Lords Sitting of 24 March 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Lord Banbury of Southam—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

TATTON ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed. Leave given to the Committee to hear the parties interested by themselves, their counsel, agents and witnesses so far as the Committee think fit.
BOURNEMOUTH GAS AND WATER BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to ask the noble Viscount, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he has any statement to make on foreign affairs.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, His Majesty's Government have expressed the view that recent events in Austria have created a new situation, and think it right to state the conclusions to which consideration of those events has led them. They have already placed on record their judgment upon the action taken by the German Government, and to that they have nothing to add. The consequences of the action, however, remain. There has been a profound disturbance of international confidence. In these circumstances the problem before Europe to which, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, it is their most urgent duty to direct their attention, is how best to restore this shaken confidence, to maintain the rule of law in international affairs, and to seek peaceful solutions to questions that continue to cause anxiety.
Of these, the one necessarily most present to many minds is that concerning the relations between the Government of Czechoslovakia and the German minority

391
in that country, and it is probable that the solution of that question, if it could be achieved, would go far to re-establish a more normal situation over an area wider than that immediately concerned. His Majesty's Government have accordingly given especial attention to this matter, and in particular they have fully considered the question whether the United Kingdom, in addition to those obligations by which she is already bound by the Covenant of the League and the Treaty of Locarno, should, as a further contribution towards preserving peace in Europe, now undertake new and specific commitments in Europe, and in particular such a commitment in relation to Czechoslovakia.
It is right that I should here remind your Lordships what our existing commitments are which might lead to the use of our arms for purposes other than our own defence and the defence of territories of other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations. They are, first of all, the defence of France and Belgium against unprovoked aggression in accordance with our existing obligations under the Treaty of Locarno, as reaffirmed in the arrangement drawn up in London on March 19, 1936. His Majesty's Government have also obligations by treaty to Portugal, Iraq and Egypt. Those are our definite obligations in relation to particular countries.
There remains another case in which we may have to use our arms, a case which is of a more general character but which may have no less significance. This is the case arising under the Covenant of the League, which was accurately defined by the former Foreign Secretary when he said:
"In addition our armaments may be used in bringing help to a victim of aggression in any case where, in our judgment, it would be proper under the provisions of the Covenant to do so."
Such a case might, for example, include Czechoslovakia, and the ex-Foreign Secretary went on to say:
"I use the word 'may' deliberately, since in such an instance there is no automatic obligation to take military action. It is moreover right that this should be so, for nations cannot be expected to incur automatic military obligations save for areas where their vital interests are concerned."
His Majesty's Government stand by these declarations. They have acknowledged
392
that in present circumstances the ability of the League to fulfil all the functions originally contemplated for it is reduced. But this is not to be interpreted as meaning that His Majesty's Government would in no circumstances intervene as a Member of the League for the restoration of peace or the maintenance of international order if circumstances were such as to make it appropriate for them to do so. And His Majesty's Government cannot but feel that the course and development of any dispute, should such unhappily arise, would be greatly influenced by the knowledge that such action as it may be in the power of Great Britain to take will be determined by His Majesty's Government of the day in accordance with the principles laid down in the Covenant.
The question now arises whether we should go further. Should we forthwith give an assurance to France that in the event of her being called upon, by reason of German aggression on Czechoslovakia, to implement her obligations under the Franco-Czechoslovak Treaty, we would immediately employ our full military force on her behalf? Or, alternatively, should we at once declare our readiness to take immediate action in resistance to any forcible interference with the independence and integrity of Czechoslovakia, and invite any other nations, which might so desire, to associate themselves with us in such a declaration? From a consideration of these two alternatives it clearly emerges that under either of them the decision as to whether or not this country should find itself involved in war would be automatically removed from the discretion of His Majesty's Government, and the suggested guarantee would apply irrespective of the circumstances by which it was brought into operation, and over which His Majesty's Government might not have been able to exercise any control. The position is not one that His Majesty's Government could see their way to accept, in relation to an area where their vital interests are not concerned in the same degree as they are in the case of France and Belgium; and it is certainly not the position that results from the Covenant. For these reasons His Majesty's Government feel themselves unable to give the prior guarantee suggested.
But while plainly stating this decision I would add this. Where peace and war are concerned, legal obligations are not

393
alone involved, and, if war broke out, it would be unlikely to be confined to those who have assumed such obligations. It would be quite impossible to say where it might end and what Governments might become involved. The inexorable pressure of facts might well prove more powerful than formal pronouncements, and in that event it would be well within the bounds of probability that other countries, besides those which were parties to the original dispute, would almost immediately be involved. This is especially true in the case of two countries like Great Britain and France, with long associations of friendship, with interests closely interwoven, devoted to the same ideals of democratic liberty, and determined to uphold them.
It remains for His Majesty's Government to state their attitude in regard to the proposal made by the Government of the U.S.S.R., that an early conference should be held for the purpose of discussion with certain other Powers of the practical measures which in their opinion the circumstances demand. His Majesty's Government would warmly welcome the assembly of any conference at which it might be expected that all European nations would consent to be represented, and at which it might therefore be found possible to discuss matters in regard to which anxiety is at present felt. In present circumstances, however, they are obliged to recognise that no such expectation can be entertained, and the Soviet Government do not in fact appear to entertain it. Their proposal would appear to involve less a consultation with a view to settlement than a concerting of action against an eventuality that has not yet arisen. Its object would appear to be to negotiate such mutual undertakings in advance to resist aggression as I have referred to, which for the reasons given His Majesty's Government, for their part, are unwilling to accept. Apart from this, His Majesty's Government are of opinion that the indirect, but none the less inevitable, consequence of such action as is proposed by the Soviet Government, would be to aggravate the tendency towards the establishment of exclusive groups of nations, which must, in the view of His Majesty's Government, be inimical to the prospects of European peace.
Great Britain has repeatedly borne witness to the principles on which she con-
394
siders the peace of the world depends. We do not believe that any stable order can be established unless, by one means or other, recognition can be secured for certain general principles. The first is that differences between nations should be resolved by peaceful settlement, and not by methods of force. The second, admittedly of no less importance, is that a peaceful settlement, to be enduring, must be based on justice. Holding these views successive British Governments have accepted the full obligations of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and clone their best to discharge them; they have acceded to special instruments designed to pledge the nations afresh to refrain from resort to aggressive war; and they have reinforced the general obligations thus undertaken by specific undertakings within the framework of the League towards countries with whom they enjoy special relations or in which they have special interest. On the other side they have constantly lent, and are prepared to continue to lend, their influence to the revision of relations between nations, established by treaty or otherwise, which appeared to demand review. They will continue, whether by way of action through the League or by direct diplomatic effort, to exert all their influence on the side of bringing to peaceful and orderly solutions any issues liable to interrupt friendly relations between nations.
So far as Czechoslovakia is concerned it seems to His Majesty's Government that now is the time when all the resources of diplomacy should be enlisted in the cause of peace. They have been glad to take note of and in no way underrate the definite assurances given by the German Government as to their attitude. On the other side they have observed with satisfaction that the Government of Czechoslovakia are addressing themselves to the practical steps that can be taken within the framework of the Czechoslovak constitution to meet the reasonable wishes of the German minority. For their part, His Majesty's Government will at all times be ready to render any help in their power, by whatever means might seem most appropriate, towards the solution of questions likely to cause difficulty between the German and Czechoslovak Governments. In the meantime there is no need to assume the use of force or indeed to talk about it. Such talk is

395
to be strongly deprecated. Not only can it do no good; it is bound to do harm. It must interfere with the progress of diplomacy and it must increase feelings of insecurity and uncertainty.
His Majesty's Government accept the obligations which already rest upon them, and have made and are making strenuous efforts to place themselves in a position adequately to fulfil them. Nevertheless, in accordance with their expressed intention of reviewing their programme from time to time in the light of the circumstances of the time, they have considered the position afresh and have decided that still further efforts are now called for. These efforts must be devoted to increasing production and accelerating the completion of the rearmament programme. The details of that programme have been from time to time laid before Parliament. Recently in connection with the Estimates for the Defence Departments, statements have been submitted in another place as to the steps to be taken in the next financial year. The existing programme, however, has been carried out with the intention of interfering as little as possible with normal trade. In practice, notwithstanding this limitation, an increasing degree of priority over civil work has been gradually accorded to rearmament orders with the result that in some cases the execution of orders for home and export trade has been delayed. The additional skilled and semi-skilled labour required by the programme has occasionally had to be provided at the cost of withdrawing labour from other activities. Only by such means has it been possible to undertake the large-scale programme of production which, in spite of some delays, is now continuously and rapidly increasing in volume.
His Majesty's Government had hoped that further acceleration with its consequent interference with normal commercial work might have been avoided, but it has been more than once made plain that the defence programme was flexible and was subject to review from time to time in the light of changes in the international situation. We have now come to the conclusion that in the present circumstances acceleration of existing plans has become essential, and moreover that there must be an increase
396
in some parts of the programme, especially in that of the Royal Air Force and the anti-aircraft defences. In order to bring about the progress which we feel to be necessary men and materials will be required, and rearmament work must have first priority in the nation's effort. The full and rapid equipment of the nation for self-defence must be its primary aim.
His Majesty's Government gratefully acknowledge the way in which workers and employers have co-operated in carrying out the programme hitherto. Such co-operation will be even more necessary for bringing to practical and early fruition the plans to which I have referred, and the Government are confident that they can rely on the continued help and good will of all concerned. In the view of the Government it is not for them to try to dictate to the great industries the detailed action which will be necessary for overcoming difficulties. It is in accordance with our traditions that these industries themselves, through their joint machinery, should work out the details in the matter which is most likely to be effective. Steps are already being taken to inform organised workers and organised employers of the nature of the demands which the accelerated plans will make upon their industries, and thus to place them in a position to devise practical methods for meeting those demands by mutual arrangements and with a minimum of Government interference. By such means it is expected that the volume of production, which in the new circumstances is not sufficient for our needs, will be substantially increased. The building operations necessary for the expansion of the three Services will be expedited. This will facilitate the process of recruitment of naval, military and Air Force personnel. The action already indicated will serve to accelerate the production of naval equipment. Similar measures will be taken for completing at the earliest date possible the erection of new factories. Further capacity with a view to advancing the output of antiaircraft and other guns will be put in hand. This priority will also enable us to expedite the programme of air-raid precautions. The satisfactory response to the appeal for recruits in connection with air-raid precautions is evidence of the widespread interest that is being taken

397
throughout the country in this urgent question. By these and other measures within the Defence Departments themselves for the purpose of ensuring full and adequate co-operation with industry His Majesty's Government are satisfied that they will be able to facilitate production and secure the necessary acceleration of the defence programme.
His Majesty's Government, however, do not differ from those who feel that the increase of armaments alone is no sure guarantee for peace. They earnestly hope that it may yet be possible to arrive at a reasonable balance of armaments by agreement rather than by free and unlimited competition. They have on the other hand felt it right to make their view known that in the present state of the world, reliance upon the assertion of loyalty to the principles of the Covenant was not enough, in the absence of practical strength by which those professions might be supported. Accordingly the policy of His Majesty's Government recognises, and is based upon, the necessity both of working untiringly to strengthen the cause of peace and also of taking all steps requisite to make this country strong enough to meet whatever call may be made upon it. In their view the knowledge in all parts of the world that such steps are being taken with determination and dispatch will be a valuable contribution towards international reassurance.
There is another subject which is of such great importance that the House will rightly expect me to make reference to it. With regard to the unhappy situation in Spain the policy of His Majesty's Government has been plainly declared. That policy has consistently, from the outbreak of the conflict, been one of nonintervention in Spanish affairs and loyal observation of our obligations under the Non-Intervention Agreement. This policy was adopted in view of the dangerous international situation which threatened to develop with the first signs of civil strife in Spain. From the early stages of the conflict the prospect of open and active assistance to both Spanish parties from outside constituted a real menace to the peace of Europe. If nothing had been done to check this process, it might well have culminated in a general European war. His Majesty's Government acting in concert with the French Government came to the conclusion that the only
398
way to avert this very serious threat was by doing their utmost to induce other European Powers to fall in with their own determination to adopt a completely impartial attitude to both parties in Spain and to refrain from giving material assistance to either side.
His Majesty's Government are fully alive to the fact that repeated infringements of the practice of non-intervention from more than one quarter have taken place and they deeply regret it. But serious as are these infringements, they do not alter the judgment of His Majesty's Government that the policy of non-intervention, even though infractions of this policy may take place, still affords the best means of avoiding a major conflagration. In the meanwhile His Majesty's Government, in a spirit of complete impartiality, have devoted their efforts to such humanitarian work as has been possible for the benefit of the Spanish people as a whole. They have greatly deplored the excesses committed during this strife as affecting the civilian population, and they have taken every opportunity which presented itself to convey to both sides their strong disapproval of the employment of such methods which have earned public condemnation and are contrary to the rules of International Law. It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that so recently as March i8 last my right honourable friend the Prime Minister expressed his horror and disgust at the indiscriminate bombing which was being carried out at Barcelona at that time, and strong representations have since been made to the Salamanca authorities on this matter in conjunction with the French Government.
I do not propose on the present occasion to enter upon a discussion of our conversations with the Italian Government. These have been carried a considerable distance, and the results are full of encouragement to those who, like His Majesty's Government, regard appeasement in Europe as an objective to which the efforts of all men of good will should be directed. The House will remember that just before these conversations were opened, the Italian Government informed us of their acceptance of the British formula for the withdrawal of volunteers and the granting of belligerent rights. While gladly welcoming this assurance, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister impressed upon the Italian Gov-

399
ernment through their Ambassador the necessity, if the conversations were to succeed, not only that they should lend whatever help they could along with others in the bringing into operation of the withdrawal plan, but that in the meantime the situation in Spain should not be materially altered by Italy sending fresh reinforcements. It was never demanded or expected of the Italian Government that they should effect a unilateral withdrawal, and I think it right to say that, during these last weeks while the conversations have been proceeding, His Majesty's Government are satisfied of the fulfilment by the Italian Government of the conditions which had been indicated to them.
The Italian Government have now again asserted their willingness loyally to assist in the execution of the British plan and, what is perhaps most important, they have repeated a declaration which they made some time ago and which was made public here at the time, to the effect that Italy has no territorial, political or economic aims in Spain or in the Balearic Islands. His Majesty's Government place full reliance upon the intention of the Italian Government to make good their assurances. They believe that, with the spirit of mutual confidence in which both Governments are addressing themselves to the task, it will be possible through these conversations to reach complete agreement.
His Majesty's Government have sought to give to Parliament and to the world as full an indication as possible of their attitude upon the several matters which are at present occupying the thoughts of all nations. They are fully sensible, as I have said, of the extent to which international confidence has been shaken and of the consequent apprehensions existing in many quarters. They would, however, deprecate the use of language here or elsewhere which can only have the effect of exacerbating the situation, and of exciting fears which it is permissible to hope that the event will prove unfounded. The only result would be the creation of an atmosphere in which the elements essential to wise judgment would be dangerously obscured. His Majesty's Government have reached these decisions on the large questions of European order only after full and most careful review of all relevant facts and considerations, and
400
with a keen sense of the great responsibility that rests upon them. His Majesty's Government do not believe that any difference of opinion exists in any quarter as to the broad purposes of preservation of peace and the association of peace with justice to which the policy of this country should be directed, and His Majesty's Government have reached the clear conclusion that the course they have decided to pursue provides the best means by which this policy can be made effective.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Viscount for the statement that he has made to the House. I do not feel that it would be useful for me to comment upon that statement today. Therefore I propose to ask for time to discuss the whole matter at an early date.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (NUNEATON EXTENSION)BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
COTTON INDUSTRY BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE My Lords, the object of this Bill, which is a non-contentious matter, is to allow replenishment of the list of Land Tax Commissioners in districts where such replenishment is required. Bills of this nature have to be brought forward periodically, and the last Act dealing with this matter was passed just eleven years ago, in 1927. Your Lordships may be aware that Land Tax Commissioners have certain functions, which are comparatively trivial, as regards the Land Tax, but they also appoint and provide a source of recruitment for the local Commissioners of Income Tax, who perform important functions in the administration of the Income Tax law. It has lately been found—in fact it was found, I think, last autumn—

401
that in certain districts there is a shortage of Land Tax Commissioners, and the method of supplying the deficiency is to pass a new Bill. The machinery is rather curious, and it is a very remarkable relic of Parliamentary patronage. It is the right of Members of Parliament for counties and county boroughs to prepare lists for proposed appointments and to deposit them in the Public Bills Office in another place before the Committee stage of the Bill, which in this case was taken on the 18th of this month. Then, when the Bill has passed both Houses the lists are published in the London Gazette, and under Clause 1 of the Bill the persons named therein will be Land Tax Commissioners under the law. All the necessary steps have been taken by members of the other House, and the necessary appointments will be effected as soon as the Bill has passed through your Lordships' House and has received the Royal Assent. I must add that the Bill does not apply to Scotland. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FOOD AND DRUGS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, this Bill represents the third of a series of Bills dealing with local government and public health based on the work of a Departmental Committee which was appointed in 1929, originally under the Chairmanship of the late Lord Chelmsford and since his death under that of my noble friend Lord Addington, whose services we all desire to recognise. The House will recollect that the two previous Bills prepared by the Committee reached the Statute Book as the Local Government Act, 1933, and the Public Health Act, 1936. The latter of these covered the major part, but not the whole, of the public health law. The present Bill deals in the main with the law of food and drugs, but includes as well provisions relating to markets, slaughter-houses and cold-air stores.
402
As the Committee point out in their Report the existing law is now to be found in part in the Public Health Acts, in part in the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928, itself a consolidating measure, and in part in various Milk Acts dating from 1915. These enactments are directed to two distinct objects, the safeguarding of public health and protection of purchasers from fraud and deception. While the first of these objects is naturally the main concern of the Public Health Acts, a number of sections of the Adulteration Act of 1928 and the Milk Acts are also of a public health character, and the Committee accordingly came to the conclusion that there were substantial advantages in combining these various provisions in a single code. The terms of reference of the Committee were enlarged for this purpose, and the Bill now presented is not technically a Public Health Bill but is a Bill dealing with the subject of food and drugs in all its aspects except matters of weights and measures, for which provision is made in the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926.
As the law relating to the adulteration of food is substantially the same in London as elsewhere, the present Bill, unlike its two predecessors, covers (with minor exceptions) the County of London, and for that purpose representatives of the London County Council, the Common Council of the City of London and the Metropolitan borough councils were made members of the drafting committee. The present Bill, which is not so long as either of its predecessors, consists of 102 clauses and four Schedules. Part I contains general provisions as to food and drugs and re-enacts the major part of the Adulteration Act of 1928, together with the provisions from the Public Health Act, 1875, dealing with the seizure and condemnation of unsound food. It also includes the very important power to make regulations with regard to the importation, preparation, storage, sale and delivery of food which are now conferred on the Minister of Health by the Public Health (Regulations as to Food) Act, 1907.
Part II deals with milk, dairies and artificial cream, and is, in the main, a reproduction of provisions from the Milk Acts of 1915 and 1922 and the Artificial Cream Act, 1929. Part III deals with

403
certain other kinds of food, the most important being bread and flour. The existing law relating to bread and flour dates back, as regards London, to the Bread Act, 1822, and, as regards the rest of the country, to the Bread Act, 1836. These Acts are obsolete both in form and substance, and the question of their super-session has for some time been under consideration. Part IV reproduces provisions in the Adulteration Act of 1928 relating to importation offences, and Part V deals with the operation by local authorities of markets, slaughter-houses and cold-air stores. As regards markets and slaughter-houses, the existing law dates back to the Markets and Fairs Clauses Act, 1847, and it has been found possible to shorten and simplify it very substantially. Part VI contains the ordinary provisions for enforcement of legal proceedings. As in the case of the Public Health Act, 1936, a great simplification and shortening of the law will be effected by the Bill. The Schedule contains a list of thirty-four Acts which are wholly or partially repealed, starting from the Garbling of Spices Act, 1707. The 102 clauses of the Bill take the place of some 251 sections of the existing law.
It may be convenient to remind the House exactly what is the aim of this series of Bills. The terms of reference of the Departmental Committee require them to consider what amendments of the existing law are desirable for facilitating consolidation and securing simplicity, uniformity and conciseness. The Bill, therefore, combines consolidation with a limited amount of amendment. The details of the amendments made and the reasons which led the Committee to recommend them are set out fully in the Committee's Report, which contains in an appendix a note on every clause of the Bill. In this respect the procedure follows exactly the course adopted by the Committee in preparing their two previous Bills. The Government are satisfied that the procedure has proved satisfactory and acceptable and that the two measures which resulted from the previous Bills have proved of very substantial value to local government and public health administrators and to the public at large.
It is right that a Bill of this character should be subjected to a close scrutiny
404
by Parliament, and, as before, the Government propose to invite the two Houses to appoint a Joint Select Committee to undertake a detailed examination of the clauses. The Bill is a non-Party measure, and it has been welcomed by the associations of local authorities (who are represented on the Departmental Committee) and by other important interests concerned including various trade bodies. It is scarcely necessary to add that, as has been said in connection with the two previous Bills, the aim is not to lay down a perfect code of law. To do so would involve some matters of acute controversy. The object of the Bill is rather to gather together in intelligible shape the law relating to food and drugs and thereby to provide a firm foundation and starting point for any necessary future legislation. Any attempt to include in the present Bill extensive amendments of the law, however desirable in themselves, would be foreign to its purpose and might well jeopardise its chance of reaching the Statute Book. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think this Bill will attract the general support of your Lordships' House, but I would like to draw attention, if I may—and I support the Bill wholeheartedly—to what I consider are very patent weaknesses in the Bill, and particularly in Clauses 8, 14, 15, 65 and, perhaps, 39. The Bill, as the noble Viscount has explained, deals with the subject in two aspects; one, to protect the public against commercial fraud—and that I am not going to deal with—and the other, to ensure, if possible, that the public should have clean food. That is not a matter of minor importance. I think one may say that we are to a great extent what we eat. There are two or three apparently trivial subjects which nevertheless are of great importance, not unconnected with the Bill—for example, cleanliness of bread and of milk and vegetables. Now that we are endeavouring to increase the fitness of our population we should use every effort in a Bill like this to see that the foods the people eat are as clean as possible.
There is in Clause 8 a paragraph requiring wrappers or containers for foods of various kinds to be labelled and the

405
next paragraph prohibits or restricts the addition of any substance, and regulates the composition of food generally. Then the clause goes on to say, in subsection (2), that regulations shall not be made with respect to bread or flour. I am so new a member of your Lordships' House that I do not know whether I am in order in referring to a Bill which lately was given a Second Reading in another place. During the discussion on the Night Baking Bill some observations were made about what some may describe as the filthy manner in which some bread is delivered uncovered at householders' houses from a cart or a basket or by a boy's hand. I know there are sonic folks who seem to think it is a good thing that we should eat filthy food. That would apply to bread, because it is said that it teaches and enables our bodies to set up a protective system by which to overcome undesirable microbes. I do not like that idea at all. That is a repulsive view especially with regard to bread because bread is eaten uncooked and therefore not cleansed by fire or heat.
There should be in this Bill some provision that when bread or any food is delivered at the consumer's house it should be protected against insanitary handling. I have myself seen this happen in a street not far from where I live. I have seen a boy upset a barrow upon the handles of which was a basket containing uncovered bread. The bread, uncovered, was pitched into the roadway on a rainy day. I saw the boy pick up the bread, dust it with a green baize cover which had been over the basket and with his soiled sleeve and then put it back into the basket. I expostulated with the boy and asked him whether the bread was intended for my house. When I found that it was not intended for my house all I could do was to tell him that he ought to take the bread back to the shop and not deliver it to his customer. He looked at me in amazement to think that I should take objection to a normal state of affairs.
Your Lordships have only to go through any street in any city or town in England on any morning to see uncovered bread delivered and handled. No provision is made in this Bill for covering bread when it is being delivered. Meat is cooked before it is eaten, and thus some of the unpleasant microbes may be
406
destroyed if anything has gone wrong in the butcher's shop. The omission to provide in this Bill for protecting the delivery of bread is, I think, a grave fault. I notice that recently when a question was asked in another place as to whether public authorities exercise to the full their powers under the Acts which have been passed to protect the public against insanitary conditions where certain foods eaten uncooked are concerned, the reply was given that if any evidence was produced of any specific case action would be at once taken. Any one can go as I did and see bread delivered or vegetables sold and there have evidence that public authorities are not taking the precautions which I submit should be taken with the people's food.
Again, I see nothing in this Bill about the delivery of milk. I think my noble friend did speak of milk as well as bread. We have seen in recent weeks considerable correspondence in the newspapers about the pasteurisation of milk and we have heard in this House discussions about the benefit of having milk made clean by pasteurisation and freed from contamination by microbes. Then I would say to my noble friend who has introduced this Bill that, although much trouble is taken to produce pasteurised milk and clean milk and also to see that the buildings in which milk is handled are whitewashed and that various sanitary requirements are complied with, yet when milk has been put into clean bottles it is left on the doorsteps of the houses, and any of us going through the street for our early walk, at seven o'clock in the morning, can see that the bottles are left on doorsteps or at area gates so that every dog and cat in the neighbourhood defiles them. Clean milk is provided, but it has to be poured out over the mouth of a bottle left outside the house and there defiled. It seems to me that we are straining at pasteurisation and swallowing filth.
Why is it that public authorities are allowed to overlook these matters in relation to uncovered bread and doorstep milk? We have, I think, improved the people's health by seeing that good milk is supplied. We have taught that cleanliness in milk conduces towards the reduction of tuberculosis in children. Yet all these efforts towards pure milk are cancelled by faults in doorstep delivery which renders bottle defilement possible. Who

407
is it that shakes up, if I may use the expression, the local authorities to see that the powers that they have are put into operation? I note that Clause 15 (2) says:
"A local authority may at any time resolve that, as from such date, not being less than four weeks from the passing of the resolution, … this section shall apply within their district in relation to all kinds of food. …"
but this clause will be a dead letter unless there is in the Bill some compulsion to ensure that local authorities take these powers and, what is more, see that they operate their own by-laws. In the case of coal I think the London County Council and the Council of my native city do send round inspectors to see that people who buy coal from lorries get proper weight. I do not see any provision in this Bill for inspectors to go daily to see that food sanitary-requirements laid down in the Bill are put into operation after a by-law has been made. Who is to take the initiative? What provision is made in this Bill so that local authorities shall be compelled to pass by-laws? They are allowed an option to pass by-laws and that is all.
There is another matter which I think should be watched. Good vegetables play a medicinal part in the nourishment of the people. Vegetables which are sold in the small streets of great cities are often placed at the pavement level outside the shop and within my own actual knowledge are subject to contamination and defilement by dogs. That risk I think should be dealt with and the Bill should contain provisions giving power to local authorities to prevent shopkeepers allowing vegetables which are to be sold for food to be exhibited in any place or receptacle on the level of the pavement. Of late years we have realised that sound food is one of the necessities of hygienic life. We have taught people in my lifetime that the filthy habit of spitting cannot be allowed and it has been cured. I believe if a medical man were here to-day he would tell us that the curing of the public of that habit has in some degree contributed towards the very considerable fall in the death-rate from tuberculosis. Now we have to teach people that milk and bread and vegetables which are produced pure should be kept free from contamination after they have been dispatched for delivery. I hope my noble friend will
408
take note of what I have said. These observations are about very simple things which are of very great importance to the health of the people, and the remedies are not difficult. I hope that when the Ministry of Health goes through this Bill it will give some attention to the points which I have presented to-day for your Lordships' consideration.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, as I had the honour of being Chairman of the two Joint Committees which sat to consider the two former Bills to which my noble friend who introduced this Bill referred, I may perhaps be allowed to say a few words. I would recall to your Lordships the somewhat peculiar procedure which has been adopted in regard to these Consolidation Bills, because they are really Consolidation Bills. The first one dealt with local government and the second with public health. They did, it is true, amend the law to a certain extent, but the Joint Committee, I think, under instructions, or at any rate following the wishes of your Lordships' House and the wishes of Parliament, confined the amendments which they recommended to the minimum. As I say, the Bills are Consolidation Bills but they do amend the law to a certain degree, and therefore they cannot be submitted to the Consolidation Committee as if they were wholly Consolidation Bills. As has been said in the debates which took place in your Lordships' House on the two other Bills or at any rate on one of them, we are very chary of combining consolidation with amendment, and exception was taken in the first instance to the procedure of amending in even a modified manner Bills which were merely intended to be Consolidation Bills. But if I may venture to say so, I think that the advantages which this procedure gives us outweigh the disadvantages, because when you get a large number of Bills of that kind—my noble friend enumerated Bills dating, I think, from the early eighteenth century—there must be anomalies and there must be certain amendments which modern conditions have foreshadowed as desirable to be introduced even into Bills which deal mainly with consolidation.
The difficulties I think are greatly minimised because, if those Bills go before a Joint Committee, as I understand my

409
noble friend proposes they should do in the same manner as other Bills which are referred to the joint Committee, the procedure of a Joint Committee makes it possible to examine as a witness the draftsman of the Bill, the representatives of the Departments and also—and this is I think very important—to hear those who have observations to make or opposition to raise or any remark to bring forward upon clauses or points in the Bill. Secondly, the draft Bill is, as your Lordships see, accompanied by a very exhaustive Report made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington's Committee upon the whole question on each clause as it comes in the Bill. It has been in the past, and I imagine that it is the desire of your Lordships that it should be in this case, the duty of the Joint Committee to take very particular care to see that the amendments introduced in the Bill do not go beyond what is reasonable, necessary and proper to make the Bill a real explanation and consolidation of the existing law, and not go into deeper water, so to speak, and endeavour to amend the existing law in a drastic manner. That, I think your Lordships will agree, is better done by separate Bills dealing with each subject as it may come forward. That has been the procedure in the last two joint Committees, and I have ventured to explain it to your Lordships. As I said before, I had the honour of being Chairman of both of them, and I believe, as the noble Lord told your Lordships, that the results were not other than satisfactory.
LORD ADDINGTON: My Lords, having had the honour to be Chairman of the Departmental Committee which drafted the Bill, might I be allowed to add a word or two regarding it? The criticisms which have been made recognise that we have not been able to make an ideal Bill or to bring in all the regulations regarding the cleanness of food which we should have liked to bring in. I would point out, however, that the three main regulations dealing with food—those under Clause 8 to which reference has been made—deal with the bulk of food. There are, however, two special sets of regulations, both for milk, which are found in Clauses 18 and 19. There are a large number of matters upon which the Minister may make regulations—Milk and Dairy Regulations, for example—and these include the distribution of milk,
410
the sealing or closing of churns and other vessels, the display of the vendor's name and address, and the abstraction of fats. We have gone as far as we can, consistently with the present law, in this direction. Again, in the matter of bread, if your Lordships will turn to Clause 28 you will find a special lot of regulations there dealing with bread, and Clause 28 (e) allows regulations to be made for preventing danger to health from the importation, preparation, transport, storage, exposure for sale and delivery of bread or flour. In those clauses the noble Lord will find regulations which, to a large extent, cover the points he has raised. If I may deal with one other point: Clause 65 lays down very clearly that it is the duty of the food and drugs authority to enforce and carry out these specific sets of regulations.
LORD MANCROFT: May I ask the noble Lord one question? Who is it that puts these authorities to work? If the authorities are supine and do nothing, is there anything in this Bill to compel them to safeguard the cleanliness of food by putting into operation Clause 18 or Clause 65? It is left to them to do it or not as they wish, so far as I can see.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is all permissive. Might I ask the noble Viscount if I, also, might put a question? Was he going to wind up?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I was going to reply.
LORD STRABOLGI: In that case, could I put a point before the noble Viscount speaks?
VISCOUNT GAGE: Certainly.
LORD STRABOLGI: It is in regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said. As I read the Bill, I find myself once more, not for the first time, in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. All this is permissive, and there is nothing mandatory about it, in nearly every case. I just wanted to support what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says. This is why I want to speak before the noble Viscount, and I am very much obliged to him for allowing me to do so. With regard to this question of bread, it is a fact, of course, that our method of delivering bread in this country is absolutely uncivilised. All bread ought to be wrapped. In the United States it is,

411
except in the remote backwoods. If your Lordships are ever in the United States, I advise you to patronise what are known as cafeterias." They are very clean and cheap places where people of all classes go. You find there the ordinary roll of bread wrapped in paper. The Americans would not eat bread at all as we have it, after it has passed through a dozen hands. I support entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says on that point.
With regard to milk, Lord Mancroft gets up early enough to see the milk delivered. I have occasionally worked so late that I have arrived home with the milk, and on more than one occasion I have seen the milkman actually going round and refilling the dirty bottles from the day before. That practice ought to be prohibited. It is a disgraceful state of affairs. These bottles are supposed to be taken away and cleaned; I suppose that the decent dairy companies clean them properly, by steam or some other means, before refilling them, but certain milk roundsmen neglect to do that. As the noble Lord says, this is a grave menace to health and undoes all the good effects of the Milk Regulations. That is the sort of thing to which I suggest that the Government should turn their attention.
My last point is this. Clause 63, I venture to suggest to your Lordships, is very important. It empowers local authorities to provide cold storage. Again, of course, it is permissive. In view of the statement we have just heard from the Foreign Minister with regard to armaments, I want to put in a plea to have that clause strengthened, if possible, in different directions. I do not know if it is possible under this Bill, but I think it should be made the duty of the local authorities to store a certain amount of food as part of our scheme of national defence. Cold storage provides one of the means of doing that. Furthermore, that would be the policy that I would suggest to His Majesty's Government: to help the local authorities financially to provide cold storage, so that they can take advantage of certain foodstuffs which come in gluts.
The present Government's policy with regard to fish, for example, is to limit the supply. It would be far better to
412
arrange cold storage at the fishing ports—and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has a great knowledge of this subject; he has written a standard work on herrings, I remember, which I read with great advantage—to enable the local authorities to take the gluts off the market and keep them in cold storage and distribute them to the poor people at reasonable prices. Fruit is another example. Certain types of food come in gluts, and if we could provide a simple, economic method to enable local authorities to keep these gluts in cold storage, every one would be advantaged. As I say, this clause relating to food storage is a very important one and might be made use of in relation to national defence. My noble friends have asked me to say that we welcome the Bill and support the Motion which will be moved to refer it to a joint Committee.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, I should just like to point out to the noble Lord opposite that his complaint is that this Bill is permissive only. The noble Lord says that he sees milk boys putting milk into dirty bottles. How are the local authorities to take action if they do not know what is going on? If the noble Lord did his duty as a good citizen he would at once inform the local medical officer of health. I do not think there is a single medical officer for health in the whole country who would not at once institute a prosecution. That is a punishable offence, and if the noble Lord, the next time he observes it, will inform his local medical officer of health and is willing to go into court, a conviction will follow.
LORD STRABOLGI: I did report the matter at the time.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I think, my Lords, the fact has been lost sight of that the object of this Bill is to gather together in an intelligible shape the law relating to food and drugs, and therefore to provide a starting place, or foundation, for any new legislation that may be necessary. I said that we were consolidating certain matters of acute controversy, and I hope that I am not going to be expected to make observations on all the clauses on which controversy might be raised. Otherwise I may look forward to a somewhat preoccupied few weeks in front of me. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour

413
of Burleigh, has dealt with the reflections on Lord Feversham's Department, which I do not think were justified, and as a member myself of a local authority I think it is quite absurd for anyone to believe that the instances brought forward were really sanctified by law. I do not wish, however, to go into chapter and verse for that. Any other matters which may properly be amended in this Bill will no doubt be attended to by the joint Committee to which I shall have the honour of moving that it he referred, if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved to resolve, That it is desirable that the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to communicate this Resolution and to desire their concurrence.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, on the Motion to go into Committee on this Bill, I am afraid I must trouble your Lordships with a point which I should have liked to have had an opportunity of raising on the Second Reading. Unfortunately I was prevented from attending on that occasion. I do not blame the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill because I am sure the circumstances were beyond his control, but the notice given was certainly very short, and some of us had other engagements. The point which I wish to raise concerns the effect which this Bill will have on the housing associations, which used to be called public utility societies. I do not think I am over-stating the case when I say it was the intention of Parliament, in its
414
housing legislation, to put housing associations in the matter of subsidy on the same plane as the local authorities. Your Lordships have shown yourselves to be very favourable to the work of the housing associations in the past and would, I am sure, be sorry if anything should be clone to interfere with the continuance of the very successful work which they have been doing. Such, however, may be the effect of this Bill, and I wish to direct the attention of your Lordships and of the Government to the matter for that reason.
As your Lordships are aware, once this Bill becomes law it will be the measure under which local authorities will do their housing work. The subsidies under the 1930 Act come to an end at the end of this year and will be replaced by subsidies under the Act which we are now considering. The way in which this is going to affect the housing associations is that this Bill, firstly, alters the subsidy from a subsidy per person under the Act of 1930 to a subsidy per house, and secondly, alters the proportions of the subsidy to be borne by the Exchequer and the local authorities respectively. Under the 1930 Act—I am talking about the provision of flats on expensive sites—the Exchequer subsidy might amount to £3 10s. per person rehoused. The contribution of the local authority would be £ 15s. per house. In the case of a fairly large-sized family, the contribution from the rates would be therefore only about one-sixth of the contribution from the Exchequer. One of the cardinal provisions of this Bill is that the rate contribution shall be 50 per cent. of that of the Exchequer and therefore one-third of the total subsidy. There has grown up a practice on the part of the local authorities, following the example set by the London County Council, of passing to the housing associations only one-half of the rate subsidy. Now, where that rate subsidy was only one-sixth of the total subsidy that was not necessarily an insuperable burden for the housing association, but where the rate subsidy is going to be one-third of the total subsidy, and the total subsidy is going to be greater on these expensive sites, to have to provide half the rate subsidy would be an intolerable burden to the housing associations.
I have an actual example in my hand which I would like to quote as illustrating the difficulties. This is an actual case which has occurred and the incidence in

415
this case is so severe that it has resulted in the abandonment of the housing scheme by the association concerned. Under the 1930 Act, under which it was anticipated the scheme would be carried out, the total Exchequer subsidy in respect of forty flats would have been £735, and the rate contribution £150, making a total of £885. Under the new measure the Exchequer subsidy would be £840, and the rate contribution £420, a total of £1,260. Now the result of these figures, so far as the housing association is concerned, if they are to bear half of the rate contribution, would have been a burden of £75 per annum for forty years under the 1930 Act, but of £210 per annum under this Bill. That prospect has had the result of the abandonment of this particular scheme by that particular housing association. That I regard as a misfortune.
Now I mentioned that the London County Council have set the example of only passing on half the rate subsidy. The responsibility for housing in London generally, as your Lordships are aware, is on the London County Council and the Metropolitan borough councils jointly. The London County Council do, in fact, pass on half the rate subsidy to the Metropolitan borough councils where the latter do the housing within their own boroughs, but the London County Council do not pass on half the rate subsidy to the borough council where housing is provided by a housing association. The result is that it is cheaper for the borough council to do the housing themselves rather than to leave it to the housing association. That is going to put the housing associations in London out of business under the new proposals. If I may venture to say so, I think we were all sorry to see that Lord Snell had given up his honourable position as Chairman of the London County Council, where he has earned the admiration of all of us. I am therefore not able to make the same appeal to him to use his influence with the County Council as I might have done had that event not taken place. But at the same time I might perhaps ask the noble Lord to give the matter his attention, because I do believe it only requires an administrative decision on the part of the London County Council to alter this matter in such a way as to secure that the full rate subsidy will still be passed on to the housing association, perhaps
416
half by the London County Council and half by the Metropolitan borough council. That, I believe, would give effect to the intention of Parliament.
I am quite certain that the London County Council is no less anxious to see houses provided by every possible machinery than any member of your Lordships' House. I can quite conceive that it might be more convenient to the London County Council if all the housing were done by the local authorities, but the fact that the housing associations are put out of business will definitely mean a reduction in the amount of housing provided, and that is a result which no one, neither the London County Council nor the Metropolitan borough councils, nor anybody else, desires to see. My desire in raising the matter at this stage is to focus the attention of the Government and of the local authorities on this question, in the hope that, with the good will of all concerned, some means will be found of avoiding what I believe to be a very unfortunate result of this Bill.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, I will at any rate see that the views of the noble Lord are put before the London County Council.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I do not think I really have very much to say on this point, because I do not think anybody will dispute that the principle is merely being continued from the last Act to this whereby certain work can be handed over to the housing associations. I should like in passing to pay a tribute to the work of those associations and to say that we should regret if their activities were curtailed. But it seems to me that there is nothing in this Bill to prevent some new arrangement being come to between the housing associations and the local authorities, and really it is not a matter which directly concerns the Ministry which I represent.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Contributions in respect of agricultural housing accommodation provided by local authorities.
(2) The council of a county district shall secure that a number of houses equal to the

417
number of houses (if any) in respect of which contributions are payable under this section to the council are reserved for members of the agricultural population, except in so far as the demand for housing accommodation in the county district on the part of members of the agricultural population can be satisfied without such reservation.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (2), after "population," where that word first occurs, to insert:

"(a) at the weekly rent which, by any order of the appropriate agricultural wages committee in force at the time of the letting, is determined as the value at which the benefit or advantage of a cottage is to be reckoned as payment of wages in lieu of payment in cash for the purpose of any minimum rate of wages fixed by the said committee under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, or

(b) if no such rent is so determined, such weekly rent as may be determined by the council of the county district."

The noble Lord said: I would like to reinforce what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, as to the many disadvantages that arise from the very short time that your Lordships are given to consider these Bills. I happen to know that a good deal of further consideration could have been profitably applied to this particular Bill. I received a very valuable suggestion only yesterday on a point somewhat analogous to the housing associations' plea put forward by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, and the attendance here to-day probably also to some extent reflects the want of time for various bodies concerned to stir up some members on certain points in the Bill. We on this side have very much welcomed this Bill, and the fact that I have a few Amendments down does not in any way detract from our welcome. I only hope that as we sympathetically received the Bill the Government may sympathetically regard these Amendments.
The first Amendment draws attention to the fact that in this clause, which deals with the subsidy to local authorities for building rural cottages, there is no provision by which the rent of those cottages has any maximum fixed to it, or any figure at all; whereas if you pass to Clause 3, which deals with cottages which can be erected by private persons under certain circumstances, there is a very distinct limit, which may be summarily stated as the limit of rent allowed by the
418
agricultural wages board which may function in the particular district. It seems curious on the face of it that the local authority should be free to charge any rent it likes, whilst the poor landlord is strictly narrowed down to the wages board limit, and it almost seems as if it might well defeat to some extent the purpose of the Bill. What may happen is this. Those who advise the Government have probably worked out a figure at which these cottages could be built, and I rather guess that figure would be in the neighbourhood of £360. They will have reflected that 5 per cent., if you can borrow at 3¼ per cent., will have to be set aside to pay interest, sinking fund and maintenance, which gives you a figure of £18 a year. They have then said, "Give the local authority £10 a year and you leave it with only £8 to find, which is equivalent, or very nearly equivalent, to a 3s. agricultural rent." But the local authority may find that it cannot build for £360, or the figure calculated, whatever it may be. It may therefore desire not to lose money and to recoup itself out of the rents, and we might quite reasonably find local authorities asking 5s., shall we say? for a cottage which is supposed to be tied to the agricultural population.
What will be the result of that? Instead of the full benefit of this Bill accruing to the farming community, the farmer will probably be faced by his prospective workman with a demand that he, the farmer, should increase the workman's rate by the 2s. difference between the rent charged under the agricultural wages board valuation and that charged by the local authority. This may well result to some considerable extent in these cottages not being made use of by the agricultural population for whom they are intended. For that reason my Amendment provides that what applies to the private landlord by way of restriction of rent should also apply to any local authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, after ("population") insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): Before my noble friend Lord Gage replies to my noble friend I should like to say a word or two as regards the shortage of time which has been allowed to your

419
Lordships for the consideration of this Bill. If my noble friend will refer to what I said on Thursday of last week when I tried to give a forecast of the business of the House, he will see that I myself regretted extremely the very short time which has been allowed to your Lordships for the consideration of these Bills. No one regrets it more than I do. But as my noble friend is well aware, there have been factors which have upset the whole of the programme in another place, and that was my excuse to your Lordships. I can only say that I will do my very best to give ample time for the consideration of Bills which come before your Lordships' House. No one is more sorry than I to have to confess that the time for this particular Bill is so short.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I can assure my noble friend that we sympathise with a great deal of what he wants to do, but in regard to this Amendment I must point out that the method he proposes cuts across the principle that was established in the Act of 1936 whereby a local authority is given wide discretion in the matter of rent. It is given definite responsibilities to be carried out, but it is given this discretion as to methods, subject to the condition that in fixing rents it should have regard to the general level of rents in the locality. The object of giving that discretion was for greater administrative convenience and efficiency, and I can give two examples which will bring out that point in connection with this clause. Take a man living in a house built under this Bill. If that man leaves agriculture for some other employment such as road-making, in which he might get very much higher wages, it would be right for the authority in that case to put his rent up. Having done so, the authority would be at liberty to take another house in their possession, possibly a Wheatley house under the 1924 Act, and use that house for some agricultural labourer. They would put that house into the agricultural pool. That is, in my opinion, a right principle and, although it would not be absolutely impossible under the noble Lord's Amendment, considerable difficulties would be put in the way, and the Amendment would not make for administrative convenience. Again, in exceptional circumstances, although these rents are low, a
420
local authority might wish to make a rent rebate to an agricultural tenant. That would be impossible under the Amendment, which, after all, establishes a minimum as well as a maximum rent.
While sympathising with the noble Lord's intention, we believe it is secured in the Bill. Your Lordships will see that this Government subsidy is given on condition that the local authority pays a contribution of £1 per annum for each house in respect of which it has received a subsidy. What is a contribution? If the authority takes out of the agricultural rent pool more than, or as much as, it puts in, that would not be paying a contribution and would not satisfy the district auditor or the Government. The noble Lord talked about the private owner, and asked why the local authority should not be under the same restriction. I have shown that in the first place a private individual has not got the same pool complication to face. He may have only one house which is intended to go with a particular job, and the local authority does not have to pay any contribution towards his house. The Exchequer contribution is handed out to him direct.
In regard to the question the noble Lord asked about rural districts finding it impossible to build houses at the figure on which these calculations are based, I do not think the noble Lord has noticed the proviso in subsection (1) of Clause 2 where, in the event of local authorities having particular difficulty, the Minister can raise the subsidy. I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord. Although we sympathise with what he has in mind, we believe this safeguard would be much better provided in the way we suggest than in the more direct but much more complicated method he has proposed.
LORD PHILLLMORE: I thank the noble Viscount for his reply, and I sympathise with him in finding it rather difficult to defend fully the proposals in the Bill. It would seem to me that the two cases he quoted are not quite analogous. Under the former Bills, pooling was quite justified and, indeed, presented no particular difficulty because you were dealing with one class of tenant. You are now dealing with two classes of tenants—first, the favoured agricultural tenant, and the other the general rural population. From the noble Viscount's explanation it

421
emerges that the tendency which has already shown itself in rural districts for council cottages to be absorbed by the non-agricultural population will be accentuated rather than lessened. So far as I can make out, there is nothing to prevent a rural authority from making a profit on the deal. I cannot see anything in the Bill to prevent a rural authority from paying its £1 and making more than £1 by charging higher rent. As it is quite unrestricted as to the rents it can charge, I cannot follow the noble Viscount's justification of the hope he expresses. Will the noble Viscount consider, between now and Report, whether it would not be possible to modify my suggestion and make it apply only in this way, that, however many cottages a local authority erects under this new Bill for the agricultural population, so many cottages shall be maintained for the agricultural population out of the total pool?
VISCOUNT GAGE: That is exactly what is done in this Bill. A certificate has to be rendered every year by the local authorities, and if they do not render that certificate they will not get the subsidy. The whole object of the Bill is to create a new agricultural pool, and what we want to avoid doing is to confine that pool to certain particular houses. The pool is established, and the authority has to render the certificate every year that it is going to keep that number of houses in the pool. If it does not, or cannot, do that it will not get the subsidy. That, in my opinion, is eminently logical and clear.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Will they not have got the subsidy?
VISCOUNT GAGE: They will have got it for one year only.
LORD PHILLIMORE: For two or three?
VISCOUNT GAGE: No, because every year they have to render this certificate.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Contributions in respect of agricultural housing accommodation provided by persons other than local authorities.
3.—(1) Where the council of a county district are satisfied that in any particular case housing accommodation required for members
422
of the agricultural population of the district could more conveniently be provided by some person other than the council, they may, subject to any conditions imposed by the Minister, make arrangements for the provision of such accommodation by that person; and if the Minister is satisfied that the arrangements are such as to secure that any house provided in pursuance thereof—
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out the first "may" and insert "shall if that person is willing." The noble Lord said: The Amendment here suggests that where the council of a county district are satisfied that in any particular case housing accommodation required for members of the agricultural population could be more conveniently provided by a private person, the Council "shall"—instead of "may"—make provision for that private person to get the subsidy. Considering that the county districts have first of all to be satisfied that in this case it is suitable that a private landowner should build a cottage and that the Minister is already authorised to impose conditions, it is difficult to see why there should be any further doubt as to the private landowner receiving permission to build and to receive a subsidy. I cannot think of any reason why he should not be allowed to go straight ahead. If, on the other hand, the Bill stands as it is, it does seem to me to open up certain possibilities of local tyranny and local jealousies and so on influencing a council not to allow individual persons to build houses when they have submitted to all the conditions necessary. I hope the noble Viscount will be able to explain why the word "may" exists in this instance, or possibly to accept my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 13, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall if that person is willing").—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I should like to support the noble Lord in this respect, that I can confirm that there are cases where private landowners have not had fair play in the matter of subsidy. I am talking now of the Rural Housing Act. Certain county councils have an idea that that Act was not passed for the benefit of wealthy landowners and they have not been willing to give quite fair play. The counties in question are well known to the Ministry of Health, and there is substance in the suggestion that

423
some county councils may not be willing in certain instances to do all for one landowner that they might do in other circumstances. I do not know whether that is sufficient reason for enshrining a clause of this kind in an Act of Parliament, but there is substance in the suggestion made by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT GAGE: In the first place, the effect of this Amendment is not altogether clear. I understand what the noble Lord has said that it means, but I am not sure that it would actually read like that if introduced into the Bill. Apparently it is intended to impose an obligation on the local authority to enter into an arrangement with any person who is ready to build houses for members of the agricultural population. We should object to that if that were so, because it would conflict with the view expressed by the Central Housing Advisory Committee, with which the Government are in agreement, that the houses required for the agricultural population should normally be built by the local authorities, and that a subsidy should be paid to a private individual only when it would not be convenient for the local authority to build houses required in isolated positions or at some particular out-of-the-way farm.
I do not think the words proposed by the noble Lord would have that effect, because the prior condition still remains in the opening words of the subsection that the council should be satisfied in the particular case that the provision could more conveniently be made by someone other than themselves. So long as that condition is retained (and I must say that its retention goes to the root of our conception of this part of the Bill) it seems to me undesirable to make an Amendment in wording the effect of which would be doubtful. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, mentioned what he alleges to be injustice arising out of the refusal of certain councils to apply the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. I think if such an attitude was taken up it was taken up on the ground that they refused to transfer ratepayers' money to people whom they considered rich. In this case they are not transferring any of the ratepayers' money; they are merely handing on the Government subsidy.
LORD PHILLIMORE: The last argument produced by the noble Viscount cer-
424
tainly does convince me of the partiality of these rural district councils. I would like to point out, in answer to the opening words, that I do not propose to change the first two lines of this clause, and I quite admit that the council of a county district are left masters of the question of whether a particular house should be built by a private person or not. The council could come to its conclusion that a house is best built by a private person in such and such a place, but, having settled that question, why should the council again consider the persons concerned? because there is nothing else left to consider. They have settled already that it is best that a private person should be allowed to build a house, and there is nothing more to consider except persons themselves. Why should they be given that additional inducement to pick and choose between various people. I cannot think really that that can be wise, and I must press the noble Viscount, if he can see his way, to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT GAGE: The noble Lord proposes to make the discretion compulsory and yet leave it as a discretion. I must say that I do not agree with the distinction he drew between the different motives which might lead a rural district council to say: "We agree that it is more convenient that such and such a person should build, but we do not propose to give this grant." I really cannot believe that is how a question of this kind would be presented by the rural district council to the landowner. They would say yes or no. They would say either "We think we could build this house ourselves more conveniently," or "We do not think we are called upon to do anything in this case." They would not divide their duties into two, and accept one and refuse the other. This Amendment has been the subject of a great deal of dispute in another place, and it has been debated at great length. I do not think this Amendment would have any real effect, and I am afraid the Government cannot accept it.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I do not know that after the statement made by the Leader of the House as to the lack of time for this purpose I should be justified in going to a Division but I remain wholly unsatisfied by the explanation that I have received, and I would again point out that there can be no reason why this

425
particular word can apply to anything else except a choice of personalities.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, after Clause 3, to insert the following new clause:
".For the purposes of Sections two and three of this Act, the definition of 'agricultural population' in subsection (2) of Section one hundred and fifteen of the principal Act shall have effect as if, after the words 'industry mainly dependent upon agriculture.' there were inserted the words 'or on the maintenance of farmhouses and buildings, cottages, fences, and other agricultural works.'"
The noble Lord said: This is more a "fishing" Amendment than anything else. I should be glad to know whether the words "agricultural population" do include those engaged in the maintenance of farmhouses and buildings, cottages, fences and other agricultural works. I anticipate that the answer will be "Yes," but it might be better, if we got that plainly stated. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Phillimore.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: If that is all the noble Lord wants I can tell him that estate workers, we believe, would be included. The noble Lord's Amendment, however, goes further and would include people who are not merely estate workers but are special builders. We do not think they ought to be included. So far as the noble Lord wants to include estate workers that, I believe, will be done.
LORD PHILLIMORE: That quite satisfies me. I beg eave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 4 to 9 agreed to.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:
". Where a local authority has under Section nine (Power of local authority to require repair of insanitary house) of the principal Act served upon the person having the control of any house a notice requiring him to execute the works specified in the notice and such notice has been complied with either by the execution of the works specified in the notice or by compliance with any order made by the Judge of a County Court upon any appeal by the person aggrieved by the notice the local authority shall issue to such person a
426
certificate to that effect under the hand of the clerk to the local authority and such certificate shall he conclusive evidence that at the date of the issue thereof the house to which it relates was fit for human habitation."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a rather important point. There is a very curious situation at present under the Act of 1936. Two sections of that Act deal with the repair of unsatisfactory cottages. One is Section 9 and the other is Section 51. Section 9 deals with cases where a local authority insist upon repairs to a cottage being made to a schedule which they lay down. This section is very widely used. It is a very important power and it has been the subject of a good deal of discussion with regard to amenities, and so on, on various occasions. But it has this curious lack, that if the owner complies with the schedule of repairs to his cottage which the local authority insist upon, he has no guarantee whatever that they will continue to be satisfied with those repairs during, say, the next year or two. In other words, he gets no certificate that he has carried out, to the satisfaction of the local authority, the works they contemplated and that he can therefore reasonably presume that he has a satisfactory cottage. On the other hand, under Clause 51, if he comes forward and says "I am not satisfied with the condition of my cottage. I propose to make alterations as follows. Do you agree that these alterations are satisfactory? Yes, you do. Very well, then, I am entitled to ask you for a certificate," he gets it. All that this Amendment proposes is that he shall be entitled to get that certificate when the local authority has been the prime mover in the matter. For that purpose this new clause is required. I am sure the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill will take the point and will agree with me that there is no reason why such a certificate should not be granted.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 9 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Phillimore.)
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I should like to take the opportunity of supporting the underlying principle of this proposed new clause. Although my own case applies to Scotland the same thing might happen in England. I did up two cottages according to the requirements of the local authority, and twenty-one months after the work had

427
been completed to their satisfaction they said it was not satisfactory and they wanted me to do more work. Experience in rural areas is that you have not got too much labour to do this sort of work, and when the local authority comes along and tells you to do something else after you have just finished a job it is very often impossible to do it for some time because there is such a shortage of workers. If you could get a certificate to show that you have done the work, then you would be protected from unnecessary demands—unnecessary because if the local authority want more done they ought to have put it in the first demand. It is impossible to keep on pulling a place about when you have already done something a short time before. It is essential for the protection of those responsible for keeping cottages in order that they should have a certificate in every case, no matter under what provision or under what Act they have done the work. I think it is very important that everybody who does the work of reconditioning or putting right things which are wrong should have a certificate.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I should like to point out in the first place that this is a Bill dealing with subsidies. It is straining it rather a long way, I think, to ask that we should consider matters that do not come under that heading but are really amendments of the 1936 Act. Whatever may be done in that way in your Lordships' House, it seems to me, would almost certainly be ruled out of order in another place. Obviously many matters which may be very controversial arise out of the 1936 Act, and it would open up a formidable vista if we were to reconsider the whole matter. I would, however, like to deal with this question on its merits and I would say that the information I have is that the point which the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, makes is covered by Section 51 of the 1936 Act. Under that section an owner contemplating improvements or alterations to his property may submit a list of the works he proposes to carry out and, if the list is approved by the authority and the works are executed to their satisfaction, he may apply for a certificate that the house is fit for human habitation and will remain so for a period specified in the certificate, which is to be not less than five years. My information is that
428
the proposed new clause is unnecessary in all cases where the works are sufficient to make the house fit for habitation. It is objectionable in that it would require a local authority to issue a certificate of fitness where the only works required to be carried out were minor or of a patching-up order intended only to prolong the utility of the house for a short period but not to make it fully fit. I think the noble Lord had in mind cases where he did not think a certificate would be demanded, but I am informed that in every case where works are carried out to the satisfaction of the local authority the owner is entitled to receive his certificate.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I should like to be quite clear on this point. Does the noble Viscount say that in the case of houses that have been declared unfit for human habitation under Section 9 and subsequently rendered fit, the owner is entitled to receive a certificate that they have been rendered fit? As I understood him just now he does say so, but that is not what I am advised is the present interpretation of the law.
VISCOUNT GAGE: I am quite definitely advised that if work is carried out to the satisfaction of the local authority the owner may apply for a certificate that the house is fit for human habitation.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Under Section 9?
VISCOUNT GAGE: Under Section 51.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am talking of Section 9.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Under Section 51 of the principal Act, the 1936 Act.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am sorry, the noble Viscount does not really take my point. Section 51, to which he has just referred, deals with repairs and alterations where the owner is the prime mover—I cannot put it more shortly.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Yes.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Section 9 deals with cases where the local authority is the prime mover. If he can tell me that the certificate obtainable when a house has been made fit under Section 51 is

429
also obtainable when a house has been made fit under Section 9, I shall be perfectly satisfied.
VISCOUNT GAGE: Well, my Lords, Section 9 was passed to deal with two cases under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, and is only directed to very unlikely cases. In fact, my information is that very few cases are likely to arise.
LORD PHILLIMORE: No.
VISCOUNT GAGE: There is obviously a difference of opinion as to interpretation between the noble Lord and myself. Nevertheless, I can only say that this is the information which I have from the Ministry. Therefore I think that my answer is that we do not think that the peculiar circumstances in which Clause 9 is designed to operate will occur, but that, if there was any question of an owner wishing to get a certificate from a local authority, we believe that in all cases he would be covered by Section 51. I can only promise the noble Lord this, that if there is some very intricate legal question which has not occurred to me—and I do not think it has occurred to any
430
of my noble friends—we will go into the question with the noble Lord and see if there is really some unsuspected point in the Bill which nobody has yet seen. I hope the noble Lord will accept that assurance.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Possibly the noble Lord will consider this question seriously before the Housing (Rural Workers) Act comes up for consideration, which I understand it does this summer; and if he objects to the clause which I suggest should be included in this Bill, does he think that, if he is satisfied on this point, he might be able to include a clause of a similar nature in that Bill?
VISCOUNT GAGE: I will consider the question before the Third Reading of this Bill. I cannot say anything about what may happen on another Bill, but of course we shall give every consideration to what the noble Lord says.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
House adjourned at a quarter past six o'clock.