Lords Sitting of 4 May 1937

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
SHEPPEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BANBURY WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
COULSDON AND PURLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
ILFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WANDSWORTH AND DISTRICT GAS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
SOUTHERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MEMBERS' EXPENSES) (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
SUMMARY PROCEDURE (DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a; and reported from the Committee.
LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a; and reported from the Committee.
GENERAL CEMETERY BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EARSDON JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF COULSDON AND PURLEY ORDER).
SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF GILLINGHAM ORDER).
SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (BOROUGH OF DEAL ORDER).
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and laid before the House on the 21st of April last be approved.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOUTH NOTTINGHAMSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

SHEEP STOCKS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Thankerton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Awards as to value of sheep stock to give particulars.
1.—(1) Where in pursuance of any lease of an agricultural holding whether entered into before or after the passing of this Act the tenant is required at the termination of the tenancy to leave the stock of sheep on the holding to be taken over by the landlord or the incoming tenant at a price or valuation to be fixed by arbitration, the arbiter shall in his award, show the basis of valuation of each class of stock and state separately any amounts included in respect of acclimatisation or hefting or of any other consideration or factor for which he has made special allowance.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "of each class of stock" and insert "having regard to the annual revenue producing output of lambs, cast ewes, wool and other yield of the flock."

97
The noble Lord said: This Bill deals with a matter which, rightly or wrongly, has long been considered a scandal in Scotland. Undoubtedly it needs attention, yet I feel it my duty to point out to your Lordships that this particular Bill has neither been asked for nor supported by any association of landowners, for they do not believe it will have any effect in remedying the evils complained of. My own fear is that this Bill, if passed, will stand in future in the way of a better Bill which might really be of use. In any case, if this Bill is to be of any value at all, an Amendment such as I move must be carried.
As your Lordships know, when a sheep farmer in certain districts of Scotland gives up his farm the landowner is bound to take over his stock of sheep. It has long been considered that sheep bred upon a particular hill have a higher value on that hill than any other sheep that may be introduced to it, because they are less apt to stray they do not involve themselves in so many difficulties, and they are accustomed to the climate. In consequence the lambing average is higher, and altogether the flock is a more productive concern than it would be if it were brought in from outside. The landowner and the tenant, therefore, have the value of the sheep fixed by arbitration, the landowner looking to receive his money back from the incoming tenant. In practice, however, in the past and today, the value has generally been fixed by arbitration at so high a figure that the new tenants have uniformly refused to pay it, and indeed could not pay it if they were to get any return from the flock at all. Landowners have thus been involved in very heavy expenditure, and indeed the matter has gone so far that I am told that in some instances farmers who feel themselves short of capital merely give notice of their intention to vacate the farm, in the certainty that the landowner will bribe them to remain sooner than face the heavy loss in which he is sure to be involved by reason of these inflated values.
Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to quote from the Report of the Committee on the Valuation of Sheep Stocks:
"When allowance is made for all these factors, however, and for differences of opinion as to the interpretation of the submission and as to the proper basis of valuation to be adopted, we are satisfied that some of the
98
awards of which particulars were submitted to us could not possibly be justified on any reasonable grounds."
And then again, discussing the effect of the customary inflation of values, at page 10 they say:
"Arbiters who wish to act fairly are thus placed in a very difficult position, as it requires a high degree of moral courage to disregard altogether a valuation made, it may be, by a man of experience on a comparable farm in the same district."
And again, at page 13:
"One witness went so far as to say that if he had arrived at a valuation which was such that a capable incoming tenant could not, after paying the valuation fixed, make the farm pay, even if sitting rent free, he would still regard the valuation as a fair one."
Yet in spite of these remarks, and in spite of the examination of many instances of completely unjustifiable valuations, the Committee are able to say that they
"desire to state that we do not subscribe to the view that arbiters as a class are in a conspiracy to maintain the price of sheep in their own interest. We believe that the majority of arbiters endeavour to carry out their duties in a conscientious fashion, and that any criticism should be directed to the basis and methods of their valuations rather than to their bona fides."
It reminds me of an occasion when I asked a man for guidance as to the character of his friend, and he replied: "He is not dishonest, but if there were two roads to a place and one of them was straight he would take the other."
The truth is that valuation is a very difficult art, and it forms a separate branch of a very highly trained profession. The people who purport to be valuers under this Bill are not valuers at all, and do not understand the mere elements of their duty of valuation. This is evident from the state of mind of the arbiter who would regard without misgiving a valuation so high that an incoming tenant, sitting rent free as a grant in aid, could not make the farm pay at that figure. It is not surprising that in such circumstances the practice to which this Bill refers has become involved in somewhat scandalous conditions.
If your Lordships will glance at the second part of the first subsection of Clause 1, from line twelve on, you will see it laid down that the arbiter shall in his award show the basis of valuation of each class of stock, and state separately any amounts for which he has made

99
special allowance. As the Bill was originally drawn the arbiter had to state the market value of each class of stock as well, and the clause provided in detail for a regular built-up valuation, just as one might value a flock down in this part of the world. In fact it tried to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee that the basis and methods of valuation required control and reform. The words were:
"… the arbiter shall state separately in regard to each class of stock the total value, and the amounts included therein in respect of market value, acclimatisation, hefting, and any other consideration or factor taken into account in arriving at such total value."
That is regular, built-up valuation. But when the clause was considered in Committee in another place, it was found that you could not value these flocks which are tied to the ground in this way, and the words "market value" were cut out.
It was explained that such flocks had to be valued as a whole, and that it was not possible to assign to them a value based on the prices of each class of stock in the market. If this is so—and I hope to show in a few minutes that it is—then the clause as it stands shows great confusion of thought, and even if your Lordships do not accept my Amendment, I hope that you will insist upon something being done about it. For if the flock can only be valued by considering it as a whole, on its own ground, then all this detailed specification of items, such as classes of stock, and acclimatisation value, ceases to be an integral part of the operation of building up the value, and becomes a kind of guess-work embellishment after the value has been found. This will be clear at once if we consider the only possible method of valuing a flock of this kind, and I think it only fair to ask any noble Lord who challenges my method to produce another, and show how it should be worked.
Although tied to the hill, such a flock possesses the same kind of value that any other article of commerce possesses, its value as producing a cash return. If being tied to the hill gives it greater value, it is because, so tied, it yields greater revenue. Therefore you have to take the revenue of the flock, by sales of lambs, cast ewes, wool, and any other items,
100
ascertain the number of breeding ewes and gimmers, the lambing average, and such matters. You would consider whether the flock was increasing, stationary or decreasing, and so you would arrive at a gross figure, from which must of course be deducted the cost of the service of the flock in wages, rent, and so on. From this point it is not difficult to calculate a capital figure as the value of the flock as a whole, and such figure would include the value of all the special considerations of which we have been speaking. The whole of the rest of the clause after my proposed Amendment might with advantage be omitted. I admit my Amendment is not perfect; it says nothing of outgoings, which it should properly do; but it is the best which I could frame in the time at my disposal. If the noble and learned Lord in charge of the Bill will agree, I think the best step to take would be to have a meeting of all those interested in the Bill here and in another place and move an agreed Amendment at a later stage.
The special value claimed for a hefted flock is not sentimental, like Mary's value for her lamb, but commercial. To talk of values which can never be translated into annual or other cash return is nonsense. The closer a valuer is bound to keep to facts, the more reliance can be placed upon his valuation. The Bill as originally drawn did seek to prescribe a method of procedure which would compel the valuer to stick more or less to facts. That has now been taken out, and it is necessary to find a proper substitute. What we have to contend with is the prevalent idea that the value of a hefted flock is something which need not be brought into relation with net revenue, indeed a mere imaginative fiction. It would probably have been a great deal more fair to all parties if from the beginning competent valuers had been employed who knew nothing about sheep, rather than men who knew all that there was to know about blackfaced sheep and nothing about valuation. To pass the Bill without laying down a proper basis of valuation will be a fatal mistake and merely provide a shelter behind which the present system can be carried to greater lengths with impunity until eventually it kills the system. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("of each class of stock") and insert ("having regard to the

101
annual revenue producing output of lambs, cast ewes, wool and other yield of the flock").—(Lord Saltoun.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My noble friend Lord Saltoun has in no way exaggerated the seriousness of the position in Scotland, and I will give one further instance to show how serious the effect can be. Some years ago a landowner in my own county who was a member of your Lordships' House—it was during the War—had a tenant who wished to give up his sheep farm. It was a very large farm and carried a large stock. When the acclimatisation value of the sheep, put on the top of the market value, came to be computed, the landlord found it cheaper to give the outgoing tenant the farm as a present, plus a very substantial honorarium, rather than face the actual acclimatisation value plus market value which he would have had to pay. The only way in the past to get rid of this obligation has been for a landlord on a change of tenancy to take over the sheep stock with acclimatisation value, and then to cut his losses and re-sell to the incoming tenant at market value, which is usually a very much lower figure. That was clone by my father in the case of our own properties, so that I am in the fortunate position of regarding the progress or not of this Bill with equanimity from a personal point of view.
But, unfortunately, there are still a great many landlords in Scotland who may be faced at any moment by a demand from a tenant to leave his farm with an offer to hand over his sheep stocks at a value which is completely absurd in relation to what they will fetch if placed on the market. Acclimatisation value is certainly not a figment of the imagination; it undoubtedly exists. But at the same time there has been in the past, and there are to-day, a great many arbiters who seem to use very strange rules of their own for arriving at the proper value, and although they may be all men of knowledge and integrity it is an unfortunate fact that in nineteen cases out of twenty the award they give bears very hardly upon the landlord of the farm. Therefore I hope very much that the Government will give earnest consideration to what Lord Saltoun has said, and if they are unable to accept his Amendment in the letter I hope they will at least pay some attention to the spirit.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I should also like to support my noble friend Lord Saltoun in this Amendment. I do not adhere to the actual wording of the Amendment. There may be, as Lord Saltoun has said, other words by which we may arrive at the same conclusion. But it is perfectly right, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said, that landlords in Scotland, both in the North and in the South, who are in the position of having to change their farmer, or their farmer wishes to go, are confronted with this acclimatisation compensation, which is beyond all measure. I cannot sec why it is an extraordinary thing to ask that in arriving at the value of the sheep you should take all the points in connection with that valuation. The ordinary way in which you would arrive at the value of anything would be to take first its market value and then perhaps any other consideration which would add to that. But here under this form of valuation the arbiters take any market value apparently which they like to place upon the sheep, and then they add the other considerations—acclimatisation and so on—and are not bound to declare the market value of the sheep, or how they have arrived at the whole valuation. I can see no reason why it is impossible to arrive at that first market valuation.
Supposing a farmer at the end of the season is selling some of his sheep not as acclimatised sheep, but as sheep which he is placing on the market in the ordinary way, he takes them there and gets the ordinary market value. The arbiters are similarly in the position of ascertaining, in the first instance, what the market value is. This question is a very serious one for the landlords of Scotland. This Bill, I submit, will help the tenants, but will not help the landlords at all. The fairest method of settling this whole question would be to arrange, instead of utilising the services of these arbiters, that the Land Court be established as the arbiter in all cases. That is not a point, it is true, which is before your Lordships at the moment, but I submit to the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill that that would be the fairest way of getting out of this situation. At any rate, on this particular Amendment, I wish to support the noble Lords who have spoken, and I sincerely hope the Government will see their way, if not to

103
adopt these words, at least some other words which will meet the object we have in view.
LORD THANKERTON: First of all, let me say that I regret very much I cannot accept this Amendment, and I shall give your Lordships reasons why. I am willing to take it that the Amendment might be improved in drafting. In the first place, this Bill has come from the other place practically as an agreed Bill as it stands, and, to say the least, it is very unlikely that any such contentious Amendment as this undoubtedly would be regarded there would improve the prospects of getting the Bill through. That may not be in itself a sufficient answer. On the merits of the question, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, has referred to the Bill as originally introduced in the House of Commons, but he omitted to observe that the clause then was restricted to future leases while the clause now deals with leases, whether past or not. What he proposes is that a definite basis of valuation should be prescribed by Statute. That would be the result of the Amendment, although it is insufficiently worded, and merely mentions some of the elements to be considered in making such a basis.
One thing the Committee were agreed upon was that it would not be possible to prescribe, certainly in the case of existing leases, a statutory basis of valuation. To begin with, the clauses in the leases—some of which provide a basis themselves—vary in every district in Scotland. They vary in individual leases on the same estate and in the same district. I have seen a great many of these leases, for this question has not been free from the Law Courts during the time in which I have practised. The first thing is to look at the purpose of the clause. The purpose of the clause is not to prescribe a basis of valuation, but to provide that when an arbiter makes his valuation under existing or future leases he shall disclose the method by which he has arrived at that valuation. The great complaint—and this is referred to by the Committee in their Report—is that so many arbiters deal in huge figures without giving any explanation of how the figures are got at and on what basis they are got at. If any inflation occurs the reason is not disclosed, and that is a thing, as the Committee point out, which
104
has given more dissatisfaction than anything else.
This Bill may not achieve much, but it will at least result in the method being disclosed by which the arbiters arrive at their valuations. That by itself is a public corrective, and may prevent some of these arbiters who have been mentioned being employed as arbiters under future leases. The great thing is to know, this inflated value having been arrived at, how it has been ascertained. The purpose of this clause is merely to get publicity, to get information, as to how these valuations are got at and not to prescribe a statutory form. May I read what the Committee say on this point? It was suggested to the Committee that a statutory basis of valuation was the remedy which should be applied. Their view on that point is given on page 16 of their Report, and they say this:
"With regard to (4) of the suggestions"—
that is a suggestion that the award should be in accordance with a specified basis—
"… whilst we recognise that a definite basis of valuation should be adopted by each arbiter, we do not feel that it is possible for us, nor is it our function, to lay down a definite formula to be followed in every case. The circumstances may be very different in different areas, and in any event the basis to be adopted may be affected by the terms of the contract between the parties as exemplified in the submission."
It was in view of that that this clause was made to apply to existing leases as well as to future ones. As regards future ones, it is possible to have clauses in the lease if they can be agreed upon; individual landowners can put these clauses in future leases if they think they have a good basis. It is not, however, the purpose or scope or intent to prescribe in any sense a statutory basis of valuation, but merely to get disclosure. For these reasons I regret very much that I am unable to accept this Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I am a little at a loss to understand my noble and learned friend, because in the first place he says it is not the intention to lay down the basis of valuation, and yet he wishes to retain the portion of this clause to which I object on the ground that it does disclose the basis of valuation. It is quite possible there may be more ways than one of valuing such a flock. I do not think so. When I was a young man I was apprenticed to a surveyor in London

105
as a valuer, and for a long time I paid my subscription as a professional associate of the Surveyors' Institution. I should never dream of laying down the law to your Lordships on such slender qualifications, but when I was preparing and considering this Amendment I did take the trouble of going to see some of the most eminent valuers in the country, and I am assured that the way in which I stated to your Lordships such a flock must be valued is the only practical way. That being the case, all this business, as I have said already, about putting in each class of stock and amounts for acclimatisation, is merely putting in fancy figures after you have arrived at the real figure on which you are going to decide. It is not a step in arriving at your valuation; it is merely a little embellishment afterwards.
I cannot help thinking that, however well agreed this Bill may be in another place, it is a mistake to pass legislation which in itself is absurd. As I have said, I do not quite like my own Amendment. I have not had time to consider it, but I am very sorry that my noble and learned friend cannot see his way to have a general discussion amongst all the friends of the Bill as to what would be the best manner of saving the Bill from what I feel to be an absurdity. As the matter stands, with your Lordships' leave I shall withdraw my Amendment and, if your Lordships will give me leave, I shall produce a better Amendment, and one more satisfactory, at a later stage if I can find one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Submission of questions of Jaw for decision of Sheriff.
2.—(1) In any arbitration in pursuance of a lease entered into after the passing of this Act as to the price or value of sheep stock to be taken over at the termination of the tenancy by the landlord or incoming tenant, the arbiter may, at any stage of the proceedings and shall, if so directed by the Sheriff (which direction may be given on the application of either party) submit, in the form of a stated case for the decision of the Sheriff, any question of law arising in the course of the arbitration.
(2) The decision of the Sheriff on any question submitted in pursuance of the foregoing subsection shall be final unless within such time, and in accordance with such conditions, as may be prescribed by Act of Sederunt, either party appeals to the Court of Session, from whose decision no appeal shall lie.
(3) Where any question is submitted in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section for the decision of the Sheriff, and the arbiter is satisfied that, whatever the decision on the question may be, the sum ultimately to be found due will be not less than a particular amount, it shall be lawful for the arbiter, pending the decision of such question, to make an order directing payment to the outgoing tenant of such sum, not exceeding that amount, as the arbiter may think fit, to account of the sum that may ultimately be awarded.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER THE EARL OF ANCASTER moved, in subsection (3), after "to" ["to make an order"] to insert "make a report in writing to the Sheriff accordingly, and thereupon the Sheriff may if he thinks just." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to deal with the case that arises when there are submissions on points of law to the Sheriff. At the present moment the person who has to say how much is to be paid into Court is the arbiter. When there is a question of law arising on this matter it seems to me that it is rather ridiculous that the arbiter, or the oversman as he is generally called, should be the person to say how much is to be paid to the outgoing tenant pending the decision on the point of law. The object of my Amendment is that the Sheriff should be the person who should say how much is to be paid to the outgoing tenant in cases where a point of law arises. In another place it was mentioned that as much as 95 per cent, of the valuation was to be paid pending the Sheriff's decision.
I have cases—and they are well known in Scotland—in which sheep stocks have been valued at three times their actual market value, and it seems to me that it is not right to leave it to the arbiter, who has made this extraordinarily high valuation, to say, when a question of law arises, that an amount up to 95 per cent, of the valuation should be paid. Take a simple case. Perhaps the arbiter's valuation has been as much as £9,000 for stock that is worth £3,000. When the point of law arises the arbiter says that the sum of £8,000 is to be paid into Court. If that is done I think it would, to a certain extent, prejudge the issue when it came to getting a legal decision. I think it ought to be placed in other hands to say how much ought to be paid into Court and that that should not rest with the arbiter when a legal question involving the amount of the valuation has to be decided.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 17, after the first ("to") insert ("make a report in writing to the Sheriff accordingly and thereupon the Sheriff may if he thinks just").—(The Earl of Ancaster.)
LORD SALTOUN: I should like to support the noble Earl in this Amendment. I hope he will press it and not withdraw it. This Amendment gives me much pleasure because I hope we shall hear an explanation from His Majesty's Government as to the reasons underlying this clause. The power that is referred to is not, I believe, one that is commonly given to an arbiter. I am aware that the Committee on this subject said about the arbiters that in spite of appearances they really were trying to make their valuations fairly. I entirely accept that, but that does not mean that either your Lordships or anybody else could stand for all valuations. You have, for example, a case like this. An arbiter has given a valuation of at least £4,000, and, according to the suggestion in another place, he orders payment to the amount of 95 per cent. Let us suppose that the arbiter orders a payment of 95 per cent.—that is £3,800. The proprietor, being perhaps rather foolish, or having some ready money, actually pays on the arbiter's order the £3,800, not into Court but to the outgoing tenant. Now outgoing tenants often have debts, and when that is the case that £3,800 will be immediately seized upon by the creditors of the outgoing tenant.
Farmers all have transactions together, and it may be that the arbiter is one of the creditors of the tenant. In that case the arbiter gets his debt paid out of the £3,800. Then, perhaps, a friend comes to him and says: "Look here, my friend, you are a little out of order; you are a creditor and you will be disqualified as an arbiter." What can the arbiter do in such a case? He is in a delicate position. He looks at Clause 1 and sees that the valuation is not a valuation until he has put it in with allowances for acclimatisation and so forth. He merely sits down and does not put it in, and the arbitration never becomes effective. What happens to the £3,800? How does the proprietor get it back? My noble and learned friend will probably put me right on one point if I am wrong. I believe in Scotland the law is that if money is paid in error and wrongfully it
108
cannot be recovered at Common Law. Could this money be recovered if it was possible to get it from the farmer, or could it be recovered from the creditors if they had got it from the farmer? I think it is a most extraordinary situation.
Another point is this. The suggestion has been made that there may be delay in getting a decision from the Sheriff on a point of law. I believe that if a Sheriff has a point debated before him it is almost invariably the practice that his decision is given upon it within a month or six weeks. If not, the Department inquires into the reasons for delay. In cases like these, where there is no appeal, the decisions are given very much more quickly. I do not think the Sheriffs of Scotland really deserve the slight that has been put upon them in this clause—the suggestion that there is undue delay in arriving at their decisions.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord will accept this Amendment. I, too, would be very glad to have some explanation as to why this very remarkable clause should ever have appeared in the Bill, and why it should be found necessary, or considered advantageous, to make this interim payment which, as far as I can see, could be 100 per cent.—it may not be confined to 95 per cent.—to the outgoing tenant. Would my noble and learned friend not be prepared, if he cannot see his way to accept this Amendment, to insert some Amendment himself at a later stage saying, for instance, that the amount shall not exceed 50 per cent, of the amount of the valuation? As the clause stands it is not only inexplicable, but it is also unjust, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, pointed out, highly dangerous.
LORD THANKERTON: This point was raised, I think, on Second Reading, and I hoped that it had been made clear that the suggestions made by noble Lords just now arose from a complete misunderstanding of the clause. Let me take an illustration to make it clear. The arbiter finds an award of £5,000. A point of law is raised, and a case stated which affects the whole £5,000. The arbiter in those circumstances cannot order a penny to account under this clause, not a penny. Take the next case. The arbiter has made an award of £5,000. A point of

109
law is raised and a case asked to be stated which affects only £2,000 out of the £5,000. The arbiter is entitled to order payment of such part of the whole of the remaining £3,000 as, in his discretion, he thinks should be paid. Now, observe that the award as regards the £3,000, there being no point of law about it, is final and binding. Why, therefore, should not the arbiter give a payment on account of that. It is due in law. That is the plain meaning of the clause. If noble Lords will look at the clause again and accept that explanation from me the whole thing is quite simple. The Sheriff has nothing to do with that part of the award which is not appealed against.
I will read subsection (3) of the clause if I may to make that clear:
"Where any question is submitted in pursuance of subsection (1) of this section"—
that is a question of law as an appeal to the Sheriff—
"for the decision of the Sheriff, and the arbiter is satisfied that, whatever the decision on the question may be"—
those are the important words—
"the sum ultimately to be found due will be not less than a particular amount"—
that, I suggest, clearly means cannot be affected by the appeal—
"it shall be lawful for the arbiter, pending the decision of such question, to make an order directing payment to the outgoing tenant of such sum, not exceeding that amount, as the arbiter may think fit, to account of the sum that may ultimately be awarded."
That surely means, if the appeal can only affect £2,000 out of the £5,000, that the arbiter may in the meantime give a payment to the tenant to the amount of the £3,000, as to which no question is raised and which is final and binding on the parties. That is what the clause says, I suggest, quite clearly, and there can be no hardship or unfairness. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD SALTOUN: May I ask the noble and learned Lord a question? As I read the clause, the arbiter is the sole judge of the question. The Sheriff may say this concerns a great deal more than £2,000 but the arbiter, as I read the clause, is the sole judge. How can all the conditions of Clause 1 be implemented before the order is made complete and final? If Clause 1 is not fully implemented does the order fall?
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord for the explanation he has given us, and I am pleased to know that he finds the clause very simple and clear to understand. I confess that I, with a non-legal mind, had to address myself very carefully to the wording of the clause to discover what it meant. There is, however, one point which I think needs further elucidation, because it may involve a very large sum of money, and it is a matter which I think should be left to a more impartial person. It is a very common thing in Scotland to find in a lease that sheep stock is to be taken over at market value. To most noble Lords, no doubt, that would appear a very simple matter. Market value would seem to mean the price the sheep would fetch if put into the neighbouring market the next day, but I am informed that a very different interpretation is sometimes put upon the term market value. Even when these words appear in a lease arbiters and oversmen have placed a considerably higher value on the stock than it would fetch in the open market. If the arbiters and oversmen fix the price at £2,000 more than the sheep would fetch in the open market, would it be right to raise a point of law as to the interpretation of the term market value?
I do not think that a case has been tried on that issue, but from all I hear the interpretation of the term market value is very different when it is settled by the arbiter and when it is settled by the unfortunate incoming tenant who has to pay for the stock. It seems to me that there might be a very large sum of money in difference which might result in the raising of some legal point. I still think it is rather hard that it should not be left to the Sheriff to decide finally how much is to be paid and that the arbiter should have really the last word in saying how much is to be paid even before the legal question has been settled.
LORD THANKERTON: The answer to the last question is very simple. That clearly would be a case affected as to 100 per cent. by appeal, and the arbiter would not be able to give a single penny to the owners. Noble Lords will remember that the point of law must be stated, and it must be made quite clear in a stated case whether the appeal affects the whole or only part of the matter.

111
Where the point of law may affect the whole this clause does not come into operation. The answer seems quite simple. On the other hand, if there is clearly a part which cannot be affected, because there is no appeal against it and the arbiter's decision is final, I cannot see why there should not be an order for payment on account.
LORD SALTOUN: Would the noble and learned Lord answer my question about all the conditions of Clause 1 not having been implemented?
LORD THANKERTON: That point you would raise at once as being ultra vires and, there not being a proper award, that would come in before any question of legal appeal.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: After the noble and learned Lord's explanation, for which I thank him, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION EXPENSES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
MATERNITY SERVICES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
HYDROGEN CYANIDE (FUMIGATION) BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT OF BOYS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSI.OW in the Chair].
Clause 1:
Hours of employment in coal mines for boys.
1.—(1) No boy shall be employed in, or allowed to be for the purpose of employment in, any coal mine below ground between the hours of ten at night and six on the following morning. Nothing in this section shall apply to any boy who has been lawfully employed in any coal mine below ground before the passing of this Act.
LORD GAINFORD LORD GAINFORD moved, at the beginning of the clause, to insert "There shall be a period of at least seven consecutive hours between the hours of ten at night and six on the following morning during which." The noble Lord said: Lord Strabolgi, in moving the second Reading of this Bill, did not appear to me to accept so heartily the intention which I then expressed to amend the Bill. I hope, however, that after what I said about the safety of the boys on the Second Reading and what I now say, the noble Lord will not think it necessary to oppose the Amendments which I have on the Paper. The noble Lord suggested that it would be easy to arrange different winding times so as to enable the boys to remain above ground for the whole time between ten at night and six in the morning, and he quoted some information which he had received, I think, from Yorkshire. Having regard to that information which he gave your Lordships, I approached the South Yorkshire Mining Association and the West Yorkshire Mining Association to ascertain exactly what the facts were.
The Secretary of the South Yorkshire Coal Trading Association writes to me to say:
"In reply to the statement made by Lord Strabolgi during the debate in the House of Lords yesterday, it is not correct to say that there is no difficulty in regard to winding times in Yorkshire. I have consulted the chairman, and can definitely say that Mr. Tom Smith"—

113
who was quoted by Lord Strabolgi—
"has not been in touch with the chairman or with me as secretary of the South Yorkshire Association, and as far as I know no South Yorkshire coalowner has expressed any view to Mr. Tom Smith. … At 80 per cent, of the collieries the boys descend the pit on the morning shift between 5.15 and 6 a.m., and as work at these collieries has to be commenced promptly at 6 o'clock it is usual for the boys to descend the pit during the early part of the winding time and it is; not possible to arrange, for instance, for them to descend during the last five minutes."
He then goes on to say:
"With few exceptions the whole of the collieries in South Yorkshire work double shift, and at these collieries, if coal winding was to commence later than 6 o'clock so as to allow sufficient time for the men to be wound down after 6 o'clock, it would not be possible to finish the afternoon shift so as to wind the boys up the shaft before 10 o'clock at night."
The boys as well as the men have a great voice in the hours which they work. It is, of course, natural that they like the evening, so far as they can get it, for recreation, sometimes to attend cinemas, sometimes to attend education classes, and if they were compelled to remain on the surface until six o'clock many of their evenings would be destroyed and the whole arrangements in connection with colliery operation dislocated.
I have a letter also from the West Yorkshire Coalowners' Association. The secretary writes to me:
"It is not correct to say that there is no difficulty in regard to winding times in Yorkshire; … It is considered in this district inadvisable, apart from the serious dislocation caused, for lads to go down the pit at a different time from the rest of the shift, as they are not then under the necessary supervision of the men … the information given to Lord Strabolgi is officially contradicted as not being the true position in many cases in this district."
Of course, I know that Lord Strabolgi has no intention whatsoever—it is the last thing he would do—to mislead the House, but apparently the facts in Yorkshire, which are just the same as in Durham and other places, are that the boys go down with the men after five o'clock and it would dislocate the arrangements for working collieries if the boys could not go down with the men and were; detained on the surface until six o'clock.
Apart from that, however, as I stated on the Second Reading, safety is a very important matter. This whole question has been very carefully considered by the miners' as well as by the owners'
114
representatives, and the miners' representatives, including all the principal leaders in the mining industry who are members of the Joint Committee, have agreed that this Bill, in the form in which I suggest it should pass into law, has their entire approval. I therefore submit to your Lordships that my Amendments are reasonable. They are approved by the men's representatives as well as by those of the owners. For the safety of the boys it is essential that these Amendments which I have on the Paper should be passed into law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, at the beginning insert:
("There shall be a period of at least seven consecutive hours between the hours of ten at night and six on the following morning during which").—(Lord Gainford.)
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very sorry, speaking for myself and for those who are interested in the Bill, that we could not possibly accept this Amendment, and I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has heard the reasons, he will see fit to withdraw it. I am sure that the Government are not prepared to accept it after what was said in another place by the Minister of Mines on this very point. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, said about Mr. Tom Smith having apparently—un-intentionally, of course—misled me and I therefore having misled the House, I will find out the facts and refer to the matter, if I may, on a subsequent stage. But he never said that he had seen the chairman of the association. What my friend Mr. Tom Smith said was that he had spoken to a number of mine-owners who are actually working their mines in the district. So much for Yorkshire: we can leave that for the present. I have, however, a letter here from another honourable friend of mine, Mr. Tinker, the honourable member for Leigh in another place. He speaks for Lancashire, and perhaps on the next occasion the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, will have something to say about this information. Here I can only give it, and I know that these two honourable members, who are friends of mine, are incapable of misleading me and your Lordships. Whatever I may be capable of doing, they are certainty incapable of doing that. Mr. Tinker is a man who started work at the coal face at the age of ten and worked many years at the face, and noble Lords who

115
sat with him in another place will bear me out when I say that he has a very fine reputation for integrity and veracity and is one of the finest members we have in the other House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD STRABOLGI: This is what Mr. Tinker writes:
"I hope you will oppose Lord Gainford's Amendment. From conversations I have had with coalowners they can readily adapt themselves to the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. Lord Gainford mentioned interfering with coal winding; ask him how many pits wind coal up to 10 o'clock at night. Also I don't think many collieries start winding coal at 6 a.m., and if they do they could quite easily let down one winding of boys at 6 o'clock if there are any under 16 years of age."
That is Lancashire. With regard to South Wales, I am advised that the growing practice is that the general time of beginning is seven o'clock for men and boys, so it does not affect South Wales either way.
The noble Lord quotes all the miners' representatives on the Joint Consultative Committee. I do not think that is quite the case. I have in front of me the proceedings in another place when this matter was very fully discussed and a similar Amendment to this was negatived without a Division. This Bill was brought in by a member of the Party of the noble Lords opposite, not by a Labour member. This Bill was introduced in another place by a Conservative member sitting, incidentally, for one of the Conservative strongholds on the South Coast of England—one of the seaside towns which are so faithful to the Party opposite—so that this cannot be described as a Socialist measure. Captain Crookshank, Minister of Mines, then said that he had referred it to the Joint Consultative Committee, and that they had approved a similar Amendment to the same effect as that of Lord Gainford. He was then challenged, and Captain Crookshank said:
"I do not want to put the Committee in a false position. I asked them what they thought of the Bill, and what they thought of the two different hours which had already been considered, namely, 5 a.m. and 6 a.m., and this was a suggestion to make it workable."
Then there was a further interruption, and the Minister of Mines said:
"There is no mystery about it. Knowing the interest taken by the House in the Bill and
116
knowing the change between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, I asked for the views of the Consultative Committee on the Bill"—
that is the Consultative Committee, which is a non-Parliamentary body—
"and in reply I received information to the effect that from the practical point of view, as they saw it, it would be desirable, in order to achieve the object that the boys should not be employed on night shifts at all, to have some words of this kind within the Bill in order to give the elasticity to which I have referred."
Then Mr. Griffiths, who certainly speaks for the miners' representatives in another place, said this:
"I am very sceptical as to whether they—
the miners' representatives on the Consultative Committee—
"have agreed to these words. I can only think that the matter was probably discussed in a rush in a few minutes."
Your Lordships are aware that the mining industry has many troubles, and no doubt the Joint Consultative Committee had its hands full. Your Lordships know how, when there is a long agenda, things do sometimes go through without proper discussion, and not in the sort of way in which important matters are discussed in this House and in another place. Matters are rushed through when there is a packed agenda and it is necessary to get through the business. They have not our careful methods, and it seems to me quite obvious from this, and from the attitude of all those who speak for the miners, that the workmen's representatives on the Committee could hardly have agreed to this Amendment.
What does it all boil down to? If Lord Gainford's Amendment were accepted—and as I have said, I am afraid I cannot possibly accept it—.the boys would have to be ready at the pit-head, to go down into the mines, at five o'clock in the morning. The old pits are closing down, and new modern pits are being opened up and giving employment. These modern pits are sometimes twenty miles or so from the boys' homes, and therefore in order to be at the pit-head in time they would have to get up at three o'clock in the morning. I think that six o'clock is early enough for boys to commence work, and I think the effect of this Amendment would be to rob them of an hour's sleep—these growing lads It is all very well for the noble Lord to

117
say: "Early to bed and early to rise," but I think there is, some limit as to the hour at which a growing lad should be required to rise. For what? The noble Lord says "so that they can go to the cinemas in the evenings." He speaks also of the night classes. I ask your Lordships to consider the facts as I have endeavoured to put them. The matter was fully discussed in another place, and this particular project contained in Lord Gainford's Amendment was negatived without a Division. With great respect to Lord Gainford, against whom I have no complaint, he is "trying it on" with your Lordships. It has failed in the Commons, but he is making an attempt to persuade your Lordships, and with his great influence and knowledge of the mining industry he may succeed, but I ask your Lordships not to accept the Amendment.
LORD GAINFORD: I would like to answer one or two of the points which the noble Lord mentioned. He suggests that the other place did not consider this Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I said that the Amendment, or a similar Amendment, was considered in another place.
LORD GAINFORD: It was considered, but was not accepted. The reason, as I understand, why it was not accepted was that it was in a form which was not satisfactory, and perhaps Lord Munster will be able to explain to your Lordships why the point was not pressed in another place. I understand it was not pressed because it was not what we might call watertight, and it was left for the insertion of another Amendment in this House. The Bill was therefore allowed to pass through in a form which was not really acceptable to the industry, and not acceptable to the representatives of the miners themselves, as expressed in the Joint Committee. Why I say that the leaders of the Mine Workers' Federation agreed to it is because I have a letter from one of the individuals who was present at that meeting and he says that the Amendment was unanimously approved by the Joint Standing Consultative Committee of the coal industry, which includes in its membership the President, Vice-President, and Secretary of the Mine Workers' Federation of Great Britain.
118
To suggest that these men did not know what they were about when they agreed to the Amendment of the Bill in this form is to cast a slur upon their intelligence which I do not for a moment think was justified. Mr. Jones and Mr. Edwards, and other leaders of the Miners' Federation, are competent men, and quite able to grasp a point. When they realised that coal has to be wound by five o'clock in most collieries of the country, and that it is essential in the interests of the boys that they should go down with the workmen, I can understand why it was that they agreed to the Bill in the form which I propose. I have here sixty firms from Yorkshire, all of whom begin allowing their men to go down at a quarter past five in the morning. They vary from five in the morning to a quarter to six, and the boys go down with the men. I say that in that way the boys travel down much more safely than if they went down after the winding had begun, and get more leisure at night. In the interests of the boys themselves, both in regard to relaxation and hours of work, I think there is the strongest case for the acceptance of this Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will accept it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I think all need do is to state briefly the reasons why the Government think it would be advisable the House should accept the Amendment. In the first place it does not in any way affect the principle of the Bill, which is, quite shortly, to remove a wholly unwarrantable anomaly in the existing law, and to prohibit the employment of boys under sixteen underground at coal mines on the night shift. Secondly, while this prohibition is desirable and acceptable from every point of view, it is not intended that it should operate in such a manner as to cause unnecessary dislocation in working arrangements—which the Bill as it stands would do in certain parts of the country by reason of the variation in the times of commencing and ending the night shifts. It is to meet this minor, but very practical, difficulty that the Amendment is designed.
Thirdly—and this the Government regard as a most important argument in favour of the Amendment—it gives effect to the considered and unanimous recommendation of employers and employed in the industry itself, as voiced by the Joint Consultative Committee of the Mining

119
Association and the Mineworkers' Federation, who were invited by the Government to furnish their views on this specific issue. This joint Committee, which was set up only comparatively recently, provides a most invaluable medium for conveying the considered opinion of the industry as a whole. They are the people with intimate knowledge of the day-to-day practical working of that industry, from the standpoint both of employers and of employed; and they are the people who will be personally affected by this legislation. For these reasons, I think the noble Lord would be well advised to accept the Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, asked me a question as to why this Amendment was not pressed in another place. I can only tell him that I understand the promoter of the Bill moved the Amendment, but I am afraid I have no knowledge of his reasons for not pressing it. I hope the noble Lord opposite will see his way to accept the Amendment, which I think does certainly improve the measure.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very sorry not to be able to yield even to the appeal of the noble Earl. He is very persuasive, but on this occasion I am afraid I shall have to stand firm. In fact, as he was speaking I almost called across to him "Et tu, Brute." I did not expect the
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD GAINFORD: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("ground") to ("nothing") in line 9.—(Lord Gainford.)
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Mines Department to turn round on this particular point. This is whittling away the Bill. I of course accept what the noble Earl said but I am going to make it my business to communicate with Mr. Edwards and find out exactly what happened, without of course questioning what the noble Earl said about his having been consulted. But I have this afternoon had a word with my honourable friends who are in favour of this Bill as it stands, and they are very insistent on the point that this Amendment is unnecessary and would do away with much of the good that the Bill intends to do. The arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, are arguments that have been advanced for generations against every sort of change in the direction of improving the lot of the workers. Whether it is the factories, the mines, the fields, or anywhere else, we are always told, "You cannot do it, it would dislocate the industry"; and yet we move forward. I hope your Lordships will not accept the onus of condemning young lads to do this arduous work, starting at such an unearthly and unhealthy hour of the morning.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 2.

CONTENTS.

Hailsham, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bridport, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Halifax, V. (L. Privy Seal.)

Elibank, V.

Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

Mersey, V.

Mancroft, L.

Ancaster, E.

Marks, L.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Bayford, L.

Mowbray, L.

Cautley, L.

Phillimore, L.

Feversham, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Saltoun, L.

Lindsay, E. [Teller.]

Sinclair, L.

Lucan, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Munster, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Templemore, L.

Onslow, E.

Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

Wardington, L.

Gainford, L. [Teller.]

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

AGRICULTURE (DAMAGE BY RABBITS).
LORD BAYFORD LORD BAYFORD rose to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Agriculture (Damage by Rabbits); to ask His Majesty's Government whether, and if so when, it is their intention to introduce such legislation as is necessary to give effect to the Committee's recommendations; and to move for Papers. The

121
noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be within your recollection that the Committee to which this Motion refers were set up towards the end of last summer as the result of a Motion in this House. The Committee have since sat, and every one who has read the Report will agree that they conducted their proceedings in a most business-like and expeditious manner and that they have brought before us what is a very moderate but at the same time a very valuable Report. If your Lordships will allow me, I shall very briefly summarise, not all the contents of the Report, but the recommendations that they make. In the first place they suggest that legislation should be introduced to empower county councils, when they are satisfied that real necessity exists, to order a destruction of the rabbits or such precautions as will prevent their causing damage, in cases where the owner or occupier of land has unnecessarily allowed them to multiply. Failing compliance with such an order, the recommendation is that the county council should be empowered to institute legal proceedings against the offender.
It is further recommended that the county councils should be enabled to provide trained men with the necessary tackle for the destruction of rabbits. These men could be employed on application for hire or otherwise at the discretion of the county council. The next recommendation is that neighbouring owners or occupiers should be empowered to claim compensation from an offender who keeps so many rabbits that they are doing great damage to the neighbourhood. Then the Committee deal with the question of fencing and warrens, and the recommendation in this case is that a person who keeps a warren for the express purpose of rabbit farming for sale should be liable for fencing. The next recommendation refers to the question of gassing. That is a method of killing rabbits which is still more or less in its experimental stage, and all the Committee do is to express the view that its employment should be legalised beyond doubt. I believe that, as far as it has been worked at present, gassing has been found an effective method of killing rabbits, and every one will agree with the Committee that, if effective, it certainly ought to be legalised. The other subject with which the Committee deals is the very knotty
122
one of gin traps. I know that is a controversial question, but the recommendations of the Committee are, I think, moderate. At the present moment owners, but not occupiers, are allowed to set traps in the open. The Committee are of the opinion that that discrimination should be removed, and further recommend that the Ministry of Agriculture should at once make technical inquiries in order to find a less cruel type of trap. These are the recommendations of the Committee.
Your Lordships may remember that when the Committee were set up my noble friend the Leader of the House blessed the appointment and, for a Minister, was rather unusually encouraging about the prospects of dealing with the matter before very long. I would ask him if the Government will not act in this matter speedily. I am authorised to say that the County Councils' Association will support any legislation on these lines to the very best of their power, and, from all I have heard, I do not think such legislation would meet with any great opposition from any quarter. I do not want to exaggerate. I do not want to say that this is one of those questions on which the future of agriculture depends, or anything of that sort, but I do want to say that it is just one of those matters on which the Government, without a great expenditure of time, could really give quite a substantial help. I beg to move for Papers.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): My Lords, I am very glad my noble friend Lord Bayford has taken this opportunity of calling attention to the valuable Report that was prepared by the Select Committee presided over by the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey. I am particularly glad because it affords me the opportunity to make known how matters stand at the moment with regard to giving effect to the recommendations of that Committee. As your Lordships are well aware, and as Lord Bayford has already mentioned, rabbits are a difficult and thorny subject, and the history of the efforts made to deal with this agricultural pest by legislative action is long and complicated. An examination of the OFFICIAL REPORT will show that during the course

123
of the last fifteen years no fewer than eight Bills have been introduced in this House or in another place at various times, four of which attempted to deal with rooks as well as rabbits, but Rabbit Bills as well as Rook and Rabbit Bills failed in every case to reach the Statute Book.
As Lord Bayford has already said, the rabbit problem is looked at from many different view-points. There is the general conviction that rabbits are an unmitigated nuisance, and that they are destructive of crops and woodlands. On the other hand, there is also a body of opinion that looks upon them as a useful source of food. There is a further body that relies upon the rabbit for the supply of pelts; and there is, of course, the array of humanitarian opinion, with which I am sure everyone in your Lordships' House will sympathise, insisting that if rabbits are to be destroyed the methods used should be as painless as can be devised. This immediately raises the knotty point that Lord Bayford referred to of the gin traps. The Select Committee have given their attention to all the different aspects of the problem, and Lord Bayford has briefly recited to your Lordships the recommendations they have made which would entail legislation. Therefore it is unnecessary for me to refer to those recommendations in greater detail.
As regards the proposals which would require legislation, I am afraid that I am, at the moment, not in a position to make any definite statement in reply to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, beyond saying—a fact which I am sure your Lordships will fully appreciate—that the present Session is already too far advanced and the business on hand is so congested that there is no possibility of providing this Session legislation for dealing with the rabbit problem. At the same time, I would like to say that, although the legislative proposals of the Select Committee will require some working out in detail, in general they are not such that the Government could take any exception to them, and the possibility of legislation to give effect to them next Session will be very carefully considered by the Department that I represent. I have referred to the difficulties that have frustrated the attempts at legislation in the past to deal with this problem, but I
124
hope that, as a result of the deliberations of the Select Committee, any Bill on the lines recommended by that Committee will have a more successful career than that of the previous Bills on the subject. The noble Lord, Lord Bayford, has referred to the proposals for the making of technical inquiries to find a less cruel type of trap than the gin trap. I would like to take this opportunity of assuring the noble Lord that this question is under the consideration of the Ministry of Agriculture.
I am sure your Lordships' House is greatly indebted to Lord Bayford for having brought this matter forward, and I am very pleased to know that, when opportunity can be found for introducing a Bill, we shall have the full support of the County Councils' Association; for, from the proposals that have been made by the Select Committee, it would appear that the basis upon which legislation would be framed would inevitably throw a large responsibility upon the county councils in the administration of the rabbit problem. I hope that, although this may not be regarded as an entirely satisfactory answer, the noble Lord, Lord Bayford, will rest assured that the Report of the Select Committee is receiving the serious consideration of the Ministry of Agriculture.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I rise for only two minutes to emphasise that on this occasion, at any rate, there is a general consensus of opinion upon this matter among all the bodies that are concerned with the land. We have already heard from Lord Bayford that the County Councils' Association are willing to shoulder the responsibility of working some such Act as the Select Committee suggest. A reference to the evidence given before that Select Committee shows that, in effect, the Central Landowners' Association adopted very nearly the same course as the County Councils' Association, and that there is not any very great difference from the views of those bodies in the recommendations of the National Farmers' Union. Therefore, you have the three bodies perhaps principally concerned substantially agreed on the course that should be taken, and that course already favourably reported upon by the Select Committee. In those circumstances I am rather disappointed that the noble Earl who spoke for the Government could

125
not have gone somewhat farther, and, treating this as in all probability a subject on which there will be general agree-merit, have suggested a much more definite possibility of legislation next Session. From what I could gather from his reply there was not even a definite suggestion, let alone a pledge, that legislation was contemplated by the Government. Yet I should have thought, in view of the general consensus of opinion al the bodies concerned, that he could have gone somewhat further and promised us that legislation would be brought forward at some time during the life of the present Government. I do not know whether it is too late to ask him if he can in any way amplify his reply. If he could do so, it would give us more confidence.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I do not think I can substantially say anything further than I have already intimated to your Lordships' House, but I should like to make, clear to the noble Lord, Lord Philimore, first, that the Report of the Select Committee has only been out a few weeks, and that we are seriously considering the technical question of supplying an alternative trap to the gin trap, which is one of the imperative recommendations of the Select Committee. With regard to bringing forward further legislation in the near future, I can only repeat that the proposals of the Committee are having the serious consideration of the Ministry of Agriculture,
126
and if we were assured that a measure would be as agreed as the noble Lord leads us to believe, it would not take much persuasion for a Bill to be introduced as soon as the programme allowed. But I would say once again that eight Bills have come forward in the last fifteen years, and the history of those Bills has been such that we are not led to believe, in spite of the good Report of the Select Committee, that a measure would be so much agreed as the noble Lord has stated.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, before the House adjourns may I say that it is proposed that we should rise for the Whitsuntide Recess on Thursday next, May 6. Before the adjournment the concluding stages of the Government Bills now before the House will be taken. There will be a Royal Commission on Thursday at 4.30 for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills. The House will reassemble on May 25. The principal business that day will be the Second Reading of the Ministers of the Crown Bill if that Bill is received before your Lordships adjourn on Thursday.
House adjourned at six o' clock.