Lords Sitting of 14 December 1937

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EMPIRE EXHIBITION (SCOTLAND) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Order of the day for consideration of the Bill on Report read.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD CLWYD: My Lords, I feel some diffidence in intervening in this matter even for a moment, because, as your Lordships are aware, I have no direct right to speak for Scottish opinion. I hope, however, that your Lordships will allow me to say a few words with regard to the Order now under consideration, because I have throughout my public life taken a very special interest in all licensing questions. I am fully aware of the circumstances which have led to the granting of this Order, and of the reasons which are put forward by the Government which render it necessary, in their opinion, for the Order to be confirmed; hut, at the same time, I know that there is a very strong body of opinion in Scotland, not confined altogether to the temperance section of the population, against the confirmation of this Order. That opinion is based upon the general ground that when an Act of Parliament has been passed it is undesirable, unless the reasons for doing so are overwhelming, to suspend its operations even for a short time. Since I understand that very strong feeling does exist in Scotland on the part of a large section of the people there against this procedure, I should not like this Order to be approved without, at all events, a word of protest upon these lines being uttered on behalf of those whose opinions I this afternoon represent.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Abinger, as
464
I was a member of the Commission that considered this Provisional Order, I think perhaps I might be allowed to say a few words. In the first place the promoters of the Bill brought before the Commission an immense body of evidence to show that the licensing facilities were essential to the success of the Exhibition, and that those facilities would lead to no disorder and to no disturbance of the locality greater than must actually be brought about by the existence of the Exhibition itself. They brought evidence to show further that if licensing facilities were withheld the disorder and disturbance to the locality would be even greater. It must be remembered that this Order does not seek to grant licensing facilities, but merely to allow the promoters of the Exhibition to apply in the ordinary way for licences, just as they would if the area under consideration were not what is called "dry." In reply, those who opposed the Order brought no evidence of any kind at all. Their counsel merely made a speech directed to showing that it was contrary to public policy that a Provisional Order should override a Public General Act.
The Commission, having heard their evidence, were not unanimous upon the granting of the Order, but—I am sure my memory is right and that every other member of the Commission will agree in this—they were unanimous that some means should be found for enabling either the promoters to apply for licences or the inhabitants of the district themselves to decide whether such application should be entertained or no. The alternative suggested was that the date of the "plebiscite"—I do not know what I should call it—on the subject of whether the area should be "wet" or "dry" should be advanced in order to allow the people of the district to decide with the Exhibition in their minds. That procedure, and any other procedure that can be found—certainly any other that was brought before the Commission—involves a very much greater overriding of the Public General Act than the Provisional Order which is now before your Lordships. For this reason the Commission, being unanimous that some steps should be taken, and the majority agreeing that this was the most suitable procedure and involved least disturbance—for after all, my Lords, it refers to an area in which

465
there are no inhabitants—recommended that this Order should be granted. That is the state of the case, and I hope that your Lordships will duly approve the Order.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, in view of the two speeches which your Lordships have just heard, one from the noble Lord, Lord Clwyd, protesting against the passing of this Order, and the other from the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, supporting it, I do not think your Lordships will expect me to discuss in detail the arguments which have been advanced for and against the proposals of this Bill. A full opportunity for such discussion was given, as the noble Lord has just said, by the Commission which examined the proposal, and it is in accordance with your Lordships' custom to attach great weight to the decisions of Committees and Commissions who have carefully heard all the evidence and arguments. So far as particular objections are concerned, perhaps I may say, however, that in the opinion of the Secretary of State for Scotland no valid objection can be taken to this Bill on the ground that it makes a temporary modification of a Public General Statute. Local legislation frequently modifies General Statutes, and in this case there are exceptional and unique circumstances. The Temperance Act, 1913, was intended to enable the inhabitants of a particular locality to determine whether licences should be refused in the light of the normal circumstances of the locality. In the present case a totally unexpected event has occurred—namely, the establishment of an Empire Exhibition in Bellahouston Park for a period of about seven months in 1938, with an attendance which is expected to total many thousands, if not millions.
As regards the effect of these proposals on good order: as I think the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has already told your Lordships, the Chief Constable of Glasgow informed the Commissioners that he did not apprehend that the grant of licences within the Exhibition would cause any injury to the amenities or public order. He also mentioned that there are two public-houses within a few hundred yards of the Exhibition grounds, and that they would probably be flooded out, with undesirable results, if ordinary facilities were not granted within the Ex-
466
hibition. It has been suggested that a fresh poll under the Temperance Act might have been taken so as to modify the existing "No Licence" Resolution if the electors so decided. Any such change would, however, have affected the whole "No Licence" area, of which the Park is only a small fraction. It would also have continued for a period of years, whereas the need for modifying the existing arrangements will cease in this instance as soon as the Exhibition closes in the autumn of 1938.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROTHESAY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
GLASGOW BOUNDARIES ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

PATENTS, ETC. (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this is a Bill to amend the law relating to patents, designs, trade marks and merchandise marks in such a way as to enable ratification to be given to two international instruments—the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the International Agreement regarding False Indications of Origin on Goods—both of which were revised at the Conference of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property held in London in 1934. The Union consists of forty-one countries. Its principal Convention dates from the Conference of Paris of the year 1883, and it was revised at Brussels in the year 1900, at Washington in 1911, at The Hague in 1925, and lastly in London in 1934. Some of the amendments which were made to the International Convention at the London Conference merely brought that instrument into conformity with our law as regards the matters in question. Other amendments to the Convention, and the amendment to the Agreement, are not covered by our

467
existing law; and the main purpose of this Bill is to amend the law in those respects so as to enable ratification of both instruments to be given before the date fixed for that purpose, namely, the 1st July, 1938.
Advantage has also been taken of the opportunity to include in this Bill one or two amendments which are not strictly necessary in order to enable this ratification to be given, but relate to matters affected by the two instruments. The Bill accordingly contains a number of more or less disconnected provisions of varying importance, of which I will refer to the more important. In the first place, there is a provision that the inventor shall be entitled always to be mentioned as such in the patent.
LORD STRABOLGI: That is in the Convention.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Under our law as it stands, the true and first inventor must, in most cases, be the grantee, or one of the grantees, of the patent, but in one or two cases it is possible for the grant to be made otherwise than to the actual inventor. The provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill will enable the actual inventor to have his name entered in the patent in such cases by way of historical record, without affecting in any way the ownership of the property rights in the patent. Clause 2 deals with the term of a patent which, at present, subject to the payment of renewal fees, runs for sixteen years from the date of the patent. Clause 4 deals with provisions for the prevention of the abuse of monopoly rights under a patent, for example, non-working. At present, under the Convention and under our own law, it is possible, after the expiration of three years from the grant of a patent, for the patent to be revoked on the ground of abuse of monopoly rights. In general, however, it is found that such an abuse can be satisfactorily checked by the grant of a compulsory licence under the patent; and the clause provides that a patent shall not be revoked unless an order for a compulsory licence has been first obtained, after the expiration of the three years from the grant of the patent, and a further period of not less than two years has elapsed. During those two years, it will, of course, be open to the patentee or the licensee to take steps to remedy the abuse.
468
Another provision to be noted is in Clause 6. Before we in this country grant a patent with priority of date under the Convention, we examine the application in order to make sure that the invention is the same as that for which protection was asked in the Convention country. The clause provides that, in carrying out this investigation, regard is to be had to the invention disclosed in the whole of the relevant Convention documents, and not merely to what is formally claimed therein. This, in fact, has been the practice of the Patent Office for some time, and the clause will give that practice statutory effect. Clause 7 removes a proviso which a decided case in the Courts has shown to be redundant. Clause 8 deals with, for example, a case in which a number of Convention countries have agreed together to treat an application—say for the registration of a trade mark—made at some international office as being equivalent to an application made in each country itself. It provides that, in such a case, the application shall be treated under our law as if it were made in the particular country in question. Clause 9 to some extent redrafts the provision for applying certain privileges under our Acts to Convention countries by Orders in Council, and makes it clear that such Orders may be made, not only in respect of a foreign State, but also of any Colony, Protectorate, or other territory subject to the authority of such a State or in respect of territory for which a Mandate on behalf of the League of Nations is being exercised by such a State.
Clause 10 contains the only provision in the Bill dealing with merchandise marks. Under our present law, for a false trade description (including a false description as to the origin of goods) to be an offence under the Merchandise Marks Acts, it appears that the description must be used in some physical relation to the goods. The clause extends the provisions of our law in this respect to a trade description in any sign, advertisement, invoice, wine list, business letter, business paper or other commercial communication, where goods are delivered in pursuance of a request made with reference to such a description. The clause extends to all trade descriptions under the Acts, and not merely to descriptions as to the origin of goods, as it is considered undesirable to make any distinction between the different kinds of

469
trade description in this respect. Clause deals with consequential and minor amendments of the Patents and Designs Act. Clause 12 contains the short title, various definitions, and other matters of machinery, and lays down that the Act shall came into operation on a date to be named by Order in Council. This Bill is a somewhat complicated and technical Bill, and in such a case as this I should not wish to hurry your Lordships in any way. The Convention has only got to be ratified by July 1 of next year, and in that case I have to acquaint your Lordships that I should not propose to take the Committee stage until we re-assemble after the Christmas Recess. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, this is a Bill which originates in this House, and therefore I think it is our duty to examine it very carefully indeed, especially as it deals with what is admittedly a very important matter. It is complicated, as the noble Lord has said, but it does affect industry and commerce very much in this country and throughout the world. I thank the noble Lord for saying that the next stage will not be taken until after the Recess. I was so bold as, through the usual channels—because I knew there were some Amendments which my friends would wish to have—to ask that the Bill should not be taken through further stages next week, and I thank the noble Lord for his generosity in giving us till after the Recess. Obviously there is no great hurry. The Convention was signed, I think, in London in June, 1934, and therefore the Government, which is usually very rapid in all its actions, has not been very precipitate in bringing the Bill before Parliament. They have been three and a half years sitting on this egg in the Board of Trade, and therefore I am rather surprised at the way in which one or two of the clauses are drafted, which I shall explain in a very few words.
The Party for which I have the honour to speak attaches very great importance to this subject. Anything which will protect the poor inventor has our support. Some geniuses have been responsible for marvellous inventions and City sharks have devoured them and the inven-
470
tors have had no just reward at all. Anything which helps that class of inventor we should like to support and, if necessary, strengthen. Indeed I have heard it stated more than once cynically—and I expect the noble Lord opposite, Lord Marks, who is a very great expert on this subject, has heard the same thing—that the only real protection for a patent now is to have a million pounds in the bank; in other words, to be able to fight it and protect it through all its stages, even up to your Lordships' House.
At one time I had a great deal to do with inventors. I have a little to do with there now, I am sorry to say. They are a very curious race of people. When I was at the Admiralty we were going through a very critical time in connection with the submarine campaign, and we were inundated with inventions and inventors and discoveries for combating the submarine. For my sins I was punished by being put in charge of a small department which had to interview and "vet" and examine all these things. I had some experts to assist me, I am glad to say. I came to the conclusion that about 75 per cent. of inventors are mad, and of the remainder quite a number are rogues. But among the chaff of course we found a certain amount of grain. And that same thing is happening now in regard to air raids. I have had a great many inventions brought to me—why I do not know—which I pass on to the Department of State in connection with the defence of the country against air attack. But nevertheless, despite the difficult nature and peculiarities of inventors, without inventors I suppose we should all now be living in the stone age, and we should therefore do the best we can with them.
I am speaking with great diffidence in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I feel like a very small David facing a very large Goliath on this subject, and I am rather sorry that I am speaking before him, as he will have an opportunity of demolishing what I say on this difficult and important subject; but nevertheless I intend to do my best. I must say a word here with regard to the English Patent Acts. I have one or two patents in my own name, so that I belong to the same tribe of inventors in a small way. My experience of the Eng-

471
lish Patent Office is that it is speedy and cheap and always very courteous and helpful; but in business I believe it is admitted that the search does not pretend to be as thorough as in some other countries. In the business with which I am connected, where we have to deal with a great many patents in connection with engineering, we never feel happy until we have got both the American and the German patents, because there the most thorough searches are made with reference to new discoveries or inventions.
Coming to the Bill, it is of course realised that this seeks to put into force the alterations of the Convention, and the first point I would like to touch on is the right of the inventor to have his name mentioned in the patent. When the noble Lord was explaining the Bill, I thought he was going on to speak about an opportunity taken in this Bill of introducing certain amendments of the law which are outside the Bill, and then he went on to speak about the right of the inventor to have his name mentioned, but I suppose that that is in the Convention and therefore we cannot, I imagine, avoid putting that into law. But it is not, I am advised, really very necessary. There is no good purpose served by this provision, since the mention of the inventor's name will give him no more legal interest in the patent. From that point of view this particular clause does not seem to serve any useful purpose, but it is in the Convention, and therefore I suppose it has to come into the Bill. I believe I am right in saying that English patents can lawfully be granted without reference to the inventor, and there are many patents of this kind.
The next clause I wish to comment upon is Clause 6. This is evidently intended to give effect to Article 4 (H) of the Convention. This appears to be in the right direction, and is an attempt to indicate more clearly how the foreign specification is to be construed when applying for a corresponding British patent with Convention priority. This question has been before the Law Officers and the Comptroller on numerous occasions, and different opinions have been expressed as to how the foreign specifications should be considered. Nevertheless, in the clause of the Bill the word "invention" (page 6, line 4) is used again, thus still leaving to those
472
responsible for administering the Act the question of deciding what is the invention disclosed in the foreign specification. What the British authorities may consider to be the "invention" disclosed in the foreign specification may be different from what the foreign Patent Office would consider to be the "invention" disclosed. I am advised that difficulties in that respect are foreseen. Also there are difficulties and hardships foreseen with regard to the word "whole" in the next line—"the whole of the documents"—and I hope that the Government will agree to some such form of words as these in substitution for the words in the Bill:
"… regard shall he had to the disclosure, irrespective of what is actually claimed, in the document or documents put forward at the same time."
That seems to be a better form of words. I will put it on the Amendment Paper, and perhaps I could hear the views of the noble Lord and his advisers upon it. I do not think that will be inconsistent with past opinions expressed by the patent authorities in this country.
The most serious observation I wish to make is in regard to Clause 8 on page 6. This appears very obscure. It is apparently intended to deal with that part of Article 4 of the Convention which refers to third-party rights. As the Convention stood before it was amended and then ratified in London in June, 1934, the rights of third parties who may have used the invention between the date on which a patent was actually applied for and the date of priority claimed, were reserved, and the laws of certain of the Convention countries were consistent with this reservation. I understand that the idea underlying Clause 8 is to do away with the intervening third-party rights. If Clause 8 is intended to give effect to this, then it should have been drafted in a much plainer and more straightforward way. As the clause stands at present, it seems almost impossible to distinguish between the application actually made and the application deemed to have been made. I perhaps should be allowed to point out that Clause 8 does not read very well grammatically; because in paragraph (a) reference is made to two or more Convention countries, while the end of the clause speaks of "that" Convention country. But that is only a matter of drafting.
Now while the clause is apparently intended to give effect merely to that part

473
of Article 4 which relates to third-party rights, it appears that as it stands it might be taken as a much more sweeping and far-reaching piece of projected legislation. It might be read as meaning that when application has been made in one Convention country, then an application has automatically been made in every other Convention country, and that nothing more is required to get a patent in those other countries, although no documents have actually been filed in those other countries. I must at this point confess that I myself was tinder that impression when I first read the Bill. A great many people are under that impression now. They think that if you register under the Convention in one country you can sit back because you are protected in all countries. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, shakes his head, but many people believe that, and the point should be made much clearer than it is.
The difficulties that would arise in dealing with an application which had been made merely in spirit and not in letter, having regard to the fact that every country has a different patent law and its own peculiarities of patent practice, would be so vast as to be almost impossible to visualise. It would necessitate a radical change in the Patent Statutes or rules of practice of every country which is a party to the Convention. I do not believe that is the intention of Clause 8 of the Bill, but it does seem to be drafted in a very vague and obscure manner, and I submit to the Government and to the noble Lord that that needs clarification. I would not like this Bill to leave your Lordships' House with any obscurity in it. We are told that this House is the revising Chamber, and I would be sorry if Bills originating here, especially in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and others, had to be revised in another place. Perhaps I may add that there are some expert patent lawyers sitting in another place.
Might I refer to one point that might be in the Bill, which, I submit, is very important? I would have thought the opportunity would have been taken—I hope it can still be taken—to deal with the difficulty pointed out a couple of years ago by Mr. Justice Luxmoore. He pointed out that there is no provision whereby an applicant can appeal from a decision of the Comptroller under Section 91, to
474
which the present Bill is mainly directed. Before the Amending Patents Act of 1932 appeals from the Comptroller's decision usually went to the Law Officers, but under the Act of 1932 a tribunal known as the Patents Appeal Tribunal, presided over by a Judge of the High Court, was established. Appeals from decisions of the Comptroller of Patents on points relating to Section 91 were decided by the Law Officers without question until Mr. Justice Luxmoore discovered that there were no provisions for appeal. Practically every section of the Act save Section 91 contains provisions for an appeal from any decision given by the Comptroller. Section 91 is a very important part of the Act, and I submit to your Lordships that this is an opportunity that might have been taken—I hope it can still be taken—to remedy that defect or gap in the existing law, which leaves the Comptroller power to decide a point without any right of appeal against the decision, especially as Section 91 has international intentions. One or two of the points I have mentioned are Committee points, but I thought it right to mention them now as we have plenty of time to consider the Bill during the Recess. One or two of these points are points of some substance, and I hope that something can be clone to meet them. I repeat that this is an important Bill. It will affect for many years to come, I suppose, British invention and the progress and march of science and discovery, and therefore we should do all we can to clarify this Bill on all these points.
LORD MARKS: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite seems to have been peculiarly unfortunate in the people with whom he has had conference concerning inventions, because he speaks of 75 per cent. of inventors being mad and quite a number of the other 25 per cent. being rogues. I have not had that unfortunate experience, and I should imagine that something which has been in existence for 315 years or more—our patent system—could not have gone on all that time if there were so many rogues and so many madmen associated with inventions, particularly when it is understood that there are some 36,000 or 37,000 new patents applied for every year. It is to the honour of this country that we, in the time of James I, introduced what was absolutely new to the whole world—namely, the

475
encouragement of new inventions and the development of industries by giving to the person who introduced something which was new and unknown to industry a limited monopoly in order that he might, during the period of monopoly, develop that which he had introduced, and that at the end of his monopoly the whole country might benefit by that which he had done.
We introduced all this years ago in the time of James I, as I say, and from that time down to now every civilised nation in the world has followed us. There is that which is termed a Union—not a League be it understood—consisting of forty-one different nations who give reciprocal rights to every other country, and to the citizens of these other countries just as they would have in their own countries. The noble Lord suggested that under the International Convention some people imagine that all they have to do is to apply for the British patent and, automatically, in the other forty countries they can get their patents. They can. They can get patents in the other forty countries with the identical protection, in the identical form and manner in which they get it in their own country by complying with the laws of these other countries within a certain time. Each country, while having its own law for the benefit of its own citizens, gives to the citizens of every other of the forty countries the same rights as are given to its own citizens. If ever there was an example of co-operation between nations for the benefit of humanity, and for the benefit generally of the industry of the world, it exists in that Union, from which I have never heard of anyone withdrawing, though they might have done so if it had been called a League!
The noble Lord also raised the point of the inventor having a right to have his name mentioned. He has that now. A patent can be obtained by a man who is not an inventor. He need not necessarily bring the inventor in, but if he does not bring the inventor in the law provides at the present time an easy way under which the patent can be opposed at the Patent Office in order that the inventor's name can be added. But under the Convention that we are about to ratify there is a new provision, Article 4 ter, which says that "the inventor has the right to be mentioned as such in the
476
patent." It is because of that new and definite right given to the inventor in this Convention, arising out of the meeting held in 1934, that this simplification of the existing law has been introduced in this country as it is also being introduced in all the other forty countries belonging to the Union. All that a man has to do at the present time is to oppose the patent and he can get his name inserted. All that he will have to do hereafter is to apply to the Patent Office to have his name included. There is therefore nothing revolutionary in this, but it does give to inventors everywhere that which has been the system in this country—namely, the right of having the inventor's name mentioned. It is making it obligatory that the forty countries should all be as honest as we are in Britain and put the man's name in. Consequently it is something that everybody should welcome. It does give to the workman an opportunity of saying to his master: "I understand you are applying for a patent in connection with this; you know that I have suggested many features which have made the thing successful, and you should mention my name." If the employer does not so mention his name, the workman has a right to go to the Patent Office and say: "I was responsible for a part of this invention"—it may be a major part or perhaps the whole of it—"I want my name mentioned."
That is all this Bill is about. It does give the workman, or any person who has been employed to assist in the development of an invention, the right to have his name mentioned in a patent when it is granted. It does not make him the co-patentee; it does not make his name that of the person owning the patent; but it does preserve for him with all those who know him that characteristic dignity that he wishes to have, and that kudos that he wishes to have associated with his name as showing that he is something more than an ordinary workman, that he has developed the patent, and that in his master's patent his name is mentioned. It gives something that will show he is not one of the ordinary or general run of people who do not think about their work. This Bill does bring other countries into line with what we now do in this country. We do give to the workman to-day, and we give to the capitalist to-day, the opportunity of linking himself with other

477
people in connection with any invention for which a patent is to be granted. The noble Lord has had a wonderful experience, which I certainly have not had. He said that in order to have a successful patent you must have a million of money behind it. The noble Lord's friends are millionaires; mine are not; and, that being so, he may have come in contact with people who feel that because they have millions they can defy anybody. That has not been my experience during the last two or three years.
I am perfectly certain that this Bill will remedy certain misconceptions. In Committee there may be one or two points to be taken which will make for clarity. When the noble Lord said that in some countries there is a difference of opinion as to what is an invention I would point out that there is the same difference of opinion in this country. I may remind him of what may occur in our English Courts. I have known the High Court to give one opinion about a patent; I have known the Court of Appeal to give another opinion about the same patent; and I have known this Assembly, the House of Lords, to declare that there was no patent and no invention at all. That being so, your Lordships will realise that the differences existing in other countries on this matter are not peculiar. Human nature is involved, and the intricacies of the mind are manifold. Fortunately we do not all think alike, but when it comes to dealing with patents and you remember that three Courts in this country may all give different views with regard to what constitutes an invention, I do not think there is any ground for suggesting that in this Bill you are going to introduce greater difficulties in the Patent Office when you suggest that they should examine what has been done in another country as well as what has been done in this country.
I welcome this Bill. I know something about the difficulties. It has not been my experience to deal with either fools or madmen. It has been my experience to deal with people associated with industries that are world-wide. But for their inventions the world would be poorer, and but for the existence of the patent law we should be poorer and the nations of the world generally would be poorer, because at the foundation of every industry there is an invention and at the beginning of every new thing there
478
is a patentee or a workman who has worked hard to make it a success. What this Bill does is to continue the 315 years' tradition which is the glory of England as the leading manufacturing country. We recognise here that when a man develops something he shall have the right for a short term of years to develop it to his own advantage, and that no one shall rob him of that right because he has the patent. I congratulate the Government on bringing in this Bill. I hope the noble Lord's acquaintances who are outside the 75 per cent. to which he referred will find this a good Bill.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for his support of the Bill, and to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Strabolgi) for the remarks he made. I may say that I think most of the remarks that he made and the faults which he found referred to Committee points, and he will not expect me to go into details upon them now. I am very glad he recognised the reasonableness of the Government in this matter. I am a most reasonable person, and the Government are also most reasonable, and instead of giving simply a week between now and the Committee stage we are giving the noble Lord something like six weeks, which is plenty of time for even his ingenious brain to invent any Amendments he can think of. There are one or two points I should like to comment on. The noble Lord rather found fault with the Patent Office as being somewhat deficient in their search for novelty. I can only say that the search for novelty is being continuously extended, and they try to keep as much up to date as possible in that respect.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am the last person to make any reflection at all on our Patent Office. I went out of my way indeed to praise it. But it is a question of practice. It is not the practice here to make the exhaustive search that the Americans and the Germans in particular make. Whether that is a good thing or not I do not pretend to say.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord had a good deal to say about Clause 8. I should like to say that it has nothing to do with third-party rights, and it is merely put in to give effect to Article 4, Paragraph A-2 of the Con-

479
vention which relates only to cases in which a Convention country itself treats an application made at, say, the International Office of the Industrial Property Union at Berne, as being equivalent to an application made in the Convention country itself. As to appeals from the Comptroller in certain cases, it is only in a limited number of cases that the position is doubtful. But it is an important point, as the noble Lord said, and I will bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade. As I have said, I think most of the remarks the noble Lord made on this Bill are on Committee points, and there I will leave the matter for the moment. I hope your Lordships will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this Bill is introduced periodically at intervals of about a year. As your Lordships are aware the last Public Works Loan Act was passed in February of this year, and fixed at £20,000,000 the maximum amount which could be advanced by the National Debt Commissioners to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. It was expected that this amount would last for a year, but there have been increasing demands in recent months and it is now expected that the £20,000,000 may be exhausted about the middle of next month. It is therefore necessary to pass a new Bill before Christmas to authorise a further amount. I should like to assure your Lordships that if there is any balance unused when the present Bill with its fresh provision receives the Royal Assent, that balance lapses automatically. Clause 1 fixes the maximum amount which may be advanced under the Bill at £25,000,000, which it is hoped will suffice for about a year. Clause 2 is in common form and deals with certain bad debts—loans advanced under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923. These debts are written off the Local Loans Fund and will be made good to the Fund out of Votes next financial year. The
480
effect of this is to leave the borrower liable but to substitute the Exchequer for the Fund as his creditor. Hope has not been abandoned of recovering some part of the balance outstanding.
Clause 3 is the only clause outside the usual routine. The Commissioners are empowered to lend to local authorities for the purpose of any work for which the council of a county, borough, district or parish are authorised to borrow. But these general powers do not enable them to lend for the purchase of land by a local authority except where the purchase of the land forms part of the works to be carried out; for instance, the purchase of land in connection with works of water supply or sewage disposal. Instances have occurred and are becoming more frequent where local authorities desire to borrow for the purchase of land but, though the Commissioners are the natural lenders, it has been found that under the provision referred to they have no power to lend owing to the absence of any "work" to be undertaken in connection with the scheme in question. A common case is where the local authority wishes to purchase land for an open space, recreation ground or games field. Clause 3 rectifies this technical deficiency. It does not increase the powers of local authorities who already have power to buy the land, and also to borrow for the purpose, but are debarred from borrowing from the Public Works Loan Commissioners. I think I have explained sufficiently the provisions of the Bill which, with the exception to which I have referred, is in a form well known to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as my noble friend has explained, Bills of this kind frequently come before your Lordships, sometimes once a year and sometimes oftener than that. The noble Lord has drawn attention to Clause 2 in this Bill. It is upon that clause that I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to offer a few observations. It indicates a position of affairs which I think is very disturbing. I do not intend to oppose the Bill, but merely to bring before your Lordships certain aspects of the position which I think should be taken into consideration. Clause 2, or a clause with similar provisions, has, to the knowledge

481
of noble Lords, been included in other Bills of this nature. In fact I think I have several times taken part in debates in another place on clauses of much the same purport in similar Bills.
I have, for the purpose of explaining what is in my mind, obtained a copy of the Memorandum which was circulated with the Bill in another place. Your Lordships have received the information in a more tabloid form in the Bill now under discussion. It appears that year after year, or more frequently, we have to write off a loss in respect of loans—mortgages I think we may call them—which have been advanced under the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923. Year after year money has to be looked upon as lost, if not entirely—the noble Lord said it might be hoped that something would be recovered—at any rate in part. In order not to worry your Lordships with detailed figures, I will ask to be allowed to refer to them in round thousands. From the Memorandum which was circulated in another place, I find that the loans set out in die Schedule to the present Bill refer to seven borrowers and seven mortgaged properties, one in Wales and others elsewhere. The total valuation of the properties on which money was lent was £26,000, and the amount lent was £19,000. Now we have to face the fact that on foreclosure only £15,000 in round figures has been received. There is a loss, to give the exact figure this time, of £4,286. It is very disturbing to find a difference of such a large proportion of the valuation. These properties were valued not many years ago. I find, on looking up the properties, that with one exception none were valued as far back as 1924. The others were valued in 1925, 1926 and 1927. The losses on realisation occurred in 1933, 1935 and 1936. That is to say, these properties, upon which £19,000 was lent, not before 1924, on a valuation of £26,000, have only realised £15,000 in eleven or twelve years, and there has been lost to the public purse £4,286.
Properties which were valued at £26,000 were found to be worth only £15,000 twelve years later. How does that come about? How does it come about that in the case of these properties valued after the War, in 1924, 1925 and onwards, it is found, eleven years later, that the judgment of the Government valuer was so far out that they realise only about
482
60 per cent. of the value put upon them, when they came into the market on foreclosure. It may be said that the values placed upon the property by the valuers were the values when the loans were made. Noble Lords are often holders of mortgages as trustees for charities and public institutions and private funds; and we know also that mortgages are often taken up by the great friendly societies and building societies. They do not manage their mortgage affairs like that. Their valuations are not made to bring losses in that way. When they make valuations they take into account the fact that the value of things goes down. They know that things go down in value. If you buy a house to-day, or a ship, or a motor car, or a picture by Sir Joshua Reynolds, you know that if you try to sell to-morrow the price will have gone down. Every prudent man knows that. What would any of your Lordships think if you asked your solicitor to find an investment for a certain sum of money and the valuer to whom the solicitor went put such a valuation on properties on which a mortgage was granted that, in eleven or twelve years, when the money had to be realised, the properties were found to be worth only 6o per cent. of the value placed upon them? Would the reply be satisfactory that the value of the property had gone down in the meantime?
Of course, the value of property goes down, but the prudent man who lends money on property takes that into account. Apparently the Government valuers do not take that into account. That is not the way to carry on business under the Agricultural Credits Act. More prudence should have been used in arriving at the valuation. As I have tried to point out, this applies not only to losses in the present Bill but to similar losses in Bills of this same kind which have come before your Lordships' House. This position is disturbing for another reason. If the Government valuers are seen to be so wide of the mark in fixing valuations when these mortgages are arranged, what will be the thoughts of a taxpayer when, as an executor, he has to pay Estate Duty upon some property for which he is responsible? What faith can he have in the competence of Government valuers when he sees that they make such mistakes? He will say: "The Government valuers will put a value on this property, but they may be very

483
wide of the mark, and I may be called upon to pay Estate Duty upon a value which cannot be realised when the property comes to be sold." It shakes public confidence in the judgment of official valuers.
Then I see that noble Lords opposite, members of the Labour Party, say that they wish to have a National Investment Board; they wish to nationalise banks and insurance companies. If they are going to have boards to lend money under Government valuations, as under this Bill, they will soon wreck the whole of the public purse. Investments are carried out in mortgages with loan grants and money is lost time after time, as is shown here. This is a very good example of what we may expect if we have a National Investment Board.
LORD STRABOLGI: We on this side shall be more careful!
LORD MANCROFT: I say no more than that I do not like the system under which these valuations are made. I do not accept as an excuse or explanation that the values which were put on are what they were at the time. What is the value of property? The value of property is what it will fetch. It is not a question of the time of the loan but of what the property will fetch if or when there is a foreclosure. The value to be put on at the time of loan should include provision for what may be lost by the fall of value when the time comes, if there should be a foreclosure. One must forestall what will happen if the contract under the mortgage be not carried out.
I do not propose to delay your Lordships with my views any further, or to impress them upon you at greater length. I would merely say that the time has now come when a return from 1923 to date should be made, and should appear in future Public Works Loans Bills, so that when properties on which money has been lent under the Act of 1923 have to be dealt with by writing off losses, as we are doing to-day, the return shall show over the whole period to date the details of mortgages foreclosed, the names of properties sold after foreclosure, the aggregate valuations, the aggregate sums lent on mortgage, and the aggregate amount realised on sale. All of those facts should be shown when we are again writing off
484
such a loss as is here, £4,286. We must not forget—and noble Lords will always bear in mind—the cost of realisation and the loss of interest. This loss, although it is a notional one as far as interest is concerned, is an actual one as far as the cost of realisation is concerned; that is to say, even in addition to the £4,286 to which I have just drawn attention and which appears in this Bill.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I am a little diffident in replying to my noble friend, because he said just now, shortly before he sat down, that he would take no explanation or excuse. However, I will do my best to meet the points which he has made. As my noble friend and the House are aware, the Agricultural Credits Act, 1923, authorises the Public Works Loan Commissioners, subject to certain conditions, to lend money to persons who had agreed to purchase their farms during the currency of the Corn Production Act—that is, between April 5, 1917, and June 27, 1921, when that Act was repealed. The loans were to be made on the mortgage on the land up to 75 per cent. of its then value, or up to an amount equal to thirty times the current annual value as ascertained for Schedule A Income Tax.
As my noble friend says, in the seven cases dealt with under the Bill, which are in the Schedule, loans totalling £19,325 were made and the total of the valuations made at the time was £25,800. The amount now to be written off totals £4,286 14s. 11d. In every case but one the loans were of the maximum amount allowed under the Act—that is to say, 75 per cent. of the value of the property. It is important to notice that the Act clearly prescribed that the value to be taken for the purpose of the loans was to be the value as existing at that time. If it is found that the properties now realise rather less than the valuations made under the Act, no blame can be attributed to the valuers.
LORD MANCROFT: May I interrupt my noble friend for just a second, if he will forgive me? How does he define the word "value"? I define the word "value" as what the property will fetch if it comes to be sold under foreclosure.
LORD ADDISON: It is defined there.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Perhaps my noble friend will allow me to make the

485
answer which I am trying to give in my own way. I cannot enter into definitions of the word "value" now. I am afraid it would not be possible to do so under this Bill. As regards the valuers, however, they discharged the duty deliberately laid on them by Parliament, and all the evidence goes to show that they discharged it carefully and well. It is possible to argue, as the noble Lord is arguing, that the scheme which the Act introduced was not in the strict sense a good business proposition. That is perfectly true. I do not deny it. It was generous of Parliament to direct valuation at a time when land prices were very high and to allow loans of so great an amount as 75 per cent., but it was never intended that this scheme should be on strict business lines. In fact, it was intended to be, and was, an act of generosity. The Act was in fact part of the Government's policy of those days for helping farmers, and was only one of the ways in which the Exchequer has provided financial assistance to agriculture. It will be seen, therefore, that it would be a mistake to say that the valuers are to blame for any of the loss which the Exchequer is called upon to make good. And finally I should like to say that, in point of fact, losses under this Act have been surprisingly low. A large number of the loans, which were all at 5 per cent., have been fully repaid without loss, and the losses to date have been trifling compared with the total advanced. Considering the circumstances of the loans and the slump in agricultural prices, the result has been satisfactory to the Exchequer and reflects credit on the work of the valuers. I have replied to the noble Lord as well as I can. I hope he will take my answer and that we may now get a Second Reading of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

JUDICIARY (SAFEGUARDING) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

CONVEYANCING AMENDMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
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 do not know that I need do more than remind your Lordships that it is now nearly thirteen years since the Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1924, came into operation. The experience gained during those years has disclosed various minor defects in that Act and has brought to light the necessity for making certain improvements in the law of conveyancing in Scotland. This Bill is designed to remedy those defects and to make those improvements in the interests of simplicity and economy. It embodies the recommendations of the profession in Scotland, and I think I may say that it will meet with their unanimous approval. I beg to move.
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.

SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD REGULATIONS, 1937.

  AGRICULTURAL WAGES COMMITTEES (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1937.
  Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motions made by Lord Saltoun on November 24 last—namely, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board Regulations, 1937, dated nth October, 1937, made by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Act, 1937, be annulled; and That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Agricultural Wages Committee (Scotland) Regulations, 1937, dated 11th October, 1937, made by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) (Scotland) Act, 1937, be annulled.
  LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the House will recall that, in moving the adjournment of the debate of November 24 on Lord Saltoun's Motion in connection with the appointment and business of the Agricultural Wages Committees and Board, the Leader of the House indicated that he did not think that the criticisms made by the

  487
  various noble Lords who took part in the debate raised any such fundamental question of principle as would preclude the adjustment of the differences of opinion by talk round a table. Since the debate took place the whole position has been very fully discussed with the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen and Temair, as well as with the representatives of employers and employed and Departments interested, including the Ministry of Labour, and I am glad to say that in one important respect only has it been found impossible to meet to the full the various points of criticism which have been made to your Lordships.
  It will no doubt be for the convenience of your Lordships if I refer first to this particular difference of opinion. The Regulations before the House were criticised on the ground that they prescribed rigidly the bodies who should have the right to nominate representatives of employers and employees to serve on the wages committees and on the Central Board, and that certain assurances which I gave on behalf of the Government during the passage of the Bill were thereby prejudiced. Further, the case was raised of the possibility of providing for the future representation of a body, such as that to which Lord Saltoun referred, in whose membership were included representatives both of employers and of workers. It has never been the intention of the Government to limit representation exclusively to the three organisations named in Regulation 1, if at any time other organisations representative of a substantial body of employers or of workers came into being. The Government are accordingly willing to make this position perfectly clear by adding to the Regulation, as at present drafted, a proviso to the effect that where any other organisation of employers or organisation of workers proves to the satisfaction of the Department that it represents a substantial body of employers or workers respectively, the Department may appoint representative members to the committee, on the nomination of such other organisation, so long as the statutory limit placed on the number of such members is not exceeded. A corresponding Amendment will be made in the Regulation dealing with the Agricultural Wages Board.
  488
  The effect of these Amendments will be to ensure that if at any time organisations of employers or of workers come into being, which are representative of substantial numbers, they will be eligible for such representation on the committees or on the Board as may seem appropriate having regard to their membership. I should explain, in regard to the concluding words of the proviso, that the Act provides for a maximum number of eight representative members on each side; so that, to take an extreme case, if the full number were appointed in the first instance on the nomination of the National Farmers' Union and the Farm Servants' Union, it would be necessary to wait until the first retirement before another organisation could be represented. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that the Regulations will not restrict the right of nomination to a vacancy to the body by whom the retiring member was nominated. Accordingly, the concluding words of the proviso will not place any artificial limit on the number of representatives of organisations other than those mentioned in the body of the Regulation.
  I am afraid, however, that the Government are unable to provide by Regulation for the representation of a body representing employers and workpeople jointly. The point at issue has been discussed most thoroughly with the noble Lords, Lord Saltoun and Lord Aberdeen, but for the information of the House I may briefly indicate the considerations which have led the Government to take this view. As noble Lords who have had much to do with these affairs will readily recognise, the organisations contemplated by the Regulations are of a kind generally recognised in this country in connection with wage regulation. An organisation of the type indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is not so recognised. The recognition for statutory purposes of such organisations would raise questions going far beyond the question at issue, important as that is, and the Government regret that they feel precluded from so wording the Regulation as to make its recognition possible for the purposes of this Regulation.
  To the other points raised in the previous debate I need not refer more than briefly. Regulation 4 was criticised on the ground that it left complete power to the nominating bodies to terminate

  489
  the appointment of any of their nominees "on good and sufficient cause," and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, suggested that it should be clearly stated what is a "good and sufficient cause," as otherwise an appointment would apparently be terminated on a member taking a different view of his duties from that of the association which nominated him. The Government have examined this as well as other possible ways of amending the Regulation, but have concluded that it is impracticable to do so satisfactorily. His Majesty's Government therefore would be willing, in order to meet the criticisms offered, to delete the Regulation, thus withdrawing altogether the power of recall which was possible under the Regulation as drafted. I should, however, make it plain that this power has existed in England and Wales and has been considered by the organisations concerned, both of employers and employed, as a reasonable power for the clearing up of practical difficulties, such as will readily occur to the minds of your Lordships. Its withdrawal therefore will, in theory at least, limit such possibilities in Scotland as compared with England and Wales, and I think the House would agree that I should state clearly, here and now, that should practical difficulties arise through the absence of any Regulation on this point the Government would, at a future date, have to consider dealing with it by a further Regulation. Any such Regulation would, of course, be laid before Parliament in exactly the same way as those we are now considering.
  There was finally, my Lords, a somewhat general criticism that certain Regulations, particularly Regulations 9, 10, 12 and 13, imposed unnecessary restrictions on the freedom of action of the committees. The criticisms offered have been fully discussed, and the Government are prepared to incorporate in revised Regulations the Amendments desired on Regulations 9, 10 and 13. They do not, however, feel able to accept the suggestion made in the case of Regulation 12. This Regulation, which has worked well in England and is designed in the interests of both parties represented on the committee, deals with the procedure to be followed for equalising the voting strength of the employers and employed representatives should matters before the committee necessitate a divi-
  490
  sion. The organisations representing both parties are emphatic that the rule should be, retained, and in all the circumstances the Government feel bound to agree. I hope and believe that your Lordships will agree that we have fairly met the criticisms which were brought forward. In so far as it has not been possible to go all the way it is for reasons which I have indicated to the House, the strength of which noble Lords will, I am sure, appreciate. I am, therefore, prepared, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to give an undertaking that if the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is willing to withdraw the Motion now before the House, my right honourable friend for his part is ready forthwith to submit to the House Regulations amended on the lines which I have indicated in the course of this statement. I should add that it is also the intention of the Government to lay before the House at the same time the Regulations dealing with the valuation of benefits in kind.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I think the first thing I should do is to express the regret of my noble friend Lord Aberdeen that he is unable to be present at the debate this evening. Having done so, it will be of service if I recall very briefly the course that this matter has taken from the beginning. When last this subject was discussed by your Lordships, I went into considerable detail over what had happened in the country in consequence of the passage of the Agricultural Wages Act and the publication of the Regulations, and I pointed out that there was a discrepancy between the Regulations as drafted and the undertaking given to your Lordships by the Government (luring the passage of the Bill. On the publication of the Regulations, I was naturally asked to make some statement upon the subject, and it was necessary for me to do so. Realising the delicate nature of the question, I made a careful note of what I was to say and I said exactly what I thought, which was "that the undertaking given in your Lordships' House had been overlooked by the Department of Agriculture in framing these Regulations, but that as soon as attention had been drawn to the fact it would be remedied." Unfortunately my words were not reported verbatim in the local Press, and I was unable to obtain a correction in later editions, nor do I now know exactly what turn was given

  491
  to what I had said. If any other account has reached the Minister or any member of the Department it is incorrect. I should like to say that if any noble Lord of greater experience than my own can show we where and how I might have handled the matter better at any stage, he will do me an act of great friendship for which I shall be very grateful.
  It never occurred to me to accuse, and I never have accused, His Majesty's Government of a breach of faith outside this House, nor do I think I have done so within it. The first time that any question of non-fulfilment of an undertaking emerged was on November 23 when I understood from the Minister that he was to contest my Motion in your Lordships' House. Even then, I recall saying that I did not believe that the Government were serious in this intention, and the first time that any question of such a nature really emerged was when I understood that the Government were to face a Division here. I was deeply grateful to the Lord President of the Council, and I always shall be grateful to him, that he preserved me from asking your Lordships to divide upon a question which, whether I succeeded or failed, would have been completely shattering to all my political ideas, and I am glad to have an opportunity of expressing my feelings towards him in this matter before your Lordships.
  I now come to the Amendments in the Regulations which the Government are prepared to accept and I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Strathcona for the very long way the Government have gone to meet me in this direction. The most important, of course, is Regulation 1, and I am glad to admit, in view of what he has said, that when the Amendment foreshadowed by my noble friend in Regulation 1 has been carried out, the Government can lie under no possible imputation of not having fulfilled their pledges. With regard to the other Regulations, I feel they are much improved and I am sure they will lead to more harmonious working than the original Regulations could possibly have done. I am grateful to His Majesty's Government for what has been done, and hope that they themselves will feel that these matters are on a better basis than they were. When I have said that, I am still bound to say that I deeply regret
  492
  the Government's decision not to recognise a joint association. Such an association was felt by the farm servants in the North to meet their requirements in a way that no other such association has ever done, and I can see no valid reason for its exclusion. I have been told from many sources that when wages come to be discussed, it is. better that the two parties should be widely separated and in different hostile camps and only meet on common ground for the discussion in order that each side may obtain full value of its own peculiar position. That is the essence of His Majesty's Government's position in this matter.
  I am told that when a man goes into the market to sell a horse, though he may sell it to his best friend, yet in the matter of the bargain they take hostile sides. This simile is widely adopted to support the Government's attitude, and though not used by my noble friend I shall examine it to show the weakness of the Government's action in this matter. Similes are devised to conceal loose thought and the wage question requires accurate thought. If a man takes a horse worth £40 to the market to sell and he asks £100 and gets it, the man who buys it may have a use for that particular horse commensurate with the £100. The seller gets his £100 and there the matter ends. But take the case of wage bargaining. Suppose the farm servants come into the committee and their representatives ask that the minimum wage for a grieve be fixed at, say, £100 a month. Of course, if the farmers on their side offer £1 a month, the matter will probably be contested and a proper amount fixed. Suppose the farmers do not take the obvious course and suppose they make no objection, the chairman of the committee will be forced to fix a grieve's wages at £100 a month; and how many grieves are likely to be engaged at that figure? I have taken an extreme case, but something of the kind is not at all unlikely to happen if the two parties are determined to think only of their own interests.
  When I was a young man it was impossible for a farmer to keep his land in grass for more than three years, so that even to-day one-half of every farm in Aberdeenshire is in cultivation and one-half in grass. To-day, by reason of the introduction of wild white clover, it is

  493
  possible to keep the land in grass for six, nine or twelve years without any difficulty. At the present moment the migration of a very few hundreds of farm servants to the towns has produced a shortage of labour in a district containing some 15,000 farm servants. Now supposing, under the new Act, the minimum wage is fixed too high, it is not very difficult for the farmers to determine to keep their land in grass for nine years instead of for three. The result will be that less oats and straw will be produced, and in so far the country would be less fit to face a war. Oats and straw are at present produced in excess of the requirements of the cattle on the farms. In such a case the demand for farm servants' labour will be practically halved, not to speak of the additional unemployment caused by the introduction of machinery, which every farmer normally hates.
  The farm servants have as much to lose as to gain by the over-driving of their demands, and yet when the two forces are arrayed in hostile camps, as the Government suggest, such over-driving of a case on either side is almost inevitable. Both sides are to be organised to the highest possible extent in hostility to the other, and are to meet semi-annually for the trial of strength under the rules laid down by a Department of State. My Lords, it looks very pretty, but it is really a device fit for children born after 1914 and with no experience of life. For how long does His Majesty's Government think that men of flesh and blood who possess these organised forces of increasing efficiency are going to be content with sham fights? Even a child with a toy gun is only content with it by imagining with all his soul that it contains a bullet. The Government's decision has killed the Aberdeenshire Association. Farm servants were eager to join it because it gave them in every parish a common meeting ground with farmers where, as I can personally testify, the utmost freedom of speech was enjoyed in perfect friendship. But they will not continue to join an association which has been explicitly condemned by the powers that rule. The future will probably show the extent and the nature of the mistake which has been made this afternoon, but I realise very clearly I can do no more and I must accept the decision of the Government. With this
  494
  protest I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motions.
  LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of those for whom I speak I would like to say how glad I am that the Government have adhered to Regulation 1. The noble Lord who has just spoken reminds the House that those who are not of his view seem to be oblivious of events since 1914. It is strange to me to hear a joint industrial organisation commended in which one of the parties should be of a composite character as he suggests whilst the other, I suppose, would naturally be representative of their own organisation. The reason why we have had joint industrials councils and the elaborate machinery of trade union and employers' organisations is surely not that they want to meet once or twice a year-in hostile camps. It is because it is absolutely vital to the progress of industry that increased organisation should be a part of it, and that those concerned should be represented in a responsible way through an organisation which can give effect to agreements and so on. If the noble Lord's scheme of things had been approved it would in effect have cut at the root of half, indeed nearly all, of the trade consultative bodies of a responsible character that now exist. When he speaks of the farm servants wanting gladly to join in this composite organisation, does he really think they will feel the same freedom to press their case, that they will choose as able representatives to state their case, if they are discussing it in the presence of their employers and the landowners? I am sure he would not find that any collection of workers would share his views. I am, as I say, very glad that the Government have adhered to the Regulation.
  Next I would refer to that part of the noble Lord's speech in which he deplored that wages might be too high and that therefore there might be a shortage of agricultural labour in the district, which is, I gather, what would happen because some of the farmers would put the land down to grass. They would not require so much labour, and therefore there would be so much less labour in the district. The very reason why to-day, from one end of England to the other, there is in many districts a shortage of skilled agricultural labour is that wages have been too low. In the Eastern Counties, for example, there is now in some places

  495
  quite a dearth of skilled agricultural labour because the younger men have gone off to help to make munitions or to get employment in the different factories that have sprung up during the last two or three years in those areas. It is because higher wages in the towns are attracting the younger agricultural workers from the land that there is a shortage. The reason for the shortage is that the conditions of the agricultural worker have not been so good as the conditions of a comparably skilled worker in the towns, and I suggest that the position is the very opposite of that which the noble Lord suggests.
  Surely what agriculture wants now, and very urgently, is that the conditions of employment on the land should be such as will keep the workers there, as will not lead them to want to wander off to the towns. Because conditions are unsatisfactory in many places they have wandered off. The best way of securing effective representation of their views is by allowing them to be put forward in a responsible way through a proper organisation. I wish every farmer was a member of the Farmers' Union and every agricultural worker was a member of his union. Then it would be possible to make progress in all sorts of other directions. Before very long this representative organisation will be wanted for much more than the mere wages squabble that the noble Lord seems to think about. If agriculture is to be organised in the effective way it ought to be organised, the first essential is a good representative organisation of both parties.
  May I say, passing on to the next point, that I regret that the Government have not adhered in the case of Scotland to Regulation No. 4 and to the practice which works quite smoothly and very satisfactorily in England? We have had an assurance from the noble Lord, and I am sure it will be faithfully observed, but I cannot refrain from expressing serious regret that that Regulation is to be omitted. I prophesy with some consider-
  496
  able certainty that before very long the non-existence of this Regulation will be found to be a serious inconvenience both to farmers and farm workers. It has worked smoothly in England, it has not been abused, and it has been found to be a great convenience. With regard to the other Amendments to Regulations 9, 10, and 13 which the noble Lord mentioned, I hope he will allow me to say that whilst we should examine them in an entirely friendly spirit he would not expect us to express complete concurrence until we have seen the draft. Our position is therefore one of reserved acquiescence. He does not say what Amendments he proposes to make, but they are not very vital Regulations in any case. Finally, I would like to express the hope that the Government will adhere firmly to their decision and that before very long they will see their way to incorporate in the Regulations the one they now propose to omit.
  Motions, by leave, withdrawn.

CHATHAM ROCHESTER AND DIS TRICT ELECTRICITY (AMEND MENT) ORDER, 1937.
Special Order for the amendment of the Chatham Rochester and District Electric Lighting Order, 1890, and for other purposes:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until three o'clock to-morrow afternoon.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at six o' clock.