Lords Sitting of 6 July 1937

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
HASTINGS CORPORATION GENERAL POWERS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LANCASHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GOSPORT WATER BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
HYDROGEN CYANIDE (FUMIGA TION) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

PUBLIC RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 30.]
After Clause 2, page 3, line 2, at end insert the following new clause:
Care and custody of justice of the peace records.
("3.—(1) It shall be lawful for the Lord President. on the application of the Keeper, to make an order directing that such of the justice of the peace records of any county as may be specified in the order shall be transmitted to the Keeper on or before a date specified therein not being earlier than three months from the date of the order:
Provided that no such order shall apply to any record which is of more recent date than twenty-five years before the date of the order, unless the Lord President is satisfied that adequate provision as regards care, indexing, and availability for consultation cannot otherwise be made.
(2) The clerk of the peace for any county shall have the custody, and be responsible for the proper care and preservation, of the justice of the peace records of that county which have not been transmitted under subsection (1) of this section to the Keeper, and shall in compliance with any request which the Keeper, with the consent of the Lord President, may, from time to time, make, prepare and send to the Keeper a report giving such information as may be specified in the request regarding—

(a) the nature, situation, and condition of all buildings in which any such records are kept;

(b) the age and condition of such records

(c) the arrangements made for their care and preservation, and for indexing them and rendering them available for inspection by the public; and

(d) any other matters connected with the care and preservation of such records.")

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this new clause arises out of representations made to the Secretary of State regarding the desirability of making provision for the transmission to the Record Office of justice of the peace court records as well as Sheriff Court records, as justice of the peace records contain some valuable historical material. The clause makes provision for justice of the peace records (with necessary modifications) on the lines followed in Clause 2 of the Bill in relation to Sheriff Court records. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 5, line 7, at end insert the following new clause:
("Advisory Council.
—(1) There shall be constituted a Council to be called the Scottish Records Advisory
42
Council, consisting of not more than twelve members, who shall be persons, or representatives of public bodies or societies, interested ill the public records of Scotland.
(2) The members of the aforesaid Council shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, shall hold office for three years from the date of their appointment, and shall be eligible for reappointment on expiry of that period: Provided that the Keeper shall be ex officio a member and chairman and convener of the Council.
(3) The aforesaid Council may submit proposals or make representations to the Secretary of State, the Lord justice General, or the Lord President on questions relating to the public records of Scotland, and in particular to the custody, preservation, indexing, and cataloguing of those records, and to facilities for access to and examination of them by members of the public.
(4) The Council may make rules regarding their procedure and may by such rules prescribe their quorum.")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this clause provides for the appointment by the Secretary of State of an Advisory Council of not more than twelve members interested in, or representing bodies interested in, the public records of Scotland. A strong desire has been expressed in certain quarters for the appointment of such a Council, which should afford machinery by which outside persons interested in public records might submit proposals and make representations on the subject to the Secretary of State, the Lord Justice General, and the Lord President. Provision is made in the clause for the Keeper to be ex officio Chairman and convener of the Advisory Council. I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 8, page 4, line 24, leave out ("or any other Act") and insert ("Act or otherwise. Provision may be made, in prescribing any such table, for the remission of fees for the inspection of records for historical or literary purposes").
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, under the existing system a fee is payable in the Record Office for every record inspected, but in practice, with Treasury authority, remission of fees is allowed to students who have literary permits. Fees must, of

43
course, be paid on all searches for legal purposes. It is the intention that the existing practice of allowing remission of fees to literary students should be continued. No express statutory provision appears to be required for this purpose, but this Amendment, which provides that in prescribing a table of fees provision may be made for the remission of fees for the inspection of any records for historical or literary purposes, has been introduced in order to place the matter beyond all doubt. I beg to move that this House cloth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona anti Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause to, page 5, leave out lines 3 to 6 and insert:
("(2) Regulations under this section shall not be made until a draft thereof has lain before each House of Parliament for a period of thirty days during the Session of Parliament, and if, before the expiration of that period, an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House against the draft, no further proceedings shall be taken thereon, without prejudice however to the making of any new' draft regulations:
Provided that in reckoning any such period of thirty days as aforesaid no account shall he taken of any time during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
(3) No regulations made under this section shall authorise—

(a) the disposal of records relating to a Government department or belonging to a local authority without the consent of that department or authority; or

(b) the disposal of any record of older date than the year eighteen hundred.")

LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Amendment has been introduced in response to a desire expressed for greater safeguards in relation to the provisions to be made for the disposal of records by destruction or otherwise. It provides Parliamentary control over the making of regulations on this subject and attaches conditions which must be observed in the framing of these regulations. The regulations must not authorise (a) the disposal of records relating to a. Government Department or belonging to a local authority without the consent of that Department or
44
authority, or (b) the disposal of any record of older date than the year 1800. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 12, page 5, line 26, after ("registers") insert ("minute books")
Clause 12, page 5, line 32, after ("registers") insert ("minute books")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, these Amendments are drafting Amendments, and I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Page 5, leave out lines 35 to 37.
Page 5, line 37, at end insert:
("the expression justice of the peace records 'includes all registers, minute books, processes, writs, or documents relating to the transaction of their business by the justices of the peace, or to proceedings in the justice of the peace courts civil and criminal;
the expression 'court records' includes the records of the High Court of Justiciary, the records of the Court of Session, Sheriff Court records, and justice of the peace records;")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, these Amendments provide for an amplification of the interpretation clause. A definition of "justice of the peace records," which is required consequentially on the first Amendment on the Paper, is inserted, and the definition of "court records" is expanded so as to include justice of the peace records. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 5, line 40, after ("record") insert ("or is or is not a justice of the peace record")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Amendment gives the Lord President the like power to determine whether a document is or is not a justice of the peace record, as he has to determine whether a document is or is not a Court of Session or Sheriff Court record. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHAIRMEN OF TRAFFIC COMMIS SIONERS, ETC. (TENURE OF OFFICE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. The object of this short Bill is to place the payments to certain officers who discharge important duties of quasi-judicial character upon a definite and permanent footing. The Bill deals with two separate categories of people:—Firstly, the twelve Chairmen of Traffic Commissioners, including the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner and the Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal—these are dealt with in Clauses I and 2—and secondly, the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal, who is dealt with under Clause 3. The present position of these Commissioners is that: these officers hold office for varying periods not exceeding seven years and can be reappointed by the Minister. Under this Bill the Commissioners are to be made permanent, with the proviso that they may be removed for inability or misbehaviour under the Road Traffic Act, 1930. Their retiring age shall be from sixty-five to seventy. If eligible—that is, after ten years' service—they shall be granted pensions on retiring on the scale laid down by the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 1935.
As I have stated, the retiring age is sixty-five to severity as compared with the Civil Service sixty to sixty-five. This is a compromise between the age of seventy-two laid down for judicial posts and of sixty for the Civil Service. The civil servant joins the Service at an early
46
age and spends his whole life in the Service; but these Traffic Commissioners cannot obtain their posts at an early age, as they must be men of experience and standing and must, therefore, be of a certain maturity. If these men prove a success we wish to keep them on for a reasonable time, and by this arrangement we think we shall get the best men for these very important posts. Clause 3 deals exclusively with the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal. He is appointed by His Majesty on the joint recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Transport. He must retire at seventy-two unless the Lord Chancellor, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Transport and the Treasury all agree that they want to keep him on till the age of seventy-five. An Act called the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, deals with judicial and semi-judicial posts of this kind, and it is proposed to bring the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal under the provisions of this Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Erne.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, there are several very important aspects, as I see them, in this Bill. The first thing that strikes me about it is that the machinery which was set up under the 1933 Act is, at the present time, of a temporary and experimental nature, as it was bound to be when the Act was passed. The proposal here seems to me to go a good deal beyond the Act of 1933, and indeed to make a certain portion of the machinery of the Act of 1933 permanent. The road transport industry of the country has been doing its best to comply with the provisions of the Act which govern its operations. I think everybody knows that the Transport Acts are more or less experimental in character, and that a lot of experience has had to be gained of the working of those Acts. It is not at all certain that the working of those Acts has been entirely satisfactory, and it is obvious, I think, that the Acts will have to be modified to a certain extent in the light of experience gained.
The noble Earl who has introduced the Bill said that you could not expect to get good men unless you were able to ensure a pension for them; and that, if they were a success, we wanted to keep them. If

47
they are a success, well and good; no doubt they ought to be kept; but supposing, by any chance, one of the Commissioners happens to be not quite such a success and we want to make a change, do you not think that the effect of the provisions which are now proposed will be to make such a change extremely difficult? They can only, in fact, be removed under the provisions of this Bill for misconduct or inability. It is obviously a very serious step to take in connection with so important a person as a Commissioner, to remove him for inability or misconduct. I very much hope it will not happen, and probably it will never happen, that any one of them will be guilty of misconduct or be unable to perform his duties. On the other hand, it is possible to conceive that some of them may not be too successful. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill referred to the Civil Service and to the position of these Commissioners vis-à-vis the Civil Service. I should like to submit that the Civil Service is entirely different, because a civil servant can always be transferred from one Department to another. If he is not a success in one Department he can be transferred to another. But it does not seem to me that any such provision can possibly obtain in the case of these Commissioners.
I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether, for instance, it would be possible to raise the conduct of the Traffic Commissioners—not their moral conduct but the conduct of their office—on the Ministry of Transport Vote. It would be most important that that should be possible, if it can be done. Then, does not the proposal that is before us now place these Traffic Commissioners in practically the same position as His Majesty's Judges? It seems to me that this Bill goes a very long way. I do not at the present moment wish, and the interests for whom I speak do not wish me, to do anything to oppose the passage of the Bill, but we view it with great anxiety, and during the further stages of the Bill it may be necessary for me to place certain Amendments on the Paper. At any rate I hope that I shall be forgiven by your Lordships for having ventured to ask these two questions. The operation of the 1933 Act, as I have said, has placed the road transport interests of the country under the greatest possible
48
difficulty in many respects, and will require modification. I think it important that these points should be referred to.
THE EARL OF ERNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for throwing a rather new and unexpected line of light on to this Bill. I am sure your Lordships will forgive me if I do not give an answer now, because I cannot express the views of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport at this stage. I can, however, assure the noble Earl that I will look into this question very carefully and notify my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport of the views of the noble Earl. I trust that in the meantime your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PHYSICAL TRAINING AND RECREATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [National Advisory Councils]
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "them" ["A National Council may appoint Committees to assist them"] and insert "it". The noble Viscount said: Many of your Lordships will remember that when the noble Viscount, Lord Sankey, occupied the Woolsack, he laid down a rule that if a noun of multitude was used in the singular at the beginning of a Bill it was to continue so throughout the Bill, and that if it began in the plural it was to remain in the plural. The draftsmen accepted that rule. If your Lordships will look at line 15 of this Bill, in subsection (1) of Clause 1, you will see the words:
"Such a Council is hereafter in this Act referred to as a 'National Council.'"
Then subsection (2) begins:
"A National Council may appoint committees to assist them.…"
"Them" is the word that I want altered to "it," because undoubtedly such a

49
Council is, must, and can only be singular. Then, not content with that, if your Lordships will look at page 6, you will see that subsection (2) of Clause 8 says:
"The Board shall, out of moneys so provided—(i) make such payments in respect of the administrative expenses of the National Council, of committees thereof.…"
So that it comes back into the neuter, because, according to the Oxford English Dictionary the definition of "thereof"is: "(a) of that or it in various current senses of 'of '; (b) of it; (c) of it, its." I shall he very much astonished if my noble friend the Minister of Education says I am wrong.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("them") and insert ("it").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): I am always somewhat nervous of my noble friend when he moves Amendments regarding the English language. I should like, however, to remind him that the English language is fluid, arid I hope as Minister of Education that I shall never find myself drawing up a code as to how that language shall be used. I came down here this afternoon, as I have said, somewhat nervous, and so I fortified myself by bringing with me Fowler's "Modern English Usage." I think my noble friend will perhaps agree with me when I say with great respect that Fowler is a greater authority on the English language even than Lord Chancellors.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Well, yes, perhaps.
EARL STANHOPE: With some exceptions, of course. He will find, if he looks at page 390 of this book, the following:
"Nouns of multitude. Such words as army, fleet, Government, company, party, pack, crowd, mess, number, majority, may stand either for a single entity or for the individuals who compose it, and are called nouns of multitude. They are treated as singular or plural at discretion—and sometimes, naturally, without discretion. The Cabinet is divided is better, because in the order of thought a whole must precede division"—
I must here point out that this book was published before the present Government came into office—
"and The Cabinet are agreed is better, because it takes two or more to agree. That is a delicate distinction and few will be at the pains to make it."
50
The book goes on:
"In general it may be said that while there is always a better and a worse in the matter, there is seldom a right and a wrong, and any attempt to elaborate rules would be waste labour."
I venture to think that on this occasion I am right and my noble friend is wrong. If he will look again at the Bill, he will see quite clearly that the word "council" at line 15 on page 1, in subsection (1), is obviously singular, whereas under subsection (2) the help given by committees is given, not to the Council itself, but to the members of that Council, who in several cases are acting as members of the committees being part of the National Council. There are already three committees set up. Therefore in subsection (2), where assistance is given to the members of the Council, the word employed is plural and not singular, whereas when the Council is referred to as a corporate body it is singular and not plural. I think that what I have quoted from a great authority will convince my noble friend and I hope therefore that he will withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My noble friend has, I think, drawn a red herring across the issue. The ruling was laid down by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Sankey, and was accepted by the draftsmen. If, however, the draftsmen are to rule this House I have no more to say, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (ANIMALS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CAUTLEY: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time. The Bill has one object, and one object only—that is, to prevent cruelty to animals in the production of cinematograph films. It comes from another

51
place, and when introduced there it had two objects. The first was the one of which I have spoken and the other was to prohibit any film that depicted the sufferings of animals of any kind. When the Bill got into Committee in another place the Home Office took the view that it should be divided, that the present Bill should be limited to the first object, which is to prevent cruelty to animals in the production of films, and that if the other object was desired it should be brought about by a separate Bill. The Home Office allowed their draftsman to draft the Bill which now comes before your Lordships for consideration. It was introduced in another place by the Chairman of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and has the support of other humane societies, such as the Canine Defence League. It has also been approved by the Protection of Exhibitors Association.
Objection was taken by some members in another place that the Bill went rather too far, because as it was originally drafted, it would prevent the exhibition of instructional films, such as films given in medical schools depicting operations on animals, which were useful for tuition and training. It was said that if there were no such films it would necessitate other operations. That objection has been met in the Bill. A further objection was taken that the Bill as originally drawn would prevent the exhibition of films of actual events that take place in nature in the wilder parts of the world, such as animal contests. That again has been met and in its final form the Bill as it comes before your Lordships' House is an agreed measure. I ask your Lordships to regard it from that point of view and pass the Bill.
Now may I turn to the Bill itself? The operative part of the Bill is Clause 1, which prohibits the exhibition of any cinematograph film in the production of which
"any scene was organised or directed in such a way as to involve the cruel infliction of pain or terror on any animal or the cruel goading of any animal to fury."
I can imagine that some of your Lordships may at once say to yourselves, why does not this Bill proceed against the producer and not against the exhibitor? There are two reasons. The first is that the producer of these films is generally a
52
foreigner and nearly always out of this country and not amenable to the process of our law. Secondly, it is true that if the producer was in this country the existing law for the protection of animals would be sufficient to hit him, provided the evidence could be got, but it is very unlikely that any servant or person who took part in the production of the film would give evidence against himself and his employer and give them both away.
So the Bill prohibits the exhibition of the film in question, and in order to make the Bill practicable and effective it is provided in subsection (2) that if, on a mere view of the film, cruelty has obviously taken place, that shall be prima facie evidence of the offence. That evidence is answerable in two ways: by evidence of the facts of the production, and by the defendant showing that he had no knowledge of any cruelty being perpetrated in the production and that he could not by any reasonable means have ascertained that any was perpetrated. Subsection (3) provides the penalty: a fine up to £100, or imprisonment for a term of three months, or both. Then, in order to meet the objection that was taken on instructional grounds, the clause only applies to the exhibition of a film in a place to which the general public are admitted, whether they pay or whether they do not. It does not apply to a limited exhibition to a few persons.
Lastly, I call special attention to subsection (4) (b):
"(b) the expression 'animal' has the same meaning as in the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act, 1912"
That is, it includes domestic animals and all wild animals while in a state of captivity. The result is that films depicting life in the wilds, the jungle or anywhere of that kind, or even a fox hunt in this country, are not hit by the Bill at all. On these grounds I commend the Bill to your Lordships as a humane measure, and I submit that it fills up a gap in the law, and ought to be passed.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Cautley.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, perhaps I might just rise to give the views of the Government on this Bill. I am advised that the existing law relating to cruelty to animals in this country, or the powers of control exercised by local

53
cinematograph licensing authorities, are adequate to deal with the evils which the promoters of this Bill wish to prevent. Although, however, we do not consider the Bill wholly necessary, I am not by any means suggesting that your Lordships should oppose it, and we are prepared to leave the Second Reading to the decision of this House.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I venture to hope that the noble Earl's advice will be followed and that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Cautley, says, an agreed measure, and it may fill a gap. I want to make two comments only on the Bill, which I understand the trade in this country accept and, indeed, welcome. There is a very valuable provision in subsection (2) about the defences. I think that covers the case of what is known as trick photography. I understand that this is now a wonderful science and that with the aid of models they can produce a film picture of a tiger or lion hunt or other spectacle of the kind without any cruelty at all. They do this by the most wonderful use of pictorial devices, small models and so on. A good deal of misapprehension has been caused because the public are naturally taken in. They think that the whole picture was taken in the natural conditions, and do not understand. I believe that provision was inserted in another place to deal with this position. The other point is that, if I understood the noble Lord aright, Clause I (4) (b) safeguards the situation where, for example, a fox hunt is filmed. Now I hold with fox-hunting!
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD STRABOLGI: And I do not believe that there need be cruelty in it at all. Many people, however, take the opposite view and regard fox-hunting as a very cruel sport. Still more people regard deer-hunting as a cruel sport. They might start a prosecution under this Bill unless the fox and other wild animals concerned are exempted from the Bill as drafted. I believe that is what the noble Lord intended to explain, and I hope I heard him aright. Take, for example, a subject that I have never seen filmed but which I think would make a very interesting film indeed, and that is a grouse or pheasant shoot. I have never seen that on the films, and I should have thought it would be a rather useful
54
historical memento in the future when these things are given up, for they are rapidly disappearing in this and other countries. Those are wild birds, and they would not come under the provisions of the Bill. I think that is the case. I know that I am speaking for my noble friends when I say that we want to help anything that would prevent any chance of unnecessary cruelty to animals, wild or domestic, and I am sure that this Bill should be passed.
LORD CAUTLEY: My Lords, I have little to add. What has fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is absolutely right. It is true that in some films that have been exhibited where people have thought there was cruelty, there was in fact none because the scene was depicted by means of dummies instead of real animals. The noble Lord's second point is equally true. I mentioned the fox because it is almost the one wild animal we have left in England, and any natural scene in which the fox occurs can be depicted as far as this Bill is concerned. I have not the least doubt that Lord Strabolgi is equally right about a pheasant shoot. Pheasants, I understand, even when they are reared by keepers, are wild birds. When they are young and under hens they are domestic birds, but as soon as they are put in the woods they become wild birds—
LORD STRABOLGI: Extremely wild, sometimes.
LORD CAUTLEY:—and are not affected by the Bill. I rather anticipated what the noble Earl who spoke for the Government had to say when I pointed out that it would, as a matter of fact, be practically impossible to get evidence against the producer himself of cruelty in the making of a film produced in this country. His servants would not give it, and he himself would not be likely to give himself away.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords, this is a very technical Bill but also, I think, an agreed measure. I can describe it

55
quite briefly to your Lordships. Clause enables teachers to allocate part of their superannuation benefits to their dependants, on the same lines as the scheme which was brought into effect for the Civil Service in 1935. It has been asked for by the teachers. Clause 2, which has been asked for by the British Council, extends the period during which a teacher who is serving abroad may have his absence from home treated as pensionable, provided that he makes the necessary contributions, which in that case are both the employer's and the employee's part of the contribution. The present law is that he can only serve four years abroad. This clause extends the period to five years, and in special circumstances the Board can extend it further still if they think it desirable. The Bill also enables a teacher to serve in schools in foreign countries as well as in the Dominions. Clause 3 brings under the Act those who are described as "educational organisers," who apparently have in the past rather fallen between two stools and therefore have not been able to share the advantages which have been given to teachers who are actually so described. Clause 4 extends the Bill to Scotland, and Clause 5 is purely formal. The Bill was agreed, I think, by all Parties in another place, and I hope that your Lordships will also agree that this is a very desirable measure, although not one of great importance. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lord, in moving that this Bill be now read a third time, I will, with your permission, carry out the undertaking that I gave yesterday to two noble Lords, my noble friend who sits behind me and the noble Lord opposite, to answer certain questions on the Third Reading. I will take first the
56
two main questions which were asked me by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. He asked, first of all, a specific question as to the gold which is bought with the Account in Paris, and earmarked there, whether it is left in France or is brought immediately to London. The answer to that is that the gold is, of course, at the complete disposal of the Account, and I can hardly he expected to say more in this connection than that it is shipped to London or elsewhere from time to time as may suit the convenience of the Account. The second question which the noble Lord put, he asked once or twice, and I do not know whether it was a sort of rhetorical question or whether it was a question to which he wanted an answer. The question was: How long is America going to go on giving 35 dollars an ounce for gold? I am afraid that I could not undertake to deal in this debate with the currency policy of another country, and I can only refer the noble Lord to recent utterances by the American authorities on this subject. Perhaps, however, I might repeat what has been already said in another place, that our action in presenting this Bill has the entire accord of the American authorities.
I will turn now to the questions of Lord Arnold, and I think, although I may take a little more time, it might make it clearer if I read his questions and then gave the answers afterwards, because the matters are a little complicated. He put to me certain related technical questions, and also a more general question in regard to the use of the Account. The technical questions were as follows: (1) Does the Issue Department have gold bought for it through the Banking Department, or through any channel other than the Exchange Equalisation Account? (2) If the answer is "Yes" does the Exchange Equalisation Account hand over immediately gold or securities for the difference between £4s.11½d. and £7 per ounce? (3) If the Exchange Equalisation Account does not hand over the difference, but is debited by the Bank of England with the difference, is not the effect to leave more funds in the Exchange Equalisation Account for more purchases of gold and so forth, than if the difference had been made good by the Exchange Equalisation Account immediately? (4) Also, if the difference is not made good immediately, how can this be reconciled with Section 25, subsection (3) of the Finance Act of

57
1932, which begins with the word "Whenever"?
The answer to these questions is that the Issue Department may acquire gold either in the market or, as is the course normally followed, from the Exchange Equalisation Account, but the accounting arrangements in regard to the difference between the market value and the fixed value are precisely the same in either case. If, for example, the Issue Department bought in the open market at £7 an ounce, it would immediately receive in cash, from the Exchange Account, £2 15s. an ounce. If, on the other hand, it buys from the Account, then the Account pays £7 for the gold but resells to the Issue Department at £4 5s. The net effect is precisely the same, and, as I stated yesterday, the Account has reduced its sterling resources and therefore its power to buy further gold, but holds as an asset the excess value of the Issue Department gold which must, on the winding up of the Account, be made good to it from the Issue Department. I hope the noble Lord will see from this explanation that there is no ground for his fear that the Account has been left with more funds for the purchase of gold than if the difference had been made good at once, because, in fact, the difference is made good at once as the Act directs.
The noble Lord's general question, as I understand it, was as follows. He asked me whether it was the case that the Account could enlarge its gold-buying powers by transferring gold, bought at£7, to the Issue Department at £4 5s. and whether this was not contrary to Parliament's intentions. My answer to that is that the noble Lord is perfectly correct in saying that the powers of the Account are not limited to one single purchase of gold up to its maximum resources. It is in the nature of a revolving fund; when it buys and sells it can buy again. When it sells to the Issue Department its power to buy again is less than if it sells in the open market. I cannot, however, agree with the noble Lord when he says that there is anything contrary to Parliament's intentions in all this; nor can I accept what I think is at the back of his mind, that there is no limit to the extent to which gold is passed to the Issue Department. The practical limit is, of course, the needs of the Issue Department itself in relation to the internal currency position.
58
The noble Lord referred to the reduction made in the fiduciary note issue last December. While a modest reduction such as that then made from £260,000,000 to £200,000,000 is a possible method of adding to the resources of the Exchange Account, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the view that it was not a suitable method for dealing with larger demands, and that the more correct course was to approach Parliament openly for an increase in the statutory borrowing power on behalf of the Account, as is now being done in the Bill before your Lordships. I hope I have answered—I have clone so to the best of my ability anyhow—the questions raised, and I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Templernore.)
LORD ARNOLD: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for the full reply given to my questions, and for the trouble which he has taken, and which he invariably does take, in handling these very difficult and technical questions in your Lordships' House. I do not propose to make a second speech on the Bill this afternoon. Your Lordships were good enough to give me a patient hearing yesterday. I have listened with great interest to the replies, and would like to have an opportunity of studying, syllable by syllable, the precise purport of what the noble Lord has said. As I understand it, it does appear that the limit of operations by the Exchange Equalisation Account in regard to the £200,000,000 authorised in this Bill is not confined to that £200,000,000, but that the amount in certain circumstances may be very considerably greater. Whether that is, or is not, in accordance with the intentions of Parliament might be a matter for argument, but I am not going to detain your Lordships longer this afternoon.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very sorry indeed that I could not come down to the House yesterday, because I missed three admirable speeches which I have since read with the greatest attention and pleasure. May I be allowed at the outset to congratulate Lord Mancroft, of whom, when he entered this House, I prophesied that he would bring very weighty arguments to our debates on financial questions? May I also be

59
allowed to follow up a very interesting question which Lord Mancroft put? I regret that I gave very short notice to Lord Templemore about this, but I feel it is of great importance. The accounts are open, apparently, or will be open later on, to the examination of the Public Accounts Committee. The Public Accounts Committee, on which I have never served, but of which Lord Mancroft has been, I think, Chairman, has the function really of looking for irregularities or mistakes in the accounts, and does not really deal with policy. Policy is dealt with, to a certain extent, on the Estimates on Supply days in another place, and policy is dealt with in debates on broad questions which we have in this House. If this information is to be given only to the Public Accounts Committee, will that Committee be invested with any powers to raise questions of policy on the working of the Fund?—because obviously there will not be many cases where there is any mistake or extravagance in the actual accounts, which is the principal concern of the Public Accounts Committee. But if the Public Accounts Committee is invested with some power to put questions on policy, that, I submit, would be most valuable from a national point of view, and I hope that Lord Templemore's reply meant that that would be the case. Then they would not have, so to speak, simply an accounting power but also a power of questioning the reasons for the operations of this Fund.
I venture also, in view of the great importance of this subject, to offer one or two other observations. I think we are all agreed that the declared object of this Fund is admirable—the stabilising of the exchanges—things being as they are and having this antediluvian currency system under which we all suffer together with this out-of-date fetish of gold. Under all those circumstances, some such system as this Tripartite Monetary Agreement is required to stabilise the exchanges, or the unfortunate merchants and shippers would never know where they were. But I am bound to make some criticisms of the very need of such a Fund. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, yesterday explained that he was not a financier and the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, immediately corrected himself and admitted that he was not a financier. Well, I am not a financier either. May I give a definition of a financier which was given
60
to me by a very great financier himself? He said that the difference between a financier and a burglar is that the burglar does not wear a top hat. But though I am not financier I make no excuse for commenting on the subject.
EARL STANHOPE: Are you a burglar?
LORD STRABOLGI: Well it depends on what has to be burgled. I do on occasions wear a top hat, but that does not make me a financier. But the people who seem to know least about this subject are certain of the financiers themselves. They are the people who are subject to panics, who move this so-called hot money about in a panic. Yet all members of your Lordships' House have to take an interest in this question, which after all affects the day-to-day lives and prosperity of all His Majesty's subjects throughout the British Empire. We are practically all affected by what goes on in this particular Committee which operates the Equalisation Fund. I think the time has really come when some protest should be made against this insane buying of gold on both sides of the Atlantic. As things are, it may be necessary, just to tide us over until we can find some more scientific and more modern method of keeping the exchange system stable. But in the meantime think what could be done with this money if, instead of buying gold with it and burying it, we could buy goods with it, for those who need them. It would not be £200,000,000 worth of goods that we could buy; it would be seven or eight times that amount, using the modern machinery of credit.
May I draw attention to this other fact? There is, according to the pundits, too much gold at the present time in the world. I think all three noble Lords who spoke yesterday referred to that fact. The high price of gold has drawn unsuspected stores of the metal from India, it has led to old mines being reopened and mines which would never have paid in the past being worked. As a result there is something in the nature of a glut of gold at the present time. What is happening now is that immense quantities of gold are being mined by great effort and at great expense from holes in the ground on the Rand or in the Urals and brought over here at very great expense and buried in other holes in the City of London, as was pointed out by a right

61
honourable friend of mine in another place, and also in one of the best newspaper articles I have ever seen in a paper which I am sure the noble Lord opposite reads, and which I make no apology for quoting. When this Bill was first introduced a leaderette in the Daily Express put the matter cogently when it protested against using the public money to buy gold, to get it out of a hole in the ground in one part of the world and to bring it here, guard it, and pay interest on it in another hole in the ground.
I for one am net content to see this system continued, and I know I am speaking for my Party in this matter. We think the breathing space that we now have should be used to go into this whole question anew. M. van Zeeland has come back from Washington where, as we know, he has been undertaking the very important task of trying to find some means of reopening the channels of trade. That is one remedy for the present state of affairs, and I pray that he will be successful. But while we are trying to reopen the channels of trade cannot we try to find some better and more scientific system of arranging an international currency between the various states? That is just as important as opening the channels of trade of the world. We have practically cut off foreign lending from this country. We are still a great creditor nation and the old trading system never worked unless it allowed foreign lending. There are all kinds of restrictions in this country upon the ordinary functioning of the credit system, and we are going to all this expense and risk of tying up public funds in this way.
I offer those general observations, and I should like to offer one more. In the past when there has been a great new influx of gold into the world markets it has always led, after a certain time lag, to a great expansion of trade. The opening of the South American gold mines led to a tremendous expansion of trade and prosperity especially in Europe. Then we had the opening up in succession of the Australian and Californian and South African goldfields with similar expansions of trade and wealth. And now the Russian goldfields are providing immense quantities of the metal. Why is it that this time this great addition to the gold available
62
is not followed by another great trade expansion? The trade expansion which is going on at present is artificial, being largely caused by the expenditure on armaments by nearly all nations. It may not last. There is something wrong, and I do not propose here to suggest remedies. It is a matter for the best brains in the country to apply themselves to this problem without prejudice, to try to work it out internationally. But I do agree with my noble friend Lord Arnold that the situation may become quite dangerous in the future and it may lead to a heavy loss.
I repeat a suggestion I have made to your Lordships before in this matter. I would like to get all the greatest economists I could find in the country and elsewhere, put them under the Chairmanship of the present Minister of Education, lock them up somewhere, and keep them there until they found a solution. I mention the Minister of Education because I have so greatly enjoyed his speeches, which show an extraordinary insight into this subject. That is no reflection on the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, either—they might go as Chairman and Vice-Chairman respectively and they might be kept there until they found a solution. I am speaking on this next matter for the Labour Party. We at any rate recognise this problem. We are not hostile to this Bill, and we are not hostile to the principle behind it, things being as they are. In addition, we favour it because it is a step towards recovering State control of currency and credit, which we should never have lost. It was lost some centuries ago, when the Lombards first came to London and taught us banking, and we have kept it in private hands ever since. But we are gradually, I hope, beginning to recover the State control of currency and credit, and undoubtedly this Exchange Equalisation Fund is a step in the rection. That is the best thing we ca v for it.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the noble Lord did not give me notice till just before this debate began that he was going to speak, and therefore I am afraid I cannot go into the various questions which he raised. I do not really think he expected a very long answer. I am obliged to him, I am sure, on behalf of my noble friend and myself for the rather

63
terrifying invitation he held out to us. But there was one point which he did raise, which I think was rather an important one. He was talking about the Public Accounts Committee, and here of course he and the noble Lord behind me, Lord Mancroft, have the advantage of me, because they were in another place and know all about this Committee, and what it does. I never was in the House of Commons, and I am afraid I know very little about what these various Committees do. The noble Lord asked if the Public Accounts Committee was going to be vested with any special powers in connection with the examination of this Exchange Equalisation Account. I cannot answer that. I can only say that the particular point that he raised is no doubt an important point. Anything of that kind, naturally, coming from a member of your Lordships' House is worthy of consideration, and accordingly I will bring the point to the notice of my right honourable friend in another place.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Exchange Equalisation Account,

Exportation of Horses,

Public Records (Scotland),

Road Traffic,

Hydrogen Cyanide (Fumigation),

Cleethorpes Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Walsall Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation,

Provisional Orders (Marriages) Confirmation,

Dunstable Gas and Water,

Hastings Extension,

Kent Electric Power,

Pontypool Gas and Water,

Rochdale Corporation,

Wessex Electricity,

Huddersfield Corporation.

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