Lords Sitting of 19 July 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (TUN NEL AND IMPROVEMENTS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEWCASTLE AND GATESHEAD WATERWORKS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
LOCHABER WATER POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HORSFORTH) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LLANDRINDOD WELLS) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (RAWMARSH) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
WEST HARTLEPOOL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BUCKS WATER BOARD) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CIRENCESTER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WATH UPON DEARNE) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHURCH STRET TON) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BACON INDUSTRY BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Relations between Marketing Boards and Development Board]:
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): The first Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("Any") and insert ("The").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: There is a second drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, leave out ("carry out") and insert ("comply with").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Amendment and revocation of factory rationalisation scheme.
.—(1) A factory rationalisation scheme may be amended by an amendment thereof prepared, submitted and approved in the like manner, and the provisions of the last foregoing section (other than the provisoes to subsection (1) thereof) shall apply in relation to an amendment of a scheme as they apply in relation to a scheme:
Provided that, except in a case where the Minister is required to direct a public inquiry to be held with respect to an amendment, the Minister may make an order approving the amendment at any time after he has laid the draft thereof before each House of Parliament, notwithstanding that no Resolutions have been passed by the Houses of Parliament approving the amendment, and the amendment shall in that event come into force on such date as may be specified in the order.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), after "Parliament," where that word occurs for the first time, and insert "unless either House within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such order is laid before it resolves that the order shall be annulled, in which case the order shall thenceforth be void." The noble Viscount said: In Clause 6, which deals with rationalisation schemes, there is a provision in subsection (6) that an affirmative Resolution should be passed by both Houses of Parliament before a scheme can become operative. The clause which we are now considering deals with amendments to rationalisation schemes—and they may be amended out of all recognition—but no such affirmative Resolution is required.
If your Lordships look at the proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 7, you will see that it reads:
"Provided that, except in a case where the Minister is required to direct a public inquiry to be held with respect to an amendment, the
908
Minister may make an order approving the amendment at any time after he has laid the draft thereof before each House of Parliament, notwithstanding that no Resolutions have been passed by the Houses of Parliament approving the amendment, and the amendment shall in that event come into force on such date as may be specified in the order."
I feel sure that the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, will tell us that there is a similar proviso in the Marketing Act, 1931, but I should like to draw the especial attention of your Lordships to the fact that the Donoughmore Report had not been issued at that date. I do not think it is asking too much that the Government should honour the findings of the Donoughmore Report. I am not asking for an affirmative Resolution, as in the case of reorganisation schemes, but I am asking for power to Parliament to annul them within twenty-eight days after they have been laid.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 22, leave out from beginning of line to end of line 25 and insert the said new words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Perhaps it would be an advantage if I were to state shortly the effect of the proviso which my noble friend seeks to amend. It is that, where an amendment of a factory rationalisation scheme is sought to be made and after the publication of the amendment no person objects to the amendment or if anyone does object he subsequently withdraws his objection, the amendment can be made by order and the amendment will not be the subject of a Resolution by either House of Parliament at all. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, has correctly stated, this is not introducing a new principle. This principle was included in the first Schedule to the Marketing Act, 1931, which, as the noble Viscount says, was passed before the Report of the Donoughmore Commission. I would also remind him that it was equally included, in an amended form, in the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933. In cases where the general public or the persons engaged in the industry may be adversely affected by an Amendment, it is obviously right that Parliament should be given an opportunity of expressing its views as to the merits or demerits of the proposal, by means of either an affirmative or a negative Resolution. But the case with which this proviso is concerned is the case where no one is putting forward any objection to the proposal at all.

909
In such a case the method is one affecting the parties to the scheme only. I would submit, therefore, that it does not seem necessary that Parliamentary time should be taken up by a Resolution from either House of Parliament when there is no substantial objection. If there is an objection to the amendment of the scheme and that objection has not been met during the course of the machinery, then naturally it would come up in the form of a Resolution before both Houses. I hope that with this explanation my noble friend will be satisfied.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I should like to know where that is in the Bill: that if there is an objection, then Resolutions will have to be passed. My noble friend referred to the 1933 Act as a precedent. Even though that is so, I do not see why, because there is a bad precedent, we should fallow it. Perhaps it would save time if I now asked leave to withdraw the Amendment, and between now and Report stage I could consult my noble friend, who will probably be able to satisfy me.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Prohibition of certain transactions by unregistered producers and curers]:
THE EARL OF RADNOR: On the Question that Clause 16 stand part of the Bill, I should like to ask a question of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. Clause 16 deals with certain penalties and the means of enforcing them. If your Lordships will look at the end of the clause, in subsection (4), you will see that:
"… nothing in this subsection shall be construed as authorising either of the said Boards to institute proceedings in Scotland for any offence against the said provisions."
This is dealing with means of enforcing certain matters of vital importance to both the Pigs Board and the Bacon Board. To the ordinary lay Englishman like myself, that looks as though the Scotsmen, so far as pigs and bacon are concerned, are going to be allowed to pursue a completely lawless career and wreck the scheme. I understand that this is in fact not quite so, but that the procedure in Scotland is that the only person who can
910
take proceedings is the Procurator-Fiscal. But equally, as I understand it, he can only take proceedings upon information from either (in this case) the Pigs Board or the Bacon Board. It seems to me that the word "institute" may have a rather wider meaning than seems apparent on the face of it. If the Pigs Board or the Bacon Board lay information with the Procurator-Fiscal and ask him to take proceedings, are they "instituting" the proceedings? That is a legal point. I did not put any Amendment down on it, but I hope that we shall have an explanation from the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am very much obliged to my noble friend for giving me notice that he was going to raise this matter on the Committee stage. Consequently I have had the advantage of consulting the Lord Advocate's Department on the point the noble Earl has raised. The position is that in Scotland the question of prosecution would be for the Lord Advocate or the Procurator-Fiscal, and I am advised by that Department that if a marketing board were to supply information to the Lord Advocate or the Procurator-Fiscal it would be for either of those Departments, as the case may be, to decide whether or not to institute proceedings. It could not be regarded as an institution of proceedings in Scotland by the Marketing Board. I understand that the phraseology contained in subsection (4) of Clause 16 has been very carefully looked into by the Legal Department in Scotland and that the words "to institute proceedings" will not prevent the Marketing Board from laying information with the proper legal authorities in Scotland.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I am very grateful to my noble friend. I am glad to hear that Scotsmen will not be able to get away with it, as appears on the face of the clause.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Pigs for bacon to be supplied to curers under long contracts]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The Amendment to this clause is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 22, after the first ("any") insert ("registered").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [General exemptions]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: This Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 15, leave out ("bought") and insert ("sold").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Long contracts to be made in a prescribed form and through the Pigs Marketing Board.
20.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Part of this Act the Pigs Marketing Board may, before the beginning of any of the following periods (hereinafter referred to as "contract periods"), that is to say—

(a) the twelve months beginning with such day as the Minister may appoint for the purposes of this provision,

(b) any subsequent period of twelve months beginning on the expiration of a previous contract period,

determine forms of contract to be used for sales to registered curers of pigs to be delivered in that period, which shall, among other things, fix, or provide for the fixing of, the prices to be paid for the pigs delivered thereunder.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, at the end of paragraph (b) in subsection (1), to insert "or, after the first three contract periods, such other day as may be agreed with the Development Board and the Minister." The noble Earl said: In the Bill as it stands now, the date of the commencement of the contract period is left to a great extent to chance, that is to say, it is left to the time when the Bill shall become an Act, and then, presumably, as soon as possible the contract will be negotiated and will commence. Therefore to that extent the date of the commencement of the contract period is a matter of chance. Under Clause 20 that chance selection of date is made rigid for so long as the contract for pigs or bacon continues—that is to say, as one hopes, for a very long period. It seems rather unnecessary that the date should be as rigid as that. Experience in the past has proved that the date then selected, which was January was not a very suitable one. It had objections. So far as I can see, the date that is likely to be arrived
912
at when this Bill becomes law will be round about December 1. I do not very well see how it can be before that, and I shall assume that it will be December 1.
The contract has to be agreed, if the Pigs Board are going to arrange it, not less than ten weeks before it commences. That brings you back into the middle of September. December 1 may be in some ways a suitable date, but the middle of September is not a very suitable date, in some ways, at which to persuade farmers to sign contracts. I can think of three arguments against it. The first is that a great number of farmers, particularly in the North of England, will still be busy in the middle of September with their harvest and will not be inclined to sit down at a desk and work out what their future pig production will be and send it in. Equally there are many changes at Michaelmas, which comes after the middle of September, and those farmers who are going to change at Michaelmas will not know what to do in their new farms. The third one is that it will impose what to my mind seems an almost intolerable burden upon the Pigs Board, the Marketing Board and the Development Board, in negotiating a contract all through the month of August, which they will not like. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will agree to this variation; that is to say, that after the first three contract periods a variation of the date may be arrived at by agreement. I have left the first three contract periods as they stand because on them depend some of the financial clauses of the Bill, and any variation in the date would upset the date on which the subsidy has to be paid. I think possibly the wording of the Amendment is open to objection, but if the noble Lord will accept the principle and draft it in proper words I will consider withdrawing it.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 29, at end, insert the said words.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: As my noble friend has informed the Committee, the Bill as at present drafted provides that long contracts shall run from year to year in an unbroken series. The reason why the Bill is drafted in this form is to meet two points. The first, which only holds good for three years, is that the industry should take advantage of the benefits that come to it from the financial

913
assistance for the whole of that period, without interruption at all. The second reason is to ensure, so far as possible, that difficulties which the marketing schemes have experienced in the past, and which are capable of being solved by a certain amount of determination and good will, shall not be allowed to create an interruption in the contract system. I recognise that the Amendment sees the value of this, and therefore seeks to provide that after the three years, during which assistance will be payable, the opening date of a new contract period can be postponed by agreement with the Development board and by agreement with the Minister. I recognise that therefore the form of the Amendment, does not allow the Marketing Boards themselves to postpone the beginning of the new contract period, but places the discretion in the hands of the Development Board, and of course, ultimately, of the Minister.
It was not thought very desirable that this discretion should exist. As the noble Earl will know better than myself, not once but on several occasions since schemes were started difficulties have arisen which have seemed likely, at the eleventh hour, to cause a postponement in the contract, and the very fact that there has been no date by which the contract has had to be settled may have served to induce within the Marketing Boards a feeling of disinclination to make concessions. The Bill proposes to remedy this by laying down the date at which each new contract should start, and thereby making it incumbent on the parties concerned, and finally on the Development Board, to overcome these difficulties. It is thought that a certain degree of inflexibility in this case is going to be advantageous for the future smooth running of the machinery. My noble friend Lord Radnor, in moving the Amendment, put forward the point that the period when the contract is fixed may not prove to be the most convenient or satisfactory period. If that should prove to be so, then the proper course would seem to be to alter the initial date for the commencement of the contract period by a small amending Bill, which would necessitate legislation. I think that with the great experience which Lord Radnor has had on Marketing Boards he will appreciate that if the contract system is going to be much more successful in the
914
future than it has been in the past, it is most necessary that there should be continuity in the system, and it is for that reason that it is proposed not to make it as flexible as the noble Earl would desire. I hope that this explanation will be sufficient, and that he will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I thank the noble Earl for his reply. I must say, from past experience, that I agree to a great extent with him in the merit of tying the Boards down to a very definite date by which the contract has got to be concluded, because the possibility of variations in the date might very well cause a certain amount of trouble and difficulty. On the other hand, I would point out to the noble Earl that my Amendment does not really infringe that policy of inflexibility to any great extent, but only allows the inflexible date, if I may so put it, to be altered, but even when so altered it would still remain, one hopes, an inflexible date, with the authority not only of the Development Board but also of the Minister behind it. However, in view of the suggestion of the noble Earl that the matter can be dealt with by a short amending Bill, and that there will be anyhow three years during which experience can be gained as to whether the final date is suitable or not, I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22:
Requirements as to manner of exercise of power to determine form of long contracts.
(2) The said variants are as follows, that is to say:—
(a) a variant, in this Act referred to as "the nominated buyer variant," to be used in the case of pigs sold to a curer whom the seller has nominated as the person to whom he wishes those pigs to be sold;
(3) In the case of each main form of contract all the said variants shall be identical except for the differences specified in the following provisions of this Section.
(4) The open offer variant shall be identical with the nominated buyer variant except that it must provide.…
(6) The transferred pig variant shall be identical with the open offer variant except that the allocation premium must be one

915
shilling of which sixpence must be made payable to the Pigs Marketing Board.
The said sum of sixpence shall be so payable for the benefit of the curer nominated by the seller as the person to whom he wished the pigs to be sold.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (2) (a), after "has," to insert "duly." The noble Earl said: This is the first of a series of Amendments to Clauses 22, 23, 24 and 26, the purpose of which is to provide for the payment, in certain circumstances, of a premium to pig producers where their pigs, sold by deadweight, are graded at a factory other than the factory at which the producer desires them to be graded. It will therefore be in accord with the wishes of your Lordships, perhaps, if I explain in general terms the necessity for these Amendments. Your Lordships will see from paragraph (d) in subsection (1) of Clause 23 that a pig producer, in informing the Pigs Marketing Board of the number of pigs he wishes to sell under long contracts, is invited to state whether he desires to nominate a particular curer as a person to whom he wishes the pigs to be sold. Your Lordships will also note from subsections (2) and (5) of the same clause that the Board, nevertheless, may make a contract with another curer, provided it has published a notice, at the time when the forms of contract are issued, setting out the circumstances in which the pigs may be transferred to another curer. It will be noted further that the pigs may only be transferred o the extent stated in the notice which, of course, the producer will have seen before making his offer.
If the Board, in accordance with its notice, makes a contract with a curer other than the curer nominated by the producer, the contract must be made in what is known as the transferred pig variant, under which a premium of 1s. on each pig is payable by the curer who gets the contract. Out of this shilling, 6d. will go to the pig producer and 6d. to the nominated curer, the latter sum being in consideration of the expense to which the curer is put in obtaining the nomination. Where the pigs are, in fact, sold to the nominated curer the contract must be made in the nominated curer variant under which no premium is payable. But this difficulty arises. The nominated curer may have more than one
916
factory, and the producer may nominate him in the expectation that the pigs will go to a particular factory, whereas the pigs may be sent to another factory, perhaps at a distance, belonging to the same curer. It has been thought reasonable, therefore, and I hope the Committee will agree, that where a producer specifies a particular factory and the pigs are sent to another factory in the same ownership, the producer should get his 6d. in the same way as if his pigs were sold to another curer. This group of Amendments, therefore, provides the necessary machinery for securing that the producer gets his 6d. which is referred to as a "change of premises premium." I fear that this new set of Amendments is extremely complicated to follow. It is machinery which has only been elaborated after very great consideration, and this particular Amendment is introductory to the next Amendment on the Order Paper, which provides that a nomination has not been duly made unless the producer has specified the factory at which he wishes his pigs to be graded.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 25, after ("has") insert ("duly").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert:
"Provided that, where any of the main forms of contract provides for a price calculated by reference to dead weight a seller shall not be deemed to have duly nominated a curer as the person to whom he wishes pigs to be sold unless he has specified the premises at which he wishes the carcases of those pigs to be graded."
The noble Earl said: The effect of this Amendment, as I have already explained, is to secure that a nomination is not a proper nomination unless the producer specifies the factory at which he desires the pigs to be graded.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 10, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In the next Amendment in the name of Lord Feversham the noble Earl tells me that he proposes to substitute in line 8 of the Amendment the word "seller" instead of "producer." Perhaps he will move it in that form. The closing words of

917
the first paragraph of the Amendment will then read: "by the seller as the premises at which he wishes the carcases to be graded."
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to insert after subsection (3):
"(4) The nominated buyer variant of any of the main forms of contract which provides for a price calculated by reference to dead weight shall also provide (without prejudice to any other provision thereof relating to the place at which the carcases of the pigs are to be graded) for an addition of sixpence to the price of each pig the carcase of which is graded at premises other than those specified as aforesaid by the seller as the premises at which he wishes the carcases to be graded.
The said addition of sixpence is hereafter in this Act referred to as 'a change of premises premium.'"
The noble Earl said: The alteration referred to by the Lord Chairman is necessary to bring the words into line with the previous language of this clause, which refers to "the seller" and not "the producer." The Amendment provides for the payment to the producer of a sum of 6d. per pig where his pigs, although sold to the curer of his choice, are nevertheless sent to another factory belonging to that curer.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment, in subsection (4), is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 15, after ("it") insert ("shall not contain any provision for a change of premises premium but").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "so payable for the benefit of" and insert "payable by the Pigs Marketing Board to." The noble Earl said: This is a very small Amendment, though rather difficult to explain, as so many things are in this Bill. I think it needs somebody with a legal mind to begin to understand many of the provisions. Your Lordships will see that subsection (6) says:
"The said sum of sixpence"—
that is, the 6d. which has been referred
918
to in respect of the transferred pig variant—
"shall be so payable for the benefit of the curer nominated by the seller as the person to whom he wishes the pigs to be sold."
I am advised that, worded in that way, it means that in any case of a transferred pig variant the name of the nominated buyer will have to be inserted in the transferred contract. It means a good deal of extra work to the clerks of the office of the Pigs Board, and I am also advised that the words that I propose to substitute do not mean that extra work. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 5, leave out ("so payable for the benefit of") and insert ("payable by the Pigs Marketing Board to").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord has informed us that the purpose of the Amendment is to make clear that the 6d. which the Pigs Marketing Board receives from the buyer is actually to be paid over to the curer nominated by the seller. I am assured, however, that this principle is already contained in the wording of the Bill as it stands. I am equally informed that if the Pigs Marketing Board fail to pay over this money an action by the curer affected would compel them to do so. I am told that it is important to retain the words used in the Bill in order to make it tally with the corresponding passage in Clause 51 (1) (d).
THE EARL OF RADNOR: I thank the noble Earl for his explanation. I do not suppose that the Pigs Marketing Board are going to refuse to pay this. I am prepared without argument to accept the noble Earl's interpretation of Clause 51, and also the fact that the principle is already embodied in the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23:
Proceedings subsequent to determination of forms of contract.
23.—(1) Where forms of long contract have been determined, the Pigs Marketing Board shall forthwith publish, in such manner as it thinks best calculated to bring the matter to the notice of registered producers of pigs and

919
registered curers, a notice stating that the forms have been determined, and specifying a place at which registered producers and registered curers can obtain copies thereof free of charge, and inviting registered producers to declare to the Board within a specified time and in a specified manner, in relation to each of the main forms of contract, if there is more than one—

(a) the quantities of pigs, of each of the descriptions mentioned in the form of contract, which they are respectively prepared to sell to registered curers for delivery during the contract period under a long contract or long contracts;

(b) the times at which they are prepared to deliver the pigs thereunder;

(c) whether or not they desire to avail themselves of the group contract arrangements; and

(d) whether or not they wish, in relation to all or any of the pigs which they are willing to contract to deliver (not being pigs contracted to be delivered under contracts in the group contract variant of the form of contract), to nominate a curer as the person to whom they wish the pigs to be sold, and, if so, what is his name and address.

THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "which," to insert "and the premises from which." The noble Earl said: The noble Earl, Lord Feversham, on Clause 22, moved a series of Amendments which provided for cases in which curers have more than one set of premises. This Amendment is in some sense complementary in that it provides for pig producers who also have more than one set of premises. As the Bill stands now, if a pig producer has more than one set of premises, it is open to him to send his pigs on his contract from whichever set of premises he likes. He may in these circumstances, if the premises are widely separated, be sending pigs a long distance to one factory, or he may be doing other things of that nature. It seems only right that the contract should specify the premises to which the pigs are to go. I would point out that if they do not so specify, it would be quite possible for a pig producer with more than one set of premises to nullify, so far as he was concerned, any rationalisation of distribution of pigs by the Pigs Board. It is to be presumed that as far as possible the Pigs Board, when they are distributing the pigs on contract, will send these pigs to the nearest possible factory, but a man with two sets of premises widely separated may send the bulk of his pigs, not from the nearer set of premises, but from the farther. That
920
might have a further effect in that it might be harmful to the pooling arrangements for transport organised by the Bacon and Marketing Boards. For these reasons I consider the Amendment is entirely justified, and I hope the noble Earl will be able to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 36, after ("which") insert ("and the premises from which").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I suggest it is not a common practice for producers normally to have two pig factories widely distant from each other. The difficulty which the Amendment seeks to meet is therefore not a very large or important one. There is nothing to prevent the form of contract being designed to prevent this difficulty arising if it appears to be, in practice, likely to cause inconvenience. Even if the difficulty were greater than it is, there would be a good deal to be said for leaving it to the contract to settle. Parliament, in considering the Bill now, is at a great disadvantage in endeavouring to deal with all the combinations of circumstances which may occur and which cannot easily be foreseen.
The noble Earl said that the failure to deal with this point in the contract might result in considerable hardships to an individual curer and that there might be a case for dealing with the problem in the Bill as opposed to leaving it to be dealt with by the Pigs Marketing Board when they frame the contract, on the ground that the Pigs Marketing Board primarily represent the interests of producers and probably might not be quite so thoughtful of the interests of curers. The answer to that general point is that under Clause 45 of the Bill as it now stands there is elaborate provision to secure that the costs of transport may be pooled among the various curers so that there need be no question of an individual curer being landed with a prohibitive bill for transport. The powers which are given to the Bacon Marketing Board under Clause 45 are in fact intended to enable the Board to perform just such a service to the industry by equalising among all curers any exceptional costs of transport which might fall upon some of them.
The noble Earl's Amendments to this clause, if accepted, would, I believe,

921
have the further serious disadvantage that if a farmer changed his farm in the course of a contract period he would still be bound to complete his contract with pigs delivered from his old farm. Difficulties of this nature arising from changes of tenancy will have to be provided against in the contract, and it will, therefore, be convenient for the contract to deal with the whole of this question. I suggest that the Amendment be resisted, primarily, because any difficulty that might arise from the fact that the producer has more than one farm can easily be dealt with in the contract itself and, secondly, if this Amendment were to be carried it would put the producers themselves in considerable difficulty. I am sure it is far from the noble Earl's intention that any increased burden should be placed on pig producers, and for these reasons I suggest that he should not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: Of course, I do not want to put any increased burden on pig producers. The noble Earl said it is difficult to foresee all the possibilities and that there are a great many details in this Bill. There are; and it is one of the difficulties of the Bill that there are too many details. That, in itself, may cause difficulty, and I thought that this was a point which might have been overlooked. I appreciate the difficulties that might arise if this Amendment were carried and, as the noble Earl rightly says, it does not affect very many people. In these circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to add to subsection (1) "and (in the case of pigs to be sold for a price calculated by reference to their dead weight) what are the premises at which they wish the carcases of the pigs in question to be graded." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24:
Pooling as between buyers of burden of allocation premiums.
24.—(1) As soon as may be after the end of every contract period, the Bacon Marketing Board shall ascertain in relation to each
922
registered curer to whom allocated pigs have been delivered—

(a) the amount which bears to the total of the allocation premiums paid or payable by the buyers of allocated pigs the same proportion as the number of allocated pigs delivered to him bears to the total number of allocated pigs;

(b) the total amount of the allocation premiums paid or payable by him in respect of allocated pigs.

(3) No sum shall be payable under subsection (2) of this section in respect of a contract period until three months after the conclusion of that period, but the Board may make to, and by resolution require from, buyers of allocated pigs such payments on account of the sum which the Board estimates will become payable by or to those buyers respectively under that subsection as it may think proper, and any payment required from a curer by such a resolution shall be a debt due to the Board and shall be recoverable accordingly; and any necessary adjustments shall be made at the expiration of the said three months.
(4) In this section the expression "allocated pigs" means, in relation to a contract period, pigs delivered under long contracts for that period, being pigs in respect of which allocation premiums are payable.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and insert:
".—(1) As soon as may be after the end of every contract period, the Bacon Marketing Board shall ascertain in relation to each registered curer to whom allocated or transferred pigs have been delivered—

(a) the amount which bears to the total of the allocation premiums paid, or deemed for the purposes of this section to have been paid, by the buyers of allocated or transferred pigs the same proportion as the number of allocated or transferred pigs delivered to him bears to the total number of allocated or transferred pigs;

(b) the total amount of the allocation premiums paid, or deemed for the purposes of this section to have been paid, by him in respect of allocated or transferred pigs.

For the purposes of this section, the expression 'allocated or transferred pigs' means, in relation to a contract period pigs delivered under long contracts for that period, being pigs in respect of which allocation premiums or change of premises premiums are payable; and a registered curer who has paid a change of premises premium in respect of a pig, shall be deemed for the purposes of this section to have paid an allocation premium of one shilling in respect thereof."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment meets a complication arising out of the previous Amendment under the heading "change of premises." Subsection (1) of Clause 24, as printed in the Bill, provides for the pooling of the premiums among curers who get allocated pigs. The

923
reason for pooling the premiums is that chance may dictate whether a curer who gets allocated pigs pays 1s. per pig under the transferred pig variant or a higher sum under the open offer variant. It is reasonable, therefore, that the burden of these premiums should be evenly spread over the curers getting allocated pigs. It is now necessary to bring the new change of premises premium into the pool and the complication arises because the curer pays 6d. to the producer but does not pay the 6d. payable to the nominated curer for the simple reason that he is the nominated curer himself. The Amendment is framed to meet that situation, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 33, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR had given Notice of three Amendments to the proposed new subsection (1)—namely, in paragraph (a), after "premiums paid," to insert "or payable"; in paragraph (b), after "premiums paid," to insert "or payable," and, after "registered curer who has paid," to insert "or by whom there is payable." The noble Earl said: With regard to my Amendments they are all on the same point and are in fact drafting Amendments.
Amendments to the Amendment moved—
In line 6 of the Amendment after ("paid") insert ("or payable")
In line 12 of the Amendment after ("paid") insert ("or payable")
In line 21 of the Amendment, after ("paid") insert ("or by whom there is payable").—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am glad to accept the three Amendments of the noble Earl and to embody them in the Amendment.
On Question, Amendments to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, original Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment in my name is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 12, after ("allocated") insert ("or transferred").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 20, leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Special provisions with respect to the first three contract periods]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The Amendment down in my name on this clause is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 38, after ("allocation") insert ("or change of premises").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Power of Boards to enter premises]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The Amendment in my name on this clause is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 23, leave out ("land or").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Power of Board to obtain information]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I beg to move the drafting Amendment which is down in my name on this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 7, leave out ("Part IV of").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 39 agreed to.
THE EARL OF RADNOR THE EARL OF RADNOR moved, after Clause 39, to insert the following new clause:
"All sums payable to the Development Board under subsection (1) of Section thirty. eight of this Act, and all sums payable to the Pigs Marketing Board by persons mentioned in subsection (1) of Section thirty-nine thereof in respect of any contract period, shall be specified in all forms of long contract determined for that contract period, and it shall be the duty of the Development Board and

925
of the Pigs Marketing Board respectively, to specify such sums in due time for this to be done."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is identical with one moved in the Committee stage in another place. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that under the two subsections mentioned in my Amendment there are certain payments which will have to be made by pig producers to the Development Board and to the Pigs Marketing Board, but there is no provision in the Bill to ensure that the sum to be paid by the producer shall be inserted in the contract. This Amendment, as I say, was moved in another place, and was resisted by the Government on the ground that there would be very serious practical difficulties, the practical difficulties being that the financial year of the Development Board would not coincide with the contract year, and that therefore it would be impossible for the Development Board to make their estimates far enough ahead to be able to say what they were going to charge the unfortunate pig producer for the services of the Development Board. Now the sum, presumably, that would be paid would be a comparatively small amount, and it is going to be extraordinarily difficult for those who have to go to the farmer to advocate these contracts if there is in them an unknown liability for payment to the Development Board or even to the Pigs Marketing Board. Possibly it is only psychological, but experience in the past has shown how these comparatively small financial matters have a very great effect on the feeling of the farmers.
One wants the scheme under this Bill to go forward so far as possible without any check, and it is highly desirable that from the beginning there should be as many farmers contracting for pigs as are necessary to make this scheme continue. A small thing like this may cause a large number of farmers to hold off. They will not understand this Bill; a great many of your Lordships, after careful study, do not understand it; and how any farmer is to understand it I do not know. If he picks up this Bill and sees the number of times that the Development Board are mentioned and the powers of the Development Board, he will think that the Development Board will need to spend a great deal of money to keep him in order, and that it will be his money they will
926
want to spend. He will get exaggerated ideas as to the levy that may be imposed upon him. Not only that, but it may be necessary to alter that levy in the course of the contracting period, and I think it is highly desirable that the Development Board particularly should be compelled to state what their levy is going to be in time for it to be incorporated in the contract, so that farmers will know what their liabilities are to be.
I do not pay much attention to the "serious practical difficulty" that the Board will not be able to see far enough ahead because their financial year does not end at the same time as the contract year. It is not a serious practical difficulty. Almost every large financial body has to make its estimates sometimes several years ahead, and it seems to do so without any serious practical difficulties, and in this case even if there were some error in the estimate the Development Board I think have the power to borrow money. They have, what we may term good prospects on which they could borrow money from their bank, and so they could rectify any errors that they might make in under-estimating their expenses. I do hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be received sympathetically and will be accepted by the noble Earl, because it is going to make a very great difference to the good will with which this Bill and with which the contracts are received if this mandatory provision is put in. I appreciate, of course, that there is nothing in the Bill which prevents this figure being put in the contract, but I do wish to see it made mandatory upon the authorities concerned.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 39, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Radnor.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Earl has asked me to receive this Amendment sympathetically and to accept it on behalf of the Government. I can naturally view with sympathy the perfectly reasonable proposal that the producers should know their liabilities before they offer pigs on long contracts, but, because it is felt that to place a statutory obligation of this kind on the Development Board might lead to tangles and difficulties of an unforeseen character, I regret that I am unable to accept the Amendment. The financial year of the Development Board is from April 1 until March 31, and while it

927
is not possible at present to state when the contracting year will begin, it is safe to say that it will not coincide with the Development Board's financial year. Therefore the Development Board would have to specify the rate of contribution payable by producers on one contract some months, most probably it would be as much as seven months, before the beginning of the financial year, and the Board would have to do so when they may very well not have made out their estimates of expenditure nor know the amount of money they would have to raise from the various sources.
I am sure the noble Earl will agree that the Development Board would be most anxious to specify the amounts of the contribution before the long contracts are issued if it is at all possible to do so, for obviously it is a very proper and reasonable thing to do. From the Board's own point of view it would be a great advantage to specify the sums, for the most convenient and expeditious way of collecting the money would naturally be through the medium of the contract. Therefore my noble friend may be assured that if it is at all possible to specify the contributions in the contract they will be so specified, since it will be to the advantage of all concerned, both Boards and producers, that this should be done. On the other hand, I would suggest that it would be a mistake to place a statutory obligation on the Development Board to specify the sums unless we can be satisfied that this can be done without prejudicing the general arrangements made in the Bill for the operation of the contract system, and unless we can be assured that it can be done without danger of serious practical difficulties arising. Assuming for a moment that the obligation is placed upon the Board, what is to happen if the contract is prescribed at a time so far in advance of the Board's financial year that they cannot reasonably make a proper estimate of their expenditure? In those circumstances the Board would have no option but to guess at a sum, and the guess would naturally have to be on the safe side. The rate of contribution paid by the pig producers might then be a good deal higher than would turn out ultimately to be necessary.
The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, compared the estimates that the Board would
928
have to make with the variations of financial houses. I would suggest that there is some difference in the variation. The Board's estimates will have to include estimates not only for administration but also for the research programme, which, together with the estimate of expense of that research programme, requires the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Secretary of State for Scotland. If there was an unavoidable delay in prescribing the producers' contributions, the consequence might be that the Pigs Marketing Board would be deprived of their right to prescribe the contract terms. Your Lordships will see in subsection (3) of Clause 21 that the Pigs Marketing Board have the right, acting independently of the Development Board, to prescribe the contract terms, providing this is done not later than fourteen weeks before the date of commencement of the contract, or with the consent of the Bacon Marketing Board, not later than ten weeks before. It might happen that the question of contribution had to be decided within a short space of time. Perhaps that space of time might be only a matter of a few days. Any delay might overrun the time limit and cause the right to prescribe to pass out of the hands of the Pigs Marketing Board for that particular contract period.
By this Bill Parliament will entrust the Development Board with very important and far-reaching powers. It does so in the confident belief that the Board will carry out their functions in a fair and reasonable spirit. I would venture to say that if Parliament thought otherwise it naturally would not endow the Board with these powers. I trust, therefore, that your Lordships will feel able to say that this particular matter can be left to the wisdom and good sense of the Development Board. To compel the Board to do something which by force of circumstances outside their control might, as I said only a moment ago, result in grave difficulties, would not be in the general interest nor, I am convinced, in the best interests of the pig producers on whose behalf the noble Earl moved this Amendment. I hope that after this explanation my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
LORD ELTISLEY: I hope that the last word has not been said about this Amendment. Pig production makes a very sorry

929
tale indeed, with contracts broken because of the collapse of the previous scheme, but it may well be that in a question of this kind we could oil the wheels so that the scheme would work more satisfactorily. It is as necessary to have peace of mind and contentment for the farmer as it is necessary to have contented pigs, if the scheme is to be satisfactory. Very little will sometimes upset the even temper of agriculturists. I am not in the least impressed by the argument that certain dates do not coincide. They must be made to coincide, if necessary. It is clear from what the Minister has said that everyone desires that this should be brought about. Could not the difficulty be got over by introducing into the Bill some such words as "not exceeding a certain sum"? Those words appear in other clauses of the Bill. That at any rate would allay any apprehension the farmer might have as to an unknown liability being raised against him at any time.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: There are two points to which I should like to call attention. The first is that the explanation given by the noble Earl might almost be taken word for word from the speech made in defence of this proposal in Committee stage in another place. He mentioned that it might happen that the Pigs Marketing Board would lose the power to prescribe the contract. I think that is safeguarded in the Amendment which says that
"it shall be the duty of the Development Board and of the Pigs Marketing Board respectively, to specify such sums in due time for this to be done"—
"this" being inclusion in the contract.
One sentence which the noble Earl used fills me with fear. He suggested by implication that the levy of the Development Board would have to be collected by means other than through the contract process. Does the noble Earl suggest that the Development Board are going to have to set up their own machinery for getting in contact with every individual contractor in order to collect the levy? The words he used, if I caught them rightly were, "other than through the medium of the levy." That may mean considerable expense in getting out a separate bill for each individual and great difficulty in collecting. The method normally is to deduct it from sums pay-
930
able to the contractor by the curer. I think that is a very serious point. It would entail a great deal of expense in collecting, a great deal more expense than would be involved in making a rather generous guess at what their expenses will be. I hope that the noble Earl can reassure me on that point. I think he must realise that if it means collecting small sums from individuals it is going to mean a tremendous amount of labour and expense. I hope the noble Earl can answer that, but I see difficulties.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, said in support of this Amendment that it should be made possible that the financial year should coincide with the contract year. The financial year was fixed in the Bill to begin on April 1 in order to meet the wishes of the Public Accounts Committee, wishes that were expressed in 1935 by that Committee. On the other hand if it were suggested that the contract year should be made the same as the financial year the answer there would be that, as the noble Earl would know, April 1 would be an exceedingly bad time at which to commence the contract, since pigs are usually short in supply at that time of year. Such an arrangement would involve an unwarrantable delay in re-establishing the contract in the first instance. The noble Earl has expressed some apprehension at the reply which I have just given to him, on the ground that these payments would be so numerous that they would impose a very heavy toll on the producers. I should like to assure the noble Earl that the procedure that will be adopted will be through the curers and will therefore not entail any heavy burden such as he has just visualised. It is for those reasons, which I have endeavoured to amplify, that I cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment.
THE EARL of RADNOR: Would the noble Earl consider the possibility of an Amendment fixing a maximum figure? There is one for the Pigs Marketing Board, and it would be highly desirable for the producer to know at least the top limit of his liability.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I would suggest that where it is possible to know the top limits, and there is every likelihood of those limits being known at a

931
period which is not too far in advance of the contract year, the Board will announce on behalf of themselves and in the interests of the producers what the figures will be. The only point of contention between the noble Earl and myself is that the noble Earl wishes to make this a statutory obligation upon the Board. It is suggested by the Government that it should not be a statutory obligation, because of the difficulties which I have enumerated, but that, taking the matter from a common-sense outlook, it would be in the interests of the Board as well as of the producers to do exactly what the noble Earl is advocating.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: It is a pity it cannot be put in the Bill, but in the circumstances I do not think I need bother your Lordships to go to a Division. I should, however, like to consider the matter, and I may find some suggestion to put forward at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 40 and 41 agreed to.
Clause 42:
Pig census.
42.—(1) The Development Board may from time to time serve on any person who it has reason to believe is producing pigs in Great Britain a notice requiring him to send to the Board such particulars with respect to the number and description of pigs which he possesses or intends to produce as may be specified in the notice, and if any person who is in possession of more than the prescribed number of pigs at the date of the service of the notice on him fails to comply with the notice or wilfully makes any false statement therein he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
(2) Every such notice shall contain a statement to the effect that the recipient thereof, if he is not when the notice is served upon him in possession of more than the said number of pigs, is under no obligation to reply thereto.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "is in possession of more than the prescribed number of pigs at the date of the service of the notice to him" and insert "at the date of the service of the notice on him is a registered producer of pigs or is in possession of more than the prescribed number of pigs." The noble Earl said: The effect of the two Amendments in my name to this clause is to exclude registered producers of pigs from the class of
932
persons who, by reason of the small number of pigs they have, are under no obligation to make a census return of pigs. It is thought proper that a producer who is registered with the Board—that is, a producer who sells pigs to registered curers of bacon—should in any case make a return of his pigs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 14, leave out from ("who") to ("fails") in line 16, and insert ("at the date of the service of the notice on him is a registered producer of pigs or is in possession of more than the prescribed number of pigs").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment, in subsection (2), is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 21, leave out ("he is not when the notice is served upon him") and insert ("when the notice is served upon him he is neither a registered producer of pigs nor").— (The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.
Clause 45:
Provisions as to transport of pigs on behalf of curers.
(3) Any such determination—
(b) may provide, as respects all or any specified classes of cases, either that the Board shall itself defray all or any of the expenses of or incidental to the transport, by or on behalf of registered curers, of such pigs as aforesaid, or that it shall repay to the registered curers affected all or any of the said expenses respectively incurred by them, or that it shall pay to each of the registered curers affected in respect of all or any of the said expenses respectively incurred by them, such sums as may be specified in that behalf in the determination;
(12) References in this section, in relation to pigs or carcases, to expenses of or incidental to the transport thereof, shall be deemed to include references to the cost of insurance and to any loss borne or sum payable by the registered curer in question in respect of death, damage, or loss of weight during transit or in respect of disease; and where a determination under this section is so made as to relate to any losses so borne, a registered curer who receives any payment, or is, under any contract, allowed any deduction from the price payable by him, in return for an undertaking by him to bear the whole or any part of such a loss in the case of pigs to which the determination applies,

933
shall pay to the Board a sum equal to that payment or, as the case may be, that deduction.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, desires to withdraw the Amendment printed on the Paper, and the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, does not wish to move the Amendment which stands in his name; and that the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, will substitute the following manuscript Amendment:
Page 57, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
"(b) may provide, as respects all or any specified classes of cases, that the Bacon Marketing Board shall do such one or more of the following things as may be specified (either generally or in relation to the particular curer or in relation to the particular pigs) in the determination or, if and so far as the determination so provides, by the Bacon Marketing Board acting thereunder, that is to say—

(i) itself defray all or any of the expenses of or incidental to the transport by or on behalf of the registered curer affected, of such pigs as aforesaid;

(ii) repay to the registered curer affected all or any of the said expenses incurred by him;

(iii) pay to the curer affected in respect of all or any of the said expenses incurred by him, such sums as may be specified in the determination or, if and so far as the determination so provides, by the Bacon Marketing Board acting thereunder."

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I beg to move the said manuscript Amendment. Its object is to enable the Bacon Marketing Board, acting under the direction of the Development Board, to prepare schemes for the transport of pigs on behalf of curers and to divide the cost among the curers affected in proportion to the pigs transported on behalf of each curer. Each curer coming under a scheme would pay a flat charge for transport, and the Bacon Marketing Board would pay the actual charges incurred where the pigs are transported under arrangements made by them, or they would repay approved expenditure where, with the approval of the Board, the curer makes the transport arrangements or transports the pigs himself. The point to note is that the determination could not say that the Board would do one or other of several things depending upon the circumstances of particular cases. In the original draft of this, Amendment it had
934
to state which one course would be followed. In this respect the machinery of the Bill is perhaps too rigid, and the Amendment, which I now beg to move, by enabling a determination to provide that the Board may do any one or more of the specified things, will introduce greater flexibility.
The manuscript provisions which I am moving, and which the Lord Chairman has read out, fall into two groups. The addition of the words at the end of the new paragraph, "or, if and so far as the determination so provides, by the Bacon Marketing Board acting thereunder," is to get over the difficulty that the Board may not be able to calculate, at the time the determination is made, the sum payable in respect of the expenses incurred by the registered curers, for the arrangements for transporting pigs may under the Amendment be left for the Board to decide in accordance with the determination. The additional words provide for the Board settling the amount in so far as the determination authorises them to do so, and are intended to meet the point to which the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has drawn my attention in the Amendment on the Order Paper in his name. I am obliged to my noble friend for doing that. The remainder of the provisions are intended to meet a point which was really only a drafting point, to which my attention has been drawn by the Bacon Marketing Board. They are all of a drafting character, and unless your Lordships so desire I will not repeat them now. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (12), after "References," at the beginning, to insert:
"(a) to any addition to the price of any pig ascribable to the fact that, in pursuance of a term of the contract in that behalf, that pig or the carcase thereof is wholly or partly transported by or on behalf of the seller instead of by or on behalf of the buyer; and
(b)"
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to permit an addition to the price to be regarded as an expense of transport on behalf of the curer, so as to enable it to be brought within the

935
transport pools. Perhaps I should say that where, in pursuance of the contract, pigs are delivered by the producer at the railway station or port nearest to the producer's premises, the subsequent transport of the pigs to the factory becomes the affair of the curer; and such journeys would come within the curers' transport pool if a determination of the Bacon Marketing Board under Clause 45 so provided. It may happen, however, that the contract may give the producer the option of delivering the pigs to the factory, the curer paying an addition to the pig price for this service. The object of the Amendment, as I have said, is to permit the addition to the price to be regarded as an expense of transport on behalf of the curer, and to enable it to be brought within the transport pool.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 39, after ("References") insert the said new paragraph (a).—(The Earl of Faversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46:
Power of Bacon Marketing Board to regulate grading of bacon.
46.—(1) The Bacon Marketing Board may regulate sales of b-icon by determining the grade designations to be employed, either generally or in particular circumstances, in connection with the sale of bacon by or on behalf of any registered curer, not being bacon produced only on premises in respect of which no producer's licence is required under Part III of this Act or in respect of which a small curer's licence is in force, and by determining the meanings to be attached to any such grade designation:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall operate so as to affect the free use by any registered curer of any trade mark of which he is the owner.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in the proviso in subsection (1), after "mark," to insert "in use at the passing of this Act." The noble Viscount said: I think these words must have been inadvertently omitted from this clause, because in Clause 34 you will see these words "to a carcase or part of a carcase any trade mark in use at the passing of this Act of which he is the owner." I think the same words ought to be in this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 21, after ("mark") insert ("in use at the passing of this Act").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My noble friend Lord Bertie has quoted in support of his Amendment the proviso to subsection (3) of Clause 34, but I would suggest to the noble Viscount that the case is not quite parallel. The clause which he has quoted provides that no bacon can be produced from any carcase unless it has been marked officially by a prescribed mark, and it penalises unauthorised imposition of that mark or of marks which may be so like it as to be deceptive, but there is a saving of trade marks in use at the passing of this Act. The proviso to the subsection of Clause 46 says in effect that, even though the Bacon Marketing Board may require certion designations to be applied to bacon of certain descriptions, nevertheless that is not to prevent curers from using freely any trade marks of which they may be the owners. Certain brands of bacon have gained a very well deserved reputation and sell easily because of the reputation of the brands, and it would be a disadvantage to the owners of those brands if they were not allowed to use them. The Amendment, as I understand it, seeks to limit the protection offered under the proviso to trade marks which are in use at the passing of this Act. There does not seem to be any good reason why curers should not use their own private brands as well as the designations prescribed by the Bacon Marketing Board, nor any good reason why this right should be enjoyed only by existing curers in respect of existing trade marks. There is no real danger of this nullifying the advantages of a single system of grade designations. A trade mark shows simply whose the bacon in question is, whereas a grade designation shows its quality, and so there is no possibility of confusion in this respect. Because of that distinction I ask the noble Viscount not to press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I understood my noble friend to say that these trade marks would be very well known, but they would be trade marks subsequently adopted.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Some of them.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Then they will not be well-known.
TEE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My noble friend misunderstood me. I did say that some of the existing trade marks were very well known. There are some trade marks of which is no doubt aware, such as Harris Crown Brand and the trade marks of certain co-operative concerns which have gat a very good reputation. There may be trade marks in the future which will establish a particular type of bacon, and it seems that it would be a pity to destroy the advantages which the curers may have in that respect, provided it does not conflict or disrupt the general consideration of the grade designation, which is for purpose of quality only.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Provisions with respect to the Development Board and to its proceedings]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Amendment to this Schedule is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 27, leave out ("Development").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

IMPERIAL TELEGRAPHS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
DIVORCE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
FORMERLY
DIVORCE AND NULLITY OF MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered, and in doing so may I say that in so far as the Amendments made are not of a drafting character they consist largely, if not exclusively, of concessions made to the critics of the measure.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Alness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
In the Title, line 2, leave out ("and nullity").
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. This is a consequential Amendment following the omission of Clause 4 of the Bill. The Bill now contains no provisions in regard to nullity.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Alness.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, if this Commons Amendment is agreed to as printed the Title of the Bill will read "Divorce of Marriage (Scotland) Bill," which is nonsense. I think there is some misprint and that the words meant to be left out are "and nullity of marriage" instead of "and nullity."
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I confess I had not noticed this. My noble friend will observe that under Clause 8 of the Bill it is stated that the Act may be cited as the Divorce (Scotland) Act, 1938.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I think I have made a mistake. I see it stated in the Title that it is a Bill intituled "An Act to amend the law of Scotland in regard to divorce and nullity and dissolution of marriage." Therefore I beg leave to withdraw my strictures.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at the beginning insert ("Without prejudice to the power of the Court to grant decree of divorce on the ground of adultery.")
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. It is purely drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Alness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 1, line 20, at end insert:
("Provided that where the ground of action is incurable insanity the Court shall not be bound to grant a decree of divorce if in the opinion of the Court the pursuer has during the marriage been guilty of such wilful neglect or misconduct as has conduced to the insanity.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (d) of the foregoing subsection the defender's guilt of sodomy or bestiality shall be held to be proved if an extract of a conviction therefor in any part of the United Kingdom is produced, and the application of such conviction to the defender is admitted or proved.")
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. This Amendment adds to Clause 1 in the first place a proviso, and in the second place a new subsection. The proviso empowers the Court to refuse decree of divorce on the ground of insanity if the pursuer's conduct towards the defender has been a contributing cause of the insanity. That seems to me a not unreasonable provision. With regard to the new subsection, it provides that in an action based on unnatural offences the defender's guilt can be proved by an extract of his conviction. It would seem otiose that where a man had been convicted of a crime in a criminal court it should be necessary that his guilt should be proved again in divorce proceedings.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Alness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out from ("fit,") to the end of the subsection, and insert ("for the payment by the pursuer, or out of any estate belonging to him or held for his behoof, or, in the event of his predeceasing the defender, by his executors, of a capital sum or an annual or periodical allowance to or for behoof of the defender and any children of the marriage.")
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. This Amendment in one particular limits and in others extends the power of the Court with regard to the patrimonial consequences of a decree of divorce pro-
940
nounced on the ground of insanity. Originally it was provided that a payment might be made to or for behoof of either party to the action. Now the power is limited to ordering payment to or for behoof of the defender in the action. It was felt in the Scottish Grand Committee that it would be inequitable that a person divorced on the ground of insanity, to which no moral delinquency attaches, should suffer pecuniarily by reason of the decree of divorce pronounced. The power is extended, on the other hand, in three particulars, first by authorising payment out of estate held for behoof of the pursuer, for example, by marriage contract trustees; secondly, by authorising payment by his executors in the event of the pursuer predeceasing; and, thirdly, by clearly authorising the payment of a capital sum.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Alness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
After Clause 2 insert the following clause:
("Special provisions as to divorce on ground of insanity.
.The Court shall appoint a curator ad litem to the defender in any action of divorce on the ground of incurable insanity, and it shall be the duty of the General Board of Control for Scotland, on the request of the Court, to furnish to it a report as to the probability of recovery in the case of the defender to any such action.")
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. This clause was inserted in the Scottish Grand Committee. So far as the appointment of a curator bonis is concerned, the clause probably merely makes obligatory the existing practice of the Courts in Scotland. So far as the latter part of the clause is concerned, the safeguard which it contains would seem to be specially desirable where the parties have not sufficient money to obtain medical opinions. There will be all the more possibility for the defender to rebut the statutory presumption of incurable insanity by reason of a provision such as this where there is no money available to pay for a report from a doctor. Both provisions are inserted in the interests of the defender in the action, and I venture to submit that they are reasonable and fair.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Alness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Leave out Clause 4.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. This is the clause which deals with nullity, and I am informed that there was very strong feeling in the Scottish Grand Committee against the retention of the clause in the Bill. Its deletion will not in any way affect the main purpose of the Bill, which is to reform the law of divorce, and I may also add that this provision in Clause 4 was not in the original draft of the Bill as I had the honour of introducing it in your Lordships' House. It appeared in the second edition of the Bill which was introduced and passed through your Lordships' House after Mr. Herbert's Bill had gone through. That Bill contained a similar provision to that which I am moving to omit. However, it was obviously the view of the majority of the Scottish members in Grand Committee that this clause should disappear, and in that view, if I may say so, I entirely acquiesce.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Alness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out from ("Court,") to ("and,") in line 30, and insert ("craving a decree of dissolution of the marriage on the ground of the presumed death of the other party.")
Clause 5, page 3, line 31, after ("grant") insert ("such")
Clause 5, page 3, line 32, leave out lines 32 and 33.
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in these Amendments which are of a purely drafting character.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Airless.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS.AMENDMENT.
Clause 6, page 4, 1ine 6, after ("years") insert ("continuously")
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. This Amendment was made in order to bring the provision exactly in line with the provision in the English Act of 1937. It was thought that if the word "continuously" was omitted—personally I do not think it is necessary—there might be some suggestion of a difference between the law of England and the law of Scotland in the matter, whereas there is none.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Airless.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 4, line 15, after ("custody") insert ("as a lunatic")
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. It is purely drafting in its character.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Alness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 4, line 20, leave out from ("is,") to the end of the clause, and insert ("under care and treatment (other than treatment as a voluntary patient) within the meaning of Section one hundred and seventy-six of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, as amended by the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, and not otherwise").
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. This Amendment falls into two parts. The first part eliminates voluntary treatment from the statutory definition of "care and treatment" and the second includes detention in an asylum in England. With regard to the first, the Church of Scotland and other bodies were against the inclusion of voluntary treatment on the ground that it might prevent persons from submitting themselves to such treatment who ought to do so. With regard to the second, it not infrequently happens that where two parties are domiciled in Scotland one of them may be detained in an English asylum, and it is appropriate therefore to provide that where parties are domiciled in Scotland, and where only the Court of Session can dissolve the marriage, detention in an

943
English asylum should have the same consequences as detention in a Scottish asylum.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Alness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 8, page 4, line 29, leave out ("and Nullity of Marriage")
LORD ALNESS: My Lords, I beg to move, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. It is purely drafting.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Alness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHIMNEY SWEEPERS ACTS (REPEAL) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

MILK (EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I do not think this Bill need detain the House for any great length of time. It does not raise any important question of principle since what is proposed is, in short, an extension of various provisions of the Milk Acts, 1934 to 1937, which would otherwise expire at the end of September next. When I submitted a similar extending measure in this House nearly a year ago I said, in reply to a question by the noble Lord, Lord Addison, that I expected that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture would very shortly be issuing a statement on the Government's long-term milk policy. I therefore hoped it was the last time on which I should have to ask your Lordships to agree to a temporary extension of the Milk Acts pending the introduction of the more comprehensive long-term proposals. The first part of that expectation has been fulfilled, but unfortunately not the second.
It was the Government's hope and intention to introduce for the consideration
944
of Parliament this Session the necessary legislation to put the comprehensive proposals into effect but, as your Lordships are aware, exceptional demands have been made on Parliamentary time in another place, and consequently the Government have reluctantly come to the decision that it would hardly be proper to ask Parliament to consider and pass at such a late stage in the Session a measure as important and complex as the longterm milk legislation must necessarily be. Consultations with the various interests concerned have taken place and will continue to take place, and the Government hope to introduce the necessary Bills into Parliament early next Session. In the meantime, as I have said, existing provisions under the Milk Acts, 1934 to 1937, for safeguarding the milk industry, will expire on September 30 next. This extending Bill is primarily designed to continue the existing provisions for a further period of twelve months.
I do not think I need repeat to your Lordships the considerations which were advanced in favour of these previous Milk Acts. It is only necessary to say of Clause 1 of the Bill that it is proposed that there should be a continuation for a further twelve months—that is, until the end of September, 1939—of the system of Exchequer payments to Milk Marketing Boards in respect of milk used for manufacture. Clause 2 proposes an extension for twelve months of the milk-in-schools scheme, and the Government attach the very greatest importance to the continuation of this scheme. In addition, it is hoped that a scheme will shortly be introduced under which local authorities will be able to secure liquid milk at reduced prices for the purpose of their maternity and child welfare arrangements. The Bill proposes that an extra £750,000 should be made available by Exchequer grants in respect of these cheap milk schemes, which compares favourably with the previous average of £500,000 per year.
Clause 3 carries out the proposal contained in paragraph 8 of the White Paper of last July, that the Milk Marketing Boards should be released from any liability accruing after the 30th September last to repay to the Exchequer the advances made under the Milk Acts in respect of manufactured milk. It is obviously desirable to give effect to this

945
particular proposal of the White Paper in the present Bill, as otherwise we should shortly have to ask the Milk Marketing Boards for repayments on milk manufactured in certain months of the current year from which it was eventually proposed to release them. The remaining provisions of the Bill are consequential on the first three clauses.
Before I resume my place I should like to refer to another proposal in the White Paper of last July. Your Lordships will recall that it was proposed in the White Paper that over a period of five years the Exchequer should make certain contributions towards the cost of increased premiums to be paid by Milk Marketing Boards in respect of various categories of quality milks (that is, accredited milk, T.T. milk and milk from attested herds). When the present Bill was first published it was represented to my right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture and also the Secretary of State for Scotland that many milk producers have, during the past year, incurred expenditure in bringing their herds and methods of milk production up to "attested" or "designated" milk standards, in the anticipation that these increased premiums would become available as from the beginning of next October. The proposed Exchequer assistance towards these increased premiums for quality milks is regarded by the Government as one feature of a comprehensive and balanced policy, and it is essential, in their view, that the proposals should be enacted substantially as a whole. Accordingly the Government are unwilling to include in the short-term measure any provision for Exchequer assistance towards premiums on quality milks.
On the other hand, my right honourable friend has announced that if Milk Marketing Boards should decide, as from October 1 next, to pay increased premiums and to allow increased rebates for quality milks on scales approved by Ministers and corresponding to those foreshadowed in the White Paper, the Government will be willing to commend to Parliament, as part of the forthcoming longterm legislation, a provision authorising retrospective assistance from the Exchequer with a view to putting the Boards in the same financial position as regards Exchequer assistance from October 1, 1938, as they would have been in if the
946
long-term legislation had been passed this Session, as was originally intended, and not the short-term emergency measure which is now before your Lordships' House. I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to say a word or two upon this important Bill. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading pointed out quite rightly that no change of principle was involved, and of course the Labour Party in general supports the principles behind the Bill. The introduction of this type of measure, which I might call legislation by temporary extensions, I personally welcome. I think it is an extremely good way to make laws, because it gives us a chance of examining what I might call the attempts to deal with a difficult industry and to check up, so to speak, the success or otherwise of the various parts of the machinery of organisation in connection with milk production. Therefore personally I rather like to see this postponement of the substantial measure. But of course one must examine with an open mind how the work has proceeded and how far in fact it has been successful. This sort of Bill does give us an opportunity to look into some of the results that have so far been achieved.
I think the Minister of Agriculture, in the House of Commons, did lay claim to some advantageous work, particularly in connection with that part of the Bill referred to by the noble Earl as the milk-in-schools scheme. I noticed that he did not give us the figures involved, and I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, will say a word on this later on. I am sorry to see him shake his head, because I should have liked to hear him make some contribution to this very important subject, which he has made so much his own in the past. The Minister of Agriculture said that something like 2,750,000 children were getting milk now, that they were consuming about 23,000,000 gallons of milk in a year, and that he hoped that quantity would be raised to 25,000,000 gallons. Provision is made in this Bill for a continuation and an extension of the milk-in-schools scheme.
During the discussion of a previous measure I interested myself in doing some

947
brief arithmetical calculations from which I found that these vast millions of gallons of milk amount in fact to 186 of a pint of milk per child per day. Compare that with a country like the United States of America, where something like an average of 4 pints per child per day is consumed instead of 186 in this country. If the hope of the Minister is in fact realised and the total consumption rises to 25,000,000 gallons, that raises the consumption of milk per child per day to 19 or nearly one fifth of a pint of milk a day. I know the noble Earl will say that they do not get any milk during the holidays or on Sundays, and I suppose it is thought that they do not need milk on those days, but I myself should think that if milk is desirable and necessary on school days it is conceivable that it would be desirable also on Sundays and even during holidays. It would be interesting to know whether, in the development foreshadowed by this Bill during the next year, it would be possible to secure an arrangement for the consumption of milk on a rather larger scale by school children.
Some time ago a number of your Lordships were invited by the Secretary of State for War, a very energetic Minister about whom we read and hear so much, to go and see an admirable scheme which had been worked in a special recruits' training depot in Canterbury. It was found that some recruits for the Services were not up to physical requirements and they were put into this special place in Canterbury and fed up. At the end of six or eight or ten weeks it was found that these boys of sixteen and seventeen had gained something like three-quarters of an inch in height, two inches round the chest and some eighteen pounds in weight. Just by being given good food and plenty of milk they were able to meet Army recruiting requirements. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, reminds me that they also had exercise. Incidentally, I may say that I was surprised to learn that one-third of these would-be recruits were unable to read or write. One-third of these recruits, all of whom had been through our very expensive elementary school system, were unable to read, and the schoolmaster told me that in his opinion the reason was that they had never had enough to eat—and therefore obviously not enough milk to
948
drink—to make them fit enough to profit by the education given in the elementary schools. That, of course, is a disastrous state of affairs. It seems to me to indicate that were it possible to secure an increase in the amount of milk consumed in the schools, we might diminish the cost of this special recruiting depot at Canterbury and make it unnecessary to feed recruits specially in order to make up for lack of sufficient milk while they were children at school.
There is one other point I want to raise. I am anxious to have a little information from the noble Earl as to the type of milk which is supplied in the schools. I am not in any way criticising now, but only asking for simple information as to the type of milk supplied in the schools. I realise at once that I should know this and that it is probably entirely due to my ignorance that I am not adequately informed on the matter. I get a paper every month which I think is called National Safety First Milk, and really it sometimes makes me feel quite ill to read it. In the current number, which I received a week ago, there is a picture of what are called "desliming" machines which take the slime out of fresh milk. It is said that this slime, when analysed, is found to be composed of blood and manure and dirt and grease and hairs and other horrible things which it is the object of this particular organisation to bring to our notice in order that we may support pasteurised milk.
I do not profess to know very much about these things. Personally I drink almost any milk that is put before me, and I am perfectly certain that milk is better than most other drinks—I hope so, anyway—in spite of these terrible things we are told about. What I would like to know is whether pasteurised milk is supplied to children in schools, or, if not, what steps are taken to see that the milk which we are now being asked to pay for is in fact absolutely pure and clean and good and not likely to cause any illness to the children who drink it. It is the greatest pity that we have not got as pure a milk supply as they have in the United States of America. In this country we know that more than 40 per cent. of our herds are infected, whereas in America we know that the proportion is rather under 4 per cent. It would be interesting to have from the

949
noble Earl just that bit of information as to the safety and cleanliness of the milk supplied to the children.
Another question I would like to ask him is about the nomenclature that is now applied to milk. Years ago I knew "T.T." and "Certified" and "Grade A," but now these names have been changed and it would be interesting to have a clear statement as to the various kinds of milk that are being supplied—something quite simple that even our limited intelligence can take in, something that we can remember. I hope the noble Earl will be able to tell us exactly what is the type of milk which is being supplied now, how clean it is, how safe it is, how much of it comes from reactors and how much from tuberculin-tested Cows.
The only other point I want to make is a protest against the delay in the supply of milk to the maternity services. I think it is a tragedy that we should have any delay in the provisions for the supply of milk to expectant and nursing mothers. The noble Earl told us that provision is made for a small sum of money for this service, but there is a permanent loss to the country in a very important factor in the production interests of this country, the production of children, which is apparently suffering from delay. I hope that question will be dealt with by other members of your Lordships' House, who must see the danger in not using, at the earliest possible moment, means which are now understood to be necessary for supplying milk to nursing and expectant mothers.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has put some specific questions to me which arise not so much out of the renewal of the provisions of the Milk Acts as out of general considerations in regard to the expansion of the consumption of milk. Perhaps it may be well, in view of the larger issues which the noble Lord has raised, if I briefly enumerate the main points of a long-term milk policy. The underlying principle must be, in the first place, that the only sure foundation for the prosperity of the milk industry is an increased consumption of liquid milk. To this end it is necessary to provide for consumers generally a permanent improvement in the quality of milk, and of course to take all practical measures to secure reductions both in the cost of production and
950
in the cost of distribution. Steps must also be taken to continue, and, where practicable, to extend, the provision of cheap milk for those classes of consumers to whom milk would be of special value.
The noble Lord has asked a question concerning the numbers of children in the elementary schools receiving milk and the quantities of milk that they receive. The returns which have just been compiled by the Board of Education show that the number of children in public elementary schools in England and Wales taking milk under the milk-in-schools scheme at the end of March last—on March 31—was 2,672,000, which is, I understand, 161,000 more than on the corresponding date last year.
LORD MARLEY: Are those figures for England and Wales?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Yes, these figures are for England and Wales. I should point out that this increase of 161,000 is in spite of the fact that the total number of children on the register has decreased by about 87,000. The percentage of children on the register taking milk has gone up from 49 to 53. I think that all sides of the House will appreciate that that is a distinct improvement on the earlier months, and to that extent shows that the younger generation in the elementary schools are appreciating the milk which they have the benefit of taking.
The noble Lord also inquired of me the type of milk which is supplied to the elementary schools. He will, I expect, be aware that both the source and quality of milk have to be approved by the medical officer of health in each area. In the larger urban areas and cities the medical officer of health frequently insists upon pasteurised milk where it is available. In those areas that are served by a rural district the milk of attested herds often finds its way to the elementary schools. For instance, in my own area of Yorkshire, where attestation has not yet become predominant, one large attested herd has as the main function of its business the supply of clean milk to the elementary schools in that district.
LORD MARLEY: I do not want it to be thought that I am suggesting that pasteurised milk is necessarily better than clean milk. I only want to know, for information, what is the type of milk

951
which is being supplied, because I am surprised that the noble Earl rather suggested that everybody would try to supply pasteurised milk, apparently as a means of avoiding the necessity for clean milk.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: No, I did not mean to make that implication from the standpoint of the Department which I represent. I was telling your Lordships' House that the medical officers of health, according to their lights, generally insist that in the urban areas pasteurised milk should be used, which, of course, is quite a different point of view from that which the noble Lord and many others of your Lordships share. Your Lordships would be interested to know of the developments in the attestation scheme, which has been consideraably expanded since the passing of the Agriculture Act this time last year. Now there are—I am speaking from memory—1,700 herds in England and Wales that have passed the final test, and there are approximately 2,000 herds which are undergoing the test. These figures, compared with the number of herds which had passed that test two years back, show the great incentive that has been given to the producers of milk of this country to improve the standard of their milk. That alone would point to the fact that the farmers throughout the country are appreciating more and more that, if consumption is to be increased, the first predominant necessity is to obtain first-class clean milk.
The noble Lord then raised the question of the designations for milk. It is correct to say that to those who have not had the opportunity, or inclination, to follow closely the new developments, the different titles are somewhat confusing. The first heading is "attestation," which is the most difficult to qualify for, and for which State assistance is now given freely by the provision of veterinary officers, going to make the inspections. Then there is the T.T. milk, and the accredited milk with which the noble Lord will be familiar, because the accredited milk is, to put it shortly, to all intents and purposes what was known as the Grade A milk. It would take up too much of your Lordships' time if I were to give a detailed explanation of the exact manner in which the designations are distinguished, but I should be very pleased to
952
provide the noble Lord with the information that he may require.
LORD MARLEY: I am very much obliged.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord has also referred to the increased sum that has to be devoted under the existing Bill to schemes authorised by local authorities, not only for children attending elementary schools but also for nursing and expectant mothers. It is a feature of the Bill that, in order to give acceleration to this service, an extra £250,000 is being devoted to these schemes until the long-term measure is placed before Parliament. I hope that I have in some respects answered some of the specific points which were put to me by the noble Lord opposite.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NURSING HOMES REGISTRATION (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 Alness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Causes 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Inspection of nursing homes.
5.—(i) The medical officer of health of the local authority or any other officer duly authorised by the authority may, subject to such regulations as may be made by the authority, and an officer duly authorised by the Department may, at all reasonable times enter and inspect any premises which are used, or which that officer has reasonable cause to believe to be used, for the purposes of a nursing home, and may inspect any records required to be kept in accordance with the provisions of this Act:
Provided that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to authorise any such officer to inspect any medical record relating to any patient in a nursing home.
LORD ALNESS LORD ALNESS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "any" ["any other officer"] and insert "a qualified nurse or." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is really of a drafting

953
character. It is for the purpose of making it clear that a qualified nurse may act as inspector under the provisions of the Bill. Personally, I should have been disposed to think that that case had been covered by the language of the Bill, but I am advised that in order to make it clear this Amendment should be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("any") and insert ("a qualified nurse or").—(Lord Alness.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
LORD ALNESS LORD ALNESS moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Power to exempt Christian Science Homes.
".—(1) The Department may, in respect of any nursing home which they are satisfied is being, or will be, carried on in accordance with the practice and principles of the body known as the Church of Christ Scientist, grant exemption from the operation of any requirement of paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of Section one of this Act which is inconsistent with such practice or principles.
(2) It shall be a condition of any exemption granted in respect of a nursing home under this section that the nursing home shall adopt and use the name of Christian Science house.
(3) An exemption granted under this section in respect of a nursing home may at any time be withdrawn by the Department if it appears to them that that home is no longer being carried on in accordance with the said practice and principles."
The noble and learned Lord said: I regret to say that in the fifth line of this Amendment there is a misprint. The word "Scientists" should be "Scientist." Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading of this Bill I stated that in Committee I intended to move, in accordance with an undertaking given by the promoter of the measure in another place, and in accordance with the corresponding provision of the English Statute with reference to this matter, an Amendment which would have the effect of granting to the Department of Health power, if they think fit, to exempt from the operation of the Bill the Church of Christ Scientist. The Amendment is now on the Paper for your Lordships to see, and at this late hour it is probably unnecessary that I should say more about it than this. In the first place it merely echoes the corresponding provision in the English Statute, which was passed in 1927
954
and which was re-enacted in the Public Health Act of 1936. That clause was drafted in the Ministry of Health, according to my information, and it was put forward in another place by Mr. Chamberlain, who was then Minister of Health. In this House, when the Bill came here and was passed, the clause was supported by Viscount Gage, the Marquess of Salisbury, and I think other Peers. This particular clause was drafted in the Department of Health for Scotland, and comes here with their sanction. It does not provide for the exemption of homes of the Church of Christ Scientist from any of the structural or sanitary requirements which the Department of Health may impose, but merely applies to those which relate to doctors and nurses. It is the exact counterpart of the English Statute, which, according to my information, has worked smoothly and well. I commend this Amendment to your Lordships' consideration, in order that Scotland may come into line with England in this matter.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Alness.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Interpretation]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I, on this clause, ask the noble and learned Lord a question? It is as to what he thinks is the exact meaning of the definition of a nursing home on page 7, at line 3. It reads:
"'Nursing home' means any premises used or intended to be used for the reception of and the providing of nursing for persons suffering from any sickness, injury, or infirmity, and includes a maternity home."
It might, it seems to me, preclude an individual from receiving a friend or relative in his or her house, in order that better attention might be received there. It seems to me that it requires the insertion of the word "regularly," that is, "any premises regularly used." I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would consider that point, and if he thinks necessary move an Amendment accordingly on the Third Reading.
LORD ALNESS: My noble friend was good enough to tell me that he proposed to raise this point, which is an interesting and, I think, an important one. I shall

955
be very happy to look into the before the Report stage, and deal then.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES RESERVES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

DISTRICT PROBATE REGISTRIES ORDER, 1938.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHANI): My Lords, by this Draft Order it is proposed to vary the "scheme for the establishment of district probate registries" which is scheduled to the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925. The proposed variation is made possible by an increase in the annual number of grants. The effect of the variation is to give the public greater facilities for obtaining grants. The original Schedule was made in 1925 and thirteen years have elapsed since that time during which large districts have grown up and the population has increased greatly. It is therefore thought right to give the public greater facilities than they have at the present moment. The Draft Order has been considered by the Special Orders Committee of this House who have reported in favour of the draft being approved. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on the 29th of June last, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Earl, the Leader of the House, if he has any statement to make about future business.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My
956
Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I suggest that this House should meet tomorrow at the usual time of a quarter to four, and that we should meet at the same time, 3.45 p.m., on Thursday. As your Lordships know, there is a meeting of the House of Lords Offices Committee at three o'clock, and therefore it is impossible to meet at that hour. I understand that the Committee will get through its business by about half past three, or thereabouts, and I suggest that the House should therefore meet at a quarter to four. I might perhaps also give notice that I propose to put down a Motion to-morrow giving precedence to Government business on and after Thursday next, which I think is the usual course taken at this time of the Session, before we disperse for the holidays.