Lords Sitting of 20 April 1937

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NORTH COTSWOLD RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
ROTHESAY WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).
EDINBURGH ROYAL MATERNITY AND SIMPSON MEMORIAL HOS PITAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Considered on Report (according to Order).

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, it is unnecessary for me to explain to you the nature and objects of this Bill or why it must become law by the end of this month. It contains, moreover, no changes of great importance or of a controversial nature, and accordingly I shall not trouble the House with a lengthy statement. Clause 3 lays down the rates payable, during the twelve months beginning 1st May next, to the keepers of victualling houses for accommodation provided to troops billeted on them. The rates are set out in the First Schedule to the Bill, and are identical with those being paid in the present year. Those rates relate to peace conditions, when troops can only be billeted on the keepers of victualling houses. In emergency, however, wider powers are provided by Section 108A of the Act, the liability to provide billets being extended to the owners of public buildings and to

961
any householder possessing suitable accommodation. It is with these emergency powers that Clause 4 of the Bill deals, introducing certain amendments of a non-controversial nature.
The amendments to the Army Act made by Clause 5 and he First Part of the Second Schedule to the Bill are partly editorial and all of minor importance, and the same applies to the alterations made by Clause 9 and the Second and Third Parts of the Second Schedule to the Bill. Clauses 7 and 8 are intended to give the Army Council and the Air Council power to prolong the service of soldiers and airmen, with their consent and in circumstances which are entirely to their advantage; while Clause 10 permits the incorporation in future prints of the Army and Air Force Acts of the adaptations and modifications of those Acts effected by recent legislation separating Burma and Aden from India. I beg to move that the Bill be how read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHEEP STOCKS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD THANKERTON: My Lords, to many of your Lordships it will be familiar that on hill farms in Scotland the sheep stock is generally what is called "bound to the ground," and with that in view there are provisions in the ordinary lease between landlord and tenant which provide, for instance, that the sheep stock shall be taken over from the tenant at the end of the lease by either the incoming tenant or, failing him, the landlord—that is the usual form—the amount to be at a valuation to be made by an arbiter or arbiters and oversmen. The reason for that, as your Lordships will readily understand, is that in these hill lands it is a great advantage to have a permanent breeding stock on the ground which become acclimatised to the conditions of the high ground, and in addition there is the other not unimportant consideration that they become
962
what is known as hefted to the ground—that is to say, they become familiar with the ground and do not stray, a very important matter.
The result is that the persons who are really capable of being arbitrators are a very limited class, for they ought to consist of people who are familiar not only with the breeding and maintaining of sheep stocks and prices, but also with the particular part of the country in which the valuation is to take place. Complaints have been made for some time about, let us say, lack of information mainly as to any principle on which these valuations proceed, and the Secretary of State for Scotland in 1933 appointed a Committee presided over by Lord Kinross to look into the question as to whether any improvement could be got with regard to the system of valuation of these sheep stocks. There are various forms in which the clauses in the lease may be dealt with, but almost inevitably there is an arbitration of some kind. I do not require to go in detail into the various forms of the clauses in the lease. As a result of the recommendations of that Committee, which reported the following year, the present Bill is proposed, and it has already passed through the other House.
It consists of three distinct proposals and I cannot do better perhaps than refer to the conclusions of the Committee on these points. Under Clause 1 it is proposed that the arbiters to be appointed should disclose the basis on which they proceed for the valuation of each class of stock and state the amounts separately. I may perhaps read what the Committee say about their reasons for arriving at that conclusion. It is:
"We were informed that whilst detailed particulars of the basis of valuation were practically never given, the basis and details of the valuation were in fact freely discussed between the two arbiters and the oversman, if appointed. We were assured that there would therefore be no difficulty in supplying particulars of the basis of valuation, if necessary, and it appeared that the omission to do so in the past has probably been due largely to the belief that in principle it is undesirable to give reasons for a decision unless absolutely necessary."
That may be a very excellent idea in its appropriate place.
Then, under Clause 2, it is proposed, as regards leases entered into after the passing of the Act, that the arbiter should

963
be entitled to apply for a point of law to be decided by the Sheriff under similar conditions to those which are provided in the Scottish Agricultural Holdings Act. This is an old question. The valuation of sheep stock and other kinds of farm stock was expressly excluded from the arbitration provisions under that Act, and this proposes to bring them into line, with the result that it will be possible during the course of the arbitration, if a difficult question of law arises—because this embraces written leases and there might be a pure question of law as to the construction of the leases—to have that question of law decided. In making that recommendation the Committee point out that they are certain that this will be welcomed not only by the parties but by the arbiters themselves. I think there need be no difficulty about that clause. The third and last proposal is based upon the suggestion of the Committee that if the parties agree they shall be entitled to go to the Land Court and get that Court to be the arbiters and decide the cases on the lines of arbitration. The clause authorises the Land Court to do this by means of their ordinary procedure. That is a point which has been for some time desired among the parties, and as it is only by agreement that it can be done I think it is right that the opportunity should be given to the parties when they do so desire. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Thankerton.)
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, it is not my intention in any way to offer opposition to this Bill, but I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, before we further consider the Bill in Committee, whether he would give those who are interested in the subject some time to consult with their friends as to Amendments and alterations to the Bill. I have read the Bill through, but I think it has come up rather quickly from another place, and was not printed before April 15. Therefore, we have only had a very short time in which to study its provisions or to consult with those who are interested in the Bill. I suppose it is my gross neglect not to know whether it is so or not, but I imagine this Bill to be founded on the Report of what is known as the Kinross Committee. I am afraid I must say that up to date I have been unable to
964
obtain a copy of that Report or to learn what the recommendations in that Report are; but I have no doubt that within a few days I may be able to get a copy of the Report and see what it has to say.
I do not wish to oppose the general principle of the Bill in any way, because, undoubtedly, this is an effort to alter something which has become in many parts of Scotland—if what I have heard appears in the Kinross Committee's Report is correct—what one might almost say is a scandal. The noble and learned Lord has explained the system on which the valuation of these sheep stocks on hill farms in Scotland is made. I do not think such a system exists under any other land tenure in the United Kingdom. I have no doubt that it came into operation first of all—and becoming the custom of the country afterwards acquired the status of law—owing to the fact that it was supposed when sheep were first introduced into Scotland in the eighteenth century, and even down to comparatively recent times, that sheep could not live on the hills of Scotland in winter, and that they all had to be put in houses during the severe weather, though I believe some of the breeders of black-face sheep are angry when that is said. I believe that what are now known as Scottish sheep came originally from Cumberland, and, being of a hardy nature, many of them managed to survive the winters in Scotland. The custom of acclimatisation valuation sprang up after it was known that these sheep were hardy and, having got accustomed to the hills, could survive winter and other climatic hardships. In consequence they became more valuable to the ground than a fresh stock brought on to it would be. In addition, as has been pointed out, if you brought new stock in and placed them upon the hills before the days of wire fencing, it was quite possible that they might make off to the neighbouring county.
Consequently, there sprang up this valuation which became known as an extra price valuation. This extra price put upon the valuation of the sheep was known as their acclimatisation value. It is no doubt quite right and proper that there should be some extra value placed upon these sheep owing to their knowing the hills and having become acclimatised, but there have been cases in Scotland in which the price placed upon the sheep would have bought the land. No doubt

965
it was very pleasing for the outgoing tenant to get this enormous price for the sheep, but it made it extremely difficult for anybody to go in and follow in his shoes because of this enormous valuation put upon the sheep. Consequently, what generally happened was that the landowner had himself to pay this acclimatisation value and let the sheep stock remain for the incoming tenant, although the landowner had paid the acclimatisation value out of his own pocket. There have been some very gross cases of overvaluation in Scotland. As the noble and learned Lord said, the number of people who go about valuing the sheep are few, and it is said that they must have special qualifications. It has practically come to this, that a certain number of big sheep farmers go about valuing for each other and consequently they are not inclined to value the sheep at a less value than their proper value.
This Bill, I think, has a moral value, though I do not know that it has really very much more than a moral value. In Clause 1 it is provided that the valuer or arbiter has to give reasons for his valuation tinder the different heads. Undoubtedly, having done that, his valuation will receive a certain amount of publicity. Even at the present time most of these sheep-stock valuations are published in the newspapers, and that has, I think, given rise to a good deal of severe comment in certain cases owing to the enormous values that have been put upon sheep stocks. Consequently Clause 1 may have a certain moral effect in restraining an arbiter from giving a very excessive award, but as drafted it puts no practical limitation on what his valuation may be. All that he has to do is to declare publicly his reasons and the 'basis on which he makes his valuation. I think Clause 2 requires a certain amount of discussion. Under this clause, if a point of law arises, there is an appeal to the Sheriff and, pending the decision of the Sheriff, an arbiter may say that the landlord or the person who has to pay the valuation must pay a certain amount into Court. To take an extreme case, if a valuation is for £9,000 and a question of law crops up, the arbiter may say that £8,000 should be paid into Court when really the value of the sheep stock may be only £4,000 or £5,000. The effect of paying money into Court may, it seems to me, stultify to a large extent
966
the decision of the Sheriff. If the arbiter has ordered this large amount of money to be paid into Court pending the Sheriff's decision, it appears to me that the case will be largely pre-judged.
Then Clause 3, which I think is valuable, might in my opinion be a little extended. That clause provides that if both parties agree the case, instead of going to the oversman and arbiters, may be transferred to the Land Court. If a tenant thinks that he can get some arbiter to put an extreme value on his sheep stock—as has been done in certain cases in the past—he is not likely to agree to go to the Land Court where probably he would get a great deal less. If that clause is to be really effective, I think it should be amended so that on the application of either party the case should go to the Land Court instead of being decided, as is generally the case now, by two arbiters and an oversman. As I have said, I have no intention of trying to defeat the Bill or of trying to hold it up; but I think it could be improved, and therefore I would ask the noble and learned Lord to give us time, before he takes the Committee stage, to consult with our friends as to what Amendments ought to be put down to improve what may be a valuable Bill and a Bill which may bring justice to all.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I rise to support the observations of the noble Earl. This Bill was only ordered to be printed on April 14 and it is submitted to us for Second Reading six days afterwards. I am continually receiving protests from noble Lords who are interested in Scottish affairs that they are not given sufficient time in which to consider such legislation. I hope, therefore, that at least two weeks will be allowed to elapse between Second Reading and the Committee stage of this Bill so that we may give it full consideration. We have been in consultation with friends of ours in Scotland who are interested in the Bill, but owing to the shortness of the period they have not had an opportunity to send in replies. I sincerely hope that before this Bill is brought to the Committee stage my noble friends in Scotland will be given ample time to consider it.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with what my noble friend has said in asking for ample time for the consideration of Amendments to the Bill.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I rise only to say that, as was explained by the noble and learned Lord who moved the Second Reading, this is virtually an agreed Bill in that representatives of landlords and tenants concur in its terms. Therefore it has the Government's support.
LORD THANKERTON: My Lords, with reference to what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, and other noble Lords, I would say that of course I am not anxious to rush the Bill through or to hide it. The Bill did not originate in my thoughts. Representatives of all parties interested were consulted about it, and I thought they were all agreed, but I shall be delighted to consider Amendments. With reference to Clause 2 (3) I would like to point out that when a question of law is raised affecting in any way the whole or any part of the amount of the award given by the arbiter, he is not entitled to direct any payment on account which will be affected by the appeal. It must be something outside the matter of the appeal. In regard to Clause 3, dealing with the Land Court, I may point out that this is the only one that interferes with freedom of contract. It applies to leases both before and after the passing of the measure and therefore it was thought right that it should operate only by consent of the parties. In future leases it will be quite possible to have a clause giving the option of going to the Land Court if the parties so agree.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RAILWAY COACHES.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to recent railway accidents and to ask if legislation is contemplated for the replacement of all wooden coaches by steel coaches. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is a little unfortunate that I should have put this Question down for Budget day because most of your Lordships are in another place. Before I say anything on the subject matter of my Question I would like to pay a tribute to the railwaymen. It is on the railwaymen that the safety of the public depends and the extraordinary rarity of accidents is undoubtedly due to them. When once in a way an accident does
968
occur on the railways, we see large headlines the newspapers. The matter which I am raising to-day has been debated for many years and has been dealt with in newspapers such as the Daily Express rather prominently. I do not want to be controversial; I merely ant to get from the Ministry of Transport, with their experts and their great knowledge, whether their opinion is that it is better for the public that steel coaches should be universally used.
The first steel coach was built in 1905, but it was not until 1913 that the public became aware of the behaviour of steel coaches in an accident. There was a terrible accident in New York, I think on the underground railway there. Only one steel coach was buckled, but the wooden coaches were completely concertinaed. It was said then that if every coach had been made of steel, although they might have been overturned and people might have had a severe shock, passengers would not have been permanently injured or killed. In 1913—I think it was on September 2—there was a terrible accident at Aisgill on the Midland Railway, and a Midland Railway official said at that time, in reply to Major Pringle, I think it was, who was asking the question for the Government Department then concerned, that had these coaches been of steel the passengers would have escaped with a severe shaking, instead of which a great many were severely injured and killed. But I do lot want to go back into the history of twenty-odd years ago; I come down to December, 1933, at which time there was an idea that all railway roaches should be gradually changed over to steel or, at any rate, that they should be built with steel frames. At that time 85 per cent. of our coaches were wooden and it was stated that it would take over fifteen years, at the rate of progress then being made, to convert them into steel coaches. In that month there was a terrible accident, which no doubt your Lordships will remember, at Lagny, in France, and in the course of that accident the steel coaches were left intact. The people in the steel coaches were not injured but the wooden coaches were smashed to pieces and the people in them were killed and mutilated.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, who is in his place, will say a word on this. In December of that year, I think

969
following that terrible accident, he expressed the view that steel coaches were certainly very desirable. Actual figures and percentages indicate that we are behind the rest of the world in steel coaches. I have here figures which show that whereas in Great Britain only 15 per cent. of our coaches were made of steel, in Germany 98 per cent. were made of steel; in the United States of America 85 per cent.; in Italy 68 per cent.; in France 58 per cent. These figures show that we are much behind foreign countries in our programme. The actual number of steel coaches that we had was 800, and we had 6,000 steel-framed coaches, out of a total of 44,000 coaches altogether. The chief people who have argued against the steel coach and given reasons why it has not been brought in have said that it is much cheaper to have wooden coaches—putting it on the ground of economy. I want to point out to your Lordships that the steel coach would definitely encourage our industry. Although it is true there is at the moment a boom in steel, owing to rearmament, it is not going to continue for ever. Railway coaches will continue to be required, and from that point of view it is much better to encourage steel coaches than wooden coaches. The wood is imported and therefore does not do this country any good industrially. In France there was a debate on this subject some two years ago in which several members of the Chamber of Deputies expressed the view that steel coaches were absolutely essential. In fact, it was mentioned then that Germany introduced steel coaches in 1912. I have just given your Lordships the figures of three years ago, which contained the figure of 98 per cent. for steel coaches in Germany.
In March, 1934, there was an accident which I think occurred at Doncaster between the first and second parts of the Edinburgh express. It was in a fog. Nobody was injured at all. If they had been wooden coaches, it was stated at the inquiry, there would have been a holocaust of killed and injured. Again, in November of the same year, there was a collision at Hayward's Heath. No one was injured. Again it was stated that, had the coaches been of wood, many people would have been killed and injured. In 1935 there was a very bad accident at Welwyn. These words were used—I think at the inquiry:
970
"Death steeplechased down the train, Carriages of steel withstood the impact, but wooden coaches concertinaed."
I think Colonel Trench, who was an expert of the Ministry of Transport at that date, said that he preferred the steel coach to the wooden coach. On January 16, 1936, there was an accident at Shrivenham, Buckinghamshire. Mr. Collett, who was the chief mechanical engineer, giving evidence, said:
"The brunt of the collision was taken by the steel frame of the brake van. It was extraordinary that the body was left practically intact."
Colonel Mount, who was conducting the inquiry, asked:
"Do you think this form of construction saved life?"
The reply was:
"Yes, the small casualty list is entirely attributable to our form of construction, which prevented any concertina action or the crushing of passengers."
At the beginning of this year there was an accident to the Winter Sports Express in France. In one carriage, which was all-steel, no one was injured at all, but in the wooden carriages there were thirteen killed. I think I have said quite enough to show your Lordships that the question of constructing all carriages of steel is a question which should be brought before the public, and I hope that I shall hear from the Minister of Transport very interesting facts and figures about it.
LORD MONKSWELL: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Earl, and I think I may say that we are all in sympathy with the intention that lie has in view. There are certain remarks that occur to me on the subject. For one thing, we have not heard anything about the finance of scrapping a great number of wooden carriages and introducing a great number of steel carriages. So far as I know, the capital connected with the existing wooden or partly wooden passenger rolling-stock must amount to at least £100,000,000. When one takes into consideration the extreme rarity of railway accidents, which is mostly due to continuous brakes and block signals, we must be very careful about recommending any policy which would cause a large increase of expenditure at a time when the country can ill afford it. If large expenditure is to be incurred, it would

971
certainly seem to me that there is a much better chance of saving life by spending the money on the roads than there is by spending it upon the railways.
Again, I do not think the noble Earl has quite appreciated how much has already been done in the direction that he advocates. It is not so much a question of steel coaches against wooden coaches as of coaches with great resistance that will not telescope and crumple up when an accident takes place. It is by no means certain that any sudden change over to what he describes as steel coaches would have that effect. What has actually happened of late years on the railways—I speak subject to correction; I see that a director of the Southern Railway will no doubt follow me; he knows better, and I see he shakes his head—is that for quite twenty or thirty years railway coaches in this country have been steadily increasing in strength, and when collisions occur it is a comparatively rare event for the train to telescope in the way a train used to do with the old matchbox rolling stock, as it was called. I wish to be fair to the railways; I have often spoken against them but in this respect I think they have done their duty. For the last thirty years or so the strength of carriages has been steadily increased, partly by more solid wooden construction and partly by introducing more and more steel, and the latest arrangement, which consists of very strong steel under-frames attached very firmly to one another with strong buckeye couplings, make it extremely improbable that one frame will ride upon another if an accident happens. I do not think there is any serious need, certainly not for legislation, to hurry up the introduction of steel rolling stock.
Then, of course, there is the question of fire. If you have all-steel rolling stock it is very much more difficult to break down the sides of the carriages in which passengers may be imprisoned than it is if you have wooden rolling stock. You can break through wooden walls comparatively easily, but steel walls have to be cut open by acetylene cutters and other apparatus, and in certain circumstances it is quite possible that the severity of the accident might be increased rather than diminished. The noble Earl has referred to the terrible railway accident at Lagny on the Eastern Railway of France four
972
years ago. What happened at Lagny was that a train composed mostly or entirely of steel coaches ran, at a speed of approximately seventy miles an hour, into the back of a train which was only just on the move and composed for the most part of old wooden coaches. The wooden coaches were smashed to atoms, and almost the whole of the casualties, numbering some 200 killed, took place in the wooden coaches. The people in the steel coaches suffered very little. It has been pointed out, over and over again, however, that if both trains had been composed of steel coaches there is no reason whatever to suppose that the number of casualties would have been smaller, though they would no doubt have been more equally distributed between the two trains. So I do not regard that accident as furnishing convincing evidence in favour of steel coaches as against wooden coaches.
That is all I need say about that. But if the Government are going into the question of doing everything they can to avoid railway accidents there are certainly things which might be done and which would have, in my opinion, much greater effect in saving human life than the sudden introduction of a policy of building only steel coaches. The first of those concerns the great question of punctuality. It is a most extraordinary thing that punctuality has always been neglected on the British railways. British railway officials absolutely refuse to issue to the men distinct instructions on the importance of making up lost time. It is impossible to have perfect punctuality in Every way, and the only way to increase punctuality is to make up lost time. Of course it should not be done in a stupid or reckless manner, but carefully thought-out instructions could be issued to the drivers to which they could have recourse when trouble arose. Somehow or other the railway companies up to the present have entirely failed to draw up such regulations at all. If the Minister of Transport is in earnest and wants to prevent railway accidents this is one of the matters into which he should look most carefully. Another point is that it occasionally happens that a train takes a sharp curve at too high a speed. It is a very rare occurrence, but it does happen. The Great Western Railway have laid down a cab signalling apparatus

973
which enables a train to be brought up automatically if it is running past a danger signal. It is quite a simple matter to extend this system so that if a train is approaching a sharp curve at too high a speed it would be automatically pulled up. I hope the Ministry of Transport will look into that question too. Otherwise, I do not think I need add anything except to repeat my sympathy with the intentions of the noble Earl, although I do not see entirely eye to eye with him.
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has drawn the attention of His Majesty's Government to recent railway accidents, and asked if legislation is contemplated for the replacement of all wooden coaches by steel coaches. Official inquiries have been ordered into the circumstances attending the recent accidents at (1) Bow Road, (2) Battersea, and (3) Crewe. The question of the effects of the form of construction of the carriages concerned in these accidents will be a matter for careful consideration by the officers holding the inquiries, and it is of course not possible yet to anticipate their findings. The question of the strength of railway carriage stock has been considered by the Ministry, and earlier by the Board of Trade, on many occasions in the past, arising out of the reports of inquiries held into previous railway accidents, notably in the cases of Aisgill (1913), Darlington (1928), Charfield (1928), Port Eglinton (1934), Winwick Junction (1934), and Welwyn Garden City (1935). Consequent upon the investigation of these and other accidents, the attention of the main line railway companies has been drawn to the value of strengthening the construction of railway coaches, more especially by way of the reinforcement of bodies, ends, etc., of coaches; also by the adoption of improved coupling and buffer arrangements, which have proved of material value in many cases in reducing the effect of accidents; and during recent years all main line railway companies have made great progress in these directions.
The consensus of technical opinion, after having due regard to the experience of accidents both at home and abroad, has resulted in a practice on all main line British railways to construct all new stock with massive steel under-frames and substantial wood, or steel and wood,
974
bodies. At the present time, the proportion of steel used in railway carriage construction is in the region of 75 to 80 per cent. of the total weight, the balance usually representing hardwood body framing, decorative fittings, panelling, internal linings, etc., where wood may be used. The latest methods of construction, for example the use of welding instead of riveting to which my noble friend Lord Monkswell referred, are adding further to the strength of vehicles. During the past three years, the number of coaches constructed with steel under-frames and steel, or steel and wood, bodies, has increased by over 4,000 and during the same period over 6,000 carriages constructed with wood, or part wood, under-frames have been scrapped. An analysis of the present stock of the main line companies shows that of a total of about 42,000 coaches, 33,000 are constructed with steel, and nearly 6,000 with steel and wood, under-frames, leaving only 3,000 with wood under-frames; 11,067 of the steel under-frame coaches have also steel, or steel and wood, bodies.
As a result of their study of the question in the light of the accidents which the noble Lord no doubt has in mind, the technical advisers of the Ministry are of opinion that there is no justification on safety grounds for pressing the main line companies to depart radically from their latest practice, which is tending to ever-increasing strength. Apart from fire risk, which has been so largely reduced by the substitution of electric lighting for gas, it should not be forgotten that, when a collision occurs, the momentum of moving vehicles has to be absorbed somehow, and the resulting incidence of casualty must always be largely fortuitous. Dynamics cannot be eliminated by the use of all-steel construction, which is not necessarily stronger than composite construction. It may happen that coaches are thrown about violently, with widespread damage and injury; on the other hand, there may be telescoping with resultant destruction of possibly only one vehicle, with perhaps a high proportion of casualties therein, but comparative immunity for the rest of the train. It should also be remembered that in this country the utmost efforts are made to prevent accidents, as well as to minimise the effects when accidents do unfortunately occur. I think I am right in saying that in 1936 only three passen-

975
gers were killed as a result of train accidents, and that is a very remarkable illustration of the degree of safety that exists to-day in our present arrangements. I hope by the remarks that I have made that I have managed to dispel some, it not all, of the fears which the noble Earl expressed in his speech.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Earl very much for his reply. I am certainly very much relieved by what he has said, and I am sure the public generally outside your Lordships' House will also be relieved.

MATERNITY SERVICES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
METHYLATED SPIRITS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
House adjourned at five minutes past five o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
[From Minutes of April 20.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Rotherham Corporation,

Huddersfield Corporation,

Barking Corporation,

Cardiff Extension,

London and North Eastern Railway,

London Midland and Scottish Railway,

Sheffield Corporation,

Southern Railway,

Wandsworth and District Gas,

West Ham Corporation.

Also the Certificate that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Nottinghamshire Joint Hospital District).

And also the Certificate that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for Additional Provision in the following Bill:

Dunstable Gas and Water.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
Report from, That the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the Petition for Additional Provision in the
Dartford Tunnel Bill [H.L.]
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to the Committee on the Bill to insert the Additional Provision; and that the Standing Orders not complied with in respect of the
Hastings Pier Bill
ought to be dispensed with, and leave given to introduce the Bill: Read, and agreed to.

HASTINGS PIER BILL. [H.L.]
Presented (pursuant to leave given this day); read 1a and referred to the Examiners.
HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (COLNE VALLEY SEWERAGE, ETC.) BILL. [H.L.]
BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bills was withdrawn. The Orders made on the 8th of February last and the 8th instant discharged, and Bills committed.

CANVEY ISLAND URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment, with a Report from the Chairman of Committees under Standing Order No. 110 that in his opinion the Bill should be proceeded with as an opposed Bill. Bill re-committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the Grimsby Corporation (Grimsby and District Water, Etc.) Bill and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the consideration of the Canvey Island Urban District Council Bill [H.L.]: Read, and agreed to, with leave to the promoters to be heard by Counsel if they see fit.
GRIMSBY CORPORATION (GRIMSBY AND DISTRICT WATER, ETC.) BILL.
WOODHALL SPA URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
BANBURY WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that, in pursuance of the powers given him by Standing Order No. 112, he had appointed the Viscount Bridport as a member of the Select Committee on the said Bills in the place of the Lord Woodbridge.

BANBURY WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, the opposition thereto having been withdrawn: Read, and ordered to lie on the

979
Table. The Orders made on the 23rd of February and the 8th of April last discharged, and Bill committed.
WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
PONTYPOOL GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

HOUSE OF LAITY (CO-OPTED MEMBERS) MEASURE, 1937.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
Seventieth Report, being the Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the House of Laity (Co-opted Members) Measure, 1937: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
SOUTHWARK CATHEDRAL MEASURE, 1937.
Text of the Measure: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMITTEE.
Seventy-first Report, being the Report by the Ecclesiastical Committee upon the Southwark Cathedral Measure, 1937: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and to be printed.

APPLEBY GAS ORDER, 1937.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the Borough of Appleby:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.