Lords Sitting of 17 May 1938

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
IRWELL VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
BRIXHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
ROMFORD GAS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
SWINTON AND PENDLEBURY CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
CREWE CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
CLACTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
BRADFORD EXTENSION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
GUILDFORD CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, I beg to move, That Standing Order No. 166 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of this Bill.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 166 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill.—(Lord Stanmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

WEST THURROCK ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NOTTINGHAM COPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
STOCKTON-ON-TEES CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (EARL STANHOPE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being dispensed with for the purpose of giving precedence to the Conveyancing Amendment (Scotland) Bill [H.L.] and the Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Bill over the other Notices and Orders of the Day and for the pur-

27
pose of passing the Eire (Confirmation of Agreements) Bill through all its stages.—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name.
Moved, That the Lord Stanmore be appointed to take the Chair in all Committees of this House during the temporary absence of the Chairman of Committees.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

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

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 15.]
Clause 2 page 2, line 14, at end, insert—
("(3) This section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the commencement of the Act of 1924.")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the object of this and the other Amendments made to the Bill since it left your Lordships' House is to make further minor improvements which have been suggested as necessary and desirable. The 1924 Act permitted reference in an abbreviated form only to deeds containing descriptions, but the Act has been regarded in some quarters as sanctioning a similar shorthand reference to deeds containing burdens, etc. The Bill now authorises the latter practice specifically, but it has been represented that, if such authorisation is given as from the date of the coming into operation
28
of the Bill, doubt may be cast on deeds executed prior to that date, and the authorisation has therefore been made retrospective. I beg to move that we agree to the Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 6, page 3, line 37, after ("1868,") insert ("or of Rule 25 of the First Schedule to the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the object of subsection (4) of Clause 6 is to confer finality on a Court of Session decree in an action of declarator ob non solutum canonem, which is the action whereby a superior can recover feued land if the feu-duty goes unpaid for a certain time. As these actions can also be brought in the Sheriff Court, it was thought desirable to confer a like degree of finality on decrees obtained there. I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause II, page 5, leave out line 40, and insert ("the commencement of this Act")
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, since the Bill passed your Lordships' House, a decision of the Court of Session has laid open to challenge certain holograph wills which had previously been regarded as secure from challenge, and it is accordingly felt right that the provisions of this clause should be extended to them also. I beg to move that this Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause II, page 5, line 42, leave out ("unless and until the contrary be proved").
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this is the last Amendment with which we have to deal. Further consideration of this clause has suggested that these words are redundant and should be omitted. "Probative" means "valid and genuine, unless and until the contrary be proved," so that the words proposed to be left out are merely duplication and as such liable to lead to undesirable doubts as to the meaning of the clause itself and of the word "probative" in other Acts. I beg to move that the Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EIRE (CONFIRMATION OF AGREEMENTS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That this House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Motion negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended—
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, before we part from this Bill I would like, if I may, to raise a matter to which I referred briefly in the remarks that I ventured to offer yesterday, and to which I did not then expect a reply from the noble Earl the Leader of the House, because I gave him no notice that I was going to raise the matter. I also apologise to him because I had an important engagement to keep and had to leave in a hurry, but I read his interesting remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I see that he made no reply to the matter which I brought before your Lordships.
30
It is the very old question of the pictures known as the Lane Bequest. This is a matter, as I reminded your Lordships, which arouses great sentiment and feeling in Ireland, and which I hope, in the better atmosphere created by this Bill, for which I give the Government equal credit with our friends on the other side of the Irish Channel, might be opened now. I suggest to the Government that the necessary machinery should be put in motion. As your Lordships are aware, I think all fair-minded people will say that morally the Irish case is very strong. The late Sir Hugh Lane intended to implement the codicil of the will if he had not been drowned in the "Lusitania." Legally, the holders have a very strong case, but we are so wealthy in our treasures, while Ireland is so comparatively poor, that the action I suggest, if it is taken, is one which would commend itself, not only to Ireland, but to people all over the world.
I have noticed in this connection a very interesting letter in The Times newspaper this morning, which no doubt the noble Earl has seen, over the signature of Sir Robert Witt. It contains a suggestion that these pictures should alternate between London and Dublin. We have had them in London for a considerable number of years, and it might now be the turn of the Dublin Galleries to have them for a number of years. That is an interesting suggestion, and one the adoption of which would improve on the present situation, but I think if it were followed it would diminish from the generosity of the act which I want a great nation to take this opportunity of doing. Legislation would be required. It is entirely a matter for the Government, but I believe, speaking not only for my noble friend, but for a large body of British opinion of all parties, that the time is ripe for this action to be taken.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, perhaps I might say one word in support of what my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has said because Sir Hugh Lane was a cousin of mine, and I do know he was very anxious, even before this codicil was made, that the pictures should go to Dublin. I hope that something will be done in support of what my noble friend has said.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a very interesting and important question, but one that has, of course, no real connection with the present Bill. I can only say that the Government are aware of its importance and of the importance which the Government of Eire attach to the restoration of the pictures. They realise also that Mr. de Valera has recently expressed in the Dail the desire of that Government for their return. I feel sure that noble Lords would not expect me to say any more at the present moment than that I will bring to the notice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what the noble Lord has said on the subject.
Before I sit down there is just one other point to which I might perhaps be allowed to refer. Yesterday my noble friend Lord Mancroft raised a certain point in connection with the finance of the Bill. I think perhaps the noble Lord would like to be informed that the figure of £133,000,000 was a perfectly right one, but so also was the figure of £97,000,000 which my noble friend Lord Stanhope mentioned. It will be found, if any noble Lord likes to do the sum, that £97,000,000 is a correct estimate of the present capital value of the outstanding claims, whereas £133,000,000 relates to the total amount of stock outstanding in respect of the whole of Ireland, of which only a percentage is applicable to Eire.
LORD MANCROFT: I beg to thank the noble Earl.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I take the opportunity of thanking the noble Earl for his reply? I am sure that that was as far as we could expect him to go to-day.
On Question, Bill passed.

FORFAR CORPORATION WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).
IRVINE AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL POPULATION) (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 Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Exchequer contributions towards expenses of accommodation for agricultural population.
(3) A contribution under this section shall be of such amount not being less than ten pounds ten shillings as the Department may with the sanction of the Treasury determine, payable annually for a period of forty years in respect of each house provided with the approval of the Department; and in determining the amount of the contribution so payable by them the Department shall take into consideration the cost of providing the house, the rent which it will be practicable to obtain therefor, the expenditure already incurred and to be incurred by the local authority under the enactments relating to housing, and the general financial resources of the local authority:
Provided that the amount of the contribution payable in respect of any house shall not exceed fifteen pounds unless the Department are satisfied that the annual expenditure likely to be incurred by the local authority in respect of the house is, in consequence of the remoteness of the site thereof from centres of supply of building labour and material, substantially greater than the equivalent of nineteen pounds ten shillings per annum for forty years.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in the proviso in subsection (3), after "material," to insert "or through the difficulty of providing water or drainage outfall." The noble Lord said: Before moving the Amendment which stands in my name I should like, if I may be allowed to do so, to congratulate His Majesty's Government very warmly upon the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Scotland. From what I know of the reputation he bears among all classes in all parts of Scotland I feel quite confident that the

33
accession of the right honourable gentleman to that office will be a source of strength to the Government, and acceptable to Scotland. I offer him my very sincere congratulations. In regard to the Amendment, its object is to allow the Department to make extra grants to local authorities where the difficulty of providing water or drainage outfall is a very material portion of the cost of a house. It would not be difficult to satisfy the Department that in the case of many single houses or groups of houses the cost of providing water or the cost of providing drainage outfall might very greatly exceed the cost of conveying material from any part of Scotland to any other part. I am afraid that the Department of Health have quite under-estimated the difficulties occasioned by water shortage in some parts of Scotland, and for that reason I have put down this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36 after ("material") insert ("or through the difficulty of providing water or drainage outfall,").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: However much one may sympathise with the motive which prompted the noble Lord to put down this Amendment, I am afraid we cannot accept it, for two very good reasons. First of all, the Amendment relates only to the Exchequer subsidy for houses built by local authorities. The effect of the Amendment would be to empower the Department of Health to give a higher Exchequer subsidy than £15, not merely for houses which are costly because of the remoteness of the site from supplies of building labour and material, but also for houses which are costly because of the difficulty of providing a water supply and drainage. But my real difficulty is that the Amendment appears to be out of order, since the Financial Resolution relating to the Bill authorises the payment of additional subsidy only where the annual expenditure on a house is substantially increased, in the words of the clause, "in consequence of the remoteness of the site thereof from centres of supply of building labour and material." In view of that fact, I think. the noble Lord will realise that we, cannot possibly accept the Amendment.
LORD, SALTOUN: I do not wish to press my Amendment, though I think
34
the difficulty is a serious one. With your Lordships' leave I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Schemes for replacing unsatisfactory houses.
(3) No assistance under this section shall be given in respect of any house unless—
(a) the application for assistance is made to the local authority within five years after the passing of this Act;
(c) the house contains a watercloset, a scullery with a sink and drainage therefor, a fixed bath in a bathroom and such other conveniences as may be specified in the scheme of assistance:
Provided that where it is not reasonably practicable to provide a watercloset, the local authority may, with the approval of the Department, and subject to such conditions as the Department may impose, dispense with the provision thereof.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (3), to leave out "five" and insert "ten." The noble Marquess said: To this Amendment I attach a good deal of importance because I am anxious that when the Bill is in operation its provisions shall be observed. Part I provides for no maximum period for which it shall be in force. Part II lays down by subsection (3) (a) of this clause that the assistance is only given to the local authority if application is made within five years after the passing of the measure. The past week has been sufficient to impress upon all your Lordships, and many others besides, that the country is going through a very heavy and serious expenditure on national defence. In order that that money and that defence may be provided it is necessary to take a great deal of labour and money for the most important task which the Government in their wisdom—as I think, rightly—think it absolutely necessary to place upon the nation at the present time. It is obvious that until the desired programme of national defence is completed, everybody will have to put forward his best efforts towards providing the essentials of national security. Already costs have gone up immensely. Already labour is almost

35
impossible to secure. Already what labour is available in country districts is being taken for aerodromes and the like, and what is not going to aerodromes is going to factories in order to provide the means of defence.
In other words, supposing we give the defence scheme three years at least to get properly completed—and I doubt whether it will not take a great deal longer—that would only leave two years in which people could obtain the material and labour to carry out the provisions of Part II of this Bill. It is obvious that it would be impossible to realise anything like what is the intention of this Bill in two years' time. I am sure your Lordships will agree that to pass legislation which is going to be honoured more in the breach than in the observance is not a good practice. I feel that at least ten years should be given from the passing of this Bill, which presumably will be before this Session closes—therefore 1938—to allow the schemes to be carried out as suggested in Part II. I am perfectly certain that five years is quite inadequate if not impossible. With these few words I commend the Amendment to your Lordships' favourable consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD SALTOUN: I should like in a few words to support my noble friend's Amendment. Most of your Lordships are well aware of how difficult it is to obtain labour for any building work at the present time. The difficulty in Scotland, with its small population, is far greater than it is in England, and those of us who have lost a slate from our houses very often have good reason to congratulate ourselves on the personal friendship which we have with the various builders and contractors in the district whereby we get it put right when no money that we could offer would enable us to have such a repair effected. If the Bill is a good Bill for five years—and I give the Government every credit for believing it is—then surely it is a good Bill for ten years. No one is more willing than I am to acknowledge the real need for improved housing conditions in the country, and it is only fair to
36
proprietors that they should have a reasonable time in which to make the improvements which the Government desire to see effected.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The effect of this Amendment, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, would be to extend from five years to ten years the period within which grants may be given to private owners to erect new houses under Part II of this Bill. At present the only arrangement made for the contribution is confined to the period of five years after the passing of the measure. The Report of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Rural Housing recommended that the period for the giving of grants should be five years, and I am not in a position here this afternoon to alter that provision; but perhaps I may give the noble Marquess and the noble Lord who supported him this word of comfort. The Housing (Rural Workers) Act of 1926 originally provided for the giving of grants for five years only, but that period has been extended by subsequent Acts and is still continuing. In these circumstances I hope noble Lords wil see that this Amendment is not only impossible but not really necessary.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I will not say it is not necessary. I cannot agree to that; but I would be quite willing to withdraw this Amendment if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would undertake on the Report stage to say that the Government would favourably consider an extension of the time when this period expires. If he would undertake to say something about that on the Report stage, I would be quite prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Here, again, the noble Marquess has placed me in a somewhat difficult position. I should be very glad to give him that assurance, were it possible, on the Report stage, but he will realise that by so doing I should be pledging the Government of five years hence, about which I know nothing and the complexion of which I cannot foretell. In these circumstances I do not think I should be justified in following his advice.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I had hoped that the noble

37
Lord would say that he would consult with the new Secretary of State for Scotland on this point.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I will gladly do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR had given Notice of Amendments, in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), to insert "and" after "therefor" and to leave out "and such other conveniences as may be specified in the scheme of assistance." The noble Marquess said: I understand the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, is anxious to move his Amendment to line 18, and I am not quite sure whether I can postpone the moving of my first Amendment on line 17 and take that and my Amendment on line 18 together. Perhaps I should formally move this first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, after ("therefor") insert ("and").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I quite agree with the noble Marquess's suggestion to take this Amendment and his other Amendment together. If he would agree to withdraw this Amendment, we could have the discussion on the Amendment to page 6, line 18, when the whole matter will come under review.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), after "bathroom," to insert "or facilities for personal ablution in a separate room." The noble Lord said: I propose to save your Lordships' time by saying what I have to say in favour of this Amendment and my next Amendment together, because although the two Amendments are quite separate, the arguments for them are practically parallel, and I do not suppose your Lordships wish to hear them a second time. The Bill insists on the provision of a fixed bath in the bathroom, and the whole object of this Amendment is to urge the danger of the provision as it stands without an alternative and, in particular, where sources of water are limited. As far as I know—some other noble Lords may know better—there are only four methods of heating water for a bath. You can have a copper and you
38
can syphon the water from the copper or take it out by hand by a dipper, or you can heat the water by a geyser—and you can get oil geysers—or you can do it with a donkey or by means of a tank behind the kitchen range. By all these methods excepting the copper you get a tap discharging directly into the bath. A copper is an excellent method for heating a small bath—it is sufficiently economical and speedy—but not for a fixed bath where you require a great deal of water. We must remember that a fixed bath in a bathroom requires fifteen to twenty gallons of water. Therefore in that case a copper is of very little use, because it is very slow and for that reason will not readily be used. Geysers again are very easily damaged, and as the expense for the damaged geyser will fall upon the proprietor, I do not think the proprietor would be well advised to instal a geyser.
There are also strong reasons, which will occur to most of your Lordships, against the use of a donkey in a cottar house. It would be extravagant and expensive and a nuisance. If any noble Lord doubts that I think I can establish the point to his satisfaction. We are driven therefore to consider the installation of a heating tank behind the kitchen range. If you have to do that—that is, if you are going to instal hot water at all—you have to remember that you double the consumption of coal by the occupant of the house, so that in place of four tons of coal a year he will use eight, and that whether he uses a bath or not. Most of your Lordships are aware that in a hot water system of that kind the water acts as a radiator and is kept hot by the use of the fire whether the hot water is required for use or not. I am aware that the Bill says nothing about hot water; it only speaks of a fixed bath in a bathroom. If there is no hot water the bath will not be used. I do not think anybody can be in any doubt about that. I certainly should not use it myself, and I think I know most of what there is to be known about washing in cold water and under difficult circumstances.
I am perfectly certain that a large fixed bath is useless for this purpose. The bath will not be used and the Government have not contended that it will; on the contrary; but my noble friend Lord Hutchison did say that the cottar's wife would warm the water for the bath in the kettle. When the noble Lord said

39
that I thought he was laughing at me, but no. The argument was used in another place, and so one must treat it seriously. In all the cottar houses of Angus, which the noble Lord knows very well, I doubt if you would find a single kettle in a cottar's house that holds more than a gallon of water. I will be quite generous and will give him twelve pints. The other day I had to instal a big bath in my own house. I got what I believe was the smallest big bath made in the market; in fact it was so small that the seller remonstrated with me for buying it because he said it was not in keeping with my dignity. My dignity is greater than it was when I was young, but I hope my dignity is not too large to enable me to get into a small bath. But the point I am making is that the noble Lord's twelve-pint kettle will give you an average of one-third of an inch of water in the bottom of the small big bath. It is inconceivable that that is really a solution of the difficulty.
It is a very serious matter and I want to persuade the Government to take it seriously. The waste pipe that leads to a drain from a fixed bath must be trapped. The U piece which leads away from the bath is the trap, and the water that is left after every bath in this piece stops up the pipe and prevents effluvium from the drain getting into the house. I maintain that the air that rises into the house from such a source is dangerous to health. I was going to wait for the noble Lord to reply and to say what I have to say afterwards, because I believe he is prepared to contend that such a trap is not essential for a big bath. I think that any of your Lordships who ever had a scullery trap can have very few doubts upon the subject, but as a matter of fact it has been suggested to me that I am in error and I realise that if the Department is prepared to say that a big bath does not require a trap a private person has very little chance of maintaining the contrary, so that with your Lordships' permission I will call as a witness on my side the London County Council.
On page 6 of the London County Council's By-laws concerning drainage, Section no, subsection 1 (e) deals with ventilation of waste pipes, and waste pipes are defined as pipes leading away from
40
bathrooms, sculleries and the like. This subsection goes on to say:
"In order to preserve the seal of the trap of any such fitment such trap shall be ventilated wherever necessary by a ventilating pipe carried to such a position as to prevent any nuisance or injury or danger to health arising from the emission of foul air from such pipe."
Now we have to remember that the County Council waste-pipe drainage does not flow directly into the sewers. It is simply bathroom waste-pipe drainage. I want to stress the words
"to preserve the seal of the trap to prevent any nuisance or injury or danger to health arising from the emission of foul air from such pipe."
The by-law of the London County Council is not a chatty document. They do not indulge in explanations as a rule. They just say what has to be. Rut the delusion that effluvium from a bath or a scullery drain is not dangerous to health is so widespread and common that on this point the London County Council have broken their usual reticence and condescended to give an explanation.
That merely deals with the danger of installing big baths without an arrangement for a supply of hot water, and your Lordships will observe that of the two Amendments to which I am referring one deals with the provision that makes a big bath in a bathroom obligatory, and the other deals with the case where it is not considered necessary to provide a water closet which uses a gallon every time it is used, although the Bill still insists on the provision of a bathroom which uses fifteen gallons every time. If the bath is not used—and I think we all realise that there is very little chance that it will be used unless hot water is provided—the trap will evaporate. After all the trap of a bath is very small—a few cubic centimetres. It does not take long to evaporate. In the case of the first Amendment, if my Amendment is not accepted you may get effluvium from the sewage drain as well as from the bathroom working back into the house. In the second case you will at least get effluvium from the bath, and in either case I maintain that both are injurious to health. That more or less deals with the danger of installing big baths without arrangements for a supply of hot water.
But, also, there are many districts in which there is a water shortage of a very pronounced kind and where economy in

41
the use of water is absolutely essential. If you consider the extent to which a big bath taking fifteen or twenty gallons of water at a time will deprive neighbours of their share of the only water available, I think your Lordships will see that the Bill provides a fertile source of bad blood and discontent. If there is a house with two or three other houses near, and there is a big bath in it, no occupier of the other houses will believe that the occupier of that house is not getting more than his fair share of the water available. Farm servants are not patient. They are quick to express resentment when they feel it. There are many other points that I could urge, but I think I have said enough to establish my case and I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for a little elasticity particularly when subsection (7) gives a local authority an absolute whip hand. If they do not like a proposed scheme they can turn it down under subsection (7).
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, alter ("bathroom") insert ("or facilities for personal ablution in a separate room").—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I take it to be the wish of your Lordships that I should deal not only with this Amendment but with the later Amendment to this clause in the noble Lord's name on the next page of the Amendment Paper. I must confess that when this matter was first discussed I found myself in considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, on this point. But then I discovered that both he and I—I anyhow and I think I may say he also—did not quite understand the point of view which had been put forward elsewhere by the Secretary of State. Before I come to the arguments which I wish to put I may in passing point out to the noble Lord that the terms of the Amendment we are now discussing are so drawn that they would allow an owner to satisfy the requirements of this clause by providing a wash-hand basin in a bedroom. That I know is not the noble Lord's intention, and I quite agree that it is not a valid argument for refusing the Amendment.
Apart, however, from the question whether the wording of the Amendment would carry out the noble Lord's intention, the Amendment is open to objection on merits. In the first place, in Standing Committee in another place the Government
42
themselves amended the Bill to require the provision of a fixed bath in a bathroom in all houses erected with grants under Part II of this Bill. Secondly, it is clear that whatever amount of water is available just as much or even more use of it can be made in a fixed bath as in a waterproof room. If the amount of water were very limited it would be possible, I am told, to stand up in the bath and pour water over oneself from a basin. Thirdly, the only saving which the provision of a waterproof room, as suggested by the noble Lord on Second Reading, would effect would be, in money, some £4 or £5 for the fixed bath. Against this would have to be reckoned the additional cost of water-proofing the walls and the door which, although not considerable, would be something in the nature of £1 or so, I assume. So far as drainage is concerned nothing would be gained by substituting a waterproof room for a fixed bath. This suggestion of the noble Lord is an interesting and in some ways a rather attractive one. As he is aware, I have taken some trouble to go into this subject with all the experts in charge of the Bill to see whether we could not come to some agreement. I am sorry to have to tell him and your Lordships that we failed and that the wording of the Bill is better; but I hope to show your Lordships that to a very large degree there is agreement between the wording of the Bill and what I think is the noble Lord's intention.
In another place the Secretary of State was pressed to require both a water closet and a fixed bath in a bathroom. The decision to require a fixed bath in a bathroom in all new houses was a compromise. That compromise was not merely a concession made there to the Labour Party, but what the Secretary of State thought was reasonable to require all owners to provide in new houses was a fixed bath. The decision to require a fixed bath was reached after the Secretary of State had fully considered the point and consulted his technical advisers. There was an interval of some five days between the first and second days of the discussion and then this compromise was reached. What the Government had in mind—and what I should like the noble Lord to note particularly—is something not necessarily connected with hot and cold water taps, but merely a bath of the inexpensive type

43
provided in working-class houses with some method of draining off the water. The important point is that there must be some method of draining off the water. The Secretary of State said in Standing Committee:
"What is most important is that there shall be a drain for the effluent to run out. The labour involved is not in filling the bath, but in emptying it, and if you can run the effluent off, it is very much easier …"
My point is the provision of something for emptying the bath.
I am informed also that it is not necessary to provide a septic tank for a bath. On some soils all that is necessary is to lead the water to an open field drain; on other soils the water may have to be led to a ditch or watercourse. The engineers of the Department have satisfied me that such water will not and cannot create a nuisance. In any event some way of disposing of bath water must be provided even though the bath be taken in a tin tub. The fact that the bath water runs down a drain instead of being emptied over the ground does not create a nuisance.
With regard to the question of heating, to which the noble Lord referred, it was not of course the intention of the Government, as I have already said, that there should be a bath and bathroom in what one may call the luxurious sense with a hot water supply always at hand. It is not necessary to have a constant hot water system, which we recognise would involve considerable fuel consumption and cost to the occupier of the house. If a small copper be provided, then I am informed it can be lighted up one night and a small quantity of fuel will heat enough water to a sufficient temperature to enable the person who intends to take a bath, by a judicious mixture of hot and cold water, to obtain a reasonable bath without undue exertion or expense. I will not trouble your Lordships with the figures which have been given me showing the amount of hot water required for this purpose and the temperature to which it has to be heated to produce the desired results. It is, of course, obviously a matter of common sense.
With regard to the other side of the question, to which the noble Lord did not refer so much but which I gather will be referred to on the consideration of a subsequent
44
Amendment standing in the name of the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen—the question of water shortage—the Government recognise, of course, that there may be dry periods when it would not be possible to use these baths. That is a common-sense point of view which has to be recognised, particularly in a year like this when we have been going through a period of drought. The Government have no intention of laying down, when a bathroom has been put into a house, how often a bath is to be taken. It is assumed that the owner or occupier, the farmer or farm servant, whoever it is, will have sufficient common sense to realise the times and periods during which, owing to water shortage, it will be impossible to heat water and use it for the purpose of bathing, but in that case no harm will be done to the installation even if there is a lack of water. Those are the principal points which I need put before your Lordships at this stage. The disagreement between the Government and the noble Lord is not, I think, nearly so great as it appears to be on paper. I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, in making his suggestion for a peculiar pattern of, may I call it wash-house, as he has done, is merely putting in other words the intention of the Government in laying down that a bath-house with a fixed bath must be fitted in these houses before they get their grant.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I am extraordinarily interested in what the noble Lord has just said. As far as I gather, the main point of the Government is that there should be drainage. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, provides for drainage. In fact, I have had the great advantage of seeing one of these rooms with facilities for personal ablution, and they contain drains essentially, otherwise you could not get rid of the water. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord say that the Government were not thinking so much of hot water being necessary for this fixed bath. I should rather like to know whether the intention of the Department, when they come to administer this Bill, is to insist upon a cold water tap for the bath. I am afraid I must on that question find myself in a very small minority. I presume that the noble Lords who have spoken say that they do not like the idea of a cold bath.

45
To my mind that is a necessary operation every morning! At the same time, I do not quite see why a fixed bath is the only thing necessary to enable a drainage to be taken therefrom.
Again, the noble Lord suggested that it was more trouble to take a basin and pour it over you. On the other hand, when there is a shortage of water it takes far less trouble. You will not take the trouble to pour fifteen gallons over you from a basin when there is a shortage of water. But if there is a means of filling your bath with fifteen gallons, you do not have to take trouble. By using your fifteen gallons when there is water, or when you think there is water, you are exhausting the supply of water in a drought sooner than you would if you did not have the fifteen-gallon bath. That is an extraordinarily important matter to bear in mind in rural areas. Your Lordships will realise that it is simple enough in a thickly-populated area to take water into houses which are grouped, because the cost over all is far less per house than where you have one house per hundred acres. The cost of all this water legislation in the depth of the country is enormous. Sometimes the providing of water to a single cottar house costs more than putting a bad house into thorough repair. In fact, I have my own experience of that, but you are not going to get a grant for it—not if I know the Department.
It is a very large order to lay down definitely that there is to be a fixed bathroom in every hou5e built under this Bill. It will take a lot of water. Moreover, I rather disagree with the noble Lord's advisers that this water drainage is going to be quite safe. I say with considerable confidence that a dry wet-system is much more dangerous to health than a poorly-kept dry-system. I presume that the Department of Health, which is responsible for health as well as for houses, do not want unhealthy houses. The curious thing is that the houses which people in these days are so fond of declaring to be absolutely insanitary contain people who have never had a day's illness until after they are ninety years old. There cannot be very much wrong with the "unhealthy" atmosphere if people live to ninety years in these houses. I quite agree that what we can do to improve them we should do, but let us bear in mind the economic side. You can spend thousands of pounds per house in the country, much more than in
46
the town, on account of the enormous distances over which you have to bring water. Then, when you have brought it, very often you find that you have not sufficient, or that the sanitary authority comes and says: "Your water is not pure drinking-water, therefore you cannot have it." Water supply is far fuller of difficulties than the average person who lives in the town can possibly realise unless he has experience of administering water under rural conditions.
Therefore I hope that, as the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has spoken so sympathetically, he will bring these points before the new Secretary of State—whom I should like to join with my noble friend in congratulating on his appointment, and in giving a very hearty welcome. These Amendments, moved on the day after he has been made Secretary of State, are not intended to be a burden to him, but were down on the Paper before we ever knew that he was going to be Secretary of State. May I very earnestly ask the noble Lord to take into consideration whether he cannot find some other words than "a fixed bath"? The smallest fixed bath takes a great deal of water, and there is not the water there. I know it only too well. I have had plenty of administration of water, both in town and in the country. The difficulty of finding water in the country is far greater in proportion to the available supplies than it is in the town; therefore you have to be much more careful what you lay down as a minimum requirement under an Act of Parliament.
LORD SALTOUN: I think there is even less difference between myself and the Government than the noble Lord has suggested. In fact I might have taken a lot of what my noble friend said to support my own case. He suggested that the "facilities for personal ablution in a separate room" might cover a wash-hand basin. Section 18 (1) (d) contains the words "facilities for personal ablution." Am I to understand that that is just a wash-hand basin? I chose the words that the Bill itself used, but I am perfectly ready to take any other words that the noble Lord is willing to suggest. With regard to the fixed bath in the bathroom against a waterproof room, I do not urge any particular substitute system. The only reason why I mentioned a waterproof room on the Second Reading was to show that I have studied this question

47
with a view to making better conditions for housing in Scotland, and I have been content to risk some money in doing so, which I think gives me some title to speak on the subject. The point that I make is a point which was not contested by the noble Lord. I said that if you have a fixed bath which is not used, the water evaporates in the trap, and you get direct communication between the drain and the living room. That room is always being used, especially by the wives, and with all due deference to the Government it is the wives whom we want to consider.
The noble Lord says that it only concerns a bath, which is not a source of danger. Here we have the Minister of Health for Scotland at variance with the London County Council. Indeed I think the Department is at variance with all the authorities. The difficulty is what is said by the Government in debate in another place. I know that is the difficulty, and what I would suggest to the noble Lord is that he should allow me to withdraw these two Amendments now, and that he should arrange for a conference with the Secretary of State and himself, of course, and those honourable gentlemen who criticised this Bill in the House of Commons. Let us have a round-table talk on this subject, because I am perfectly certain that they and the Government are as keen and ardent as I am for the health of the population of Scotland, and for the comfort and convenience of the country population. I am perfectly certain that if such a conference took place, and I might be allowed to prepare an Amendment and, if necessary, bring it up in a modified form at a later stage, it would be the best thing that we could do. We have this absolute contradiction between the Department of Health for Scotland on the one side and the London County Council and a great number of authorities on the other, and I think we should take time to thrash the matter out.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am afraid I have not followed the discussion very closely in another place, but there is a method which I have adopted in certain cottages in Scotland. I do not know how far it is applicable to these houses. It is a method which I used a great deal in my early youth. I provide
48
not a fixed bath, but a movable full-length bath, which, when not in use, can be hung on the wall to dry, or can quite easily be taken out of doors to be emptied. I should have thought that it would be undesirable to refuse a grant on the ground that while provision of that sort could be made, the law says that it must be a fixed bath. I wonder whether the noble Lord would consider the introduction of a form of words to make it clear that providing a room with a movable bath was sufficient—whether that would not be the best way out of this difficulty.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Before I come to the last suggestion, made by the noble Marquess, I feel I ought just to refer once again to the question which I was asked by Lord Aberdeen. I think he asked whether we were contemplating taps for hot and cold water, and I think I am right in saying that it is not contemplated. What the late Secretary of State had in mind was the provision of a bath, fixed, I admit, in a room in which ablutions could be performed. The position which arose before that may not be clear to your Lordships, and I think it is worth while reminding you that a fight was taking place between the parties concerned with this question. It was agreed to drop the provision of water closets in these houses, but the Secretary of State wished to keep the bath at all costs. Therefore he agreed to drop the water closet, but insisted on keeping the bath there, so that arrangements could be made for a person to have a bath.
I have dealt with the water shortage, and so forth, but there is one other point. We are now dealing with the provision of new houses, and it will always be possible, and be the ideal, I think, to build these new houses wherever water is available in sufficient quantities. I also want to emphasize once again the importance which the Secretary of State attaches to the provision of drainage from this bathroom or wash-house. He repeatedly said that it was essential to get the water out of the room in question. Lord Saltoun has raised again the question of drainage, and I will certainly look into the point which he raised. I should like, quite frankly, to adopt his suggestion to this extent. If he will withdraw his Amendment now, between now

49
and the Report stage he and I, if it can be arranged, will consult with the new Secretary of State about all the points which have been discussed this afternoon, including the new and somewhat novel suggestion of Lord Lothian. Then, if we have not reached a satisfactory solution, he can put down his Amendment again on the Report stage, and I can give him all the latest information from the best sources available.
LORD SALTOUN: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for adopting my suggestion, and will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), to leave out "and such other conveniences as may be specified in the scheme of assistance." The noble Marquess said: The object of this Amendment is to prevent the use of the wide and vague words contained in paragraph (c), under which assistance is not permitted to be given unless a house contains "such other conveniences as may be specified in the scheme of assistance." Words of this nature are very difficult of interpretation, more especially when the local authority is riot compelled to give assistance which is outside the scheme, as I understand it. The words might be taken to include not merely a hand pump but a semi-rotary pump, or they might include a reservoir or a windmill, the cost of which would be entirely prohibitive, and in any case would be an uneconomic proposition.
In this connection the word "may" in the proviso in paragraph (c) is important, because if the local authority declines to exercise its power to dispense with the provisions, the aggrieved party would have no appeal. This clause provides by subsection (1) that a local authority may give assistance. The argument is some—times put forward that the expression "may" in an Act of Parliament is the same as "shall." It certainly cannot apply in this case. I do not know whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would dispute that argument, but attention may be drawn to the opening words of this clause which run:
"A local authority may, and if so required by the Department shall, submit to the Department a scheme …"
50
I think your Lordships will agree that the Bill must be read as a whole. It is quite clear from those words that where it is intended to impose a statutory requirement on a local authority to take certain steps the language for the purpose is clear and unambiguous. In other words, I want to make it quite clear that there shall be no doubt what the local authority may do, what the owner may do, and what the Department may require.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("and such other conveniences as may be specified in the scheme of assistance").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Ternair.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I will, if I may, when replying to this Amendment also refer back in passing to the noble Marquess's previous Amendment on page 6, line 17, after "therefor" to insert "and." Clause 4 (3) (c) proposes to confer on local authorities the power to specify in their schemes of assistance for the erection of new houses by private persons certain conveniences which must be provided in the new houses. These conveniences would be additional to the water closet, scullery, sink and bath which are specifically mentioned in Clause 4 (3) (c). The object of the two Amendments is, I gather, to deprive local authorities of this power to specify additional conveniences. What, if any, additional conveniences ought to be specified will be a matter for local authorities themselves to decide, but in the model scheme of assistance which the Department sent to local authorities on April 18 the following conveniences were mentioned: a coal house or fuel store, a ventilated larder, facilities for washing and drying clothes, adequate press accommodation, and facilities for cooking food. These things are merely what any reasonable person who was building a new house would provide, and it is not intended that the power to specify additional conveniences should do more than enable local authorities to see that certain fittings are provided in any house for which a grant is being given. Local authorities are not likely to put any unreasonable requirements in their schemes under this power. Perhaps the noble Marquess will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment if I give him this further undertaking, that I have the personal assurance of the Secretary of State that in approving schemes of assistance he will

51
see that no unduly expensive or elaborate conveniences are specified.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: That is really what I want. I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in the proviso in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), after "practicable," to insert "without undue expenditure." The noble Marquess said: This Amendment is to prevent the repetition of words. Paragraph (c) refers to "a watercloset, a scullery with a sink and drainage therefor" and the proviso goes on to say that:
"where it is not reasonably practicable to provide a watercloset, the local authority may, with the approval of the Department, and subject to such conditions as the Department may impose, dispense with the provision thereof."
My intention is that they may also dispense with the other subjects mentioned in paragraph (c).
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 21, after ("practicable") insert ("without undue expenditure.")—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
Lord SALTOUN: The words "without undue expenditure" would limit the words "reasonably practicable" to a question of expenditure, which I think would be unfortunate, because the question of water is quite as important as the question of expenditure, as I am sure my noble friend would acknowledge.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND ABEMAIR: I am sorry I spoke on one only of my two Amendments to this proviso. It was the next Amendment that spoke on—to leave out "a water-closet" and insert "the conveniences specified in this paragraph." It is of course essential that we should be protected from undue expenditure. The moment you bring in a plumber the expenditure goes up. In the country it is even more expensive than in the town.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I think the noble Marquess will see that his Amendment is really unnecessary. Its effect would be to give a specific direction to the local authority and the Department to consider the
52
question of expense in deciding whether it is reasonably practicable to provide a water closet. The words "reasonably practicable" have always been interpreted as including considerations of expense. There is no reason to believe that local authorities will not so interpret them and an undertaking can readily be given that the Secretary of State will draw the attention of local authorities to the point and will himself in any cases which come before his Department see that this interpretation is maintained.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR had on the Paper an Amendment in the proviso in paragraph (c) of subsection (3), to leave out "a water-closet" and insert "the conveniences specified in this paragraph." The noble Marquess said: I have dealt with this Amendment in what I said before.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This point has already been dealt with, and I do not think the noble Marquess wants to speak again.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: In the circumstances I will not move it.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 11 agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 11:
Power to local authority to make advances.
"12.—(1) A local authority may advance to the owner of any house which the owner has erected or has undertaken to erect, under the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1925 to 1935, or this Act such proportion of the cost of erection of such house including the provision or improvement of water supply and drainage for such house as may be agreed to by the local authority.
(2)The advance shall not exceed ninety per cent, of such amount or amounts as the local authority are satisfied has or have been expended by the owner on the house as afore said under deduction of any assistance given by the local authority.
(3)The advance may be for such period not exceeding thirty years and repayable by an annuity during that period of such amount as may be agreed upon between the local authority and the owner.
(4) The advance shall be secured by a charging order which it shall be competent for the local authority to make in favour of themselves over the house after notice has been given by the local authority to any person holding bonds or other securities for loans over the estate on which such house is situated, for the amount of the annuity agreed upon and the provisions of Sections twenty-one and twenty-two of the Act of 1925 shall, subject to the necessary modifications apply to a charging order so made in like manner as they apply to a charging order made in favour of an owner."
The noble Marquess said: This is perhaps the most important Amendment that I have put down on the Paper. I am going to take it for granted that your Lordships have read it. A charging order in connection with housing legislation is not a new thing. Under the Act of 1925, if a local authority ordered the owner of a house to execute certain works, it could, on the works being completed, give him a charging order in favour of itself. Clause 11 which we have just passed extends this principle a little further. It enables the local authority that has carried repairs or improvements on a defective house, in default of the owner, to make the same kind of charging order in favour of itself. The proposed clause adopts and extends this principle. It enables the local authority to lend to the owner of the house ninety per cent, of the cost of the work which he has to bear himself, and to make in favour of itself a charging order over the house in priority of existing mortgages. Owing to the national desire to improve the standard of rural housing, and the Government's determination to effect this object, a very heavy burden is going to be thrown on local authorities and the owners of agricultural estates. It is these two who will have to bear the costs, and the greater the share the private owner can shoulder the lighter will be the burden thrown on the local authority. There are few estates which are not encumbered, and it will not be easy for a private owner to raise the money, particularly in view of the high cost of building. It will be of great help to him if he can borrow the money on easy terms and pay off the debt by means of an annuity.
The schemes outlined in the Amendment would be of much more help to a proprietor in connection with the reconstruction and improvement of existing houses under the Housing (Rural
54
Workers) Act, but this cannot be effected under this Bill. This Bill deals with the erection of new houses to replace houses which are condemned. The maximum grant for a four-roomed house is £200. A new house of this size, with modern conveniences, cannot be erected in rural areas at the present time at less than a cost of £600, which leaves the proprietor to find £400 towards the erection of a tied farm cottage, from which, your Lordships will note, he receives no rent. If a proprietor has a dozen cottages to be dealt with, the weight of the burden is obvious. It would be a great help to him if he could borrow ninety per cent, of the sum he has to put up himself from the local authority which will already have passed the plans. It will not cost the local authority or the ratepayers anything, as the annuity which the proprietor will have to pay will cover the whole cost that the local authority has incurred in borrowing the money to make the loan. The Government may say, "Why not borrow from the Lands Improvement Company?" Obtaining loans from this Company in Scotland is cumbrous and expensive. Advertisement of the loan in local newspapers is required. The Company employ their own experts to pass the plans and to inspect, and the local authority also have to do that, and they charge a fee. All this trouble and expense for a small loan will be saved if the plan outlined in the new clause is adopted.
Of course objections may be raised by the local authority that the security of the house itself is not sufficient. I would say, in reply to that, that it is not obligatory on the local authority. They need only lend money on the security of the house which would be, by itself, a lettable or saleable subject. There would be little, difficulty in letting or selling the house owing to the scarcity of houses in most rural areas. The loan is only for ninety per cent, of the balance of the cost after deduction of the grant, and the debt would be liquidated in, say, twenty or thirty years. The debt would be therefore always decreasing. As regards existing bondholders, if they had to sell a farm with modern farm cottages it would be much more easily realised than one with dilapidated houses lacking modern conveniences. If it is considered that the small house is not sufficient security, one might suggest that a prior charge could cover the farm on which the new

55
house is situated, but it certainly should not cover the whole of the estate. This is only an extension of Clause n to allow the owner to do what Clause n allows the local authority to do. I would stress the point that the more the local authority can be relieved of the expense by sharing it with the owner, the greater advantage to the locality in which the estate is situated. For these reasons, and for others which I could adumbrate, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 11 insert the said new clause.—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD SALTOUN: I am sorry to speak so much, but there is a point on this Amendment, as I understand it, which I should like to make clear. As I understand the law of Scotland, any charge upon a heritable subject must rank after the charge of the bondholder. What I mean is this. If you have to put up a cottage, one of the difficulties in borrowing the money to do so is that the land is probably already subject to a bond, which has possibly been raised to pay Estate Duty or something like that. You cannot go and raise money to build that cottage because there is already a first charge upon it. Now if you do succeed in getting the money and building that cottage, no charge upon that cottage can take precedence of the charge that already exists by the bondholders, because your cottage is heritable and becomes part of the security for the heritable bond. To alter that I think would require an alteration of a very large number of Acts of Parliament and a change in the Common Law of Scotland. But I do submit that what this Amendment puts forward is something much more simple. It puts forward this, that that cottage when built shall be subject to a charge from the possessor (whoever he may be) to the local authority, and, in view of the condition of housing in the country districts of Scotland, which must be the condition for many years to come, I do not think there is any doubt that the local authority could get that charge readily paid whether the bondholders had entered into possession or not. It is that view of the Amendment that I should like to support.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I also should like to support this Amendment, but from a point of view other than those expressed by my noble friends Lord Aberdeen and Lord Saltoun. The noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, stated that as the Bill stands the expenses may be incurred by the local authority and be recoverable from the proprietor. On the other hand, his Amendment will allow the proprietors to make the alterations or to build these new cottages themselves. I can conceive of a number of proprietors in Scotland who would be able, with their own resources, to build these cottages, and even be called upon by the local authorities to bear the cost of the cottages which the local authorities had built under this Bill, but I also can conceive of a great many others—and probably they will far outnumber the rich landlords—who would not be able to face up to this Clause n as it now stands, and would find great relief in the Amendment which has been proposed by my noble friend. I therefore sincerely hope that the Government will see their way to adopt this Amendment, and so enable the landlords who do desire to carry out the provisions of this measure and to see their people properly housed, and housed according to the modern standard, to do it. Without such an Amendment as has been proposed by my noble friend, I do not see how many of them will be able to do it.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: This proposal was brought forward with the support of every organisation in Scotland which has to do with the housing of agricultural workers. The county councils are in favour of it, the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture is very keen about it, and landowners who are anxious to improve their houses and are unable to do so for want of funds also wish the Government to accept this Amendment. As your Lordships are aware, much progress has been made in the rural counties of Scotland in recent years, especially in those counties where the county councils have made full use of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, but there are many cases, unfortunately, where owners of estates or farms are not able to take advantage of that Act, even with the assistance of a grant. As was said just now, this Amendment is even more important under the other Bill, but it is very important that the principle of the Amendment should somehow be se-

57
cured in both Bills. I know there are a number of legal and technical difficulties, but there have been a number of conferences in Scotland on this subject, and I believe, even though it is felt in some quarters that the proposal is not absolutely satisfactory, it is the most satisfactory solution that has been devised, and I hope the legal advisers of the Government will not advise that it should not be accepted. If the Government cannot meet the difficulty in this way I do not know in what other way the Scottish Office can overcome it. I do feel that the acceptance of this proposal is the easiest way to get out of the difficulty.
LORD KINNAIRD: I should like to add a word to emphasize the importance of the Government accepting this Amendment. I think there can be no doubt that without it, the solution of this problem will be a very long affair. If people are to be left to their own resources without financial help the measure will, to a large extent, remain a dead letter. I would like to point out that, if it is accepted, it will help all concerned very considerably. First of all, those farm servants on the estates of the less wealthy landowners will get the housing that we all think they should have, and secondly the farmers—and I would like particularly to emphasize this point—if they are on an estate where this housing cannot be carried out, will suffer a very great hardship. In fact at the present time we already have a problem arising in the countryside. Farmers are already finding that if this improved housing has not been provided their farm servants are going off to those neighbouring farms where the accommodation has been provided. The result is that certain farms are going to suffer because the farmers cannot get the right type of men to come to them, and they cannot keep their good men. Farmers, therefore, are up against a very difficult problem, and both they and the Government will gain if this Amendment is adopted.
The Government will in fact gain in a much greater degree because the value of the farms throughout the country will be kept up. If the present position is continued over a long period a great many farms that have not the advantage of the housing are bound to depreciate in value considerably, so that the Government,
58
if they can help landowners by giving financial assistance, will help themselves also by keeping up the value of the farms. I think that this Amendment is probably the best one in the circumstances, because if you are going to give help I think it is the cheapest way in which the help can be given. The local authority knows the value of the farm. Reference has been made to going to societies in Edinburgh to get a new valuation, but I think the best assistance can be given by the local authority which is in touch with local conditions.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I recognise fully the importance of the speeches which your Lordships have heard from noble Lords who speak with authority for the different parts of Scotland from which they come. I wish I was in a position to agree with them and accept this clause. My difficulty is that first of all I am not sure whether noble Lords realise that subsections (1), (2) and (3) of this proposed new clause are unnecessary. I am informed that local authorities already have power under Section 75 of the Housing (Scotland) Act of 1925 to make loans for the erection of new houses, and it is clear that under Section 75 they could make loans for houses erected with grants under Part II of this Bill. The only part of the new clause which is not covered by the existing law is subsection (4).
The object of this subsection (4) apparently is to allow a local authority who have given a loan for the erection of a new house to agree with the borrower that the loan shall be repaid by a fixed annuity and, after giving notice to any persons holding bonds over the estate on which the house is situated, to make a charging order over the new house for the amount of the annuity. The effect of that charging order would be that the annuity would be a charge on the house ranking prior to all existing and future charges with certain specified exceptions such as feu-duties, charges for the recovery of expenses under the Public Health (Scotland) Act and charges created by Acts authorising advances of public money. In passing I would inform the noble Marquess that I am told that in no case could this subsection be accepted in its present form because the drafting is defective. But the difficulty which prevents the Government from accepting this pro-

59
posed new clause goes far deeper than that. The proposals in the clause were put to the Secretary of State last year. In consultation with the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General he considered them very carefully. Meetings were held with the Scottish Land and Property Federation, with the Association of County Councils and other interested parties to discuss the proposals, but unfortunately it was not possible for these three bodies to reach agreement on what they wanted.
Although I gather from noble Lords who have spoken that some measure of agreement appears to have been reached now, I am informed that the Association of County Councils do not agree to the exact wording of this clause, although they are as anxious as anybody else to do something to meet this difficult situation. In particular the Scottish Land and Property Federation proposed that the prior charge should be imposed on the house alone, whereas the Association of County Councils desired that the charge should be imposed on the whole estate or on the whole farm. Another point of disagreement was that the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation could not consistently with their legal duties agree to the imposition of a charge ranking prior to their loans, whereas the Association of County Councils felt that the charge must rank prior to loans made by the Corporation. The subsection proposes that notice should be given to existing bondholders, but it does not indicate when the notice is to be given or what action existing bondholders may take following on the notice. If the proposal were adopted it would be essential for the protection of the legitimate rights of existing members to provide a complicated code of provisions for advertisement and notice to existing lenders on the lines of the Improvement of Land Act, 1864. Further, unless it is proposed that existing bondholders are to have a complete veto on the creation of charging orders, it would be necessary, I am informed, to provide for some kind of tribunal to determine when a charging order would and when it would not injure the interests of those bondholders.
To sum up this extremely difficult and complicated situation, the objections which the Government have to this proposal
60
may be stated in three sentences. In the first place, from the point of view of mere mechanism, the formulation of an Amendment presents exceptional difficulty which has not yet been solved. Secondly, from the point of view of reconciling other legitimate interests who would be affected by what is proposed, serious difficulties have been encountered and these have not been solved. Thirdly, I am informed that even if these difficulties could be solved acceptance of the Amendment might lead to exactly the opposite result of what is intended, because the interested parties themselves might be compelled to call up existing charges. All that I can give by way of assurance to those noble Lords who are in favour of this Amendment is to say that the Government are continuing and will continue to examine the problem anxiously. I cannot give any undertaking that anything can be done with this particular Bill, although of course, if any new development arises between now and a later stage of the Bill I should be prepared to reconsider that last statement. It looks at present as if it would be impossible to reach agreement between the various parties concerned in time to get the necessary Amendment made in this Bill. For those reasons, therefore, I am afraid the Government must refuse to accept this proposed new clause.
LORD SALTOUN: There was one point raised by the noble Lord which, frankly, I do not understand, and that was with reference to notice given to any existing bondholders. Surely there is nothing in this proposed clause which prevents bondholders asking for their money, not on the next, but on the next succeeding term day. As long as it is made clear that notice must be given to a bondholder before the works are proceeded with it seems to me that the bondholder's action in the matter would provide an acid test whether the house was actually required and whether that particular loan was really required and whether there was improvement to the propery or not. It seems to me that as all these parties are in agreement something should be done, and I hope that during the passage of this Bill a formula may be found.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: May I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind in any further consideration of this proposal that the

61
Association of County Councils and the Scottish Land and Property Federation are in agreement as to the prior security? That prior security should be over the whole subject of the bond, but not, as I think the noble Lord said, over the whole estate.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I said that was one of the objections raised beforehand.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: May I say that the reply of the noble Lord struck me as being very disappointing. He talked about three reasons why the Government could not accept this Amendment. One was the question of mechanism, one was the question of getting the agreement of interested parties, and the third, which, if I may say so with respect, I thought was rather peculiar, was that there would be danger that the owners of the estate would find themselves in the position of having the bond called up if this procedure were put into effect. The position, surely, is one of very general agreement. We have heard that the county councils and other interests are agreed as to the desirability of this very beneficent provision. We should be justifiably disappointed if the Government could not put the necessary impetus into these talks and arrangements to get this matter arranged within the compass of the Bill. The noble Lord says that the Government are continuing to do what they can. I will only express the hope that they will actively take a lead to get composed whatever small measure of disagreement may remain, in time to be able to insert a new clause at a later stage.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: Frankly, I am very disappointed with the reception given to this new clause by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, all the more so because it has received so much support from my fellow-countrymen, of whom all those who have spoken know what they are talking about. Perhaps I did not make it clear enough that, since the Government Departments have had their conferences with the parties who have been mentioned, those parties have come very much closer together. I understand that they are all, more or less, now willing to accept this new clause, which has been re-drafted in order to meet all the
62
different points that were raised by the parties and by the Government Departments. I am therefore encouraged to ask the noble Lord to give the same sympathetic reply to me as he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, on his second Amendment—namely, that he will ask the new Secretary of State to meet the parties at a round-table conference and see whether we cannot hammer out something before Report stage. It would be an extraordinary pity to lose an occasion like this when the parties are much nearer than they were. If they meet the Government, I think a new clause can probably be drafted to meet all objections.
I am not going to claim that this present clause is perfect in draftsmanship or in legal terms. It has, however, been drafted with great care, and if the attention which its promoters desire can be put into satisfactory language with the help of the Government Departments concerned, I hope the noble Lord will ask me to withdraw it only on the under-Standing that there shall be a conference of all the parties with the Government in order that we may not lose this valuable occasion of putting in a most useful piece of legislation, which is urgently required. It is all the more required on account of the great expenditure which is involved and which, by the intention of the clause, will be repaid without any cost at all to the local authority. If the noble Lord can give me that undertaking, I will willingly withdraw the clause with a view to putting down an agreed clause on the Report stage.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: In answer to Lord Balfour of Burleigh, I will confess to him that this is a complicated matter which requires for its proper elucidation a greater amount of legal knowledge and practice than I have. It may, however, be some source of comfort to him if I assure him that I went into this question fairly carefully with the Lord Advocate before coming down to the House, and I have endeavoured to give your Lordships the opinions which the Lord Advocate expressed to me at that conference. I realise that we have listened to a volume of opinion, speaking for various parts of Scotland, which no Government should overlook. I equally think it would be unfair to the Government to say "No" to the offer which the noble Marquess has

63
just made. I am not sure of the reception my proposal will receive when I take it up to the new Secretary of State, but I have no doubt that I shall be able to persuade him to have some such conference as that which the noble Marquess has suggested, so that if any solution of this difficulty can be found between now and the Report stage, we can take the necessary action with that in view. I must, however, inform your Lordships that at four o'clock this afternoon all the information at my disposal went to show that there was no agreement between the various parties referred to in this clause. If it transpires that within the last few days agreement has been reached, or if any other line is proposed by the Secretary of State and those present at the conference, that will give us the opportunity of taking the necessary steps to put the matter right on the Report stage. If the noble Marquess, therefore, will withdraw the Amendment, I will do my best to see that the conference is arranged.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, and I willingly accept his suggestion and beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12:
Interpretation and amendment of 60 & 61 Viet. c. 38, s. 125.
12.—(1) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that for the purposes of Section one hundred and twenty-five of the Public Health (Scotland) Act. 1897, a house shall be deemed to be without a proper supply of wholesome water if in any case in which it is reasonably practicable to introduce such supply into the house, such supply has not been so introduced.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, after "practicable," to insert "without undue expenditure." The noble Marquess said: This is the same Amendment as I put down to Clause 4. The intention of Clause 12 is to provide that
"a house shall be deemed to be without a proper supply of wholesome water if in any case in which it is reasonably practicable to introduce such supply into the house, such supply has not been so introduced."
It is quite obvious that a thing may be quite reasonably practicable at an enormous cost. If the noble Lord will give
64
me the same undertaking as he gave me with regard to Clause 4, I shall be content to withdraw the Amendment. It must, however, be understood that when you deal with water, expenditure is always practicable if you have enough money to spend, but that does not make the proposition an economic one. If we can be assured that people will not be asked to spend enormous sums on a thing which is practicable when it is unreasonable, I will be content to withdraw the Amendment, but I should like that assurance.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 19, after ("practicable") insert ("without undue expenditure").— (The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: While assuring the noble Marquess first of all that this Amendment is unnecessary, I can give him the further assurance which he requires. In the interpretation of Section 125 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, it is for the Sheriff to decide what is reasonably practicable, and no Court of Law would hold that it was reasonably practicable to introduce water supplies if undue expenditure were involved. I am also informed that no case is known in which the words "reasonably practicable" have been held to exclude questions of expense. The noble Marquess should therefore feel quite happy about this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: On that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Amendment of s. 20 of Act of 1925.
13. Any watercloset provided under Section twenty of the Act of 1925 shall, where it is reasonably practicable, be provided inside the dwelling-house or part thereof for which it is provided, or where that is not reasonably practicable, in a position readily accessible therefrom.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, after "practicable," to insert "without undue expenditure." The noble Marquess said: This is the same Amendment, but it is slightly different. Here the words "without undue expenditure" are necessary, for it might be "reasonably practicable without undue expenditure" to provide a watercloset in a position "readily accessible therefrom,"

65
but it might be quite impossible to provide one inside without undue expenditure. I do not know whether the noble Lord sees my point.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 26, after ("practicable") insert ("without undue expenditure").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: This Amendment is unnecessary, I understand, for the same reason as that which I have already given to the noble Marquess. Perhaps in this case I can make out an even stronger and clearer case, which may satisfy him, because I understand that Section 20 (2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, provides that
"any question which may arise under this section as to what is reasonably practicable shall be determined summarily by the Sheriff, who shall have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the expenses involved, and his decision shall be final."
It would be better, I think, if the noble Marquess would take my assurance that that, as in the last case, makes it absolutely unnecessary for him to put in these words. I hope, therefore, that he will not press this Amendment either.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 17 agreed to.
Clause 18:
By-laws relating to accommodation for agricultural workers.
18.—(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act or within such longer period as the Department may allow, a local authority shall make, with respect to bothies, chaumers and similar premises which are used for the accommodation of agricultural workers and are not part of a farmhouse, by-laws regarding any of the following matters, that is to say:—
(i) such other matters as the Department may from time to time prescribe:
Provided that, if a local authority show to the satisfaction of the Department that it is unnecessary to make by-laws under this section, the Department may dispense with the making of such by-laws.
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), after "premises," where that words first occurs, to insert "constructed under Parts I and II of this Act, and." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name on this clause was originally put down in sheer puzzle-
66
ment, because some of your Lordships may remember there was considerable difference of opinion between the Government and myself, on the Second Reading, as to the interpretation of this clause. The Amendment was put down in order to elicit from the Government a clear exposition of the clause. I do not think, from conversations which I have had since the Second Reading, that there is any real misunderstanding at the present moment on this clause. I think it is a clause empowering local authorities to make regulations governing all the existing bothies and chaumers in Scotland. This is a very drastic clause, and if these regulations are made in conformity with the standard set up in Parts I and II of the Bill, and I have reason to think they will be, it means that practically every bothie and chaumer in Scotland will be condemned, and the position is that every unmarried man in Scotland who works on a farm will be living in a condemned house. In another place it was said by the Secretary of State, speaking on this subject, that it was his desire to do away with all the chaumers in Scotland, and he then went on to refer alternatively to chaumers and bothies as if they were the same thing, when, as your Lordships know, they are two utterly different things.
He went on to say that he wished to substitute for them cottages. It is all very well to talk about cottages, but an unmarried man cannot live in the farmhouse, because there is not room, and he would not like it. He cannot live with the married farm servants in their houses, because it would not suit, as your Lordships will realise. What is a single man going to do with a cottage? He will not have time to grow woodbine round his windows, and to keep three or four rooms clean. He must be in a chaumer or bothie, unless the Government are going to get a great expansion of "universal aunts" to keep house for the unmarried farm servant. It has taken me some time to consider what Amendment could be made to the clause, and I am quite clear that the Amendment which I have on the Paper is not the proper one. Therefore I want to ask leave to withdraw it and also to ask the Government to give us time before the next stage of the Bill, in order that we can consider Clause 18 as closely as may be, and in order to enable me to consider what Amendment ought to

67
be made in the clause. As a matter of procedure, perhaps I ought to move the Amendment and ask the noble Lord to reply, although I do not wish to press the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 39, after ("premises") insert ("constructed under Parts I and II of this Act, and",)—(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: I am very glad the noble Lord has moved this Amendment, and I am equally glad he intends to withdraw it, because I think it will enable us to discover what he wanted in putting it down. He and I have had some private conversations about this point, and I thought I had assured him then, but I think it will be much the simplest course if we now agree to wait until the Report stage before doing anything more about this clause. It will give me time to talk over the matter with the noble Lord and see exactly what he wants. I only ask him, on his part, to arrange for his Amendment to be put down again, if he wishes to do so, on the Report stage, as early as possible, so that we shall have time to look into it and agree on a solution of the problem, which appears to worry him and about which I am not quite clear at this moment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR moved, in paragraph (i) of subsection (1), to leave out "the Department may from time to time prescribe," and insert "may be necessary to safeguard health and safety." The noble Marquess said: The object of this Amendment is to limit the unduly wide language of paragraph (i), "such other matters as the Department may from time to time prescribe." There are an enormous number of things, (a) to (h), which the Department may prescribe, and notwithstanding all those they want to take powers in "such other matters as the Department may from time to time prescribe." There was quite a discussion on this paragraph in another place, where objections were taken to giving the Department such un-controlled powers. One member said that what puzzled him, if it was necessary to have paragraph (i), was why it should be necessary to have all the other paragraphs. It still puzzles me. It would have been much simpler to provide that
68
the Department should be able to prescribe what by-laws it pleased, and that would have been much shorter and have had precisely the same effect. It is unfortunately true that Parliament allowed in the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, similar words to become law. This precedent will, of course, be quoted against me, but it is no real argument for the enactment of vague and general powers in any Bill, even although it is going to be applied to Scotland.
The mover of the Amendment to omit paragraph (i) in another place, after the reply of the late Secretary of State for Scotland, suggested the words "such other precautions as may be necessary to safeguard the health and safety of those living in the dwellings," to which suggestion the late Secretary of State for Scotland replied that if the honourable member in question, Mr. Foot, placed some such Amendment on the Order Paper he would consider it. The Scottish Office have had plenty of notice of my Amendment—they have had sixteen days—and I very much hope that it may be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 17, leave out ("the Department may from time to time prescribe"), and insert ("may be necessary to safeguard health and safety").—(The Marquess of Aberdeen and Ternair.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: Clause 18 of the Bill specifies various matters about which by-laws applying to bothies and chaumers may be made. It is impossible to be sure in advance that the matters specified cover all the points on which it may be desirable to make by-laws, and the clause therefore gives the Department power to prescribe additional matters. Any additional matters would have to be prescribed by regulations which, under Section 45 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, would have to be laid before each House of Parliament. This secures to Parliament control over all the matters to be included in the by-laws. The effect of the Amendment would be to withdraw from the Department the power to prescribe additional matters regarding which local authorities may make by-laws and to give local authorities a general power to make by-laws on any matter covered by the very general words "necessary to safeguard health or safety." A further

69
effect of the Amendment would be to dispense with the Parliamentary control which is secured by the requirement that any regulations made by the Department must be laid before Parliament. I am sure it is not the intention of the noble Marquess to achieve that in his Amendment. He has referred to what took place in a stage of the discussion of this Bill elsewhere, but I think the short answer to what he said is that all regulations prescribing additional matters will have to be laid before Parliament, and it is most important that we should retain that control. That would not be the case if we were to accept his Amendment, and I hope that he will not press it.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: If it is a fact that all these regulations are to be laid before each House of Parliament I agree that my Amendment is not necessary. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS) BILL.
Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendment read.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received. We gave undertakings to look into various points on the Committee stage, and we have done so. As your Lordships know, the difficulty in trying to amend any of the details of rent restrictions is to find something which would be an improvement on the existing law. My noble friend Lord Bertie of Thame wanted to clarify the position about vacant possession. It is quite true that this has been a very troublesome matter, and I think to some extent it is so still. I can only say that my noble friend the Lord Chancellor, who has had a great deal of experience in these matters, has personally looked into the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, but I am afraid the Government are unable to agree that it would be a practical proposition at the present moment. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, wanted to strengthen the tenant's
70
position and prevent his being overcharged for repairs which the landlord ought to carry out in the ordinary course of events, and I think everybody agreed that that was a very desirable aim; but the dilemma we were in was to find something which would be not merely a restatement of the existing law and which would, on the other hand, avoid bringing about a state of affairs which would really put a premium on the landlord's carrying out the minimum repairs in the cheapest possible way.
Again, we promised to do something to consider whether some modification of the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Grey, was possible. I think that possibly it is justifiable, in theory at any rate, to consider a scheme of apportionment, but we are satisfied that in practice it would really not be worth doing. It is true that by charging the tenant 1 or 2 per cent, on improvements the owner could perhaps get a pound or two extra a year, but I think it would be a payment that would be very much resented by the tenant, and I do not think it would appreciably help the owner. If such a charge were made retrospective it would help the owner, but I think it would be extremely unlikely that he would ever be able to extract it from the tenant.
I am not attempting to argue these points in any detail, but I want to assure your Lordships that, although we admit the force of many of the arguments used, our investigations really have not convinced us that any of the proposals made on the Committee stage really merit being added to the Bill. I can only therefore conclude, as I did the other day, by suggesting to those who represent the owners that they should bear their burden, which in the cases mentioned do not seem to me to be really of a very considerable or overwhelming character. I would suggest that they should endeavour to bear them with such fortitude as they can for a few more years, when I think we can be more hopeful than we have been for a long time past that these Acts will come to an end.
Moved, That the Report of Amendment be now received.—(Viscount Gage.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): My Lords, I might add to what the noble Viscount has said that I tried my best to investigate the question whether the actual position could not be

71
further clarified by some Amendment in this Bill. I confess when I first saw the Amendment which the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, proposed, I thought something of the sort might be inserted in the Bill with advantage, and, if I may say so, I tried my best to get something of the kind agreed to by those in charge of the Bill in another place; but, after correspondence, the Minister of Health told me that in his opinion it would be better on the whole to leave the position as it now stands. I am sorry I was unable to meet the wishes of my noble friend.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I came quite unprepared to take part in a debate on this occasion, but I should like to express my thanks to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and to my noble friend Lord Gage for having considered the points I raised. I am very sorry that even the ingenuity of my noble friend on the Woolsack has not been able to clear away from the law the confusion in which it seems to stand at present.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Amendment reported accordingly.

SEA FISH 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:
[LORD STANMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
White Fish Industry Joint Council.
(3) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a person shall be deemed to carry on the business of selling white fish by wholesale if, in the course of any business carried on by him, he sells any white fish to a person who buys the fish for the purpose of selling them again, and shall be deemed to carry on the business of a fishmonger if, in the course of any business carried on by him, he sells white fish by retail:
Provided that—
(a) a sale of white fish by auction effected at a port by or on behalf of the catcher of the fish shall be deemed not to be a sale by wholesale;
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM) moved to insert in subsection (3), after proviso (a):
"(b) a person shall not be taken to carry on the business of selling white fish by wholesale, or the business of a fishmonger, by reason only that he sells white fish preserved in any airtight container."
The noble Earl said: In the debate in another place the question was raised as to whether the grocer who sells a tin of sardines would come within the definition of fishmonger now included in the Bill and an assurance was given that this was not the intention and that the fact would be made clear. The present Amendment is designed to meet this point, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, at end insert the said new paragraph,—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Registration of persons engaged in the white fish industry.
(4) A person shall on making application to be registered in the Commission's register, and also on demand made by the Commission at any time while his name appears in that register, furnish to the Commission such information as it may require for the purpose of performing its duties under this section.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to add to subsection (4):
"and any person registered in the Commission's register as carrying on a designated business shall, whenever requested in writing by the Commission so to do, make to the Commission a written declaration stating whether or not he is carrying on that business as a nominee of another person, and, if so, specifying the name of that other person."
The noble Earl said: When this clause was under discussion in another place an Amendment was moved requiring the Commission to discover the person who, in fact, directs the policy of a concern. This was putting on the Commission an onus of inquiry which it would be extremely difficult to discharge and also placing an onus irrelevant to the purposes of this Bill. The Commission already has full power under Clauses 24 and 28 to obtain any information necessary, but the Government gave an undertaking to move an Amendment which would meet this

73
point to some extent, and that is the reason for the Amendment I now beg to propose.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 3, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Power of Commission to regulate marketing of white fish.
4.—(1) The Commission may make regulations for securing that, subject to any exemption for which provision may be made by the regulations, white fish of any description or quality defined by the regulations shall not be sold, or consigned, offered or exposed for sale, unless such designation, mark or other means for indicating that the fish are of the said description or quality as may be prescribed by the regulations is used, in relation to the fish, in such manner as may be so prescribed:
Provided that…
(4) The Commission may, in relation to premises used for fish markets, make regulations—
(b) for fixing or limiting the charges that may be made by any person in respect of sales of white fish which, at any such premisses as aforesaid, are effected by him on behalf of another person, or in respect of goods supplied, or services rendered, by him in connection with the consignment of white fish for sale at any such premises.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "regulations," to insert "(a),"in order to add after "prescribe," and immediately preceding the proviso, the following new paragraph:
"(b) for prohibiting, except in relation to white fish of such description or quality as may be so defined, the use, in any manner or circumstances specified in the regulations, of such designation, mark or other means as may be so prescribed for indicating that such fish are of that description or quality."
The noble Earl said: With your Lordships' permission I will take this and the next Amendment together. Clause 4 (1) enables the Commission to make regulations designed to protect fish of good quality from the competition of inferior fish sold under a false description. On consideration, it is felt that the subsection as it now stands does not enable this to be done in the most convenient manner. The Amendment proposed is designed to provide a similar procedure on the lines of the Agricultural Produce (Grading and
74
Marking) Acts which would enable the Commission to prescribe a quality definition for high grade fish together with a designation or mark indicative of that quality, and forbid the use of the designation or mark for any fish which did not conform to the quality definition. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 17, after "regulations" insert ("(a)")
Page 5, line 26, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (4), after paragraph (b), to insert:
"(c) for requiring that where, in the case of any white fish consigned for sale on commission, the salesman makes a charge by way of commission or otherwise, he shall enter in a book kept by him for the purpose the names of the owner or consignor of the fish and of every purchaser, and the price paid or agreed to be paid by each purchaser, and shall, as soon as practicable after the sale, send by post or deliver to the owner or consignor an account containing the following particulars:

(i) the actual price paid or agreed to be paid for the fish and, where there is any variation in price, the number, weight or quantity sold, or agreed to be sold, at each price,

(ii) the commission or other charge made by the salesman for selling the fish, together with details of any charges made for services in connection with the sale,

(iii) the amounts, if any, paid or payable by the salesman on behalf of the owner or consignor in connection with the sale, with details thereof, and

(iv) if any of the fish are bought by the salesman or by any person on his behalf, a statement that those fish have been so bought."

The noble Earl said: An Amendment designed to incorporate in this Bill the substance of the Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) Act, 1926, was moved in another place and was accepted in principle by the Government subject to consideration as to whether it would be best to follow the precedent of the Act of 1926 and make the terms of the Amendment a direct statutory obligation in this Bill or to give the White Fish Commission power to make regulations to achieve the same object. The Government have come to the conclusion that it would be better to leave the question to be dealt

75
with by Commission's regulations, and the Amendment now proposed has been framed accordingly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, at end insert the said new paragraph (c).—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 30, at the beginning insert ("(5)").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment is consequential to the Amendment to Clause 4, page 6, line 29.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 32, after ("wholesale") insert ("or the business of a person who effects sales of white fish consigned to him for sale on commission").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 6, line 38, after ("(b)") insert ("or paragraph (c), as the case may be")
Page 6, line 38, leave out ("this") and insert ("the last preceding").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Registration under marketing schemes]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: There is a drafting Amendment on this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 17, leave out ("such a") and insert ("the").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Constitution of boards to administer marketing schemes.
7.—(1) A marketing scheme may make provision for the administration of the scheme by a board, which shall be constituted as follows, that is to say:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "may make provision" and insert "shall be of no
76
effect unless provision is thereby made." The noble Earl said: This Amendment makes it clear that a marketing scheme must make provision for the administration of the scheme by a board. At present the making of such provision is permissive; the Amendment makes it mandatory, as it is in the case of marketing schemes under the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 1, leave out ("may make provision") and insert ("shall be of no effect unless provision is made thereby").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to insert at the end of the clause:
"If any person being a member of the board acquires any financial or commercial interest in any undertaking as is likely to affect him in the discharge of his functions as a member of the board he shall within four weeks after so doing give notice thereof in writing to the Ministers specifying the interest so acquired, and the Ministers after taking the matter into consideration may, if they think fit, declare that the member of the board has vacated his office."
The noble Viscount said: I have adapted this Amendment from the Road Traffic Acts. Surely members of a board should inform Ministers that they have acquired an interest which is likely to affect them in their duty, instead of waiting until they are asked to do so by the Ministers? Further, in cases where members of a board have acquired interests which may affect their judgment, there is no power given to Ministers to declare their offices vacant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 35, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I think the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, is somewhat under a misapprehension as to the purpose this Amendment would fulfil. Subsection (2) of Clause 7 states, that it is the duty of Ministers to satisfy themselves with respect to any person whom they propose to appoint to be a member of a marketing board, that that person will have, or has, as the case may be, no financial or commercial interest that is likely to affect him in the discharge of his functions on the board. Under the scheme of marketing included in this Bill, there is a variation from the previous schemes of marketing boards set up by

77
the Agricultural and Marketing Acts of 1931 and 1933, and that is, that the Minister may appoint independent members to be not less than three and not more than one-third of the total number on the board, but the remainder are elected members and, therefore, are dependent upon their constituents and all those interests that are participating in the marketing scheme. It would be improper for the Minister to apply the same restrictions upon those elected members as he will do upon tie independent members. Therefore this provision is confined to the members of the marketing board appointed by the Minister.
I should add that the Amendment appears to leave a wide discretion to members of a board in the matter of notifying Ministers; in fact it is so wide indeed that probably in many cases this provision would fail to be effective. Moreover, it would clearly be impossible, as I have said, to apply this provision to elected members of a board who, of course, are answerable only to their own constituents. With regard to the other point raised by the noble Viscount, I am very glad that he has tabulated this Amendment owing to the fact that it has revealed a defect in the subsection which, as the noble Viscount said, makes no provision for Ministerial action in the case of an unsuitable member. Therefore it is proposed to move an Amendment on Report stage to meet this point and to bring the subsection into line with paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Bill. I hope that this announcement of the proposed Amendment will satisfy the noble Viscount on that point.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am not quite clear whether the noble Earl resists this Amendment or not.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Yes. The noble Viscount, Lord Bertie, raised two points. One was that his Amendment should be in respect of all members of the board. I have endeavoured to explain to your Lordships that this is impossible because a large proportion of the members of the marketing board under this Bill are elected members and, therefore, cannot be controlled by the Minister. The second point is with regard to a defect in the clause which makes no provision for Ministerial action in the case
78
of an unsuitable member who is a member appointed by the Minister, and it is on that point that it is proposed to move an Amendment at a later stage.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am very much obliged to my noble friend. I myself did not dare to move an Amendment to get rid of unsuitable members, because on former occasions when I have done so I have always been told that the gentlemen in question are very much superior to the Road Traffic Commissioners.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Licensing provisions of producers' marketing schemes.
(2) No provisions contained in a producers' marketing scheme by virtue of the preceding subsection shall be of any effect unless provision is also made by such a scheme—
(d) enabling any person aggrieved by any refusal of the board to grant, renew or transfer a licence under the scheme, by any decision of the board to revoke or suspend the operation of such a licence, or by any direction given by the board in exercise of powers conferred on it by virtue of paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection, to appeal to the Commission, and determining the powers exercisable by the Commission, on any such appeal; and
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (d) of subsection (2), to leave out "or by any direction given by the board in exercise of powers conferred on it by virtue of paragraph (c) of the preceding subsection." The noble Earl said: This gives the necessary authority to the Producers' Marketing Board to regulate the landing of white fish in Great Britain by home producers by means of a system of licensing. Under certain conditions a board may refuse to grant, renew or transfer a licence, or they may revoke or suspend the operation of a licence. Paragraph 2 (d) of the clause on page 13 gives a right of appeal to the Commission to any person aggrieved by a decision of the board in respect of a licence. The paragraph also gives a right of appeal to the Commission to any person who is aggrieved by any direction given by the I board in exercise of the powers conferred

79
on it by paragraph (c) of subsection (1). Such directions would relate to the equipment of or the operations conducted on board any licensed boat, and would, therefore, affect the day to day working of the marketing scheme. It has been felt on consideration that such a right of appeal against the directions of the board may be exercised in such a way as severely to hamper that board in the proper administration of its scheme and, therefore, on practical grounds is undesirable. The Amendment, therefore, proposes to remove this right of appeal. Complaints against the working of a scheme can be referred if necessary to a Committee of Investigation which is provided under Clause 15, subsection (3). I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 27, leave out from ("licence") to the first ("to") in line 30.—(The Earl of Feversham.s)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Marketing provisions of distributors' marketing schemes.
10. A marketing scheme for regulating the marketing of white fish by persons carrying on any designated business, not being either the business of a home producer of white fish or the business of curing, salting, smoking, drying or canning white fish, may provide for determining, subject to any regulations of the Commission,—
(2) the manner in which white fish may be stored, or adapted, offered or exposed for sale, by any such person.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to add to paragraph (2) "and the scheme may provide for determining any of the matters aforesaid either generally or in relation to particular areas or particular descriptions of white fish." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is to enable distributors' marketing schemes to be applied to particular areas or particular descriptions of white fish. I understand that representations have been made to the effect that conditions and practices of distributors vary as between one district and another, and provision for local variations appears to be desirable in the distributors' marketing schemes, as, indeed, it has been found to be desirable for producers' marketing schemes covered by
80
Clause 8, subsection (1) of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 22, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Provisions as to the submission, confirmation, amendment and revocation of marketing schemes.
(5) Any power conferred by this Part of this Act to prepare, submit or confirm a marketing scheme shall be construed as including a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like conditions, to prepare, submit or confirm a scheme amending or revoking a marketing scheme which is already in operation; and any reference in this Act to a marketing scheme shall be construed as including a reference to such an amending or revoking scheme:
Provided that…
(10) In this section—
(a) the expression "appropriate registered persons" means—
(ii) in relation to a scheme amending or revoking a marketing scheme, persons who, at the beginning of the relevant day, are persons registered under the scheme which it is proposed to amend or revoke;
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to omit from subsection (5) "and any reference in this Act to a marketing scheme shall be construed as including a reference to such an amending or revoking scheme." The noble Earl said: This Amendment should be read with the new clause which it is proposed to insert after Clause 34. It is scarcely more than a technical drafting Amendment and unless your Lordships desire it I will move the Amendment without a detailed explanation.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 17, leave out from ("operation") to the end of line 20.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, at the end of paragraph (a) in subsection (10), to insert:
"or registered in the Commission's register as carrying on the class of business to which the scheme relates, not being persons exempted from registration by the provisions

81
of the revoking scheme or, as the case maybe, by the provisions of the original scheme as proposed to be amended."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to repair an omission from the Bill. It is possible that an amending or revoking scheme would cover other persons in addition to those already registered under the scheme proposed to be amended or revoked, and it is desirable, therefore, that the definition of "appropriate registered persons" should be wide enough to include all such persons as are affected. For instance, from the original scheme inshore fishermen might be exempt, but under the amended scheme it might be necessary to include them. Therefore there should be power for this class of person to vote on that amending scheme. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 10, at the beginning insert ("the expression").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Registration under co-operative schemes]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 17, leave out ("such a") and insert ("the").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Provisions with respect to submission, confirmation, amendment and revocation of co-operative schemes.
(4) Any power conferred by this Part of this Act to make, submit, or confirm a cooperative scheme shall include a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like conditions, to make, submit or confirm a scheme amending or revoking a co-operative
82
scheme, and any reference in this Act to a co-operative scheme shall be construed as including a reference to such an amending or revoking scheme as aforesaid.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (4), to leave out all words after "scheme" where that word occurs for the third time. The noble Earl said: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. It is designed to effect the same improvement in relation to co-operative schemes as the Amendment of Clause 13 in relation to marketing schemes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 20, leave out from the second ("scheme") to the end of line 23.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 34 agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:
Construction of amending schemes with original schemes for certain purposes.
"A. Where a marketing scheme or cooperative scheme is amended by any subsequent scheme or schemes, then, for the purposes of so much of this Part of this Act as determines the provisions which must or may be contained in any marketing scheme or cooperative scheme, as the case may be, the original scheme and the amending scheme or schemes shall be treated as a single scheme."
The noble Earl said: This new clause is consequential on the Amendment of Clause 13, page 18, line 17. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 20, after Clause 34 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.
EARL STANHOPE: My Lords the Royal Commission is now due and so I suggest that the House should be resumed and that we should return to the Committee stage of this Bill afterwards.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Poor Law (Amendment),

Conveyancing Amendment (Scotland),

Eire (Confirmation of Agreements),

North-West Midlands Joint Electricity Authority Order Confirmation,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Scarborough),

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Bridgwater Extension),

Bournemouth Gas and Water,

Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea Urban District Council.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL.
House again in Committee.
Clause 37:
Provisions for giving effect to convention as to meshes of nets and size limits for fish.
(6) With a view to enforcing any order under this section, any of the following officers, that is to say,—
may, at all reasonable times, go on board any fishing-boat or enter any premises used for carrying on any business in connection with the treatment, storage or sale of sea-fish, may search for and examine any sea-fish in any place, whether on board a fishing-boat or elsewhere, and whether in a receptacle or not, and may seize any sea-fish which have been landed, sold or exposed or offered for sale by any person in contravention of this section, or which any person has in his possession in contravention of this section; and a local fisheries committee may take proceedings in respect of any contravention of this section occurring within the district of the committee.
For the purposes of this subsection the district of a local fisheries committee shall be deemed to extend throughout the area of any council liable to pay, or contribute to the payment of, the expenses of the committee, except that the powers conferred by this subsection on the committee or any officer thereof shall not be exercisable in respect of any matter arising within the limits of any market under the control of the council of any county borough or county district.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved, in subsection (6), in the paragraph beginning "For the purposes," to leave out "extend throughout the area of any council liable to pay, or contribute to the payment of, the expenses of the committee, except that the powers conferred by this subsection on the committee or any officer thereof shall not be exercisable" and to insert:
"be the geographical county or counties within which the areas of the authorities represented on such committee are situate provided that the powers conferred by this subsection shall not be exercised in the district of another committee or."
The noble Duke said: In submitting this Amendment to your Lordships I do so as a member of a local sea fisheries committee, and also on behalf of the Sea Fisheries Association. This Amendment refers to the powers of officers of the sea fisheries committees to deal with the offence of selling undersized fish. It is desired to reduce the chances of the offence being successful, and for that purpose to extend the limited area in which such officers may exercise those powers. As the Bill reads now, an officer may only follow a suspected person into the area of a county borough which contributes to the expenses of the sea fisheries committee. It is contended that this does not confer wide enough powers on the officers for the proper execution of their work. It does not empower an officer to follow a suspected person into a county borough which does not contribute to the expenses of the sea fisheries committee, and in order to prove a case it is contended that an officer should be able to follow fish to its destination. At the present time certain county boroughs do not contribute and that is why the Sea Fisheries Association object to this method of definition of the area in which the committees may exercise their powers. It is submitted that the question of financial contributions has nothing to do with the desirability of an officer being able to follow fish inland, and the Association therefore ask that a description of a geographical area shall be inserted in the Bill.
The terms of this proposed Amendment set out a way of doing this which we believe to be effective. It may be argued that on arriving at a county borough boundary the officer may inform the police of the alleged offence and hand it over to them to continue if they think fit. There are, however, two strong objections

85
to this. In the first place, a good many police would not know the difference between a flounder, as to which there is no size limit, and dabs and plaice and sole, which are subject to a legal size limit. Secondly, the change over in the middle of a case makes it much easier for an astute offender to dispose of the fish before the police are able to get to work. A parallel may be drawn to the difficulties which already exist in matters of ordinary crime when a case has to be handed over from county police to borough police and vice versa. Instead of the present division of responsibility it would lead to greater efficiency if the sea fisheries officer was able to follow an offender to his destination, without interference.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 33, leave out from the beginning to ("in") in line 37, and insert the said words.—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: May I support my noble friend's Amendment? It does seem rather unfortunate that what we might call sanctuaries are created by this method of dealing with this matter. These county boroughs do not contribute because they are not interested, and those who have taken the small fish know full well that that is so, and would naturally rush over into those boroughs to get rid of their fish. The whole matter is really a question of time. To follow offenders you want to get straight after these men, and, as my noble friend has said, the police often really know nothing about the matter. He referred to the matter of ordinary crime, although you cannot compare a small matter like this with what happens in a great country like the United States. One reason wiry crime became so prevalent there was that nobody could follow criminals across the State boundary. Finally, they had to come to an arrangement whereby the Federal Police were able to deal with these matters all over the United States. I think this is a parallel, and I hope that my noble friend in charge of the Bill will be able to give us some satisfaction.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My noble friend the Duke of Northumberland, who has moved this Amendment on behalf of the Association of Sea Fisheries, has done so for the purpose of enabling an officer of a. sea fisheries committee to follow undersized fish to a market or shop in a
86
borough which, although the council of that borough may not be a contributor to the expenses of the committee, is nevertheless contained within the geographical boundaries of the constituent county in which the borough is situated. The noble Earl, in support of the Amendment, has emphasized that to follow up these instances where undersized fish get to these county boroughs, which he has defined as sanctuaries, it is necessary for the officer of the sea fisheries committee to follow up the case. Although there is a very substantial case for leaving those county boroughs free outside the control of the sea fisheries committees, there is the possibility that the police are not so well equipped in the rules and regulations as the officers of the sea fisheries committee. But there is another side to that, which is, that the county boroughs which are not constituent contributors to the sea fisheries committee might well and properly resent a person of an exterior and outside authority coming within their boundaries to investigate a condition of this kind. Therefore, under subsection (6), you have power not only for the police to take such action, but to see any officer of the marketing authority.
Therefore, on the point with regard to the ineffectiveness of the police in assuming responsibility for this work, I would suggest that it is quite unnecessary for the officer of the sea fisheries committee to go further than the port at which the fish is landed. Your Lordships will appreciate that normally fish is sold at the port of landing, and it is at the port of landing, which in some cases may be not more than a bit of beach, that the supervision of the committee is desired. Besides that point, there is a further point, which is that in order to give effect to the International Mesh Convention the present Bill provides for the extension of the 1933 Act with regard to the prohibition of the landing of such fish. It is quite obvious, therefore, that it is on or near the coast that the committees may be expected to detect offences, and indeed have every opportunity for doing so. I think it would be quite improper for the officer of the sea fisheries committee to go travelling about the country by car or by train in chase of a consignment of fish which in fact he ought to have stopped from ever starting on its journey. And where are we going to stop, if such a power is given to a sea fisheries officer?

87
It may not stop at the geographical boundary of the particular sea fisheries committee. Fish penetrate within a remarkably short space of time to the inland centres of this country, such as Leicester. If you carry the Amendment to its logical conclusion it might be said that it might be necessary for the sea fisheries officer to go beyond his county area. For these reasons I trust that the noble Lords will not press their Amendment further.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am afraid I am rather disappointed with the noble Earl's answer, but at this late hour I do not wish to press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 to 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Constitution of local fisheries committees]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 15, after ("committee") insert ("and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52:
Liability of owners of fishing boats for illegal fishing.
52.—(1) Where any vessel is used for fishing in any manner constituting a contravention of any by-law of a local fisheries committee having effect by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act, as amended by Section seven of the Fisheries Act, 1891, the skipper and the owner of the vessel shall each be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding, in the case of a first offence, fifty pounds, or in the case of a second offence, one hundred and fifty pounds, or, in the case of a third or subsequent offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to a fine not exceeding three hundred pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine:
Provided that in any proceedings which by virtue of this section are taken against the owner of a vessel in respect of an offence under this section committed by the skipper it shall be a good defence for the owner to prove that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of that offence.
(2) The preceding subsection shall, in relation to any vessel which at the material time is under charter, have effect as if any reference in that subsection to the owner were a reference to the charterer.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER THE EARL OF ILCHESTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "1891" down to the proviso and insert:
"then if, at the date of the contravention, the skipper of the vessel is a person who has, within the two years immediately preceding that date, been convicted of an offence under any such by-law, or who has been more than once convicted of such an offence within the five years immediately preceding the said date, the owner of the vessel shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding, in the case of a first offence, fifty pounds, or, in the case of a second offence, two hundred pounds, or, in the case of a third or subsequent offence, five hundred pounds."
The noble Earl said: I am speaking for the Sea Fisheries Association, as an ex-Chairman of the Association, and as Chairman of a fisheries committee for over ten years. I am afraid this is rather a complicated Amendment, and it is one by which the Association set great store. A second and a third alternative Amendment which appear on the Paper are really the ones which we should like to pass. The second Amendment on page 54, lines 1 and 2, is really an alternative suggestion if my noble friend does not accept the first, but, as I understand there is some difficulty about that, I suggest if it is allowable that we debate the two together. Perhaps I had better say a few-words on the whole matter to explain why we have one or two alternative suggestions.
Clause 52 has been the subject of a good deal of negotiation from time to time between the Sea Fisheries Association and the Ministry. The Association have always been dissatisfied with the clause in the original Act of 1888, under which we have been dealing with these matters up to now, because the penalties were so extremely small. The penalties only amount to £20, and when you are dealing with a catch worth several hundred pounds it is almost an incentive to a man to go in and get the larger amount of fish and pay the penalty. On the other hand, there is the power to confiscate gear and also the fish. The agreement come to was that penalties should be increased and the power of confiscation, both of gear and fish, surrendered. This was satisfactory to the Association, but when we come to the Bill we find that the proviso to this clause says:

89
"it shall be a good defence for the owner to prove that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of that offence."
We do object to that very strongly indeed, because we consider that if an owner is prosecuted under this Bill he will escape every time. It is far too lax. The prosecution will fail, and the defendant might even get costs against a committee for vexatious prosecution on insufficient grounds. Really what it will come to is that committees will not try to prosecute at all.
We fully realise that there are good owners and bad owners of ships. The good owners very largely prevail. But the bad owner exists, and under this Bill as it is drawn it seems probable that even a notice hung up in the owner's office saying that a skipper must not go inside territorial waters, or even a paper handed to him to that effect, would vitiate practically any prosecution. In a court of summary jurisdiction if extenuating circumstances are suggested the court need not proceed to conviction at all, but may simply dismiss the case. Under the wording of this proviso we feel that the dice are absolutely loaded, and that it is practically a hundred to one that the owner will get off. We fully realise that the skipper can be prosecuted, but it is the bad owner that we want to get at.
The first Amendment is really in a form which was in the Bill when first introduced. We should prefer the second one, but as we have to take them together I must start with this particular one. In that case the owner will not be liable for prosecution if the skipper has not been prosecuted for two years, or if he has not had more than one prosecution within five years. But the Amendment we prefer is the insertion of the two subsections suggested after subsection (2). That particular wording has been borrowed from the Government's own Act for Scotland, passed in 1934. That surely constitutes a fair wording to deal with this case. It is, in effect, that an owner will not be liable to prosecution if he can show that his skipper had no previous convictions against him. Lists of convictions will be kept, as in Scotland, at various places, and the owner will have every possibility of knowing all about the man he is employing. I very much hope my noble friend will be able to accept one or other of these Amendments—I hope the second.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 31, leave out from ("1891") to the end of the subsection, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Ilchester.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for having agreed, with your Lordships' permission, to take these three Amendments together. The noble Earl has informed us that the representatives of the sea fisheries committees have for a number of years been dissatisfied with the penalties which can be imposed for breaches of their by-laws, and have complained that these penalties are inadequate and ought to be increased. In order to investigate this statement it is necessary to see what the present law provides and what change is represented by the provisions of this Bill. Under the Act of 1888 a local fisheries committee may make by-laws imposing as penalty for the first offence a fine of £20; in the case of a continuing offence, an additional sum of £10 for every day during which the offence continues,
"and in any case forfeiture of any fishing instrument used or sea fish taken in contravention of or found in the possession of a person contravening any by-law."
Under this Bill, in Clauses 52 and 53, the skipper and the owner of the vessel shall each be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding in the first case £50, which is an increase of £30 on the Act of 1888; in the case of a second offence, a penalty of £150; or in the case of a third or subsequent offence imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding £300; alternatively to both imprisonment for three months and a fine of £300. To this provision there is also attached a proviso, the effect of which is that it will be a good defence for the owner to prove he has exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of that offence.
The net result of Clauses 52 and 53 is that whereas under the Act of 1888 the maximum penalty for a breach of the by-laws on the first occasion was £20, it is now £50, and both imprisonment and a fine can be imposed. These are very considerable increases in the penalties, and they apply not only to the skipper but also to the owner. In the opinion of the Government the final and most effective form of punishment, and indeed the final and most effective deterrent to a persistent offender, is imprisonment, and

91
a severe penalty is provided in this Bill in that respect. The noble Earl has said that to obtain the severe penalties which should be imposed on the owner as well as the skipper a black-list should be instituted. In support of that claim the noble Earl has referred us to a list that exists under the provisions of the law relating to Scotland in the Act of 1894. As far as English law is concerned, a blacklist is objectionable for this simple reason, that the keeping of such a list is quite contrary to the principles of English criminal law, which regards the penalty imposed as expunging the offence.
The proposal of the noble Earl is that the offence should continue to hang over the skipper, if not for the remainder of his life, at any rate for a considerable period during which he would, on account of an offence for which he had already paid the penalty, be prevented from earning his living in the vocation for which he was trained. It is perhaps too late an hour in your Lordships' House for me to go fully into the implications of this matter of principle with regard to the administration of English criminal law; but when the matter was brought before my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture he stated that he knew of no analogous instance in the penal code of this country whereby an offender should have a record of that character against his name for such a long period. It is open, under the normal criminal procedure of this country, to the prosecution to obtain between the proof of guilt and the date of sentence a record of the offender, and consequently, if it is found by a court of summary jurisdiction that there has been more than one offence in this particular respect, it will be necessary for that court to consider fully the penalties which are imposed by this Bill and, if necessary, go up to the maximum.
After this explanation, I cannot but think that noble Lords representing the Sea Fisheries Association, on further study, may be satisfied to some extent that the penalties imposed in this Bill are of a much stronger and more severe character than any penalties we have had in existence up to date, and that the Bill should thereby very materially improve the present position, which we recognise has in many respects been unsatisfactory.
92
I hope that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I am afraid I did not make it clear to my noble friend that the Association entirely agree with the penalties, but what is the good of penalties if you cannot enforce them? Our point is that the Bill is so loosely drawn that we shall practically never be able to get a prosecution. However, I do not intend at this late hour to divide the Committee upon my Amendment, which I beg to withdraw. I shall not move the other Amendments upon this clause but I shall move the Amendment to leave out Clause 52.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER THE EARL OF ILCHESTER moved to leave out Clause 52. The noble Earl said: My Association would very much prefer, as the noble Earl has not been able to meet us on the other two suggestions, that the whole clause should be deleted and that we go back to the working of the 1888 Act, even with its small penalties. We feel that the words which I have recently complained about make the Bill so lax that the clause is practically unworkable in that particular respect, and an unworkable clause is surely a bad clause. We think that the penalties under the Act to which I have referred are far too small, but the Association would rather go back to that position than be regulated by Clause 52 as it now appears in this Bill.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 52.—(The Earl of Ilchester.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: It is perhaps somewhat difficult for your Lordships to appreciate the logic of the noble Earl. In a previous Amendment he specifically requested more stringent provisions and penalties to obviate the offences named by this Part of the Bill; yet he now says that the increased penalties to which I have referred are of no value, and that therefore it would be better to revert to the provisions of the Act of 1888. In the first place I do not think that the noble Earl need fear as much as he emphasized the working of these specific provisions. If the prosecution have reasonable grounds for complaint there can be no danger of the offender, even if there is no judgment and even if he is exonerated from the offence,

93
suing for damages. Under ordinary commercial law, when an individual is charged before the court, he gives up his time and his practice, if he is engaged in a profession, to attend the court to hear the charge. The case is sometimes dismissed, but seldom, to my knowledge, has an offender appealing before a court of summary jurisdiction the right to sue for damages. Therefore on that ground I do not think the noble Earl or the Sea Fisheries Association need be so alarmed as to the working of this provision.
The chief reason why the noble Earl wishes to maintain the provisions of the Act of 1888 is that the provision for forfeiture holds good under that Act and is done away with in the present Bill. But we have taken the course adopted in this Bill because the provision in the 1888 Act is regarded as objectionable, at any rate as regards gear, unless the skipper is also the owner of the vessel. If the skipper is not also the owner then the owner is penalised without being brought into court for the action of a skipper over whose actions he has not for the time being any control. For this reason the Government decided to repeal this provision and only impose the increased penalties. I think the noble Earl will appreciate the justice of that and that he will see fit to withdraw his Amendment to delete Clause 52.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I am deeply disappointed that the noble Earl is unable to meet us on any one of these points.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53:
Increase of certain penalties.
53.—
(3) Section three of the principal Act (which relates to penalties and forfeitures for the contravention of by-laws) is hereby repealed, and so much of any by-law made by a local fisheries committee as imposes penalties or forfeitures on persons contravening by-laws so made shall be deemed to have been revoked.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND moved, at the beginning of subsection (3), to insert "So much of." The noble Duke said: I will deal with this Amendment and two Amendments following it together, with your Lordships permission. They all relate to subsection (3) of
94
Clause 53, and are held to be necessary because this subsection proposes to repeal Section 3 of the principal Act. That section sets out penalties which may be imposed by by-laws and includes the statutory power to seize and obtain an order for the forfeiture of gear and fish illegally taken. In the opinion of the Association it is essential that the forfeiture of fish illegally taken should be retained for two reasons. In the first place it may be necessary in order to prove a case to produce some of the catch in court, and, secondly, it does introduce a new principle that fish taken in contravention of the law may be retained by those committing this offence.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 21, after ("(3)") insert ("So much of").— (The Duke of Northumberland.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I think for the reasons stated in the debate on the last two Amendments, the noble Duke will appreciate that it is impossible for me to accept this and the following Amendments. With regard to the question of forfeiture, with which I have to some extent dealt, there is no danger as far as I can see that the seizure of fish for which we have allowed will constitute a difficulty in the sea fisheries committee taking action and bringing both equipment and fish forward as evidence, and that no compensation will be allowed for that. It is, therefore, for the reasons I have stated, impossible to accept the noble Duke's Amendment.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: I am very sorry the Government cannot accept the Amendment, but I do not wish to press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to add to subsection (3):
"and subsection (2) of Section six of the principal Act shall have effect as if in paragraph (c) of that subsection for the words 'liable to be forfeited in pursuance' there were substituted the words 'taken or used in contravention'".
The noble Earl said: By repealing Section 3 of the principal Act, that is, the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, subsection (3) of this clause takes away from local fisheries committees the power of requiring the forfeiture of fish taken or instruments used in contravention of their by-laws. It is not, however, desired to

95
abrogate the power conferred on officers of the committees by Section 6 of the principal Act to seize fish or gear taken or used in contravention of a by-law, as this power may be necessary for the purpose of producing evidence in court. As the principal Act stands, officers are given power to seize only fish or gear liable to forfeiture and therefore if the penalty of forfeiture were abolished the power of seizure would lapse. This Amendment is intended to rectify this state of affairs by enabling officers to seize any fish taken or gear used in contravention of a by-law.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 26, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: The Sea Fisheries Association have not the smallest objection to this Amendment, but they do ask the Ministry to add forfeiture as well. Otherwise, apart from the fish which are taken to be brought into the court, the whole of the rest of the catch presumably remains in the hands of the offender to do what he likes with. Surely that is a very curious position. Fish taken from a forbidden area surely is stolen fish. Is the thief to have the stolen goods returned to him at the end of the case? That is really what it comes to. If my noble friend had a case of jewellery stolen from his house, and prosecuted the thief, would he at the end of the case take off his hat and present the thief with the jewellery? It is the same thing. I cannot understand the attitude of the Ministry in this matter.
There is another question I would like to ask. What is the position of the prosecutor if between the time the case is taken up and adjudication of it the fish which had been taken go bad? Is the prosecutor going to be made liable? I would ask my noble friend to look into the matter. I should like him to realise that the Association in putting forward these Amendments are only trying to assist the Ministry in making the Bill workable. We are not in the least hostile to the Bill. In many ways we welcome it, but there are these small points which seem to us quite unworkable. Though probably my noble friend may think it is heresy to say so, I think that very often local knowledge of what is going on and what is likely to happen is better than
96
the knowledge in Whitehall. I hope my noble friend will consider the question of forfeiture.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I very greatly appreciate the statement of the noble Earl that his representations on behalf of the Sea Fisheries Association are intended to assist the operation of this Bill. He said that local persons engaged in the industry are well able to calculate the degree of harm done and the necessary means of eliminating it, but with regard to this question of retaining forfeiture as well as seizure I would say that if in the course of proceedings the fish go bad it is natural that those fish will have to be thrown away and destroyed. That will be a loss to the owner or the skipper responsible for the offence, or to both of them. I do not think in those circumstances either the owner or the skipper would have any statutory right to demand compensation. It would be, in fact, forfeiture. In regard to the instance of robbery quoted by the noble Earl, there are innumerable other offences where the offender is incapable for one reason or another of making good damage he has done. Except in particular cases of restitution, the booty acquired very often is not returned to the proper owner. I cannot accept the analogy. With this further explanation, taken in conjunction with the former remarks I made with regard to the whole question of forfeiture, I hope the noble Earl will be satisfied.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55:
Extension of powers of local fisheries committees.
55.—(1) A local fisheries committee shall have the following further powers, that is to say—
(c) if the committee or any of its officers is authorised in that behalf under subsection (4) of Section seven of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922, the committee may institute proceedings for any offence under that Act committed within the district of the committee.
(2) In this section the expressions "harbour" and "works" have the meanings respectively assigned to them by paragraph (4) of Section two of the Fishery Harbours Act, 1915.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER THE EARL OF ILCHESTER had Amendments on the Paper to insert

97
"and" at the end of paragraph (a) in subsection (1), to leave out "and" at the end of paragraph (b), to omit paragraph (c), and to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) A local fisheries committee may institute proceedings for any offence under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922, committed within the district of the committee as constituted by an order under Section one of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888:
Provided that the power conferred by this subsection shall not be exercisable in or in relation to any matter arising within the limits of a harbour coming under the control of a harbour authority as defined by the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922."
The noble Earl said: The whole of the Amendments to this clause stand together. The effect of them is to provide that the fisheries committees should have the right to institute proceedings in their districts as in the case of oil pollution, but we do not ask for it in harbours. Under the Bill as it is drawn committees will only have the power if they or any of their officers are specially authorised. Surely it would be an invidious thing for the Ministry to select two or three of the fisheries committees and say that such-and-such a committee may institute proceedings, or that they should pick out certain officers of these committees to institute proceedings and not give that power to every one of them. These powers were specially asked for in 1922 when the Act for the prevention of oil pollution was brought in, but the fishery committees were not given it. We understood that the Minister was now in favour of granting it, but apparently the Board of Trade stepped in. From a letter which I have been shown and which was forwarded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, one of their reasons is that such powers would give rise to objections or requests for similar treatment from other quarters. I sincerely hope that my noble friend will explain to me what that means. We have not the slightest idea what those objections are, or what the other quarters are. I would remind him that, if it be said that there are too many different officials authorised to do it, in Clause 37 of the Bill no fewer than five different classes of persons are cited to institute prosecutions in respect of undersized fish.
I stress the importance of being able to get a quick prosecution. That is the whole secret of being able to catch these offenders. In a case which happened in 1929, a member of my own committee
98
was sailing in a yacht race and crossed the stern of a ship going West opposite Ryde. This boat was quite clearly pumping out its bilges, because there were streaks of oil for two miles behind it, which, from the smell, had evidently just been thrown overboard. We could only take the matter up by writing to the King's Harbour Master in Portsmouth or to the Board of Trade. We referred it to the King's Harbour Master, and after five months we heard that this boat, which was apparently a yacht, had been chartered by an American and was now in the South of France, and they were quite unable to get the skipper, who said that he had not upset this oil. With a quick prosecution we could probably have got that man. As it was, we received the thanks of the Admiralty for trying to institute a prosecution. I therefore hope that this power may be given us. I am not at this late hour going to talk oil, as I have on several occasions to the House, because I shall very soon have to bring the matter up again. I am sorry to say that the position is very nearly as bad as it was, and our reports on birds for the last three or four months on the southern coast is lamentable. Here is a chance for the Board of Trade to give us powers which we believe would help enormously in preventing this pollution. Under the old Act there has, so far as I know, never been a prosecution; yet the Board of Trade are continually saying, whenever I have brought the matter before your Lordships, that they are most interested and wish to do everything they can. Here is a case, and they refuse to allow us to have the powers which we believe we ought to have.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 16, after ("Act") insert ("and").—(The Earl of Ilchester.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Earl, with his very extensive knowledge of pollution by oil in navigable waters, will of course know what provision exists under Section 74 (4) of the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1922, which provides that proceedings for an offence under the Act shall not be instituted in the case of an offence committed in or in relation to the waters of a harbour except by the harbour authorities, and in any other case except by a person authorised in that behalf. By a general direction of February, 1923, the then Minister

99
of Agriculture gave local fishery committees power to institute proceedings for an offence under that Act. It was, however, subsequently found that the committees, being corporations, were not entitled to institute prosecutions. Furthermore, the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, under which the committees are constituted, did not specifically authorise them to incur expenditure for this purpose. By Clause 55 (1) (c) of this Bill, both those disabilities are removed, and local fishery committees or their officers, if they are so authorised by the Minister, may proceed against offenders under the Act of 1922. I rather thought that the noble Earl had failed to remember that provision, and the fact that under Clause 55, if the Minister gives the necessary general sanction, sea fishery committees will be empowered to act and that that power will not be abortive. Therefore the sea fishery committees and their officers are placed on precisely the same footing as officers of the Ministry. I believe that, to carry out the important purposes to which the noble Earl has referred, they would find this power amply sufficient.
The noble Earl has referred to the information that he has received from the Board of Trade, and he asks me to explain objections that the Board said would arise from other quarters. I should like to have further notice of what those specific objections may be, and I cannot here and now answer him upon them. If, however, this Amendment were to be passed, it would be necessary to leave out offences involving sanitary authorities and joint boards. I understand that the Ministry of Health would insist to the best of their ability that proceedings should not be taken against those two authorities—which, of course, would mean that one department of a local authority would be taking proceedings against another. I fully recognise the need for quick prosecution which the noble Earl has emphasized, but provided that the Minister gives the general sanction for sea fishery committees to act, there is no reason why this prosecution should not be effected very rapidly indeed.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: AS regards my noble friend's point that he wants further notice of the objections, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
100
have been specifically asked by our Association some weeks ago what those objections were and I think it is rather hard to come now and say that further notice is wanted. As regards the whole matter I fully realise that we might possibly be allowed to institute prosecutions if the Minister so wishes, but we have not been told definitely that that is going to be done; and we should have much preferred to have seen it in the Bill. In the circumstances I will withdraw my Amendments to this clause.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule:
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Constitution of the Commission.
5. It shall be the duty of the Ministers to satisfy themselves, with respect to any person whom they propose to appoint to be a member of the Commission or who is a member of the Commission, that that person will have or has, as the case may be, no such financial or commercial interest as is likely to affect him in the discharge of his functions as a Commissioner; and any such person shall, whenever requested by the Ministers so to do, furnish to them such information as they consider necessary for the performance of their duty under this paragraph.
Meetings and Proceedings of the Commission.
10. Subject to the preceding provisions of this Schedule, the Commission shall have power to fix and regulate its own quorum and procedure.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: With your Lordships' permission I will take the first three Amendments, in paragraph 5, together. Paragraph 5 of the Schedule as it stands infers that there is a continuing obligation on the Ministers to satisfy themselves that a member of the Commission does not acquire such financial or commercial interest as would be likely to affect him in the discharge of his functions as a Commissioner. It is considered sufficient that Ministers should so satisfy themselves only from time to time and these three Amendments are designed to effect this.
Amendments moved—
Page 60, line 24, leave out ("or who is a member of the Commission")
Page 60, line 25, leave out ("or has, as the case may be")
Page 60, line 27, after ("Commissioner") insert ("and also to satisfy themselves from time to time, with respect to any person who is a member of the Commission, that he has no such interest as aforesaid").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My last Amendment to the First Schedule, in paragraph 10, and the Amendments to the Second Schedule may conveniently be explained together. It is considered that paragraph 6 of the First Schedule and paragraph 2 of the Second Schedule of the Bill sufficiently imply that the Commission or the Council, as the case may be, has power to fix its own quorum and it would appear to be unnecessary therefore to give specific power in paragraph 10 of the First Schedule and paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the Commission and Council respectively to fix their quorum. The words "to the preceding provisions of this Schedule and" which appear in paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule also appear to be unnecessary.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 17, leave out ("fix and") and leave out ("quorum and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second Schedule [Incidental provisions as to White Fish Industry Joint Council]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 62, line 22, leave out ("to the preceding provisions of this Schedule and")
Page 62,line 24, leave out ("fix and") and leave out ("quorum and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Provisions with respect to the making, confirmation and publication of Commission's regulations]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Amendment is purely drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 12, leave out the first ("the") and insert ("a").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule:

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

  PART I.
  Provisions with respect to registration under marketing schemes, and financial power of boards.
  1. A marketing scheme may provide for securing the removal from the register to be kept under the scheme of the names of persons who have ceased to carry on the business by virtue of which they may have been registered in the said register.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: This Amendment is drafting.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 64, line 23, after ("on") insert ("in. Great Britain").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The purpose of my next Amendment, to add to paragraph 1 the words "or who are exempted from registration under the scheme," is to bring the Schedule into line with the marketing scheme. It is possible that persons who have once been registered under a marketing scheme may subsequently be exempted from registration and in that case it is desirable that there should be provision for the removal of their names from the board's register equally with the names of those who have ceased to carry on the particular business concerned.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 64, line 24, at end insert ("or who are exempted from registration under the scheme").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule agreed to.

SCOTTISH LAND COURT BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill all I need say is that its object is to provide for the retirement of members of the Scottish Land Court (other than the Chairman) at age 65 and for the grant of superannuation allowances. These members, other than

103
the Chairman, have been appointed on the express condition of retirement at 65, a condition which was assumed to be in conformity with the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act, 1911, under which the Court was set up. Last year, however, the Court of Session held that such a condition was ultra vires, and that members of the Land Court hold office for life, or until removal under the statutory provisions for inability or misbehaviour. In the view of His Majesty's Government it is in the public interest that statutory provision should now be made for the retirement of members of the Land Court (other than the Chairman) at 65. At the same time provision is made in the Bill for the grant of superannuation allowances on retirement. In detail, this is the effect of the Bill: (1) It requires members of the Land Court appointed in the future (other than the Chairman) to retire at age 65; (2) it provides for the application to future members of the Superannuation Acts, 1834–1935 (i.e. the Acts regulating superannuation in the Civil Service); (3) it requires the retirement, on the date when the Bill becomes law, of any existing member who has then attained age
104
65, and authorises the payment in any such case of a retiring allowance at the rate of £500 per annum; (4) it requires any existing member who has not attained age 65 when the Bill becomes law to retire on reaching that age, and to exercise within three months from the date when the Bill becomes law an option to receive on retirement either an allowance at the rate of £500 per annum, or such allowance as may be payable under the provisions of the Bill to members appointed in the future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: May I remind your Lordships that the House will meet at three o'clock to-morrow, and that we are certain to continue the debate after dinner.
House adjourned at half past eight o'clock.