consult the juvenile employment committee of the area wherever that body exists. In addition, the education authority are directed by Clause 2 of the Bill to have regard to certain things before they come to a decision: first, the nature and probable duration of the employment, the wages to be paid, and the hours of work; secondly, the opportunities to be afforded to the child for further education; and thirdly, the time available to the child for recreation.
If the education authority conclude that the employment which the parent desires for his child is beneficial within the meaning of the Act, then the parent has a right to the exemption. The date of commencement of the exemption certificate must normally be one of the dates fixed by the education authority for beginning and ending school attendance, although in exceptional circumstances an intermediate date may be allowed. It is important also to notice that under Clause 2 (1) of the Bill the education authority must consider with the advice of their medical officer the health and physical condition of the child in relation to the particular employment. This is a very valuable element in the consideration of what is beneficial. There are various machinery provisions to ensure that the employer fulfils the undertakings he may be required to give, and to safeguard the position of the child so far as unemployment insurance is concerned.
Now I should like to mention in broad outline the progressive features in Part I of the Bill. Under present conditions children in Scotland between fourteen and fifteen are under no educational compulsion whatever, and although they may be guided into and advised as to employment by the committees set up by the Ministry of Labour and by their teachers, there is no great regulation of that employment. Under the provisions of the Bill the block of children between fourteen and fifteen will fall into three classes.

761
First, there are those who would in any case attend voluntarily beyond the age of fourteen. On past experience this in Scotland is a substantial proportion: about 33 per cent. of the age block fourteen to fifteen. Secondly, those who do not secure beneficial employment, who would not attend voluntarily, and who under present conditions would be idle or in non-beneficial employment, are compelled to remain on at school. The third class consists of those who do secure beneficial employment at some point between the age of fourteen and fifteen and will in that employment be working under satisfactory conditions. Under these last two heads there is obviously a great advance, and, so far as parents desire to keep clever children at school or college even though beneficial employment be available, the aids from rates and endowments provided under the Education Acts are very substantial. In Scotland the assistance so given to clever children and students runs to £184,000 a year from the rates. In addition, as your Lordships are aware, there are the numerous endowments, and many students are helped by the Carnegie Trusts. On the educational side it may also be noted that, as a condition of the grant of the employment certificate, the education authority may require the child to attend suitable part-time instruction, thus linking employment and education together in a beneficial way.
In addition to the exemptions for beneficial employment there is a special class of exemption to which I will now refer. Under the present Acts an education authority may exempt any child between the ages of twelve and fourteen for all sorts of purposes. The number is not large—about 5,000, or 2½ per cent. of the twelve-fourteen age block. In the Bill, however, all this will be swept away and no exemptions under fourteen for any cause may be allowed. Between fourteen and fifteen an authority may under Clause 4 of the Bill exempt a child for the specific reason that he is required to give assistance at home. The education authority, before granting such exemption, must be satisfied that by reason of circumstances existing at his home it would cause exceptional hardship to require the child to attend school. This, as will be seen, is a very great restriction on the present system of exemptions,
762
apart from the category of beneficial employment, and it will, I think, be admitted that where such exceptional hardship exists at home, discretion may safely be granted to the education authorities. They have used their discretion wisely in the past and there is no reason to think that they will not do so in the future.
Those are the main provisions of Part I of the Bill. In Part II, under Clauses 6, 7 and 9 there are valuable improvements in the arrangements for the education of the deaf, the blind, the physically defective and the mentally defective. We must all agree that if anything can be done for these unfortunate classes of children it should be done, even though it imposes a larger duty on the authorities. Physical education, recreation and out-of-school activities will receive a useful stimulus under Clause 8 of the Bill, which enables authorities to provide vacation schools, vacation classes, play centres, and holiday or school camps. The teachers are given an additional protection against arbitrary dismissal under Clause 14. Hitherto that protection has only been applicable to teachers in the service of the local education authorities. Now it is to be extended to schools under governing bodies and to demonstration schools under the authority for the training of teachers. There are a few other matters of minor importance which are dealt with in the rest of Part II and the Schedule. I shall not deal with them now, but if noble Lords care to raise any points on them, I will do my best to give them an answer. For the moment, I think I have given a general outline of the aims of the Bill, and I commend it to your Lordships for a Second Reading.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I rise merely to give the point of view of the Opposition on this Bill and to say that our objections to the Bill are similar to the objections which we raised to the Education Bill for this country. This Bill, however, is somewhat worse, because, as I understand the position, under the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, it is possible for the school-leaving age to be raised at any time in Scotland by the Secretary of State and by the Minister. He has merely to declare the date. It is a deplorable thing that during all the

763
years since that Act was passed, and with education in Scotland—I do not think any one would disagree with me when I say this—at a deplorably low level—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No! no!
LORD MARLEY: I am very glad there is sufficient patriotism in Scottish Peers for them to stand up for their country, although in this regard I do not think there is justification for their patriotism—I wish there were. It is broadly the fact that education in Scotland, which used to be the admiration of the world, and was declared to be the admiration of the world by the Secretary of State in another place a few weeks ago, is no longer the admiration of the world. Instead of progressing equally with English education it has got behind. I think that would be the view of the majority of your Lordships. Of course I admit that United Kingdom Peers are in a majority in this House, and so perhaps it is not a fair vote, but none the less I think it is a pity that the powers contained in the 1918 Act were not used. These powers are taken away, so that at least under this Bill it is impossible to raise the school-leaving age for three years, and we are so much worse off than we were. For those reasons we are all the more opposed to this Bill than to the Bill dealing with the rest of Great Britain.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I would like, if I may—with becoming brevity, I hope—to offer a very warm welcome to this measure. My title to do so, if any, rests upon the fact that I chanced to be the Minister in charge of the Education (Scotland) Bill of 1918, to which reference has been made. If anyone had told us then that we should have to wait for twenty years before the reform contemplated by Parliament was brought about we should have been very much surprised. The Act of 1918 not only envisaged the raising of the school age to fifteen years, but definitely provided that it should be done. We have had a long time then to wait for that reform, but, for reasons which I am going to state, I make no complaint on that score. During the interval we have had in office Secretaries of State for Scotland of various political complexions, and each of them has found himself, in consequence of the financial stringency of the times
764
and by reason of other complications, prevented from bringing forward the reform to which the noble Lord has just made reference. Although it has been delayed, I do congratulate the Government of to-day upon its courage in taking at this time the step which it was contemplated might have been taken long ago. For myself, I do not propose to look a gift horse in the mouth merely because of the circumstance that the gift is rather tardily made.
The Bill, as my noble friend below me has said, has as its central and pivotal proposal the raising of the school age to fifteen years. I imagine that in no quarter of the House will it be a matter of controversy or dispute that that is an educational advance of no mean value. The objections which are taken, as I understand them, and one of which has already been voiced from the opposite side of the House, are three in number. I should like, if I may, to deal with them. The first, which has found expression from the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, is that there will be a delay of three years in bringing into active operation the reform which the Bill contains. One has to remember that, as a matter of common sense, the arrangements that have to be made not only in the way of extension and erection of school buildings in order to accommodate the new class of children to be brought in under this measure, and also the arrangement and adjustment of the educational courses which they are to follow when they are brought in, obviously must take time. And when I am assured, as I am, that the minimum time during which the buildings can be completed and the educational courses arranged for, is three years, I am ready to acquiesce in a delay which prima facie may seem unjustified. There are economic reasons also for the delay, but I will not delay the House by going into them.
The second objection, stated in broad terms, is that the Bill contains exemptions for beneficial employment. The argument against it, in its broadest form as I understand, is that there should be no such exemptions. It seems to me that that contention is difficult to uphold. It seems difficult to maintain that a boy of fourteen to fifteen, who shows no aptitude for educational advance, but a distinct

765
aptitude for industrial employment under well-arranged conditions, should be remitted to the first alternative, and debarred from the second. It seems to me to be not in accordance with practical politics that you should have an unconditional raising of the school age.
The third objection I will deal with in only a few sentences, for it has already been dealt with by my noble friend in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. Are the safeguards which the Bill contains in regard to beneficial employment adequate or not? It seems to me, having read and considered the Bill with some care, that the safeguards are not only an unimpeachable but a watertight code. Will the House observe for a moment what is provided? It is provided that the question of beneficial employment shall be remitted to the local education authority. That is a neutral and well informed body, and a body which by the experience of nearly twenty years has justified the confidence reposed in it for the discharge of discretionary duties. In the second place, the education authority, before it discharges that duty, is enjoined to have regard to the various relevant and important facts which my noble friend below me has enumerated. The education authority must further consult with the medical officer and the juvenile employment committee before reaching a decision. There is, moreover, a network of machinery which has been designed, and effectively designed, I think, to ensure that the employer of a boy exempted from school attendance shall properly play his part in the bargain. It is not too much to say, having regard to these considerations, that the worker, his work, and the employer of his work will be properly supervised and directed.
There is one other exemption to which reference has been made. If the assistance of a boy or girl between fourteen and fifteen should be urgently required at home, and it would be a grievous hardship that that boy or girl should be required to attend school, then exemption from school attendance may be granted. One need only consider the case of a girl whose mother has died, and whose assistance is urgently required at home to look after the domestic life there, or the case of the son of a crofter in the Highlands, whose father is laid up during the busiest time of the year, in order to appreciate not only the reasonableness
766
but the humanity of that exemption.
One other word about Part I of the Bill and I have done. One ought to remember, as my noble friend below me reminded the House, that, if there are new exemptions in the Bill, an old exemption of an important character has been abolished. Under present conditions it is possible for an education authority to exempt for various reasons boys and girls under fourteen from school attendance. All that is swept away by this measure, and in the future no boy or girl under fourteen can under any circumstances, as I understand the Bill, be exempted from school attendance. I venture to think that that marks a stride in advance of great educational value, and for that reason also I welcome this Bill.
Of Part II I will only say this. It appears to me to be largely non-contentious, and if it be the case that one of the views which was borne in mind in introducing Part II was to render more feasible the possibility of consolidating our Scottish Education Acts from 1872 down to date, then again I think that a great advance has been made.
I will only say one word more, and that is that I was amazed to hear the noble Lord opposite refer to Scotland as lagging behind in the matter of educational reform. That, to any Scottish Peer, or to any Scottish commoner, if I may say so, is not only news, but a complete misjudgment of the situation. Scotland, so far as I understand it—and I have had a little to do with its educational history—has always been the pioneer, and still is, of educational reform, and, although it is a small country, nevertheless it is not too much to say—and I hope the noble Lord opposite will not resent it—that the cultural reactions of Scotland have been simply world-wide. Solitude and sacrifice and struggle have been the three ingredients which have built up the sturdy independence of the Scottish scholar, and it is because I am firmly convinced that those traditions are not only continued but will be developed under this Bill that I cordially support it. I do not envy the responsibility of any member of this House who by his speech or by his vote would do anything to thwart or to frustrate the progress of

767
what I regard as a wholly beneficial measure.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken has so fully amplified the careful survey of the Bill given by the noble Lord who introduced it that there is very little left to say, at any rate very little left for any one who feels, life myself, that this Bill does mark a distinct advance in the educational machinery of Scotland. As the noble Lord who sits on the Front Opposition Bench pointed out, there was given to Scotland the opportunity to raise the school age under the 1918 Act, and I cannot help feeling that Scotland was ready, and is ready, for a Bill which perhaps might be characterised as more courageous and more comprehensive than the present measure. Be that as it may, the Bill does mark an advance, and as the noble Lord, Lord Alness, has pointed out, it would be extremely difficult for local authorities to make arrangements for the raising of the school age in a lesser period than three years. Still I do think that local authorities might have faced the difficulty, might even have welcomed the opportunity of providing those facilities in a measure less hedged round about with these restrictions.
However, in view particularly of the caution given by Lord Alness in his concluding sentence, I do not wish to give the idea that I desire to make any proposal in this House for the amendment of the Bill. The Bill in itself bears the mark of a very careful consideration and scrutiny in another place. It bears the mark of concessions which have been made and adjustments reached, and for that reason I think it would be extremely imprudent for any noble Lord in this House to suggest Amendments. While saying that and while acknowledging, as I do, the advance in educational machinery, I feel bound to give expression to one note of keen disappointment that opportunity was not taken of this measure to get rid of a certain inequality which exists between England and Wales and Scotland in a particular matter of education. The particular matter to which I refer is the granting of medical treatment to those young persons who attend approved courses or instruction centres. Under the Acts at present in operation in England and Wales it is possible to give medical treatment as
768
well as medical inspection to those young people, but under the Acts as they exist in Scotland it is not possible to give medical treatment.
I am fully aware it may be argued that a Bill dealing merely with education, and primarily with the subject of raising the school age, is not a Bill in which should be introduced an Amendment to allow of the granting of medical treatment to persons above school age. But inasmuch as the granting of this benefit to young people in England and Wales is based on an English Education Act, I had hoped—and I believe that the hope was shared by the Minister of Labour—that opportunity might be taken of this Bill to bring in an amendment of the existing practice, to end this inequality, and to give equal treatment to the young people in Scotland with that which is enjoyed by the young people in England and Wales. I have made some preliminary inquiry both of the Scottish Office and of the Ministry of Labour, and I gather that this is a subject which they feel cannot now be introduced in this Bill. But I thought it proper to mention it, and I wish to press upon the Government that it is an important matter and one that ought to be dealt with speedily.
LORD STBATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think that after what the noble Earl, Lord Elgin, has just said I ought to offer some reply to your Lordships on the point of the medical services. As to the other matters raised, I think your Lordships will agree with me that this Bill has had a very fair reception. The hostility displayed by the noble Lord who represents the Opposition Front Bench was not of an extremely violent nature, and I think he received an adequate answer from the noble Lord, Lord Alness, on all the points he raised. Lord Elgin has raised this question of medical services, and I wish to point out to him and to other noble Lords that to have put any provision of this sort into an Education Bill would have been quite incorrect. It is really a question of health services, not of education. Perhaps I may inform your Lordships that the Ministry of Labour has recently invited the National Advisory Council for Juvenile Employment to review the operation of the scheme of authorised courses, and he is informed

769
by the Council of the steps taken to develop medical services for unemployed juveniles.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: That instruction has been received by the Council for Scotland of which I happen to be Chairman. It has been dealt with by them, and a resolution has been sent to the Minister of Labour.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I was aware that the noble Earl was head of the Scottish Advisory Council, and I thought he would like to have that information given on the floor of this House. As he is aware, the Minister of Labour has recently stated that he would be disposed to take the first convenient opportunity to alter the legal position so as to render possible, in junior instruction centres in Scotland, the provision of medical services of the same nature and extent as those that can now be provided in England and Wales.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MIDWIVES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this is a Bill to amend and improve the operation of the existing Midwives Act and the measures existing for the regulation of midwives in this country. I think it is important to emphasise the limited scope of the Bill at the very start. There are some very complicated and insistent problems connected with maternal mortality, and a great deal of money is being spent on its prevention every year. In fact, the amount has been increased from £2,000,000 in 1927 to £3,000,000 today, and yet maternal mortality persists at an average of about four deaths per thousand births. This figure, which is a serious figure, but not necessarily alarming, has been causing much concern to the Ministry and its medical advisers. There are many theories put forward as to the cause. Although it is true to say that the average figure is four per thousand, actually there is considerable variation in different parts of the country, and attempts have been made to
770
attribute this variation to bad housing, malnutrition, and similar causes. Although nobody would deny that bad economic conditions do play a part, they by no means explain why, for instance, the mortality at Bournemouth is, on the whole, higher than that at Birmingham.
One fact, however, has been established from prolonged examination of the work of existing organisations, particularly such organisations as the Queen's Nursing Institute. The conclusion of the Joint Committee and other competent observers is that where an adequate midwifery service exists, the statistics of mortality are always invariably lower than the average. It seems, therefore, that if we could succeed in grading-up all over the country the conditions of the midwifery service to those which exist in the better organised districts, we should succeed in reducing the incidence of maternal mortality as it has been reduced in those better organised areas. That is what we propose to do in this Bill. We propose to require certain authorities to provide that from the "appointed day" every expectant mother shall be enabled, as a minimum service, to receive in her home the assistance of a qualified certificated midwife.
So far I do not suppose any member of this House will object to that aim and object, but I am aware that in matters appertaining to medical services there is a difference of opinion between ourselves and noble Lords opposite on methods of administration. I do not think anybody, whatever his Party, would decry or minimise the services rendered by the voluntary associations or the voluntary hospitals, but noble Lords opposite are inclined to express the opinion that the time has come when these voluntary associations should be superseded by the State or municipalities. It is perfectly true that in maternity matters as in other medical services the gradual growth of these services has presented, and is presenting, some very diverse features, but we believe that the tradition and the public spirit which animate voluntary organisations are so valuable that every effort should be made to retain them with as little disturbance as possible. Accordingly, the machinery of this Bill is designed to secure that, although the supervising authorities should have the

771
ultimate responsibility of seeing that certain standards of requirements are carried out, a large measure of elasticity should be given as to how to bring that about.
Some supervising authorities which are already well organised will obviously be less affected by this Bill than others, except that the Bill will ensure the maintenance of standards in the future; in others the authorities will be required to provide greatly improved and extended services. But when we consider the varying conditions in the country, how progress has been made, in some cases by well-organised services of domiciliary visits by qualified midwives, under perfectly good schemes, in other cases by a well-developed system of institutional treatment and by the admirable assistance given by the voluntary hospitals, I think your Lordships will generally agree that the Government have been wise in giving to the supervising authorities a considerable measure of discretion while insisting that the broad objectives should be achieved.
I should like now to outline the effect of this Bill on the three most interested parties—the midwives, the administrating authorities, and the mothers. Obviously, it is highly important that we should secure an adequate number of properly trained midwives. At present some midwives are certificated and are employed at a regular salary. Some are properly qualified nurses who do a certain amount of maternity work, also on a salary basis. Another class have certificates, but work in independent practice. Finally, there is—chiefly in the large centres of population—a class of women with no qualification whatever, who are really not midwives at all, but who do, under the supervision of a doctor, act as midwives and receive remuneration from the patients they attend. There are so many undesirable features attaching to the employment of this unqualified class that the Government have come to the conclusion that the time has come for their abolition. The Bill accordingly proposes that when, and where, the Minister is satisfied that adequate arrangements have been made under the Bill for a proper service, he may make an order making it a penal offence for an unqualified person to receive any remuneration for assisting in medical cases.
772
The Bill also aims at making considerable changes in the class of the independent but certificated midwife. With the fall in the birth-rate the position of this class has become increasingly difficult. Competition has been severe, and in many places they are unable to make sufficient income to maintain them in circumstances appropriate to the importance of the work they are doing. We are aiming in this Bill at the reduction by a large number of these independent midwives. We hope to bring this about partly by absorbing a considerable proportion of them in the new extended salaried service, partly by offering them compensation for voluntary retirement, and partly by giving the supervising authorities power compulsorily to retire some of those who are older and more unsuitable—again with generous compensation. While reducing thus the number of this class, I think it would be just to pay tribute to the work of the certified independent midwives who have in the past few years often given their services with very little remuneration and considerable self-sacrifice.
On the other hand, we anticipate that the schemes to be submitted by the supervising authorities will provide in some cases for a considerably increased number of salaried midwives, and although we are not breaking the accepted practice of leaving the supervising authorities free to engage their employees on terms which they think fit, nevertheless we believe that the status and conditions of service, including provisions for superannuation, will be greatly improved. Further, we are making financial provisions to assist the supervising authorities to this end. All these suggestions follow the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Midwifery. Your Lordships will understand that these changes are to be brought about by the supervising authorities who have to submit schemes to the Ministry.
I may perhaps say a word or two about the position of those administrating authorities. It has not been by any means an easy task to determine what authorities should be made responsible. On the one hand you have the authorities which have hitherto been responsible for the Maternity and Child Welfare Act, and there is much to be said in favour of making those who are responsible for ante-natal and child welfare work equally responsible for the period of childbirth.

773
At the same time it is essential, if the scheme is to operate efficiently, that the machinery should be capable of supporting economically the appropriate number of midwives to give them all sufficient work, sufficient leisure, proper supervision and opportunities for promotion. If the authorities who are entrusted with this work are too small, you might well have a position constantly arising where the midwives in one area were overworked and in another area, adjoining, where they had nothing to do, and, after much deliberation, the Joint Committee and the Standing Committee in another place decided in favour of the supervising authorities.
In particular, a great deal of discussion centred in another place on the question so far as it concerned London, where, of course, the borough councils are particularly important and responsible bodies, but the complications of making a scheme which preserved the present arrangements, whereby the voluntary hospitals have given such immense and successful assistance, were so great that it was decided by a large majority to adhere to the principle of the Bill—namely, that the supervising authority (in this case, the London County Council) should be responsible. I would like, however, in this connection, to emphasise this point, which is clearly brought out in the Bill, that when the supervising authority prepares its scheme it must consult not only the Welfare Council—that is to say, those who are responsible for ante-natal and post-natal treatment—but also the voluntary organisations. Indeed, the position of these other interested parties is statutorily safeguarded and they are given the right of appeal to the Minister if they consider their claims have been ignored. It is felt by my right honourable friend the Minister that where possible it is preferable, where services have to be extended, that this extension of services should take place by an extension of the scope of existing voluntary schemes, and that only where this is not possible should the supervising authority engage the new midwives themselves.
I may perhaps say a word about the finance of the scheme. It is apparent from what I have said that in most cases the supervising authority would be put, if unaided, to considerable expense. Under the Local Government Act it was
774
laid down as a general principle that where new work and new expense was imposed on local authorities, special consideration should be given by Parliament in addition to the normal block grant increase, which is I think about 23 per cent., in respect of any new approved expenditure. This Bill will lay on the supervising authorities expenses in connection with the compensation of the retiring midwives, and it is proposed that grants of 50 per cent. of the temporary expenditure should be made from the Exchequer to cover that expenditure. Then there is a further liability in respect of the cost of the additional new salaried midwives, and here again the Exchequer will make a contribution based on a formula similar to that on which the block grant is calculated, so that the necessitous areas, such as Merthyr Tydvil and Sunderland, will receive about four times as much proportionately as the more prosperous centres, such as Eastbourne. It is rather difficult to say exactly how the financial arrangements will work out until the scheme is properly under way. I have, accordingly, no figures to lay before your Lordships. Although the intention is, after the first five years, to merge this special financial arrangement into the block grant scheme, it is provided in the Bill that Parliament shall have a further opportunity to review the arrangement at the end of the next quinquennium.
I have dealt with the midwives and with the local authorities and now I will say a word on the mothers themselves, who, after all, are the class we desire to benefit by this Bill. I can explain that quite simply. What we hope to achieve in this Bill is to enable every expectant mother, whatever her circumstances, to obtain the services of a qualified midwife in her own home, and she will be given some choice of midwife. In return she will be expected to make a contribution according to her means, but power is given in necessitous cases to scale this down to nothing at all. To summarise, the status and security of the midwives will be raised, the mother will get a greatly improved service, and the supervising authorities will be assisted financially to bring this about, while the position of the voluntary associations, as I have already stressed, will be safeguarded.

775
In conclusion I should like to call attention to one or two points in connection with the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 is a most important clause. It places on the supervising authority the obligation to prepare a scheme. It should be noted that the scheme must provide for the whole-time employment of a sufficient number of midwives for attendance not only as midwives but as maternity nurses. I have already referred to the necessity for consultation with the interested authorities and voluntary organisations, and your Lordships will note that the supervising authorities are not required themselves to engage midwives unless they are not satisfied that existing arrangements can be extended or adapted to cover the midwifery requirements of the district. They are, however, given considerable latitude as to how to carry out the intentions of the Bill. Clause 2 deals with the notifications to the midwives, and Clause 3 with the recovery of fees. In that connection I must point out that the wording follows that of Section 14 (4) of the Midwives Act, 1918. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the calculation of Exchequer assistance and compensation respectively. Your Lordships will notice that the midwife may appeal to the Minister if she is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation.
An important provision of Clause 6 is that which gives the Minister power to make it an offence, when he is satisfied that an adequate service is in existence, for any unqualified person to practise midwifery. The importance of this provision is that although the whole of this scheme is based on trusting the supervising authorities and giving them wide discretion, nevertheless it does give the Minister some control over their progress. The other clauses are self-explanatory. I might perhaps add that although the sketch of the Bill before your Lordships is somewhat slight in view of the great benefits that we hope to achieve from it, I hope that the principle will receive your Lordships' endorsement and that questions arising on it will be more of a Committee nature. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I would like to say a few words on this Bill, especially as regards one particular clause. I have been connected with a
776
lying-in hospital for about twenty-five years and I heartily welcome this Bill, which I am sure will have an excellent effect. My noble friend mentioned the question of maternal mortality. He attributed that unfortunate state of affairs to various causes. This Bill, as my noble friend said, is intended to enable every woman in the country to have a qualified midwife to attend her in her own home, but the question arises as to the efficiency of the midwives available to give that service. The hospital which I mentioned just now bought up just after the War—I think it was in 1919—the practice of a midwife who was retiring and took over two houses and put in a staff of instructors. They opened there refresher courses for midwives practising anywhere but mainly for those practising in country districts whose opportunity for keeping up to date was perhaps not so great as in the case of women practising in larger cities. That has been very successful, and the number of women attending these courses has grown very considerably in the seventeen years that the centre has been in existence. The class of midwives who take these refresher courses of instruction includes midwives of long standing, those who have been trained but have not actually taken up practice and want to refresh their memory and skill, and those who want to do some practical work before they start in practice on their own account. We have taken women from voluntary institutions all over the country.
Experience has shown that the original course, which was for one month only, was greatly improved when it was extended to two months. We find that a woman coming from a country district to London finds herself rather at sea and wants time to settle down. I am told that the ratio of advantage of the course is about twenty-five per cent. for the first month and seventy-five per cent. for the second month. Therefore, when refresher courses are instituted, as I trust they will be all over the country, I hope that local authorities will see that courses extend over two months, and if possible throe months, because I dare say that would be even better than two months. The system inaugurated in 1919 has had very beneficial results especially to those who had not had the opportunity of seeing the latest developments in their profession, those who practise in remote

777
country districts. I shall be glad if my noble friend will tell us what arrangements are being made to institute refresher courses of this kind in provincial districts. It would be interesting to know what steps are being taken under Clause 7 because I regard that as one of the most important clauses in the Bill. All midwives should have the advantage of being able to take a course of this kind.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure that many of you will rejoice with me that the noble Viscount who gave birth to this Bill in your Lordships' House should be blessed with such an easy delivery. It is indeed one of the few measures that can claim to be born in Arcadia. The Bill has had a smooth and easy passage in another place where it met with no opposition from any Party and it looks as if it were likely to receive as favourable a welcome in all quarters of your Lordships' House. We on these Benches are heartily thankful that the Government do seem at last to have recognised that the provision of adequate maternity services for the working-class population must be a public and a national responsibility, and cannot any longer be left to the well-intentioned but necessarily limited efforts of voluntary hospitals and nursing associations or to the private enterprise of medical practitioners and independent midwives. That is to us a very welcome turn in the policy of the Government as regards this particular branch of public health.
We are agreed that this measure is a small but substantial contribution towards the establishment of a national maternity service because it really does guarantee for all poor mothers, wherever they may live, whether in rural or in urban districts, the attendance of a qualified and certificated midwife at the time of childbirth. That I think is the essential change that is effected by this Bill. Hitherto the power of local authorities to provide midwives was merely optional. Now it is mandatory, and the larger local authorities from the passing of this Bill into law will find themselves under statutory obligation, assuming trained midwives are not forthcoming from other quarters, to see that there is a sufficient supply in their area to meet the needs of every working-class home.
But it is impossible for me to continue to shower bouquets upon the Government.
778
We are, I think, justly entitled to complain that action in so urgent a matter should have been taken much earlier. For the last ten years there have been 3,000 deaths annually owing to difficulties and complications during childbirth, and approximately half of all those annual deaths have been preventable. This, I think, is what has been so profoundly shocking to the public conscience. I should like, if I may, to quote an important passage from the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Maternal Mortality. This Committee of experts, of doctors, of those who are best acquainted with the subject, drew up a unanimous Report, and among its conclusions the following sentence appears:
" We are confirmed in the opinion expressed in our Interim Report that at least half the deaths which have come under review could have been prevented had due forethought been exercised by the expectant mother and her attendant, a reasonable degree of skill been brought to bear upon the management of the case, and adequate facilities for treatment been provided and utilised."
That is to say that every year there have been about 1,500 unnecessary deaths owing to the lack of proper provision for mothers during this period of childbirth.
The figures to which I think the noble Viscount alluded and which appear at this point most strongly are those that give the mortality rate of four per thousand mothers for the whole country, and two per thousand in those cases where salaried and certificated midwives had been provided by the Queen's Nursing Association or by maternity hospitals. They show us more clearly, I think, than anything else the amount of damage that has been done by neglecting to provide the proper facilities. Now, the Official Report of the Departmental Committee on Maternal Mortality appeared in 1932. Why have we had to wait for four years for the Government to introduce a Bill? That means that every year 1,500 lives, approximately, have been sacrificed through the dilatoriness and inertia of our present Government.
This Report, which is, I suppose, the most thorough survey available on the subject, stresses other factors which are operative in producing the high rate of maternal mortality, besides the one that is alluded to and dealt with in this Bill.

779
It mentions, for instance, besides the inadequate midwifery service at present in existence, under-nourishment, which is due to poverty. It stands to reason that a perfect state of physical health is necessary for the mother if she is to be able to stand the strain of childbirth, and that under-nourishment both diminishes her powers of resistance and produces certain minor ailments which in the case of the mother are peculiarly dangerous. I will refer to only one of these, and that is rickets. Your Lordships are fully aware that rickets is an ailment produced entirely by lack of proper diet in small children. It produces a malformation of the bones owing to a lack of minerals in the food, and this in women often has the effect of narrowing the pelvis. I should like to refer for a moment to what those who drew up this Departmental Committee's Report say upon the effect on maternal mortality of this peculiar complaint. They say:
"Rickets, now a preventable disease, has a most important bearing upon maternal mortality, and its prevention should substantially reduce the maternal death rate."
It may be said that rickets is a comparatively rare complaint and therefore that no special steps need to be taken to cope with it. This is unfortunately not the case.
The medical officer of health of Stockton-on-Tees has just made a very interesting inquiry into malnutrition which shows that of 2,676 elementary school children in Durham whom he examined, 83 per cent. showed some sign, at any rate, of rickets. This is not peculiar to the poverty-stricken North; it is equally evident in the South, where at any rate conditions are better. There it was found that of 1,638 elementary school children in London, no less than 87.5 per cent. showed symptoms of rickets. This bears out the fact that we in this country are suffering from a problem that is not insoluble but which must be solved if we wish to lower really considerably the maternal death rate. We must be able to provide a proper diet of fresh milk, fresh vegetables and so on for small children in these early months and years when their bones are being formed. The figures of Dr. M'Gonigle, the medical officer of health for Stockton-on-Tees, bear out the statement of the distinguished expert on malnutrition
780
whose report, which appeared a few months ago, made it perfectly plain that approximately half of the inhabitants of the country were suffering in some degree, at any rate, from under-nourishment. That, of course, is a factor in maternal mortality which the Government have not dealt with and which is naturally not touched upon in the present Bill.
There are, in the few moments at my disposal, two other important causes of maternal mortality and maternal morbidity with which I should like very briefly to deal. Recommendations as to how they should be dealt with by the Government also appear, very much underlined, in the Report of the Departmental Committee which was appointed in 1928 by the Home Secretary. The more important of these two factors is ante natal care. This Report stresses very strongly the inadequacy of the treatment that is provided at present in ante-natal clinics. What is absolutely indispensable, if we are to save many lives that would otherwise be lost, is that there should be a sufficient number of antenatal clinics for every expectant mother to be able to go to them and take advice, and that these ante-natal clinics should be staffed with doctors who have special knowledge of gynaecology and obstetrics or who are specialists in those subjects. That is the first and most fundamental change that we must see. The second is that we are bound, sooner or later, to provide a grant for expectant mothers which will enable them to provide a diet which every doctor would prescribe. Those of your Lordships who are married and have children know perfectly well that an expectant mother has to have a special diet. It is exceedingly important for her to obtain fresh milk, fruit and vegetables, and to obtain them in greater quantities, and a poor wife cannot afford those luxuries unless there is a special fund provided from the public purse. Those are the two steps forward which we must take and which the Government appear practically to ignore.
Finally, there is the last factor with which I shall deal, the question of postnatal care. It ought to be taken for granted that every mother at the end of the lying-in period should have careful medical supervision for at least six weeks, and unless this is provided it is perfectly

781
certain that a great number of mothers will suffer for the rest of their lives from the ill-effects of giving birth to a child. We want that provision, and we want also the provision on a much larger scale than hitherto of home helps. I do not say that work in the home is in itself necessarily very injurious to a mother, assuming she has children or a husband who can do the harder manual jobs, but one has to remember that in the working-class home there is a strong, if not an overwhelming, temptation for the mother to rise from her bed of sickness before her time. She is anxious about preparing meals for the children, about the cleaning and tidying-up of the house, and it is very difficult for her to neglect her home, as she imagines, because there is nobody to do the work. I therefore think that in time we shall have to come to see that there is a provision of home help for a mother during the period that immediately follows childbirth. That is all I have to say on this very vital subject from the point of view of the whole working population of the country.
I should like to point out to the noble Viscount, because he raised the point himself, that we do not object to voluntary maternity hospitals and nursing associations—that we welcome the very valuable work they do. What we do object to is the using of them as screens for the deficiencies of the present system, and as excuses for public authorities not providing what private initiative is unable to give. What we hope to see is friendly co-operation between the voluntary associations and the local bodies who will have to work the Bill. There is no doubt that taken in the right spirit they can help one another to a large extent. This Bill is a step, if not a very long step, towards the provision of a really adequate and nation-wide maternity service, and it is a movement in the direction of providing in a larger measure for the great bulk of the population—for the working people—those benefits and facilities that at present are reserved almost exclusively for the well-to-do.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I am asked by Lord Gainford to say that the Liberal Party welcomes this Bill generally, although it may have been rather overdue. I should like, myself, to make certain observations on two points only. The first is that there has evidently been
782
a good deal of consideration by the Government as to whether this supervision should be transferred from the borough councils to the county councils. I have had the advantage of consultation with the noble Viscount, and he assures me that the matter has been thoroughly thrashed out in another place, and that the conclusion the Government have come to is the best solution, and I am prepared to accept that statement.
The other point is as to Clause 6. Clause 6 says in effect that no woman other that a certified midwife or a State registered nurse shall attend a woman in childbirth. My advisers on this matter—I do not pretend to be an expert—inform me that the State registered nurse has not really got the qualifications necessary for a maternity case, and that a maternity nurse would be a much more effective person to employ than the ordinary State registered nurse. It is further said that out of 57,000 midwives now on the roll of the Central Midwives Board only 15,000 are practising. At present there are too many midwives trained, thus seriously interfering with the training of medical students, and State registered nurses are given no teaching of this nature in their general training and therefore are quite unfit to act as maternity nurses. I do not know whether that is only a Committee point, but I have mentioned it to the noble Viscount and I now venture to mention it again, in order that when he replies he may tell your Lordships what the position really is.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I wish to call your Lordships' attention in connection with this Bill to a piece of special machinery. When this Bill was presented to another place there was a long and very useful explanatory Memorandum which was printed and sent round with the Bill. When the Bill comes to your Lordships' House there is no explanation at all, and I would like to ask the Government whether in future, in cases of this kind, we should not be afforded the same generous treatment as is afforded in another place. There are several difficult matters in this Bill which were fully explained in the Memorandum, and I hope the Government in the future will see that we are equally well served in this matter as the members of another

783
place. I may remind the noble Lord, who represents the Opposition, that during the time when his Party was in power we got a very good Memorandum from the Minister of Transport in which the places mentioned in an Order of the Ministry were inserted in the Orders of this House. I do not want to delay the House by referring further to this matter, but I think it is of importance.
The noble Earl who spoke for the Opposition began with pæans of praise for this Bill. In the middle of his speech he was rather critical, and I am afraid he dilated a little too much on questions which are not quite germane to the Bill, the question of rickets, for example, and he introduced the old controversy of the treatment of Park Lane and Poverty Corner. However, he did end by saying that his Party—and I was glad to hear him say so—had no objection to working with the voluntary hospitals and co-operating with the big welfare associations which do such good work in all parts of the country. If I might correct him in one matter, he was not entirely right when he said that this Bill had an easy passage in another place. It did not by any means. There was a great deal of controversy in the Standing Committee and the Bill had to be recommitted, in pursuance, it is true, of a pledge given by the Minister to the Opposition, as regards the number of days that a midwife should attend. The Bill was recommitted in respect of that pledge—namely, to increase the number of days from ten to fourteen, with a little elasticity if it was thought fit.
I think a great deal of alarm may have been occasioned among expectant mothers by some of the speeches that have been made in another place and up and down the country in respect of maternal mortality. The latest returns show nearly 600,000 births and a little over 3,000 deaths of women in childbirth. That is a large figure, no doubt, but you have to take into consideration that children are brought forth by many mothers who are naturally not fit, however well attended they may be by midwives or others. Also it is a curious thing that the position in life of the mother is no criterion. Some women bear children much more easily than others. I have known it in the same family; one woman, in exactly the same
784
circumstances as another, has difficult parturition, when another finds it perfectly easy. In the same way, we find in the animal world that less well-bred animals have a much better chance in many cases than the more nervous highly-bred animals. I think it is rather a mistake to say that many of these deaths are due to want of care, because I believe that when they are investigated it is found that a great many of them are due entirely to the fact that nature is not the same in all cases and physical strength and physical attributes are different in different people.
I myself think this is a very good Bill. I am always rather interested to hear when those opposed to the Government, on whichever side of the House they are sitting, say it is a pity that this or that Bill was not brought in earlier. The fact is that we have now such a mass of legislation that only a certain number of things can be done at one time. At all events we have got the Bill, and we all welcome it, and I think it is a great step in advance, and a great social reform. There is one point to which I should especially draw your Lordships' attention. It was a question that was raised at considerable length and provoked considerable controversy in another place—the case of London. As regards statistics of maternal mortality London compares most favourably with the rest of the country. The figure for the rest of the country is 4.2 per thousand, whereas in London it is only 2.2, and we pride ourselves here in London on our ante-natal and post-natal services. The boroughs in every part of London have cither had a midwifery service instituted or have made arrangements with voluntary bodies to provide a midwife. What I regret is that now the London County Council is to be the supervising authority and we are going to have two authorities for the mother instead of one. That seems to many of us a great mistake. The Standing Joint Committee, which is composed of representatives of all the twenty-eight boroughs of London, very strongly objected to handing this matter over to the London County Council.
I might say for the information of your Lordships that the majority of the borough councils in London are not of my Party, they belong to the Party opposite, and by a very large majority

785
they were against the County Council having this power. The London County Council very naturally, like all bodies which want more power to their elbow, decided—both parties—in favour of the powers being handed over to them. I must say that for the midwives it is contended that they would, by being put under the supervision of the London County Council, be all on one list, and there could be promotion, and they could go to refresher courses. On the other hand I am not at all sure whether this is going to be a good thing. There is, however, power in the Bill as far as I can understand, for the Minister to decide, after representations from a borough, as to whether the present system may be allowed to go on, simply with the supervision of the London County Council. I hope that will be so. In the City of Westminster, where we have been most successful in these matters, we have made arrangements with the Westminster Hospital. We did employ midwives, but we did not find them a success and now the system is much better.
I hope therefore that the Minister, when the matter comes before him and there is an appeal made to him by the boroughs interested, will take into consideration what has been done by these services in London of which we are all extremely proud. I hope that the same fate may not await the boroughs which overtook them some years ago when they approached the Minister on the question of the devolution of powers. Under the Act—I think it was the London Government Act of 1900—there was an appeal to the Minister when both parties were not agreed that certain powers should be devolved. The result was that after months of controversy the inspection of slaughter houses and the transfer of the Thames Embankment and certain small gardens of less than three acres were handed over to the City of Westminster at a cost of £12,000 a year to the City of Westminster. I hope that a better arrangement will be made this time.
The real truth of the matter is that the London County Council has got too much to do. I quite agree it is a good thing that it should have this supervisory power. It seems to me that the Ministry which the noble Viscount represents in this House might hand over a
786
good deal of its supervisory power to the London County Council, and the County Council could hand over a good deal of the detailed work to the boroughs, which are quite competent to do it. I think that in this Bill a retrograde step is taken. I am not going to challenge it in Committee because I know very well I should not get much support, but I felt bound on behalf of the boroughs of London to make this protest, and, having done so, I wish the Bill God-speed during its remaining stages.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I cannot follow my noble friend into the London controversy, but, taking the Bill as a whole, I think the noble Earl who spoke from the Front Bench opposite is quite right when he claims that it is a step towards making midwifery a national service. Although it may become a national service altogether in future, it ought never to be forgotten that some of the very best work that has ever been done by voluntary effort has been done in this cause. Some forty years ago midwifery was entirely haphazard. There was no supervision of it of any sort or description and it was then that in various districts people put their heads together and started district nurses who had a midwifery training.
I remember its being done nearly forty years ago in a remote part of the West Country. I remember the nurse being obtained. She was paid a salary that would be looked upon as wholly inadequate at the present time, but wherever she went she was entertained. She had to be put up by the patients or by their relatives, and as a means of transport she generally had to ride a horse—a matter which, I think, might present some difficulty to a good many of our present-day midwives. She certainly did a very great deal of good in that district. The same thing was going on all over different parts of the country, and by degrees various district nurses for whole counties or great parts of counties were brought together. But all that time it was purely voluntary effort; it was essentially a series of charitable associations. It is quite true that the subscribers were entitled to free treatment from the midwife, who was also a nurse, and their wives were entitled to midwifery treatment; but the fees collected in that way were not nearly enough to keep these

787
associations going and to pay the nurse, so for a long time they remained entirely charitable associations. In a great many cases the county council stepped in and helped.
The system that we now have in my own county is that the County Council makes a very considerable subscription towards the county nursing association, but the executive power, the management of the whole system, is in the hands of the voluntary association; the inspector being, I think, paid half by the association and half by the County Council. We find that that system works perfectly well, but I do not want to disguise for a moment that if you had people out to make difficulties—if those who are managing on the side of the County and those who are managing on the side of the district nursing association were not getting on together—considerable difficulty might arise in working the system. This Bill, wisely, I think, supports the existing system as long as it can be continued, but you must not forget the difficulties with which these associations have to deal.
First of all, they have to find nurses to train. I am informed that that is by no means an easy job, and that it is getting harder and harder. If, as is rumoured, the period of training is going to be increased that will not only make it harder to find candidates for the nursing profession: it will also make it more expensive, because you have to pay all the time during that period and you are getting nothing for your money. I said I hoped the system would continue, but we have got to face the fact that it depends on being able to collect in the County a very considerable amount of money in the course of a year. That is getting more and more difficult. They have to rely very largely indeed upon getting subscriptions from those who get no benefit whatever from the nurse. I do not suppose that actual fees come to more than a slight proportion of the annual receipts. We have got to face the fact that in a great many districts eventually the local authorities may have to take the service over.
I want to say a word or two about one or two points in the Bill. First of all as to finance. The noble Viscount who explained the Bill was very candid about finance. I think he told us that on this
788
point the Bill was not particularly intelligible. I wonder if he can enlighten us on this point—namely, whether it is the fact that the counties which have, up to now, spent most money on promoting the nursing service will come off worst in the matter of grants? In this House we cannot alter that, even if it is so, but as I read the Bill that seems to be the case, and it seems a little hard on those counties. As to the matter of fees, there is a clause in the Bill—I think Clause 3—dealing with this matter. Will any model fees be laid down? I suggest that it is worthy of consideration whether the Minister should not lay down some scale of fees or else ask the counties or the authorities to let him have their scale of fees before they actually put them into force. The danger I see is making the fees too low. You can always remit fees, you can always reduce them, but it is a fact that in these associations very often people who are perfectly well able to pay a considerable fee for the services of a midwife, by belonging to the association get off very cheaply indeed. If any scale of fees is laid down, as I think it ought to be, so as to get uniformity in the various counties, I hope that point will be taken into consideration.
Only one more point, and that is with reference to the provision in Clause 1 and Clause 2 as to women being employed as whole-time midwives. I think it must be the intention of the Government that that should include a whole-time nurse who gives part of her time to midwifery and part to other nursing services. That is a point that has been raised by the County Councils' Association. I think that it ought to be made clear, and I am putting down an Amendment on the subject which I hope the noble Viscount will look at with favour. I hope the Bill will have a fairly easy passage through this House because I am sure it is a Bill that will do good.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I rise especially to try, if possible, to correct an impression which, I think, is prevalent as to the inadequacy of the fees paid to midwives generally. It is a fact that of the independent midwives, of whom we have heard there are far too many and only a few practise, most are inadequately paid; but it is a fact that those midwives who are paid by those.

789
associations which are affiated to the Queen's Institute of District Nursing, although not as highly paid as one would wish, still are fairly well paid. But the chief point is that they are in regular employment. I do not wish to detain the House this evening, because the points which I had intended to make have been very well dealt with by the two noble Lords who have just spoken. I did wish, however, to congratulate the Government on bringing in this Bill, which I think is a very good Bill. I am sure the Government will give all credit to the Joint Council of Midwifery for their memorandum of last year on which, I think, they have based this Bill. I hope, too, that credit will be given to the Queen's Institute, the Central Midwives Board and the Midwives Institute for the suggestions and the Amendments, which they also got moved, all of which I think were adopted in another place.
I think that the Government are tackling this question in the right way by linking up the voluntary organisations with State effort. It seems to me that the human contact behind the voluntary effort in such a matter as maternal mortality and midwifery is of great value. I feel that the result of this Bill, although there will be a great deal of spade work to eliminate a certain number of midwives who have passed the age at which they may be expected to work, and to eliminate those who perhaps have not had sufficient training, will be that the status of the midwife will be raised and also that midwives will get a fairer reward for their services. The consequence of this should be—and I feel this is very necessary—that that status should be promoted, and that the remuneration should be sufficiently large to encourage women to come forward in increasing numbers to fill the very necessary places in this great profession. The feature of the Bill which pleased me very much was the encouragement given to expectant mothers to bear their children in their own homes. True, they have a choice of hospital if need be, but I think a great deal of encouragement should be given to mothers to have their babies in their own homes.
I was going to say one word on the question of publicity, which has frightened certain married women, but that point has been covered. I only hope that it
790
with good nursing saved. The figure to-night, of fifteen hundred lives per annum that might be saved, is not an over-statement. You have only to look at the figures for maternal mortality in England and Wales for the last two years. In 1934 the figure per 1,000 was 4.41, and in 1935, 3.98. Compare with this the cases, running to the number of 68,000, dealt with by the Queen's Institute of District Nursing, where the maternal mortality rate in 1934 was only 2.74 and in 1935, 2.56. This should be a source of great encouragement. A striking figure which I should like to give your Lordships is that for the last ten years, during which time 606,000 cases have been nursed by Queen's Nurses, the maternal mortality has been at the low average of 1.91 per thousand, which, in a rough way, compares, as far as I can make out, with the rest of the country of something over four per thousand. No wonder the Government have largely based their Bill on the results and experience of the Queen's Nurses and the village nurse midwives. I hope now that as a result of this Bill every expectant mother will have the chance of getting a midwife, that the status of midwifery all over the country will be increased, and that numbers of lives will be saved.
Finally, I should like to make an appeal to the Government to see whether the telephone could be installed free in the case of district nurse midwives, especially in the country. It is unnecessary for me to stress that point, or to give any reasons in support of it to your Lordships, as it seems to me the advantages are obvious. It seems a small expense, but at the same time it is a fact that even an expenditure of that nature is felt very much by the smaller district nursing associations, many of whom, as your Lordships well know, are in the Special Areas. I should like to congratulate the Government on this Bill and I hope it will receive unanimous support.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I think we can congratulate ourselves on the successful reception given to this Bill. I made a few ineffectual efforts at the commencement of my remarks in the hope that I would be able to "head off" my noble friend opposite from discussing malnutrition and disease, which

791
have really nothing to do with this Bill in particular, but I shall be very glad to hand him a very comprehensive answer to several points he dealing with rickets, which can be extracted from my right honourable friend's speech on malnutrition in another place a few days ago. Perhaps we ought to congratulate ourselves on really being blamed for only half the maternal mortality of this country. My noble friend, I noticed, was kind enough to confine our liability as a Government to half only.
Some questions were asked by my noble friend Lord Onslow (and on a somewhat similar subject by my noble friend Lord Mersey) on the refresher courses. That is a very important aspect of the Bill. It is provided in Clause 7, as was pointed out, that these refresher courses should be held. My noble friend Lord Onslow wanted a little more information about the refresher courses, and he also asked other questions about the training of midwives under the new dispensation. It is a very important subject, as we fully admit, but I understand that the Central Midwives Board is at present formulating new provisions in its rules covering not only the training of new midwives but the details of these refresher courses. I can give an assurance with regard to schemes when they are laid, that my right honourable friend will consider the question of training in a general way and refresher courses in particular.
My noble friend Viscount Mersey referred to the large number of midwives on the roll who do not practise. We anticipate that the overcrowded condition of the midwives' roll will be greatly reduced by the scheme for voluntary and compulsory retirement. My noble friend Lord Jessel raised a point about a Memorandum. Inquiries are still being pursued as to who is responsible for the affixing of that Memorandum. I am not sure that it is not partly attributable to action in another place, but I would like to reserve any statement until that can be determined. I would point out to my noble friend that in London, as elsewhere, it is the desire of the Minister that successful arrangements that are operated to-day should be preserved as far as possible. I think he need have no fear that the schemes in which he is particularly interested—if they fall, as I
792
am sure they within the category of successful shcemes—will toe in any way predudiced by this Bill.
My noble friend Lord Bayford referred to the scale of fees. I am informed that the actual drawing up of the scale of fees will not be done by identical methods all over the country and therefore it would be inapplicable to make a model scale of fees. We are endeavouring to trust local authorities as far as possible, but this is a subject of course on which my right honourable friend would require some information when schemes are submitted, and no doubt he will use his good offices to secure some change if he thinks it desirable. I think the other matters raised were largely Committee points and if they are raised at another stage I will do my best to answer them.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 60:
Special provisions as to certain railways of London Passenger Transport Board.
(4) The provisions of Part I of the Board of Trade Arbitrations, &c., Act, 1874, shall have effect for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section as if references to the Minister of Transport were substituted in that Part of the said Act for the references to the Board of Trade.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH) moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "subsection (2) of." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I owe your Lordships a short explanation with regard to this Amendment. It is designed to correct what is clearly an error in subsection (4) of Clause 60. This subsection was inserted as an Amendment made by the Joint Committee, who took the view that in order to preserve the existing law Part I of the Board of Trade Arbitrations, etc., Act, 1874, ought to be applied in relation to the exercise by the Minister of Transport of his powers under subsection (2) of this clause. Owing to an inadvertence, the attention of the Joint Committee was not drawn to the fact that similar powers are conferred on

793
the Minister under subsection (1). I am advised that, for the purposes of the Act of 1874, no distinction can be drawn between the Minister of Transport's powers under subsection (1) and his powers under subsection (2) of this clause, and that in order to preserve the existing law it is necessary to extend the Act of 1874 to the Minister of Transport for all the purposes of Clause 60 of the Bill, This is the effect of the Amendment which I now move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 11, leave out (" subsection (2) of ").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, on behalf of the London County Council I should like to say that they welcome this Amendment very warmly and hope that your Lordships may see your way to insert it in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
LEE CONSERVANCY CATCHMENT BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.

NORTH WEST KENT JOINT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Hours of Employment (Conventions),

Road Traffic (Driving Licences),

Employment of Women and Young Persons,

Pensions (Governors of Dominions etc.),

Land Registration,

Petroleum (Transfer of Licences),

Shops,

794

Malta (Letters Patent),

Retail Meat Dealers' Shops (Sunday Closing),

Old Age Pensions,

National Health Insurance,

Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions,

Post Office (Sites),

London and North Eastern Railway Order Confirmation,

Darlington Corporation Trolley Vehicles (Additional Routes) Order Confirmation,

Derby Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Doncaster Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Pier and Harbour Order (Gloucester) Confirmation,

Reading Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Gravesend and Milton Waterworks,

South Staffordshire Waterworks,

Llanelly District Traction,

Huddersfield Corporation (Trolley Vehicles),

Cornwall Electric Power,

Kingston upon Hull Corporation,

Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water,

Foundling Hospital,

Fishguard and Goodwick Urban District Council,

London Midland and Scottish Railway,

London County Council (General Powers),

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply,

Come Valley and Northwood Electricity,

Brentford and Chiswick Corporation,

Cirencester Gas,

Great Western Railway (Ealing and Shepherd's Bush Railway Extension),

Stalybridge Hyde Mossley and Dukinfield Transport and Electricity Board,

Brighton Corporation,

Lee Conservancy Catchment Board,

North West Kent Joint Water,

Southern Railway.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.