Lords Sitting of 1 July 1937

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendment agreed to.
KINGSBRIDGE AND SALCOMBE WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.

WARRINGTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills and Measure received the Royal Assent:

Statutory Salaries,

Local Government (Members' Travelling Expenses),

Children and Young Persons (Scotland),

Ministers of the Crown,

Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions (Voluntary Contributors),

Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises),

Glasgow Streets, Sewers and Buildings Consolidation Order Confirmation,

968

Staffordshire County Council,

City of London (Various Powers),

Waltham Holy Cross Urban District Council,

Sheppey Water,

London County Council (Money),

London, Midland and Scottish Railway,

Richmond (Surrey) Corporation,

Hastings Pier,

Ashdown Forest,

London and North Eastern Railway,

Newquay and District Water,

Barnet District Gas and Water,

Kingsbridge and Salcombe Water Board,

National Trust,

Taf Fechan Water Supply,

Warrington Corporation,

Southwark Cathedral Measure, 1937.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

LAW OF PROPERTY ACT, 1925 (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STRICKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to present a Bill to amend Section 209 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, and to move that it be read a first time. It is unnecessary to make any explanations about this Bill because it is accompanied by a Memorandum. I may be allowed, however, to say that it is drafted to fill a void in the Birken-head code. It is the result of a careful research, with the best advice obtainable, and the collateral result of the Bill will be the removal of any legal obstacles to the action of Ministers should they submit to His Majesty recommendations for Life Peerages. I beg to move that the Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Strickland.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SELBY) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (TYNEMOUTH) BILL. [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
CLEETHORPES CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
WALSALL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

MARRIAGES PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now resolve itself into Committee.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—.(The Earl of Lucan.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, before you go into Committee I would like to say one word on this Bill, as it came before me in the Committee on Unopposed Bills. If your Lordships will turn to page 5 of the Bill, which refers to the Church of St. John, Shotley, you will see that the Church
"was duly consecrated for the performance of divine service on the thirtieth day of August one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven but the church was not licensed for the solemnization of marriages until the eleventh day of November one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six."
Therefore, as your Lordships will see, it was unlicensed for very nearly a hundred years.
As the Provisional Order says, divers marriages have nevertheless been solemnised. These were not legal marriages until your Lordships passed this Provisional Order. Naturally, a number of the people who were married during those hundred years are now dead, many of the children,
970
who were not legitimate, are also dead, and possibly there were some people who were divorced but were never married at all and need not have been divorced. I should like to take this opportunity of emphasising—and I have already done so once before in your Lordships' House on a similar Provisional Order Bill—the great necessity for all authorities, ecclesiastical and civil, to see that all churches where marriages are solemnised are really places where such solemnisations are legal. Things of this kind are obviously very inconvenient, and they do happen fairly frequently.
I would also like to add this—it does not refer to the churches mentioned in this Bill because they all are now places where marriages can be solemnised—that I think it ought to be laid down that when a Provisional Order of this kind legalises the solemnisation of marriage in a church, which before was not in order, that church should be made a legal place for the solemnisation of marriages. In a case which happened some time ago—it was in my own County, the County of Surrey—the Provisional Order made the marriage that had taken place correct, but the incumbent, or whoever it was, did not take steps to make the church for the future a legal place where marriages could be solemnised on the ground that it would not be wanted. That is very unfortunate, I think, because people will certainly conclude that a church in which marriages have been solemnised, and in respect of which a Provisional Order has been made, is a place where they can be married. All sorts of complications may arise, and fresh Provisional Orders may have to be made. It is therefore desirable that the position of all churches should be carefully examined where marriages are solemnised and, if anything is wrong, it should be considered so that there should be no need for such Provisional Orders in the future.
LORD ASKWITH: May I ask the noble Earl how many illegal marriages have taken place in this church?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I do not know. I did ask the Home Office, but they had not the information. I imagine it is a considerable number.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly: Bill reported without amendment.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BRIDLINGTON) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (GUILDFORD) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (RHYMNEY VALLEY SEWERAGE DISTRICT AND WESTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SOUTH EAST ESSEX JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, before we take the Amendments which are down for consideration, I would ask leave to make a brief statement on the constitution of the Livestock Commission which is to be primarily responsible for the administration of this Bill. The Commission's duties will be many and important, and it is felt to be essential that men of wide administrative experience should be appointed In the opinion of the Agricultural Ministers, no better choice could be made for the nucleus of the Commission than the seven gentlemen at present serving as members of the Cattle Committee. That Committee has been responsible for the administration of the subsidy under
972
the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Acts, 1934 to 1936, and the smoothness with which the machinery has worked is a testimony both to the ability of the members of the Committee and to the willingness of all sections of the industry to assist in the day-to-day administration.
I am very glad, therefore, to be able to inform your Lordships that the Chairman, Sir John Chancellor, and all his colleagues on the Cattle Committee have expressed, individually, their willingness to serve on the Livestock Commission when Ministers are in a position to set up that body. I am sure we are extremely fortunate in being able to ensure a smooth transition from the emergency to the permanent arrangements for paying the subsidy and to undertake, with the confidence of the industry, the administration of the other aspects of the far-reaching proposals that this Bill contains.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: Would the noble Earl kindly inform the House who are the other members of the Commission?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The other members of the Commission are:—Vice-Chairman, Sir Francis Boys; Mr. George Dallas, Sir Robert Greig, Sir Harold Howitt, Sir John Boyd Orr, and the Hon. Jasper Ridley. The Cattle Committee consists of a Chairman and six other members, while the Bill provides that the Livestock Commission shall consist of a Chairman and not more than eight other members. The question of appointing two further persons to serve on the Commission will receive the careful consideration of the Agricultural Ministers in due course.
Moved, That the Report of Amendments be now received.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Amendments reported accordingly.
Clause 3 [Livestock Advisory Committee]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "who" ["sub-committee … who shall consider"] and insert "which" The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is merely a drafting Amendment and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 19, leave out ("who") and insert ("which").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I am very pleased to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Subsidy arrangements]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, my Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, after ("purposes") insert ("and generally for securing that subsidy payments are properly made").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Power of Board of Trade to regulate importation of livestock and meat.
11.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Board of Trade may by order regulate the importation into the United Kingdom of any such livestock or meat as may be described in the order, if it appears to the Board, having regard to the interests of all classes of persons concerned, whether producers or consumers, and to the commercial relations between the United Kingdom and other countries, that the making of the order is desirable in order to secure the stability of the market for livestock and meat in the United Kingdom.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in subsection (1), after "Trade," to insert "after consultation with the Ministers." The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the Amendments of which I have given notice on this clause were moved when the House was in Committee on this Bill. When we reached Clause 14 I called the attention of the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to the fact that certain words in that clause provided for consultation, notwithstanding the fact that in Clause 11 the noble Earl did not feel inclined to accept my suggestion in favour of consultation when the Board of Trade made a regulation regarding importation into the United Kingdom. No answer was given as to why consultation was included in Clause 14. Obviously there was good reason for consultation under Clause 14, and it seems to me there is equally good reason for consultation under Clause 11 in the matter of the importation of livestock.
In this particular matter there was last year a most unfortunate example of consultation not taking place, when the Board of Trade made an order allowing the importation of potatoes when the
974
Scottish crop was just ready for consumption, with the result that, notwithstanding the protest of the Potato Marketing Board, the importation was allowed. It seems to me the same might easily happen in the importation of livestock. It is therefore even more important that there should be proper consultation with the Ministers responsible before the Board of Trade made an order. I have put down this Amendment in order that the matter may be reconsidered again to-day, because I cannot help thinking that after the noble Earl has had an opportunity for a week of considering the matter, he will think that this is a most reasonable improvement to Clause 11. I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 7, after ("Trade") insert ("after consultation with the Ministers").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair).
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL DE LA WARE): My Lords, after the discussion in Committee it was quite clear that many of your Lordships felt strongly on this subject, and accordingly the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and myself went into the matter to see if we could meet the point. The real situation is exactly as we explained it then. The noble Marquess has sought to make a point by referring to Clause 14. He says there is consultation there, and asks why there should not be consultation under Clause 11 But the only consultation I see mentioned in Clause 14 is on page 12, line 4, and that is "consultation with the Commission." Obviously there is no reason at all why the Minister should not be requested on occasion, or required, to consult with the Commission, but the only point at issue here is a purely constitutional one—namely, whether the Government speak with one voice or not. It is assumed, and should always be assumed, that when a Cabinet Minister takes a certain action he is acting for the Government, and that due consultation has taken place within the Government before he has taken such action. I do not think I can really add to that point which we discussed at some length in Committee.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 17:
Livestock markets byelaws.
17.—(1) In relation to any premises in Great Britain which may lawfully be used for holding markets in respect of livestock,

975
the Commission if they consider it desirable so to do for promoting efficiency or economy in the marketing of livestock may make byelaws—

(a) for regulating the holding of auctions in respect of livestock on any such premises, for fixing or limiting the charges which may be made by persons in respect of sales of livestock by auction effected by them on any such premises;

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), after "holding," to insert "and conduct." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to meet a point raised by the National Farmers' Union, who made representations to the effect that in certain auction markets the method of bidding a price per cwt. for the animal was preferred to the method of bidding a price for the whole animal. Your Lordships will, I think, agree, that there are obvious advantages to those concerned if a by-law could determine that one or other method only of auctioning should apply to a particular sale, or to a sale in a particular district or to certain sales that are held at particular times. It is considered doubtful whether the expression "regulating the holding of auctions" gives the necessary powers and the Amendment makes it quite clear that by-laws under Clause 17 would be enabled to provide for this particular point.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 41, after ("holding") insert ("and conduct")—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, my next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 42, after ("premises") insert ("(and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the preceding provision, for fixing or limiting the number of places at which such auctions may be separately held on the premises at the same time) and also").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Apportionment of liabilities incurred in connection with livestock markets orders by owners of market premises]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the next also is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
page 18, line 10, leave out lines 10 to 16 and insert: ("Where, by virtue of a livestock markets order, the owner of any premises incurs any liability—

(a) to make any payment (whether to the Commission or to any other person) on account of the cost of making any alteration of those premises which has been required by the Commission to be made, or

(b) to make contributions to the Commission in respect of those premises").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to add to the clause:
"(2) Where, under any livestock markets order, any sum is recoverable by the Commission from a person in respect of any such liability as aforesaid incurred by him as being the owner of any premises, and that person proves that he—

(a) is receiving any rent of the premises merely as agent or trustee for some other person, and

(b) has not, and since the date of the service on him of a demand for payment has not had, in his hands on behalf of that other person sufficient money to discharge the whole of the demand of the Commission,

his liability shall be limited to the total amount of the money which he has or has had in his hands as aforesaid, but the Commission may, if they are or would be debarred by the preceding provisions of this subsection from recovering the whole of the said sum from an agent or trustee, recover the whole or any unpaid balance thereof from the person on whose behalf the agent or trustee receives the rent."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment implements an assurance that I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and is an endeavour to embody in the proper place the purport of his Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 28, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for this Amendment, which entirely meets the point that I raised on the Committee stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after Clause 20, to insert the following new clause:
Delegation to Commission of certain functions under Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Acts.
". The Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, as the case may be, may by order delegate to the Commission all or any of the

977
functions which are exercisable in relation to markets by the said Minister or Department under the following enactments, that is to say:—

Section nine of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1887, as amended by Section two of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1926, (which enables the said Minister or Department to grant exemption, in respect of particular markets, from the obligation to provide facilities for weighing cattle);

Section two of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891, (which requires suitable accommodation for weighing cattle to be provided to the satisfaction of the said Minister or Department at markets other than those exempted by his or their order);

Section four of the said Act of 1891, as amended by Section two of the said Act of 1926, (which enables the said Minister or Department to exempt auctioneers at any particular market from the requirements of the said Section four in respect of the sale of cattle);

Subsection (4) of Section one of the said Act of 1926, (which enables the said Minister or Department to exempt auctioneers at particular markets from the requirements of that section in respect of the offering of cattle for sale);

and any such order may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in like manner as the original order."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this proposed new clause is, I think, self-explanatory. It enables certain functions at present exercised by the Minister and the Department of Agriculture in Scotland under the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1887, to be delegated to the Livestock Commission. It is purely a matter of administrative convenience. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 20 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23:
Control of slaughtering in connection with experimental operation of central slaughter-houses.
23.—(1) If, with respect to any arrangements made for the provision of a slaughter-house on any premises in Great Britain, or for the alteration of a slaughter-house provided on any such premises, the Commission are of opinion, having regard to the sit nation of the premises and to the manner in which it is proposed under the arrangements that the slaughter-house should be designed, equipped and managed,—

(a) that the carrying out of the said arrangements is likely to promote efficiency or economy in the slaughtering of livestock
978
and to secure that, in connection with the slaughtering of livestock at the slaughter-house, the carcases and meat of livestock slaughtered thereat are treated in a satisfactory manner and the other products of such slaughtering are utilised to the best advantage, and

(b) that a scheme under this Part of this Act (hereafter in this Act referred to as "a slaughter-house scheme") is desirable in connection with the carrying out of the said arrangements,

the Commission may, after consulting the Livestock Advisory Committee and such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned, make and submit to the appropriate Minister such a slaughter-house scheme as appears to the Commission to be desirable in connection with the carrying out of the said arrangements; and the said Minister, if he is also of the opinion aforesaid, may, subject to the following provisions of this section, by order confirm the scheme.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE moved, in subsection (1), after "authorities" ["local authorities and other bodies"] to insert "agricultural co-operative societies." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of my Amendment is that the Commission set up by this Bill in framing schemes for central experimental slaughter-houses should take into consultation agricultural co-operative societies in addition to the local authorities and other bodies which are described as appearing to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned. An Amendment with a similar object was submitted to your Lordships on the Committee stage on behalf of the Central Landowners' Association, and I, for my part, regarding it as far the most important Amendment that was proposed to be moved to the Bill on that stage, gave it my support both by voice and vote. We were informed in reply by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that there were objections to accepting the Amendment in the form in which it was then submitted, and I myself am bound to confess that on consideration I did discover some objections to the acceptance of the Amendment in that form.
In the first place it was mandatory; it was, in effect, an instruction to the Commissioners that one of these three experimental slaughter-houses should be run on co-operative lines; and in the second place, what I am bound to say I did not realise until after consultation with my agricultural friends, as framed it might appear to refer not only to agricultural,

979
or indeed mainly to agricultural co-operative societies, but also to what are sometimes described as industrial co-operative societies in the conduct of which there may be no agricultural interest involved whatever. For these reasons I have ventured to put down in an altered form this Amendment, which is purely permissive and in no sense mandatory, only providing that the Livestock Commission shall consult inter alios representative agricultural co-operative societies in order to test out what many of us have been longing to see tested out for the last thirty years, some agricultural factory business, a business intermediate between the producer and the consumer, on co-operative lines such as are employed in similar businesses in other parts of the world, notably in Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Belgium and other European countries. Coming as I have recently from New Zealand I would venture to mention that most of the slaughter-houses in that country are conducted, with varying success but generally with success, on a co-operative basis for the benefit of the producer and the consumer alike. In passing, let me say how glad I was to hear the names that were mentioned as those of the members of this Livestock Commission. I am perfectly certain that those names will inspire confidence as being thoroughly representative of all interests concerned in different parts of the Kingdom. They are the names of men who, by their activities up to date, have undoubtedly earned the confidence both of the agricultural community and of the other interests involved.
What I want to put quite seriously to your Lordships is that we have for a considerable number of years had emphatically pointed out to us by leaders of the agricultural industry, and by successive Ministers of Agriculture, that the main source of agricultural welfare must be found in agricultural co-operation—in other words, in combinations between farmers themselves and not by means of tariffs, subsidies or other forms of protection. If we are really genuine in that belief, and if the attempts that have been made in days gone by to set up not merely the Agricultural Organisation Society, which unfortunately is no longer in existence, but a large number of agricultural co-operative societies in
980
various parts of the country—if those attempts were really genuine and had conviction behind them, surely we ought to grasp this opportunity, the best opportunity which has yet come before Parliament, to put into a Government Bill by way, of experiment inter alia a co-operative scheme of animal slaughter. I may remind your Lordships that of all those commodities in which there is a wide "spread"—I believe that is the proper technical term—between producer and consumer, milk and its by-products and animal flesh and its by-products have always been put before the agricultural communities of different countries as the two particular commodities in which the spread is greatest, in which, in other words, the middle man is deemed to take an undue reward to the detriment of the producer and consumer alike. If that is so, I venture to think that we ought to take this opportunity of making one of these experimental slaughter-houses a co-operative slaughter-house, always assuming that we can find an agricultural co-operative organisation prepared to come forward and recommend such an institution to the Commissioners and participate in the running of it.
The noble Earl, in reply to an earlier Amendment of a much more drastic character, told us that there were words in the Bill which would enable the initiative to be taken by all persons who are interested in agricultural co-operation. I have searched the Bill most meticulously, and I find that the initiative lies only with the Commission. It is true that they may consult with other bodies not specified, possibly with those interested in agricultural co-operation and particularly with local authorities, but having so consulted the discretion and the initiative lie wholly with them. I feel strongly that this matter ought to be rectified by the comparatively harmless Amendment which I submit to your Lordships. If we are told in reply that we must look to some general words in some part of the Bill to get what we desire, I would venture to say that considering the principle involved we ought to have it in black and white that we are in favour of agricultural co-operation in this particular respect being given a full control within the four corners of the Bill. For these reasons I submit my Amendment for your Lordships' favourable consideration, bearing fully in

981
mind that the agricultural community in the last resort have got to stand upon their own feet and by mutual co-operation and mutual effort work out their own salvation.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 2, after ("authorities") insert ("agricultural co-operative societies.")—(Viscount Bledisloe.)
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, as my noble friend Viscount Bledisloe reminded you, the principle of this Amendment was fully debated in Committee. A frontal attack was defeated by a very narrow majority and this very important Amendment which my noble friend has now moved is really no more than a modest attempt at salvage. There is no occasion for me to reinforce at any length the arguments used by my noble friend, but there is one argument which I fully expect to be used from the Front Bench and I should very much like to explode it before it is made. The argument has been constantly used that to specify particular persons who shall be consulted by inference excludes other bodies. It is an argument which has been used not once but hundreds of times. My answer to it is that in this clause are the words that
"the Commission many, after consulting the Livestock Advisory Committee and such local authorities and other bodies"—
and so on. If the words "local authorities" were not in the Bill, I should not be found supporting quite so wholeheartedly this Amendment. It is quite true that "other bodies" might include agricultural co-operative societies, but you cannot use the argument that it is impossible to specify co-operative societies without the danger of infringing the rights of other bodies if you leave in the words "local authorities." You spoil the argument before you begin.
The fear on the part of agricultural co-operative societies is that local authorities are going to have a prior opportunity of proffering themselves as suitable persons for starting one or all of these experimental slaughter-houses unless agricultural co-operative societies are given a definite opportunity and right to be consulted. It does not mean in the least that they are necessarily going to take up the experiment, but that they must be given the opportunity of being consulted. To include the words "local authorities" suggests by inference that
982
they will be given pre-emption. I heartily support all that has fallen from my noble friend.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hastings has said exactly what I would like to have said myself. This Amendment really is one which should be considered very favourably and I hope that the Government will give it every consideration. The noble Viscount who moved it put the case extremely well and in the way we should expect him to put it. The co-operative principle is one we must uphold. I have always been a great advocate of the co-operative principle in agriculture and here is a chance which I think should not be missed. I hope very much that His Majesty's Government will seriously consider the value of an Amendment of this character.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, if I may be permitted to say so, I think the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has served a very useful purpose in moving this Amendment at this later stage in the proceedings on this Bill. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the underlying principle, which was fully discussed in Committee, is of the utmost importance in that the desire of all those who have been or who are connected with agriculture is that there should be a greater degree of co-operation in the farming community and a lessening of that individual spirit which has perhaps in the past not been very greatly in favour of the agricultural industry as a whole. I would wish to assure the noble Viscount in the first instance that the Government appreciate this general object to which the noble Viscount has referred in moving his Amendment. At the same time, I would wish to ensure that the benefit of the three experimental schemes shall reach the producer. That is the intention as the Bill is at present drafted.
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, has referred to the fact that the wording of the Bill as at present framed has by inference put greater emphasis upon local authorities undertaking the experiments in central slaughtering. I quite recognise that the argument to which he referred is commonly used in debates on Bills, and in my short experience I have heard it brought forward on many occasions. In this instance, however, the

983
local authorities, even if it was specifically intended that they should not for one reason or another be utilised for the experiment of central slaughtering, would still have to come into the Bill. That is because the local authority, as the public body responsible for any area in which a central slaughter-house scheme might be proposed, is responsible as the rating authority and would have to be consulted in that capacity. The second reason is that it would have to be consulted as the authority responsible for the health provisions which are closely connected with any slaughtering undertaking and which would naturally have to conform to the requirements laid down by the Ministry of Health. Therefore, it is not intended by the present wording of the Bill that particular emphasis should be given to local authorities as the authorities most suitable for experimenting with these schemes.
I would prefer to draw your Lordships' attention to the words "any other bodies." By that wording I hope your Lordships will agree that the door is left open as wide as possible for any persons to submit schemes to the Livestock Commission for the inauguration of a slaughtering experiment in any given area. It is felt that if a precedent were to be created by giving producer co-operative organisations specific mention in this Bill, it might give opportunity for other bodies—perhaps the consumer co-operative organisations—to make a similar request. The number of persons wishing to submit a scheme to the Livestock Commission for approval might be unending. Therefore, without being at all in conflict with the principle upon which I think we are unanimously agreed, but with a view to making the slaughtering provisions as enabling and as wide as possible, I would respectfully ask the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, not to press his Amendment.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, when I brought forward the original Amendment to the Bill the noble Earl said to me in effect—very justly, I must admit—"Suppose that no co-operative agricultural society were prepared to take up the scheme: that would limit the scope and therefore there would only be two schemes instead of three." I think that was a fair argument, although I must confess
984
that I should not have minded in the least if there had been only two! That, however, no longer applies, and all my noble friend wishes to ensure is that one or more of these agricultural co-operative societies should be consulted before the three schemes are decided. I rather gathered that it was the intention of the noble Earl to do so, but I am not quite clear on that. Perhaps he will tell me whether it is so or not. If he would say that it is the intention to consult one or more of them, although he is not inclined to put it in the Bill, I should be satisfied.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, will not press the Amendment, because I think it is quite unnecessary. This clause is entirely permissive. It lays down that if the Commission are of opinion that a scheme is desirable,
"the Commission may, after consulting the Livestock Advisory Committee and such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned,"
make and submit a scheme. Surely, as my noble friend Lord Feversham has said, an agricultural co-operative society is a body, and the more bodies you include in a Bill the more likely are other bodies to be excluded. I therefore hope my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LCRD RAGLAN: My Lords, the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said that the local authorities had to be consulted because they were rating authorities and because they were sanitary authorities. That may be an excellent reason for consulting them, but it is not the reason giver in the Bill. The clause says:
"such local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned."
Therefore the reason, according to the Bill, is that they are to be consulted because they are "representative of interests concerned," and not because they are rating and sanitary authorities.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I would wish most emphatically to give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, that in practice any representations made by a co-operative society of producers to the Livestock Commission either for or against a slaughtering scheme in any given area would have most serious consideration, as indeed would

985
representations made by any persons, whether public or private. In regard to the last point that was raised, I think that the emphasis is upon "such other bodies as appear to the Commission to be representative of interests concerned." It is these very words which will cover the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, wishes by his Amendment to have specifically mentioned.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like to acknowledge the extreme courtesy of the noble Earl, both towards myself and in his treatment of my Amendment. I hope sincerely that he and the Minister will forgive me if I say quite frankly that I am not convinced by the arguments that he has adduced and that this is to me a matter in which a vital principle is involved. Bearing in mind what is happening and what has been found practicable in other countries; and bearing in mind also not merely the constitution of the Livestock Advisory Committee, which will come to be consulted, but also the provision that the Commission will consult only such bodies as will appear to the Commission to be representative of the interests concerned, I am afraid I do not see my way to withdraw the Amendment, although I fully admit the kindly response which the noble Earl has given to it.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I do not want to continue the discussion too
long, but I will just emphasise to the noble Viscount, before he goes to the Division, one point which he missed. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill gave a definite assurance that the Commission would not only be prepared to consult any co-operative society that was in existence, but that they would go farther than that and also consider any application from any such society with the greatest favour and sympathy.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, the noble Earl who has just addressed the House has mentioned something which is not in the Bill, and which, so far as I can see, does not come even within the four corners of the Bill. I am sure I accept most gladly any sympathetic assurance coming from the Minister of Agriculture, but I am bound to say that the assurance given does not affect the discretion of the bodies set up to operate the Bill. There are two bodies for operating the Bill, one the Livestock Commission and the other the Livestock Advisory Committee, and it rests with them, after consulting such other bodies as they think fit, to set up these slaughter-houses. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture and his expressed sympathy, which I greatly value, do not come into consideration at all.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 34.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Bledisloe, V. [Teller.]

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Gainford, L.

Bathurst, E.

Falmouth, V.

Greville, L.

Denbigh, E.

Tredegar, V.

Hastings, L.

Grey, E.

Lawrence, L.

Lichfield, E.

Annaly, L.

Leconfield, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carrington, L.

Mancroft, L.

Peel, E.

Cautley, L.

Middleton, L.

Radnor, E.

Cranworth, L.

Raglan, L.

Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]

Daryngton, L.

St. Levan, L.

Wicklow, E.

Digby, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Strickland, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Iveagh, E.

Amulree, L.

Lindsay, E.

Askwith, L.

Halifax, V. (L. President.)

Lucan, E. (Teller.]

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Malmesbury, E.

De La Warr, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Midleton, E.

Cromwell, L.

Munster, E.

Doverdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Dunleath, L.

Portland, D.

Plymouth, E.

Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)

Powis, E.

Elton, L.

Zetland, M.

Stanhope, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Forester, L.

Feversham, E.

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

Fitzwilliam, E.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Holden, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Goschen, V.

Redesdale, L.

Templemore, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 24 [Matters for which provision may be made by slaughter-house schemes]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, my Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 16, after ("payment") insert ("or an allowance of an amount").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to insert after paragraph (l) in subsection (1):
"Every slaughter-house scheme made under this Part of this Act which enables a local authority or joint Board to provide and carry on such a slaughter-house as is deemed by virtue of the scheme to be the central slaughter-house for the purpose of the scheme shall provide that any excess of revenue over expenditure in respect of any year derived from the carrying on of the central slaughter-house shall be applied to the reduction of the charges which may be made in the next succeeding year in respect of services performed and the use of facilities provided at or in connection with the central slaughter-house."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in exactly the same form as it appeared on the Paper in the Committee stage, and it would not have occurred to me to put it down again if it had not been for the rather curious circumstances in which it was passed over on the last occasion. Those circumstances can best be described by a short reference to something said by the Lord Privy Seal on that occasion. When this matter was being raised, he said:
"At the same time I am sure the Government will admit that there is a point here as to whether local authorities should be allowed to make profits out of the farmers. The Government cannot issue instructions of that character to the local authorities, but I see no reason at all why we should not consider at the very least some instruction to the Livestock Commission…"
The Lord Privy Seal has been far too long in an official position to commit himself so deeply if there was no means of escape, and I am not going to suggest that he did commit himself very deeply there, but what he did was to hold out sufficient hope to those who moved the Amendment in Committee to induce them not to press it to a Division, in the expectation that something further might be said at this stage. I move the Amendment formally, knowing that I should not in the ordinary
988
way be entitled to do so, in order to give the noble Earl the opportunity of making any observations he may wish to make on the matter.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 24, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hastings.)
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, what the noble Lord has said is perfectly right. I did make that remark on the Committee stage, because I hoped that on looking into the matter it might be possible to meet the noble Lord. I was really in complete agreement with him as to what he wanted to bring about, but I did put in certain qualifying words because there seemed to be a relevant qualification, and that is that it is very difficult and unusual in legislation for the Government to dictate to local authorities on a point such as this, when; we are actually asking local authorities to undertake certain financial risks. We all of us know that in asking them to take up these experimental slaughter-houses we may certainly be asking them to do something that will not be profitable, and it may well leave them with a balance on the wrong side. But it the same time they would do it for other reasons.
If we turn to other legislation on this sort of subject we see that in electricity legislation there is a very strong bias in favour of any profits or any surplus made on electricity being applied in the following priority: (1), a reduction of charges; (2), reduction of capital moneys borrowed; (3), for new works; (4), for relief of rates. I think we want to keep this experimental scheme as practical as possible. I can give the noble Lord a very definite assurance that the Minister and the Commission in considering these schemes will keep that order of priority very strongly in mind, and I go further than that. The noble Lord would not ask me so far ahead to commit the Government, but in the consideration of any long-term policy which might be based on the result of these experiments the Minister would consider whether some such instruction might not be put in the new Bill as is contained in the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1926. I think the noble Lord will see from that that there is no disagreement at all between us, and that the Minister is prepared to give him an assurance on this point.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am quite prepared to accept the noble Earl's answer. I recognise the difficulty, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26:
Power of local authorities to provide and carry on slaughter-houses.
26.—(1) A slaughter-house scheme may enable any local authority specified in the scheme (if and so far as that local authority is not enabled by virtue of any Act other than this Act so to do)—
(a) to provide and carry on (whether within or outside the area of the authority) such a slaughter-house as is to be deemed by virtue of the scheme to be the central slaughter-house for the purposes of the scheme, and for that purpose to acquire by agreement any land or interest in land and to borrow money:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "is" ["local authority is"] and insert "are". The noble Viscount said: This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 12, leave out ("is") and insert ("are").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) to leave out "and carry on." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this and the next two Amendments are designed to make it clear that where a local authority provides a central slaughter-house, the slaughter-house may be carried on by some person or body other than the local authority, for example a company working on public utility or co-operative lines. This was always intended, and the Amendments are designed to remove any doubt as to the power of the local authority to lease the premises.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 14, leave out ("and carry on").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 25, line 18, leave out ("that purpose") and insert ("the purpose of providing such a slaughter-house")
Page 25, line 20 at end insert—
("(b) to carry on, or to make arrangements (whether by letting the premises or otherwise) whereby some other person is enabled to carry on, any such slaughter-
990
house as aforesaid provided by the local authority.")—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 31:
Service schemes.
31.—(1) On the request of any body or bodies appearing to the Commission to be substantially representative of the interests of any class or classes of persons concerned with one or more of the following activities, that is to say, the production, marketing and slaughtering of livestock and the preparation for sale, and the marketing, treatment and use, of products of the slaughtering of livestock, the Commission, after consulting the Livestock Advisory Committee and any other bodies appearing to the Commission to represent the interests of the said class or classes of persons, may make and submit to the appropriate Minister a scheme under this part of this Act (hereafter in this Act referred to as "a service scheme") for one or more of the following purposes, that is to say:—
(vi) the improvement of breeding of livestock;
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, in subsection (1) to leave out paragraph (vi). The noble Lord said: My Lords, my excuse for bringing forward the same Amendment that I moved in Committee is that those of your Lordships who were here will remember that it was only a momentary and rather foolish inattention on my part which prevented me from dividing the House on that occasion, and further that this particular paragraph is one which is causing the very greatest apprehension in the minds of stock breeders. I think most of your Lordships will agree that much of this Bill is very difficult to understand. Indeed, we have spent a good deal of time during the Committee stage in having it explained that various parts of it meant something entirely different from what they appear to mean, and of all the parts of the Bill I think this is the most difficult to understand, and I should not dream myself of interpreting this part. But most fortunately, we have an authoritative interpreter of this particular clause. I refer to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and I think we may surely trust implicitly what he says, because not only is he a spokesman on behalf of the Government, but he was also for several years Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, and, if he will pardon my saying so, I think he was about the best one I remember. Therefore I think his explanation is undoubtedly the right one.
He says that this particular paragraph of which I move the omission was put in for a very simple purpose. That was that where a small number of poor farmers desired to improve their livestock by getting a new bull, under this paragraph they would be able to do so. He went further than that, because he dotted the i's and crossed the t's by saying the number of people who would do so. He said there would, he supposed, be six or eight. I would like your Lordships very carefully to consider the process that the noble Earl envisaged. There are six small farmers living in a parish called, we will say, Little Pigley. It must be a small parish, because the six farmers are substantially representative of the livestock industry in it. But they are not the only farmers in that village. There are three others, of whom more anon. These six farmers are not satisfied with the bull or bulls they use, although those bulls have been duly licensed by the licensing authority. But they want a better bull, so they put their heads together, and they set up a service scheme—the Little Pigley Service Scheme, which is encouraged by the responsible authorities. I do not know who the responsible authorities are, because I cannot find them in the Bill, but perhaps they are the parish council, perhaps the county council. But they encourage these six farmers, who set up a service scheme, and the Commission, it is anticipated, agree to it. They say: "Certainly, your bull or bulls are very bad. You shall have a much better bull, which will cost roughly, with the expenses of this scheme, £100."
Now comes the question of how the £100 is to be provided. It does not, I think, come out of the £5,000,000. I should object strongly if it did. It does not come out of the public purse or the rates. Where does it come from? What is the source of this extra money? Clearly these six farmers want extra money, because if they had the money already, they could co-operate together and buy, without the trouble of having the service scheme. There must be some extra money. Where is it? It is quite clear where it is. It is in the hands of these three other farmers, who have a perfectly good bull which they like. They are the people who are to find this extra money. It seems rather absurd. If your Lordships
992
look at paragraph (d) in subsection (2) of this clause, you will find that I am right in that, and if you doubt my interpretation I would ask your Lordships to note what the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, said:
"If there is any preponderance of any class of persons in favour of a scheme, then the minority should contribute towards the expense of that scheme."
It is therefore perfectly clear that these three farmers who have bulls which they like have got to provide the money to supply another bull for these six people.
I do not know what your Lordships thick about it, but, frankly, I am reminded of the words of the late Lord Snowden when he described another scheme as "Communism run mad." It seems to me a most amazing proposition, and I should be extremely glad to hear further with regard to it. I do not, myself, think the noble Earl is quite right in his anticipations. After all, it is what is in the Bill, not what is the intention of the Government, that really counts. I believe that far larger bodies that six or eight farmers will use this particular Part of the Bill. I believe that large bodies of men who control a considerable herd of cattle, probably of one breed, and who want to get out of a large area all those breeds which do not go with their own, will in the first place force these people, under another Part of the Bill, to advertise their own breed, as they can quite well under this Part, and force them to have no other breed than they one they prefer—call it Friesians, or whatever it is.
I ask your Lordships seriously to consider this. It seems to me a very dangerous clause to leave in, to put it mildly. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, himself admitted that the breeding of livestock in this country was, as far as pedigree stock was concerned, a thing to be admired. Pedigree stock are almost the only agricultural article we export. He went on to say that there is some very bad stock in this country, but I would remind the noble Earl that it is not so long since he piloted through this House a much better Bill than this. That was the Bill for the elimination of scrub bulls. That particular Act is already taking effect. The cattle of this country are improving, and if that Act is tightened up as time goes on I believe the herds which he rightly says are bad will be re-

993
moved and there will be no longer that reproach. I ask your Lordships to say, whether it be, as the noble Earl thinks, in a thousand Little Pigleys or in a number of greater areas, that there shall be no monkeying with the breeding of livestock whatever, but that it should go on being improved in the way it is being improved row, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 31, leave out paragraph (vi).—(Lord Cranworth.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, in his remarks in support of this Amendment, has made me think that my exposition of this Part of the Bill during the last stage was far from clear. That will necessitate my explaining at some little Length the proposals which are embodied in Part VI if I am to make them clear to the noble Lord. Before a service scheme under Part VI can come into operation it must have been proposed by some body substantially representative of the interests of one of the classes of persons named in Clause 31 (1). The Commission cannot of its own initiative promote any service scheme. Before submitting a service scheme to the Minister the Commission must consult the Livestock Advisory Committee and other representative bodies, and the Fifth Schedule provides that the scheme must be published and opportunities afforded to interested persons to lodge objections with the Minister. Any objections have to be considered by the Minister; if necessary, an inquiry is held and modifications can be made. In particular, the Minister will be under an obligation to consult those representing the interests of pedigree breeders before confirming any service scheme under paragraph (vi) if the Amendments in my name next on the Order Paper are accepted.
There is no question whatever of a service scheme of any nature being imposed on the industry, nor is there any question of a section of the industry being enabled to ask the Commission to frame a scheme with which they themselves are not primarily concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, in his remarks led the House to understand that these service schemes will apply only to bulls and cattle. They apply equally to sheep and to pigs. I would not wish to have given the impression on the pre-
994
vious stage of the Bill that the service scheme is essentially for small groups of farmers in any locality. I quite agree with the noble Lord that it may be found that any class of persons on the producing side of the industry can formulate a scheme on a national basis for the improvement of one particular type of stock. Let me take an example. Producers, say, of Hereford cattle could not ask for a service scheme to be framed which would apply to, and be binding on, producers of, say, Red Polls. Furthermore, the particular class of persons represented by the ownership of pedigree herds and breeding societies would not necessarily be affected by a scheme designed to further improvements in the breeding of commercial livestock.
I hope I did not give a wrong impression to the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, when on the previous occasion I said that all persons, whether they desired it or not, if they came within a certain class, would have the sanction of a levy imposed on them. That would apply in certain service schemes. It would apply in the case of the producers and butchers combining for an insurance scheme. It would apply in the case of auctioneers producing a service scheme for the interests of their profession. But in the case of paragraph (vi), which is the substance of this Amendment, no class of producer would be liable to contribute provided he had, under Clause 33, lodged his objections to registration, and provided he were not a producer of the breed of cattle for which the service scheme was brought into operation.
The noble Lord will see that Clause 33 relates to the registration of contributors under service schemes, and in the middle of that clause he will find:
"that the persons liable to make such contributions, or any class of such persons, shall be registered under, and in accordance with, the scheme."
Therefore, to follow the noble Lord's analogy, if there are a number of producers in Somerset that are breeding Red Polls and there are a number of other producers who are not interested in the breeding or improvement of the breed of Red Polls in that area but are interested in another breed, say Shorthorns, and they, under Clause 33, make representations not wishing to be within the scheme, it would be for the Commission, with the approval of the Minister and following

995
the procedure elaborated in the Fifth Schedule, to effect that they would not be registered for that scheme.
LORD CRANWORTH: I am sorry to interrupt, but may I ask the noble Earl what are the words under Clause 33 under which a person need not be registered unless he likes. I cannot find them.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The person who does not wish to be within the scheme can, under Clause 33, which deals with the registration of contributors under service schemes, make representations to the authorised body not to be included, and it will be decided in the formulation of the scheme whether or not those persons are included. There is no question of enabling an authorised body under a service scheme dealing with the breeding of livestock to levy, in respect of any facilities provided, on producers who do not desire to make use of such facilities. The matters for which the schemes could be of particular benefit are, for example, protection for the marks used by breeding societies in connection with the registration of cattle entered in the herd books and enabling a co-operative system of inspection to be developed; the marking of the progeny of high-class bulls after the manner of the Welsh Dragon Scheme; an extension of the scheme of marking calves by milk recording societies; the collection and disposal to rearers of calves obtained in dairy herds by the use of premium bulls of beef and dual-purpose breeds; and pig recording and litter testing. There would also be opportunity for co-operative purchase and management of high-class bulls, boars and rams; but it is not the intention to withdraw any financial assistance which is given under the Ministry's Scheme for the Improvement of Livestock. These provisions would be additional to the Ministry's schemes, with which the noble Lord is familiar.
I hope that by this lengthy explanation I have dispersed in the mind of the noble Lord certain fears that he held as to the imposition of a scheme upon producers who were not willing to have it. The Amendments that are tabled in my name, which come next on the Order Paper, are designed to meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, supported by Lord Hastings, that particular reference should be made to the need of
996
consultation with societies dealing with pedigree stock. It is proposed to omit the words "breeding of" in order to meet the noble Lords, and to make it more clear that the purpose of a scheme under paragraph (vi) is to improve the standard of the commercial beast coming on to the ordinary market. I feel strongly that the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, are groundless, because pedigree societies will, I think, considerably benefit by certain proposals that may be adopted under this scheme, and the pedigree pure stock which, as the noble Lord knows, is world-renowned can level up the ordinary type of commercial beast that comes before the market. There is room for that to be done. Although our pedigree stock is of a very high order, I think your Lordships would generally be of opinion that there is still room for improvement. With that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will see his way not to press the Amendment.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, the noble Earl has adopted a somewhat new line in dealing with these matters. Except for a relatively few remarks, he has not attempted to defend the insertion of the words to which my noble friend Lord Cranworth objects, but he has been at great pains to show how under Clause 33 persons who, like Lord Cranworth and myself, object to the words that we are endeavouring to delete can escape the consequences of those words, and he read a categorical statement in which he endeavoured to make it clear to us that under the Bill it was possible for persons who did not wish to be registered to avoid registration. That is an extremely important statement, and one that largely interests anybody intending to take an active interest in this matter. I must direct the attention of the House to Clause 33 and invite the reading of that chaise. Really there is nothing whatever in that clause to justify a syllable of the statement read out by the noble Earl—not a word of the statement. No doubt the statement was placed in his hand by an official person, but it is wholly inaccurate from start to finish and has no foundation in fact. I must ask the noble Earl, when he has read the clause, to withdraw what he has said, because it is not substantiated by a reading of the clause.

997
I would come back to the main argument which was that the words which are inserted in Clause 31 are not words which ought to remain. The grave risks which may attend the breeding of pedigree stock by reason of the interference of persons and bodies who are not qualified so to interfere are too grave to run. That is really what it comes to. I have not the least doubt that the intentions of the Government, so far as the improvement of commercial stock is concerned, are excellent. Let them devise words which will enable the Minister of Agriculture, if you like, or the Livestock Commission if you prefer, to improve the quality of our commercial stock, but you must insert in this Bill words which will make it absolutely certain that breeders of pedigree stock are not to be liable to any kind of pettifogging interference. If you have that you will really ruin the one section of agricultural activity which now meets general appreciation throughout the world, because you will undermine the confidence on which alone that type of industry subsists. The noble Earl has an Amendment on the Paper proposing to eliminate the words "breeding of" which would bring the matter down to the improvement of livestock. It is perfectly true that you can improve livestock, that you can feed it or starve it, but how you can improve it permanently without touching the breeding of it I am at a loss to understand. I do not think that leaving out the words "breeding of" will affect the situation in the smallest degree. Coming back to the main argument, I think the House can be in no kind of doubt that the risks which it is proposed to run are greater than they ought to be, and therefore I hope your Lordships will support the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I am bound to say I am very much puzzled, both by the statement made by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, and as to the scope of his Amendment. My noble friend Lord Hastings has very properly pointed out that the most effective way of improving livestock is to see to the proper breeding of that livestock. I am quite sure that the elimination of the words "breeding of" is not going to set our minds at ease as to the position of pedigree breeders. I venture to suggest to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill that what is really required is some such wording as "encouragement of the breed-
998
ing of the right type of livestock." Magnificent pedigree animals are seen at shows, but they do not represent the average standard of livestock in the country. When it comes to suitability for certain purposes—for instance, pigs to meet the public demand—the animals produced are not such as to meet the requirements of bacon factories. We cannot get away from that fact, and that is why Denmark and other countries flood our markets with bacon. There is plenty of scope for a scheme for the encouragement of the breeding of the right type of livestock. I entirely fail to understand how the elimination of the words "breeding of" is going to meet the objections put forward.
LORD CROMWELL: My Lords, I was entirely satisfied with the explanation given us by the noble Earl who introduced this Bill until it was pointed out to me that Clause 33 does not endorse the explanation given. It appears to me that noble Lords, if that is true, have no alternative but to support the Amendment.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to amplify what I said with regard to Clause 33 which affects registration. When a scheme is formulated one of its provisions will be for the registration of those meaning to participate. Those persons who object to the scheme can submit their objections to the proposal according to the Schedule. If, in the formulation of the scheme, there is no suggestion for registration, which there may well not be, the persons who wish to; submit objections can suggest that there should be registration, and it will then be for the authorised body to decide, in consultation with the persons concerned, what will be in the best interests of the preponderating number. Clause 33 only provides the machinery by which the scheme can be formulated. It is perfectly correct that it does not completely exonerate any persons from being brought within the scheme, but it does provide the machinery whereby persons can suggest that the scheme is incomplete and insufficient because there is no registration. If there is registration, then they have the right to object to the proposal on the ground that they, not being concerned with the production of

999
the particular breed for which the scheme is inaugurated, should be exempt from registration. Therefore, I think I am correct in saying that there is provision whereby, under Clause 33, representations can be made which will change a scheme in the interests of the persons who do not approve of it.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I can only speak again by leave of the House, but as permission was given to the noble Earl I hope it will not be withheld from me. His explanation is that under Clause 33 provision exists to enable persons not to be registered, but if it is not so it will be found in a certain Schedule, to which we have not been specifically referred. I think we ought to have chapter and verse for this. We have not been told the particular Schedule to which we can make reference. It is open, of course, to the Government to say no more, but merely to resist the Amendment. In that case, we must go to a Division.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord that to those who deal with agricultural matters and therefore have somewhat bucolic minds—I am including myself—the drafting of the Bill in this matter is a little difficult. But really I think the point is quite clear. First, we have to get the whole background of this Part of the Bill, and that background is supplied in the first four lines of page 29. I think we have rather come to look at this Part of the Bill as though it dealt with some scheme that was going to be imposed by the Government or by the Commission. Those first words are:
"On the request of any body or bodies appearing to the Commission to be substantially representative of the interests"—
and so on. Therefore we start off from that point: that no scheme whatsoever can be initiated unless a very large proportion of the producers, those who are substantially representative of the industry, have asked for a scheme.
Now we come to the particular difficulty in Clause 33. As I see it, the starting-point of this discussion was the fear expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, that certain members of the industry were going to be compelled to make contributions towards a scheme for the improvement of the breeding of livestock, which he told me was already be-
1000
ing carried on very well by the breeders who were going to gain no return from the scheme. I think the answer is to be fund in page 30, line 23, paragraph (d). Perhaps I might just read the words: a service scheme may make provision
"for securing that the expenses lawfully incurred by the authorised body in connection with the operation of the scheme shall be defrayed by means of contributions to be made to that body by the class or the several classes, as the case may be, of persons whose interests are … to be represented by the members of the said body."
Those who should be represented by the members of the said body are those who desire the scheme. Then you get these words:
"for the apportionment of the amount required to defray such expenses between the classes of persons … who are liable to contribute."
That brings us to the point the noble Lord made at the beginning of his remarks on this clause, that there were two types of schemes, one of which would be a scheme undertaken by one of these service bodies on behalf of all the contributors. I think the noble Lord mentioned a scheme for the advertising of a breed, and so on. For that purpose, if your Lordships will look at paragraph (d) you will see that under the implication of the paragraph everyone in the industry is ping to have to make a contribution. I should have thought that was perfectly clear, because that is a general service to the whole of the breed for which everyone should pay a fair share. At the present moment that sort of work cannot be done, and why? Because if you try to get the producers of a given breed to take action you will probably find that a large number of public-spirited people are prepared to put up the money and the rest will merely sit back and take the benefit of what is being done for everyone.
LORD CRANWORTH: Surely all societies pay per head, by their subscriptions?
EARL DE LA WARR: I think I made the mistake of talking about a great society, when I ought to have spoken in terms of the people in a geographical area. We know that these societies are actually doing their work satisfactorily and need not come into the scheme. But there are other schemes—I think the noble Lord has already mentioned them—such as schemes for pig-recording and litter-testing, schemes from which only

1001
those benefit to whom particular services are given. There is provision in paragraph (d) for the fair apportionment of the amount required to defray the expenses as between different classes. Or the scheme might be one of the kind I mentioned the other day, for the co-operative purchase and encouragement of good sires, bulls and so on. There are quite a number of those schemes, from which only a limited number in an area would benefit, and under paragraph (d) I think it is perfectly clear that provision is made for those who are running the scheme itself; not for the Commission, but for those who are running the scheme. It is surely very much better for them actually to make their own apportionment. I have tried to put before your Lordships the scheme as I see it. That is a perfectly clear explanation to me, and I hope it is clear to the noble Lord.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I thank both the noble Earls very much indeed for the explanations they have given, and I can only say that if the two noble Earls were going in perpetuity to be the people who interpret this Bill, I should be quite satisfied. But even they do not go on, I fear, for ever, and this Bill puts a weapon into the hands of other people. I am afraid I am not satisfied that the words really give that security which I desire to see, and I am afraid I must press my Amendment.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, might I suggest, without arguing about these abstruse references to other paragraphs in the Bill, that the Government should accept this Amendment? They have not said a word against the principle of the Amendment; in fact they agree with it. They have only tried to prove that its intention is already accommodated in the Bill in various places where it is not mentioned. If a case came up there would be any amount of trouble and probably a lawsuit. The Government have not objected to the principle of this Amendment; they have only put a flat denial to it and wish to defeat it by the weight of their vote. I ask the noble Earl if he cannot see his way to accept it.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, I have not had the privilege of hearing all the discussion that has passed on this Amendment and I am therefore
1002
only able to say a word on purely general lines. I understand that there is no great difference of opinion between the objects that my noble friends behind me and my noble friends beside me wish to achieve. It has occurred to me in the few minutes that I have been able to be in the House, listening to the debate, that if our ends are in fact the same, it is perhaps not the most convenient way of bringing about an agreed end to start by emphasising our differences through the Division Lobbies. The suggestion I want to make to my noble friends, if they would think it a fair one, is this. It is quite evident that there is considerable feeling, be it ill-founded or well-founded, in their minds as to what the Bill at present says. It is equally clear that those who speak for the Government are just as convinced that the fears of the other noble Lords are without foundation. If the noble Lords felt able to withdraw their Amendment, my noble friend would also hold over the Amendments which lie has put down to deal with this question. Then we should have another look at the question between now and the Third Reading and give my noble friends the undertaking that we will either endeavour to meet them on the Third Reading or will give them the opportunity of bringing the matter up again at that stage.
LORD CRANWORTH: I beg to thank the Leader of the House very much for his suggestion. As far as I am concerned and I think my noble friend behind me would agree, we accept his suggestion with the utmost gratitude.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 7, leave out ("adaptions") and insert ("adaptations").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am afraid the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has missed an opportunity for once!
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Compensation to local authorities' servants]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, to this clause there are two Amendments which are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 41, line 19, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")
Page 41, line 33, leave out ("subsection'') and insert ("section").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 57 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved to insert:
"'Sales of livestock' means sales effected by any person whose business it is to effect, on behalf of others, sales of livestock, whether by public auction, by tender, or by private treaty; and".
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is very much on the same lines as the Amendment I moved on the Committee stage, and it is designed to bring within the scope of the Bill those people who use markets other than auctioneers. I have restricted the wording of this Amendment as compared with what I moved on the Committee stage. My object has been to try to include only those people who obtain their livelihood by the sales of stock on commission, and to exclude such people as dealers who buy stock outright in the market with a view of re-selling or keeping them for improvement. I appreciate very much the arguments which were used on the Committee stage by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, as to the difficulty of including these people within the scope of the Bill, because the primary object of including them is that they should first of all be subject to paying the same charges, and so on, as auctioneers, and equally should be capable of compensation for loss of trade in the same way as auctioneers.
While that may be the primary object of the Amendment, there is, I think, another aspect to it. I think it is highly desirable from the livestock producers' point of view that so far as possible the sale of livestock in a market should be through open auction, and not by private treaty sale, where nobody except the two parties concerned has any knowledge of what is going on and what are the charges made by the person effecting the sale. I think under the livestock market schemes it will be in the hands of the promoters of the scheme to fix the charges which auctioneers can charge, but if there is an increase in private treaty sales on commission that may very well defeat the whole object of the scheme. I have
1004
very little more to say, but I am informed that in Scotland it is not only the commission agents who do these private treaty sales, but that the auctioneers themselves do a great deal of them. I am informed by the Institute of Auctioneers and Appraisers in Scotland that their members sold 19.2 per cent. of the fat stock sold not through open auction but by private treaty. I hope that the noble Earl will consent to the inclusion of this definition of what sales are, so that these people may be brought within the scope of the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 25, leave out ("and") and insert—
("'Sales of livestock' means sales effected by any person whose business it is to effect, on behalf of others, sales of livestock, whether by public auction, by tender, or by private treaty; and")—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I understand that this Amendment particularly affects the auctioneers societies in Scotland, and the noble Earl as quoted the figure of 19 per cent. as the proportion of stock sold other than by auction. I have been given another figure, which shows that the livestock sold otherwise than by auction in Scotland is only 6 per cent.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I think the noble Earl misunderstood me. I said the total of fat cattle sold. Of the total livestock sold otherwise than by auction the figure is 6 per cent.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I think the chief objection to the Amendment is that it would be impossible to find an equitable basis for assessing compensation to this category of private treaty dealers whom the noble Earl wishes to incorporate. A person who makes a practice of selling by private treaty in a market that was closed could transfer his business without appreciable loss or damage to any other market that was left open in the area. He is not bound to his place of business in the same way as an auctioneer is bound to his place of business. It would also, I think, be very difficult, if not impracticable, to know from whom to collect the contributions towards compensation, as there might not be any other markets in the area covered by the order at which private treaty selling took place. In any case the difficulty of assessing contributions in respect of such individuals

1005
would be insuperable, and on that ground alone I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I quite appreciate the difficulty of doing it; but I do hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill realises the possibility that through these livestock market schemes you may be driving people more and more to effect private sales on commission, as opposed to auctions, and so go a long way to defeat the purpose of the livestock market schemes. In principle I think it is a very important point. I do not personally mind in the least about the question of compensation, or otherwise, but in view of the arguments of the noble Earl I do not propose to press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords mine is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 33, leave out ("thereof") and insert ("of the Commission").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the Amendment in my name is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 14, after ("to") insert ("fix and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, these are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 51, line 34, leave out ("determine'') and insert ("determines")
Page 51, line 41, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

EXPORTATION OF HORSES BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

COAL (REGISTRATION OF OWNERSHIP) BILL [H.L.]:
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Registration of particulars of ownership]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to the clause:
"(7) The person on whose application particulars have been registered in respect of a holding and any person authorised by him or by an order of the High Court or by rules made by the board, but no other person, may inspect and make copies of and extracts from the entries in the Register relating to the holding."
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the Register is not a public one, but is open to inspection only by persons who have an interest in it for the purposes of this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Expenses of Board of Trade.
2. All expenses of the Board of Trade under this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, and shall not be taken into account in computing the amount of the expenses of the Department of Mines for the purposes of the limit imposed by subsection (2) of Section five of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, upon the expenses of that Department.
LORD STRICKLAND LORD STRICKLAND moved to add to Clause 2:
"And all expenses incumbent on any person required to register under this Act or having an interest that the registration should be made by a trustee or other party shall be a liability subject to be refunded by the Board of Trade provided that within six months of the passing of this Act the Board of Trade shall have been requested and have declined to authorise an agreed sum in reference to such liability and any question that may arise under this section may be referred to the High Court or to the Court of Session."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to co-ordinate this clause with the very welcome assurance given by the Leader of the House on the Second Reading that there would be no expropriation without compensation. So far

1007
as careful examination of this clause and of the Schedules goes, the costs which it is proposed to pay are the costs of legal proceedings. If one may be allowed to digress into the language of the solicitor's office and the counting house, by costs of proceedings we must understand either taxable costs or costs between solicitor and client, or costs that are not costs of legal proceedings but are remotely connected therewith, such as the cost of obtaining expert opinion. There are costs of ascertaining the value of coal, such as the diamond drill bores, the cost of expert opinion as to the calorific value in thermal units of various seams of coal, the cost perhaps of legal proceedings in the interests of the unborn.
We must remember that this wording is going to be interpreted by lawyers in the Courts of Law, and it cannot be anticipated that the costs of legal proceedings will be interpreted otherwise than narrowly. The wording of the clause refers to Board of Trade Votes. It refers certainly to Votes already passed, that is, to lump sum Votes that are on the Estimates which are at the disposal of the Executive. It certainly has no reference to future Votes which may be passed, and chargeable on the wording of a Vote of an unknown amount, with no indication of the authority which is to deal with the same. Every Department has a lump sum Vote for ordinary routine proceedings, and it is inconceivable that the necessities of this Bill can be dealt with from that small, usual recurrent Vote if—and this is the point—it is really meant that this Bill does not indirectly involve expropriation without compensation. No doubt in regard to coal holdings there are gilt-edged securities and there are speculative securities. As the Bill now reads it may be that gilt-edged securities in coal are amply protected. But in regard to holdings in coal that are speculative, I put it to your Lordships that the legal interpretation of the Bill as it stands does mean expropriation without compensation, because there is no Vote to which expenses of other legal proceedings could be legally charged.
Another phrase which calls for definition, even more than the word. "costs," is "marketable value." "Marketable value" may not exist to-day, but may
1008
exist six months hence or six years hence. In order to ascertain the marketable value to-day, there must be the hope of finding a willing purchaser at the price of a willing seller, and of being able to register that sale within six months. Your Lordships must be aware that, although sometimes properties in land and houses are advertised in the news-papers day after day, in most cases they are not marketable within six months or even perhaps six years. Nevertheless they have great value, and that value has to be ascertained by long search for a purchaser and painful and protracted negotiations. The point I wish to put is that if the payment of expenses is to mean, besides the payment of legal proceedings, the payment of ascertained marketable value of those points that call for investigation other than in a Court of Law, this Bill makes no provision, and therefore it does not meet the pledge given by the Leader of the House that there should be no expropriation without compensation. The Schedules contain some mitigation of these doubts, but they do not go far enough, nor do they go so far as would assure an interpretation in the Courts of Law which those expected who put on the assurance of the Leader of the House the interpretation which I am sure this House desires.
Legislation by Schedule is very unattractive, and it may cause considerable difficulty and ambiguity. Members of your Lordships' House who give their services day after day no doubt read Bills, but in the short time available the studying of Schedules is certainly a great difficulty, and it seems to me that the Schedules, as they stand, are not entirely reconcilable with the text of the Bill. Moreover, they give ample powers to the Board of Trade to do all sorts of things which are not contemplated in the Bill, but which can be so interpreted that there would be expropriation without compensation. One way out of the legal difficulty is to give the Courts of Law absolutely unlimited authority to deal with any question that arises. If that is done it will be possible to construct an interpretation in accordance with the pledge of the Leader of the House because, whether there be a Vote or not on the Board of Trade Estimates, a Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament implying legal liabilities will require a consequential Vote sooner or later. It is with the object of co-ordina-

1009
tion that this Amendment contemplates widening beyond what is stated in the Bill, or even implied in the Schedules, the power of anyone interested to apply to the Courts.
The interests of reversionaries are very carefully provided for, but in coal holdings there may be very wide interests of remainder men, there may be very wide interests of residuary legatees, and unless there is definition, and more power is given to the Courts, these interests appear to be unprotected. It is all very well to say that there is no compulsion under this Bill. There is no compulsion if anybody owns coal as a tenant in fee simple for his own benefit; but take the case of a trustee. A trustee is, of course, compelled. He is not going to run the moral risk of not registering. What would be thought or said if a trustee does not register? Most coal holdings are held by trustees. If they are not held by trustees, what any person of foresight would do is to sell as quickly as he could any mines which are filled with water. But trustees, the Public Trustee, and trustee companies will have great difficulty in deciding whether or not to register under this Bill.
The last point I wish to consider is whether this Bill, as it stands, is or is not a Money Bill. If the clause is to be interpreted as no doubt the draftsman intended—that is, to deal only with expenses that are costs of legal proceedings—then it is not a Money Bill; but if it is interpreted in accordance with the assurance given by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House that there is to be no expropriation without compensation, then expenses must cover costs as between solicitor and client and costs that are not costs of proceedings such as might be involved in getting the opinion of engineers as to the possibility of dewatering, the cost of boring with diamond drills to see whether coal is at 3,000 or 4,000 feet, and so on. It has happened before now that after years of careful work, just when capital was becoming exhausted and a company was spending its last resources, coal has been found. Therefore I put it to your Lordships, if there is to be no expropriation without compensation, there must be money available not covered by the Schedules and not covered by the wording of the Bill. The consequence of that is that the Bill would become a Money Bill.
It is with very great regret that one has to discuss a Money Bill introduced into this House by the Government. The practice has arisen, notwithstanding the Parliament Act of 1911, for private members to propose Amendments which are money clauses. In another place, the House which has the power of the purse and which makes and unmakes Ministries, no private member would be allowed to place on the Paper a proposal that involved expense beyond the strict wording of the Estimates. If the Bill is to have the interpretation which I have suggested, it will have to be preceded by a Financial Resolution. This is an argument suggesting that it would be better to postpone consideration of the Bill until it has been thoroughly sifted from the constitutional point of view. That depends on the interpretation put on the word "costs" and on the word "expenses." I regret the practice of supplementing the principle of the Parliament Act of 1911 because the growth of these complications makes it more difficult to amend that Act, and on the amendment of that Act I feel that the salvation of democratic government must ultimately depend. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Strickland.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I was not quite familiar with the object of the Amendment which the noble Lord placed on the Order Paper, but the speech he has delivered has given me some indication of it. This Bill does not make provision for deciding the value of property nor, indeed, whether property has or has not a marketable value. If my noble friend will look at Part II of the Third Schedule, as I hope it will be altered by the Amendments standing in my name, he will observe that the Board of Trade are pledged to pay reasonable costs incurred in making application within the time specified except in cases where there is no reasonable doubt that the property is valueless. In cases of disagreement the Court has jurisdiction. I trust that with this explanation my noble friend will be satisfied that the provisions of the Third Schedule, as I hope they will be amended by your Lordships, will substantially meet his point and that he will not therefore press his Amendment.
LORD STRICKLAND: I am not satisfied with the reply, but I am satisfied that I must withdraw the Amendment. The Board of Trade is not constituted in a manner to assess these costs in the generous manner indicated in the assurance given by the Leader of the House. What is more, whatever may be said of the Schedules, the Board of Trade can only dispose of lump sums already provided by the Vote of Parliament. Therefore my argument holds water in every direction. Whether it is weighty or not will have to be judged and argued in the House that has the power to make and unmake Ministries.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I think this is an appropriate point at which the noble Earl, Lord Munster, should tell us what this Bill is going to cost. When a new Department or a new section of a Department is set up in a Ministry, an estimate has to be, or always used in the old days to be, given to the Treasury of the cost of its operation, the nature and size of the staff, and the probable duration of the Department. I think it would be suitable if we had a little information on this subject. At the same time, I think perhaps the noble Earl might tell us if, when this Bill is introduced in another place, it will be preceded, as I should imagine would be the case, by a Money Resolution.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: In answer to the first part of my noble friend's question, I unfortunately have no figure which I can give him as to what the registration and the expenses that have to be met by the Board of Trade will actually come to, and I am not certain whether a Financial Resolution is necessary in another place.
LORD GAINFORD: That is a very unsatisfactory statement and is a departure from the usual course. If a new Department is going to be set up attaching to any Department of the Government and expenses are going to be incurred—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: No new Department is being set up under this Bill.
LORD GAINFORD: If it is not a new Department surely there must be somebody who is going to deal with the registration, and it has always been the
1012
custom for the Government, before any expense has been incurred, to go to the Treasury and get permission to establish the officers who are going to be appointed in connection with the provisions of a Bill. That surely is the usual practice. The Treasury has control of the expenditure of the country, and before expenses can be incurred by any Department Treasury sanction has to be given. If the Government do not know what their estimate is of the cost of this Bill, that seems to me to be a very extraordinary state of things.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I understand that there will be a Financial Resolution when this Bill goes to another place, and I hope that will meet the question that has been raised.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Then the Bill is out of order in this House, and should be withdrawn from your Lordships.
On Question, Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Definition of "coal" and application of Act to certain associated minerals.
3.—(1) In this Act "coal" means bituminous coal, cannel coal, anthracite and lignite or brown coal, and all other solid fuels (except peat and oil shale) which are contained in the earth's crust, and has also the extended meaning assigned to it by subsection (2) of this section.
(2) This Act shall have effect in relation to minerals or substances other than coal, that art comprised in a lease which confers a right to work and carry away both coal and those minerals or substances, in like manner in all respects as if they had been coal, and references in this Act to coal shall be construed accordingly.
(3) In this Act references to coal, other than references to the carrying away, making merchantable or disposing thereof, shall be construed as references to coal that is unworked, that is to say, not so severed from the earth's crust as to have become a chattel.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), after "cannel coal," to insert the word "and." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential or the one I am moving afterwards, so perhaps your Lordships will accept this Amendment and I can give an explanation on the next one.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, after the first ("coal") insert ("and").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My next Amendment is to delete from subsection (1) the words "and lignite or brown coal, and all other fuels (except peat and oil shale) which are contained in the earth's crust," but it will leave "coal" to mean "bituminous coal, cannel coal and anthracite." The reason for the Amendment is that there is practically no lignite or brown coal worked in this country, and therefore it is not necessary for the purposes of the Bill that the meaning of "coal" should be wider than is proposed by my Amendment. The definition, as it will be amended, is the same as that which appears in other coal legislation.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 9, leave out from ("anthracite") to ("and") in line 11.—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection (2), after "coal," where that word first occurs, to insert "not being minerals or substances worked or capable of being worked by surface operations." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is of some substance. If your Lordships will be so kind as to look at page 3, Clause 3, subsection (2), you will find that:
"This Act shall have effect in relation to minerals or substances other than coal, that are comprised in a lease which confers a right to work and carry away both coal and those minerals or substances.…"
There are habitually included in leases, gravel pits and such like surface workings for the convenience of the lessee. The Government, as I understand it, take no real interest in this coal legislation in these surface workings, but it might be excessively inconvenient, where a lessee has sublet those surface working of minerals other than coal if that sublease and those minerals were to be included in this, and the words proposed say that they should not be. The subsection says:
"This Act shall have, effect in relation to minerals or substances other than coal.…"
It is quite clear the intention of the Government is to include all minerals or other substances which come up out of the pit mouth. It is not intended—I am certain I am right in that—in any way to interfere with the surface workings of other minerals. I am, therefore, hopeful that, without further ado, the Government will see their way to accept this
1014
well-intentioned Amendment which must carry out their views.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 14, after ("coal") insert ("not being minerals or substances worked or capable of being worked by surface operations").—(Lord Hastings.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: In regard to this Amendment I should say there is very little coal worked with other minerals by surface workings.
LORD HASTINGS: May I interrupt the noble Earl? This does not affect coal; it has nothing to do with coal.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think I said that there is very little coal worked with other minerals on the surface; therefore broadly speaking the Government do accept the royalty owners' view that the Bill need not cover minerals worked by surface workings. The only immediate question here, I am advised, is whether there are in fact any other mineral "comprised in a lease which confers a right to work and carry away both coal and those minerals or substances." If, as a result of this Bill, it is found that in fact there are then this point can and will be considered in framing the vesting provisions of the Unification Bill. I honestly do not think that there is any necessity for this Amendment in the Bill for the reasons which I hope I have made clear to the noble Lord.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Earl, I am sure, will forgive me. He says he has made it quite clear, but I am afraid it is not quite clear to me. Subsection (2) of Clause 3 reads:
"This Act shall have effect in relation to minerals or substances other than coal, that are comprised in a lease which confers a right to work and carry away.…"
The noble Earl correctly says that there is at the present time very little surface working of coal, but it does occur from time to time, particularly in the case of strikes, where there is an outcrop of coal. I have known coal taken even from the foundations of houses on those occasions. But that is neither here nor there, because this Bill, according to this particular clause,
"shall have effect in relation to minerals or substances other than coal."
We want to make it clear that it merely is affecting such minerals as may be worked together with the coal. That is all it affects.

1015
I said in the first instance that we quite admit that minerals worked with coal that come out of the pitmouth must necessarily be included in this Bill, but minerals such as gravel and brick earth, which are included for the convenience of the lessor and the lessee in the same lease, which are not affected by coal at all, but over which the lessee desires to have some measure of control should he sublet to some other working company of another character altogether, should be excluded from the operation of this Bill. I do not know if I have made myself clear, but the mineral owners are strong about this. They think it is unnecessarily confusing the Bill itself by not having in words which will make for clarity and general convenience. If these words are included the intention will be clear. It is not in any spirit of obstruction but rather in order to be helpful that I have moved these words.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I do not know whether I shall be regarded as unduly inquisitive, but I cannot help wondering why it is necessary to include in a Register of coal, minerals other than coal. In the Forest of Dean coalfield, where I happen to be the only owner other than the Crown of coal, there is immediately above the lowest seam of coal a very valuable building stone, known as blue sandstone. As a matter of fact, New Scotland Yard was built partly of that valuable blue stone. That is bound to be included in colliery leases, because it comes immediately above a certain seam of coal, but when the coal is worked out, or even when the coal is not worked out, it would be very natural, owing to the value of this stone, to sub-let it to others for working from the surface. A good part of our coal in the Forest of Dean is worked by adits, level workings from the surface, and so also are quarries of this extremely valuable blue stone. If I visualise aright the purport of this Bill, I do not quite understand why other minerals should be included in the Register.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I thought I pointed out quite clearly on the Second Reading the reason why the Government thought it necessary to include other minerals. If I may, I will quote from my speech on that occasion:
"It might be asked why the Government thought it necessary to include in the Register minerals worked with coal. The reply
1016
would, I think, undoubtedly be that where a lease covers not only coal but other minerals worked in conjunction with that coal, it is desirable that the fact should be known and noted in the Register."
In further reply to my noble friend Lord Hastings, I may say that we do not think at the present time that there are any cases at all such as those he mentions. If he has knowledge of them, and brings it to us before we deal with the main Bill, it would give us assistance, but I did not hear the noble Lord mention any case in which he knew of such surface minerals.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not know that I can be called upon to give individual cases, but the noble Earl may take it from me that there are very important if leases to colliery companies which include the right to work from the surface, and where those rights have been accorded to the leasing company, they have sub-let them to other companies who are working them with no relation to coal. I am assured there are many such cases.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It seems to me that what the noble Earl has said introduces a very notable element of doubt into the construction of the subsection. It seems to be assumed that this only refers to surface working. There is nothing in subsection (2) to limit it to surface working. There must be cases where ironstone is let on lease and there is no provision for coal, and vice versa. Is it meant that where coal is associated with the ironstone lease, the ironstone to be taken into account and presumably paid for by the Government? Does this clause involve purchase by the Government of ironstone as well as coal? The subsection says this Act shall have effect in relation to minerals or substances other than coal that are worked in connection with coal, that is to say, worked in the same lease. Is the Government going to buy ironstone as well as coal?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: The short answer to the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, is that under this Bill the Government are not going to buy anything. The intention is perfectly plain. Subsection (2) says that the registration shall have effect in relation to minerals or substances other than coal and—these are the governing words which I think were not entirely present to his mind—

1017
"that are comprised in a lease which confers a right to work and carry away both coal and those minerals or substances."
My noble friend did his best to make it plain that it was thought desirable, and indeed necessary, to include other minerals which are leased with coal in the general registration provisions. Let me at once disabuse the mind of the noble Earl of the idea that this Bill buys anything.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Do not let us confuse ourselves over the use of terms. This Bill does not buy anything, but its whole object is to introduce registration and record of minerals that are to be bought. That is the whole object, and the sole object, of the Bill. It does not contain a buying clause, because it has been impossible hitherto to draft a buying clause. But I do think we are entitled to know what is the main policy of the Government. Are they going ultimately to purchase minerals other than coal, as I think is indicated in subsection (2) of this clause. This clause is not going to buy them, but to register them. When they are registered, are they going to be subject to purchase? There is one other point I would like to put. It may be only the turn of a phrase. The Minister spoke about commercial surface working. There is no need for this clause in relation to commercial surface working. I think we ought to have an explanation of that. There are some very large businesses entirely worked from adits, surface working. You may say that the whole of one county that produces an immense quantity of ironstone is entirely surface worked. If there happens to be a coal lease in connection with that, is it to be registered, and if so, to be dealt with under the main section of the main Act?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I realise, of course, the difficulty in which my noble friend finds himself as to the implication that may be held to exist between this Bill, which is a Registration Bill, and what he terms the main Act which is not yet before Parliament. It is very natural, of course, that he should endeavour to elicit from me exactly what will be the provisions of that main Act if and when it is introduced to Parliament, and if those provisions were in my hands at this moment I should be extremely glad to make him party to them, and take his opinion upon them. But I am afraid I
1018
must tell him that that is not the position. The purpose of this Bill was thought to be adequately explained when we discussed it last week. I can only repeat what I then said, that we have adopted the method which we think is a convenient one not only from the point of view of the State but also, I should have thought, certainly from the point of view of the royalty owners in the event of a Unification Bill. It is not possible for me to deal further with that subject, but I say that nothing in this Bill prejudices the reception by Parliament or the action by the royalty owners if and when that main Bill is introduced and laid before Parliament.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: If my noble friend the Leader of the House could dispel a little more mystification from my mind, I should be glad if he would tell me this. The Bill is now being looked into by people who consider themselves to be owners of coal and likely to be expropriated under the fifteen years' purchase scheme. Does that apply to the owners of all other minerals in every lease which mentions the word coal? That we really ought to know.
LORD GAINFORD: I am acquainted with certain properties in the County of Durham from which a good deal of coal has been worked especially in certain periods to which Lord Hastings alluded: periods of strikes. It is a moot point for the Committee what is to be included in this registration. I cannot understand why there is any difficulty in accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hastings:
"not being minerals or substances worked or capable of being worked by surface operations."
Let us assume that ganister is the material that is required in making the furnace work. If that material is on the surface and worked from the surface under a mineral lease, why should a royalty owner be compelled to register a material which has nothing to do with coal? It seems to me that the words of the noble Lord might be accepted without any difficulty.
LORD CROMWELL: I think it has been said by the Government that there would be no point in this Bill at all unless some other Bill were introduced later on to purchase coal. Although I should accept what the Government say, that it is very convenient for them to register at

1019
this stage minerals or other substances other than coal, I do not think it is at all a help to the owners of those substances to register. When an individual is trying to support the Government in legislation which they may think it beneficial to introduce, it makes his task much more difficult if a suspicion is placed in his mind that they are getting information other than what they want to make use of immediately. The only suggestion which would at once come to one's mind would be the intention to make use of that information at a later stage and to buy out a substance when they thought it convenient to do so.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I should be very sorry if any result of my efforts were to implant suspicion in the mind of my noble friend or of any other noble Lord who is interested in these affairs. I cannot help thinking that there has been perhaps a little undue anxiety over the effect of what I must still maintain to your Lordships to be essentially a very simple provision. Given the situation as we know it, and the relation of this Bill to a Bill which is not at present before Parliament but about the connection of which with the present Bill the Government have been perfectly frank with the Committee, I do not think it is unreasonable that the Government should desire to know what is included in a coal mining lease so as to be able to deal with the operations of that lease and with its separation into its constituent parts if and when they come to the main Bill. I think that there will be general acceptance of that necessity. My noble friend Lord Hastings proposes to exclude surface workings.
LORD HASTINGS: Other than coal.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: Other than coal, and my noble friend Lord Munster has given reason for maintaining what I certainly believe to be the truth; that the extent to which the facts as anticipated by Lord Hastings are involved is extremely limited. There again, I think that we ought to proceed by means of registration so as to be able to exclude what should be excluded when we come to the Bill. Those two purposes and those two reasons are, I think, eminently justifiable. I have one word to add. My noble friend Lord Crawford has asked me, as he is fully entitled to do, whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government,
1020
if and when this Unification Bill is proceeded with, to purchase minerals other than coal. The answer to that question is, I think, a very simple one, and indeed I should be surprised if the noble Earl does not already know it. The answer is that the global figure, the sum that was awarded under the arbitration, does not include any minerals other than coal, and that where other minerals were included in a lease they would be purchased but would not be included in that global sum but would be a subject of separate compensation.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: What sum? This is an entirely new and most important announcement, that apart from the fifteen years' purchase, which is entirely addictable to coal, a further sum is to be provided to compensate for minerals other than coal which are worked under a lease that deals with coal. It throws the whole Bill again into the melting-pot. Would it not be as well to adjourn the discussion? There have been several very serious contradictions by noble Lords on the Front Bench. I will quote the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, who said this moment that it was necessary to schedule minerals and substances other than coal because they were not coal and therefore were not going to be introduced in this Bill, and therefore were not going to be included in the fifteen years' purchase on Lord Plender's allocation. But the noble Earl, Lord Munster, had three minutes beforehand said that these substances had to be taken into account in order that they might be known and noted in the Register. Now Lord Halifax indicates that there is to be a further sum of compensation for these substances other than coal. I really think that we might have the assistance of the Lord Chancellor upon a matter which depends upon the construction of clauses to so very notable a degree.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I am unwilling to trespass upon the attention of the Committee, but I am bound to point out that there is no discrepancy whatever, so far as I am aware, between what I have just said and what my noble friend said. The noble Earl has again, if he will forgive my saying so, associated the business of registration with the business of compensation under another Bill, and that identification, as I tried to make plain just now,

1021
is not justified under this Bill. There is no incompatibility and there is no contradiction between saying what my noble friend said just now with regard to associated minerals and saying what I have just said, that the value of associated minerals was not taken into account in the global figure, which covered only coal.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: But would be included in another figure. That is the whole of my point. Lord Halifax says: "What is wrong with that?" We have been told, and it is within your Lordships' knowledge, that a claim was made by royalty owners for a particular sum that was considered to be excessive by the Government, and the matter was referred to arbitration, with the result that fifteen years' purchase was said to be adequate for these particular coal royalties. Everybody has assumed that this is a Coal Bill, and it is called a Coal Bill, and the substances mentioned are coal and allied mineral fuels. Now Lord Halifax announces that there is another matter, and that is ironstone, or what Lord Bledisloe called the bluestone of the Forest of Dean. Now he says that that is not going to be paid out of the fifteen years' purchase but out of another fund. In other words, this Mineral Bill is not limited to the expropriation of coal, but goes to other substances as well, and not merely to registration but to payment for those other substances. I asked earlier what the cost of this Bill was going to be, and I think it all the more important we should know now, seeing that its scope is so enormously increased.
LORD HASTINGS: I do not know whether I may speak again on this Amendment, but the motive behind my Amendment, which has been so very much enlarged, is perhaps the motive to which I should return. It was intended by those with whom I act, and by myself, to avoid if possible a number of unnecessary complications—to avoid drawing within the ambit of this Bill persons who were in no way concerned with the operation of coal. It would only add, and must only add, to the cost of this Bill, if it becomes an Act, if those exclusions that I have suggested are not permitted, and the Government are laying up for themselves in our view unnecessary trouble by not accepting these words. Mineral owners as a whole do not desire to take up a non possumus attitude, but
1022
if the noble Earl in charge of the Bill is in any way disposed to take the advice of those who have given the matter much study—and I would refer him to what Lord Gainford said—I think he will be well advised if he accepts this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My next Amendment is merely a drafting Amendment. If we leave these words in they are unnecessary, and they might conceivably raise the question "What is the earth's crust?"
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 22, leave out ("from the earth's crust").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Interpretation]:
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS had on the Paper two Amendments to this clause. The noble Lord said: Owing to unfortunate circumstances I missed the first Amendments standing in my name which are consequential on an Amendment to omit the Second Schedule. Presuming the Second Schedule is left out the consequential Amendments will have to be put down on the Report stage, and possibly it will be more convenient if I pass these two Amendments to Clause 4, and allow them to follow the same course as the Amendments which I missed, and which will be brought up on the Report stage.
Clause 4 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule [Property and rights associated with coal and matters to which coal is subject, as to which particulars are to be registrable]:
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved to leave out the Second Schedule. The noble Lord said: The Second Schedule of the Bill is really the only important part of the Bill to which mineral owners take a great exception. There are at least four indictments against this Schedule, to which I shall refer as opportunity occurs, but if your Lordships will be so good as to look at this Schedule you will find that there are certain obligations upon persons who are to register their property. The Schedule says:
"The property and rights held in associations with any coal or mine of coal, and the servitudes restrictive covenants and other

1023
matters subject to which any coal hereditaments are held, particulars whereof respectively are to be registrable under this Act shall be—

(a) such property and rights as would have vested with that coal or mine, and

(b) such servitudes, restrictive covenants and other matters as those coal hereditaments would have vested subject to …"

We then go to a further paragraph in which it says: "The said conveyance shall be deemed" and so on; and if your Lordships will read it you will see the obligations of that paragraph.
The first thing which occurs to anybody is that the owner of minerals has to solve a certain problem before he can register. He has got to solve a problem as to what is registrable, and, without elaborating the matter, he will when he turns away from the simple wording of Clause 1 on page 2, in which there is there described the particulars which may be registered, to the Schedule, find qualifications and conditions put into the Schedule which leave one in complete and insoluble doubt as to what is to be registered. That is quite undeniable. The mineral owner and his agent are not going to be in a position to know what is registrable under this Schedule, and what is not, by reason of the quite remarkable complications introduced into this Schedule, until they have sought the highest legal opinion. What is going to be the result of that? No mineral owner will be able or will dare to complete his registration until he has sought counsel's opinion. In order to seek counsel's opinion you have first to prepare at great expense a vast amount of copy and particulars upon which counsel can give you an opinion. Mineral owners all over the country are being compelled to the same course. It is not to be supposed that their circumstances are all the same, and that counsel's opinions are going to be on the same plane, nor even where they are on the same plane are counsel in the slightest degree likely to agree upon the opinions which they give. What is going to be the consequence of that? The Board of Trade are going to receive, in due course and after great delay, an immense heterogeneous mass of counsel's opinions, the bulk of which will differ, upon the same subject. What is the Board of Trade going to do with it? The unhappy officials who are given this duty will clearly themselves have to seek
1024
counsel's opinion as to what the other counsel have meant. The Law Officers of the Crown and eventually the High Court will be brought in.
The object of the Mineral Owners' Association is, curiously enough, not to obstruct this Bill. I want to make that perfectly clear, because noble Lords are familiar with the fact that I am personally very strongly opposed to nationalisation, either of coal or any other commodity, and therefore, they might possibly suspect that I was introducing this Amendment for the moving out of this Second Schedule with an obstructive motive. Curiously enough, it is nothing of the kind. I adumbrated on the Second Reading a scheme of which a pre-requisite is this Registration Bill. We cannot do without it, and therefore it is the motive of the mineral owners to expedite, and not to obstruct, the operation of this Bill. I say that because I would desire the Government to realise that here again it is not a case of obstruction, it is a case of pointing out that we want to secure the same object as they do, and that is the effective operation of this Bill in the least possible time. It is perfectly obvious that if the purpose of this Schedule is to be fulfilled and the conditions which it imposes are to be satisfactorily met, an immense amount of delay is implied. It is true that six months is more or less given as the period during which this registration must take effect, but the Board of Trade are given extensive powers. That is absolutely necessary, and they will have to exercise these options to extend the time almost inch finitely. Well, these counsel will be having these matters put before them, and counsel will, in turn, have to be employed by the Board of Trade. The provisions of the Schedule make for very great trouble to the mineral owner and his agent, and they also make for prodigious delay.
That is one indictment, and that is a matter of principal interest to royalty owners. But there is a matter arising out of it which is of very wide national interest. Attention has already been drawn to the fact that under Clause 2 the costs of registration are to be met out of public funds dispensed by the Beard of Trade. I have endeavoured to show that the labour and trouble given to mineral owners and their agents are

1025
going to be very gross and very unfair. But what of the cost? The mineral owner is not going to pay the costs; the State out of public funds is going to meet the costs. It is quite true that we are not the House of Commons, and it is equally true to say that that place is perfectly competent to safeguard the national finances. But that is not to say that we as legislators are to take no interest in such a matter, nor are we as taxpayers to take no interest such a matter. We are here confronted with the certainty that the provisions of this Schedule are going to lay upon mineral owners a very unfair burden. They are going to necessitate the employment of legal advice on an immense scale, and we are going to make perfectly certain by passing this Bill that the Board of Trade, out of public funds, is going to pay for all that manœuvre and all that expense just think of a mineral owner on a large scale. What manner of fee is he going to pay to his counsel? Well, he is not going to pay it himself, and the counsel would know that he is not going to pay it himself. And counsel would be hard to come by, because everybody else would want counsel at the same time, and he would be in a position to ask anything he liked. And he will. It would be unreasonable that a man with an opportunity put on his doorstep would not pick it up. Of Course he will. The expense will be prodigiously vast, and the State is going to pay.
Well, those are two indictments. I am inclined to think that those two are themselves sufficient to show that this Schedule ought not to pass into law. But, serious as those two objections are, I have a third, which I think the Committee generally will consider to be very much more than either of those two. This Schedule, if it is studied—and it requires only a very superficial study to discover the fact—will be found to contain what lawyers describe as a "notional conveyance." I do not know whether anybody in the House knows what that is, but quite recently I discovered what a "notional conveyance" was, and I will tell your Lordships. I would first remind your Lordships of something that fell from the Leader of the House only a few moments ago. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, he said, "Please bear in mind that this is not a buying Bill, but a Registration Bill." By what conceivable justi-
1026
fication are provisions for conveyancing included in a Registration Bill? I ask that question in all good faith. Here is provision after provision, made for what is known to lawyers as a "notional conveyance" in a Bill which purports to be nothing more nor less than a Registration Bill—a Bill which we have been told commits nobody who objects to the nationalisation or expropriation of any form of property to anything at all. We have been told that constantly, but here we have a Schedule which most definitely commits everybody to everything.
A notional conveyance, as contained in this Schedule, implies certain things. Power is taken in the Schedule to acquire at a later date, without any payment whatever, rights which should normally of course only pass when a conveyance is required and given at the time those rights are needed. I will give examples of that. At the present time, a pit of coal is worked from a certain surface. The head workings are placed where they are, and power is being taken, quite reasonably, to include within the word "coal" the means of getting it out. Well, nobody objects to that. But this Schedule takes power to sink new workings wherever the new owners of the coal think appropriate. It might be any place at all. The owner has in mind the surface development of his land. It may go to the seashore, where there are residential houses. He may have it in mind to develop it, he may be in process of developing it. Along comes the new owner, and says, "We are going to sink a shaft here." The owner of the surface says, "Well, I am only a humble citizen, and I cannot stop a powerful body like the Government from sinking a shaft wherever it likes, but I would remind you that I am going to be paid a pretty figure for your interference." The new owner replies, "You are going to do nothing of the kind, because we are going to take all the rights under the Registration Bill." Those are the actual facts, and that is what is known as a "notional conveyance."
I shall be interested to hear what may be said by whoever is going to answer the indictment which I have made in respect of this Schedule. There are the arguments. There is the inconvenience, trouble, and delay which must be occasioned—and that of course cannot be denied—to mineral owners under the

1027
provisions of this Schedule. There is the prodigious expense from public funds by reason of the difficulty and delay and consultation with highly-placed officers of the law which will be necessitated. On top of that we have a Registration, Bill which we have been told is a Registration Bill, and only a Registration Bill, here converted into a conveyancing measure; and on top of that again we have a notional conveyance sandwiched into this Bill which is going to give rights that the Bill does not purport to give and which will operate to the greatest disadvantage of surface owners in the future. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out the Second Schedule.—(Lord Hastings.)
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I must try to the best of my ability to answer the main points in what my noble friend called the indictment on which he framed the charge against this Schedule. There is one small point that perhaps I might get out of the way at the start. He had a good deal to say about the complexity of the Schedule and the difficulty that the lay owner would have in interpreting it. In that connection he referred to the fact that a six months' limit was imposed within which applications normally must be made in order to qualify for costs. I was not sure from what he said whether he intended to convey to your Lordships the suggestion that, if owing to the complexity of the affair as it presented itself to him, it was in fact impossible for owners to supply all the particulars required in six months they would thereby be penalised as regards costs, because, if so, he would unwittingly have fallen into error; what the Bill says is if a man has not made his application within six months. Therefore if that was a point in his indict-it is one on which he must rest no great weight.
A good deal of his complaint seemed to me to lie against what he regarded as the unfair burden on mineral owners. May I speak quite frankly in this regard? I have the fortune, or misfortune, to be a mineral owner myself, and I must confess it had never entered my head that I should find it necessary to employ counsel, of whose capacity to charge great fees no doubt many of your Lordships are well aware. Accordingly it
1028
would require a good deal to induce me to do that. I think my noble friend in his capacity as being in charge of the interests of royalty owners would be able to devise a much better plan than that. If he has not thought of it, I venture with all humility to suggest it to him. If there is the complexity of which he complains—and certainly I should be the last to deny it—in this Second Schedule, will it not be the case that the royalty owners as a body, a not unduly impoverished or pauperised body, will charter the best counsel they can get and will consult him on any point of difficulty that the solicitors for the royalty owners find themselves unable to resolve? Then I expect my noble friend and his Committee, in return for the subscription I pay to the Royalty Owners' Association, to furnish me with that measure of good advice. I imagine that would be the position of royalty owners as a class, and that accordingly we need not be unduly alarmed at the prospect of ourselves having to go to Lincoln's Inn and pay large fees to individual counsel.
My noble friend referred to a matter which, if I may respectfully say so, is a matter of real substance in this Schedule when he dealt, in legal terms I cannot hope to emulate, with what he called a notional conveyance. If I may put the question in more lay language, the point in his mind there is whether, as drawn, the Schedule has the effect of assuming, in the case of coal which is in the same ownership as the surface, a conveyance of an implied right to use the surface so far as necessary for working the coal. I am advised that that is, in fact, the practice in the Common Law to-day, but it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government that the Schedule should go as far as that. The examination of the Schedule in the light of my noble friend's Amendment has had the effect of bringing to light the fact that that may unwittingly be the effect at the present time. Accordingly there is, I think, a point of substance of my noble friend's that calls to be met. It will therefore be the duty of the Government to introduce an Amendment to the Schedule or the Report stage to meet what my noble friend has lodged as an objection on that score. I do not know that I need say more about that at this stage than to give my noble friend that undertaking.

1029
The last point to which I would make one reference is this. My noble friend says that he does not deem it unreasonable that there should be registration. He indeed contemplates there should be registration for the scheme that he adumbrated when we had the Second Reading of this Bill. But what he does consider unreasonable is that the registration should be as complete and as precise as this Schedule seeks to make it. With all respect to him I would suggest that if this Second Schedule were struck out you would be left with the wording as it is found in subsection (4) of Clause 1, and registration would be demanded accordingly of the property and rights. I refer to Clause 1 (4) (b) which says:
"the property and rights … which are held in association with such coal and mines.…"
I do not profess to be a lawyer, but I should have supposed it was quite useless to have a vague registration of that kind, which would be meaningless to lawyers and would be useless for the sake of defining property rights, the accurate registration of which this Bill seeks to establish.
For these reasons it is impossible for the Government to accept my noble friend's suggestion to leave out the Schedule; but he has done a valuable service by drawing the attention of the Government to the point of substance to which I have referred, and in regard to which it will be our desire to introduce an Amendment on the Report stage which I hope will meet him.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: I hope the Amendment may be serviceable but the Leader of the House had his illustrious tongue in his cheek when he used the word "precise" in relation to this Schedule. It is really one of the most confused and confusing documents that has ever been submitted in my experience to your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount seems to think that it is based upon what he calls the practice in Common Law. Anybody who is concerned with coal knows that there is nothing more controversial in declaring a lease, or in making a counter proposal about a lease, than are the decisions of Common Law. They are full of contradictions. There is no agreement in the practice of Common Law about three or four factors in the elements of coal, or in assessing the possibilities of the coal-
1030
field. This partly comes from legislation by Schedule, and it is really entirely against the traditions of Parliament for the operative clauses of a Bill to be hidden away in a Schedule. This Schedule, so far from being precise or helping one, goes far to confuse one.
The noble Leader of the House, who is always noted for his optimism, seemed to think that he, amongst others, was going to get off with moderate fees in respect of these schedules and registrations, but the expenses, as my noble friend below me said, are going to be prodigious. But that is not because the lawyers are going to charge high fees or excessive fees. The expenses are going to be prodigious because the task is going to be prodigious. In paragraph 2 on page 9 you will find one reference—and I think the only reference in the Bill—to one of the most complex and controversial aspects of coal valuation and coal responsibilities and that is the support which coal has to leave for buildings on the surface. It is difficult enough to value coal, but the valuation of coal is nothing compared with the complexity of valuing the surface affected by the coal; and here, casually, in two or three words, it is revealed that the Government are conscious of the fact that the surface has got to be valued. This is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, pointed out, a conveyance which is imposed upon somebody or other by this Bill, compulsorily imposed upon them, and has got to be paid for by the Government. Now we know, roughly speaking, or we can guess, the process of valuation as regards the coal itself. There is a series of established figures in that matter—namely, the payment of royalties by the lessee to the lessor, the assessments to Income Tax and mineral tax and the other tax—I forget what it is called—connected with coal royalties. Relatively speaking that is a simple matter of assessment compared with the far more complicated and complex matter of assessing the right to withdraw support, and you cannot work coal unless you have satisfied yourself as to your right to withdraw support; otherwise you will be "mandamused" in the County Court and your pitshaft will be closed the next morning.
I want to know what the Government's view about that is. Is there going to be any payment for the right to use sup-

1031
port or withdraw support—payment on one side, compensation on the other? The deeper the coal the larger is the area of the coal measure required to give support for a valuable building at the top which may be affected by a really deep seam of coal. It may involve that hundreds of acres of coal be sterilised for the purpose of giving the support. But when you have done that what is the position about conveyance in respect of the right of this coal support? Half an hour ago the scope and extent of this Registration Bill was enormously increased when the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, announced that it was going to apply to ironstone and other substances which happen to be worked in connection with coal and which happened to be mentioned in a coal lease. Now I ask him a corresponding question: Who is going to pay for the expenses of those who have the right of support for surface buildings in and through the coal of which the Government are going to take possession, and is that going to be paid for by the Government? It is a perfectly distinct and clear question, and I think we should have as clear an answer about that question as we had about the existence of ironstone or other minerals in coal leases.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I am afraid my noble friend is always trying to lead me further afield than it is possible for me to follow him. He has argued with great force and asked many questions about who is going to pay, and what is going to be paid, in connection with the rights of support enjoyed by surface owners as against those who work the coal under the surface. The answer that I must make to him, which is of course the answer that he would expect, is that it is impossible for me to specify those provisions which are exactly the provisions which must find their place in the main Bill. This Bill is a Bill of registration and does not give or take away support to or from anybody. The only point where the Schedule laid itself open to fair criticism on that side is the point that my noble friend Lord Hastings made and on which I expressed my willingness to introduce Amendments to meet him. If I might suggest to my noble friends, I think it would really be the more profitable and the fairer course if they would await the Government Amendment and see whether it does or
1032
does not meet the anxieties that they legitimately hold with regard to the effect of what my noble friend called the notional conveyance. If they do not think it meets them they will be at liberty to say in what respect they think it fails.
LORD CROMWELL: There are just two points on this Bill that I should like to have elucidated if the Leader of the House would kindly do that for me. I could not follow the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, quite on the point that he was satisfied that all the expenses incurred would be paid by the Board. Reading further on in the Third Schedule, we find in paragraph 5 (1) on page 14, line 12, the expression "reasonably" used. There is no Amendment down in regard to that, and I should like to know who is to put the interpretation on the word "reasonably." I do not wish to go over the ground that has already been traversed, but one knows that when one goes to law and gets costs one gets only a fraction of the actual costs, because the costs are taxed. I should like an assurance from the Leader of the House that all expenses except those which are proved to be unreasonable are to be paid by the Board, which is rather a different interpretation.
There is one other point. It has been admitted by the Leader of the House that there will be items included in the registration which in fact will not be used to implement the second Bill. He said that they might be used although their cost would not be taken from the global figure. If an individual owner registers any form of revenue which he derives from the working of his coal, will it be implied that he agrees that that income or the capitalised figure of it should be included in the global figure taken before the independent tribunal? There are leases which contain clauses which it might reasonably be argued should be included, but which it might also reasonably be argued should not be included. I think, as my noble friend Lord Hastings sad, the chances are that counsel would answer "Yes" on one side and "No" on the other.
LORD GAINFORD: May I suggest, as the Government are going to introduce an Amendment in the Schedule, that we should have an opportunity of debating it in Committee of the House? If we adjourn this stage of the Bill now, we

1033
should be able to see the definite proposals of the Government and be able to debate them much more satisfactorily than it is possible to do either on Report or on Third Reading.
LORD HASTINGS: May I be allowed to say a word in support of that suggestion of the noble Lord? The noble Earl, Lord Minister, did me the favour of giving me private notice of the probable intention of the Government to introduce some Amendment, without going into detail. Naturally, I was bound to tell him, as I tell him now, that it is impossible to accept Amendments until you have seen them. You cannot debate alternatives until you know what they are. If we agree to postponement of the discussion of this division of opinion until the Report stage, we have to take into account how much time will elapse before the Report stage, and what time will be given for consideration and so forth. If my noble friend could see his way to agree with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, of adjournment in order to debate in Committee the Amendments which the Government propose to the Second Schedule, we should be in a position to debate them in a much more satisfactory atmosphere than is possible now.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: It is technically impossible to discuss Amendments to this Schedule except in Committee.
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: I do not want to ask your Lordships, and indeed it would be little good for me to ask you, to do anything you do not yourselves consider reasonable. I make no complaint at all of the debate that has arisen, or of the differences of opinion that appear to prevail on some of the points we have been discussing. I should naturally wish to meet the wishes of your Lordships in regard to the conduct of our business, but, at the same time, your Lordships will, I hope, believe me when I say that it is a matter of some difficulty—as no one knows better than the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, though he is not so much interested in the matter as he once was—at this stage of the Session, so to arrange business conveniently between the two Houses as to afford a reasonable opportunity of securing the Royal Assent to Bills before we adjourn. It may possibly be that the noble Earl would survive his
1034
disappointment if this Bill failed to secure the Royal Assent. At the same time I think he will realise my point in regard to this consideration.
I am bound, however, to have regard to what my noble friend opposite and my noble friends on this side feel, and I am willing in the circumstances to ask you to adjourn now and resume the committee stage next Monday. I will use my best endeavours to see that the Amendment foreshadowed is placed on the Paper as early as possible. In return I would ask my noble friend Lord Hastings to meet me and to allow us to proceed with the Report stage at as early a date as is convenient—perhaps rather more rapidly than would have been contemplated if we had finished the Committee stage to-day. I am bound to make that request for the reason I indicated a moment ago, and if he can meet me in that way I would propose to your Lordships that we should adjourn now.
LORD HASTINGS: May I point out that certain difficulties arise? The noble Viscount the Leader of the House has met us in every way he can and we are very grateful to him, but is it certain that he will succeed in getting the Mines Department to evolve Amendments to this Schedule which they might easily have done a week ago, but which when they are asked to do it at a few minutes notice they may very likely fail to do? To-day is Thursday. Is it certain that they will reach us on Saturday morning? They cannot reach us earlier than that. Then if we are to debate them on Monday afternoon there is the difficulty of getting together the proper persons to discuss them in order to enable those of us who speak with their minds and for ourselves to debate them properly. It is going to- be a very difficult matter. This Bill is of vital importance to a large number of His Majesty's subjects. Monday may be found too early a day.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: May I add a word in reply to what the noble Viscount the leader of the House has said? This Bill is not going to be passed by the end of the month of July. Judging from what I know of the House of Commons it will require six or seven days in Standing Committee. It has got to be put into order before it is passed into law. As it is now, it is an inexplicable

1035
mess and confusion. We are not to-day in the ordinary position of trying to correct mistakes in a Bill from another place. In the interests of our own reputation we should have sufficient time to go into the whole matter before the Bill is sent to another place. The Bill as it stands is not going to be workable.
Debate adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, before the adjournment of the House, might I ask the noble Viscount if he has anything to say about the hours of meeting next week?
VISCOUNT HALIFAX: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. It is proposed that the House should meet to-morrow to receive the Exchange Equalisation Account Bill, the Second Heading of which we propose to take on Monday. I am advised that it would be possible, and it would no doubt be convenient, to meet early that day, at 3 o'clock. On Tuesday we propose to meet at the usual time, and on Wednesday, on which day the Marriage Bill, with other Orders, will be taken, we propose to meet at 3 o'clock.
House adjourned at ten minutes past eight o'clock.