Lords Sitting of 11 July 1939

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

COTTON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
PORT GLASGOW BURGH AND HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMA TION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
STIRLING BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
COAST PROTECTION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MARRIAGES VALIDITY BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MARRIAGE BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
CIVIL DEFENCE BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with certain of the Amendments agreed to and certain others agreed to with amendment.
SUNDERLAND CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
MILFORD HAVEN AND TENBY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PRO>VISIONAL ORDER (BURNHAM AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SLOUGH) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SWAFTHAM WATER) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
NORTH WEST MIDLANDS JOINT ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
ST. HELENS CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

POULTRY INDUSTRY BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2:
Register of suppliers of stock and of eggs for hatching.
(3) As from the appointed day, no person shall carry on either of the said businesses unless he is entered in the said register as a person carrying on that business, or use any premises in connection with either of the said businesses carried on by him for any such purpose as aforesaid unless the premises are entered in the said register as premises to be so used:
Provided that the Commission may, either absolutely or subject to limitations, exempt any class of persons or premises from the preceding provisions of this subsection.
4.25 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved to insert at the end of subsection (3):
"Provided that no exemption shall be such as will interfere with the efficiency or comprehensiveness of the proposals otherwise contained in this and in the next succeeding two sections of this Act."
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment which stands in my name I will make a brief explanation. This particular clause deals with one of the most important parts of the Bill with which, generally speaking, I think we should all cordially be in agreement—namely, an attempt to secure that those who provide livestock and hatching eggs for poultry producers should be required to do so under good conditions, so that the producer may be assured that he is obtaining a healthy stock, which more or less accords with the advertisement of it. That is exceedingly important. In the clause to which I am asking your Lordships to give attention, it is laid down that the persons who supply stock for breeding and for use shall be registered, and, subsequent to registration, they have to fulfil the requirements which are made in respect of them by the Commission. But there is a paragraph which says:
"Provided that the Commission may, either absolutely or subject to limitations, exempt any class of persons or premises from the preceding provisions of this subsection."
I want to know if the noble Earl can tell me what is meant by that, because as it stands in the Bill the Commission could exempt anybody, and exemptions might indeed make so many holes in the scheme that the scheme would be of very little value.
I happen to know that there are a good many powerful interests which have been at conflict on this matter sometimes, and it may easily happen that pressure may be brought upon the Minister to exempt this or that concern from the provisions of the clause. The requirements under the clause, as they will finally be drawn up by the Commission, will be such, I am sure, that any decent suppliers of stock would be quite willing to comply with them. But we want to be very careful as to what exemptions are made. Therefore I should like to move, after that provision, that instead of its being absolutely and entirely defined as it is at present, these words should be added:
"Provided that no exemption shall be such as will interfere with the efficiency or

5
comprehensiveness of the proposals otherwise contained in this and in the next succeeding two sections of this Act."
Those two clauses deal in further detail with the matter that is before us. It is most important that the exemptions should not be so numerous and expensive that they will really devitalise the main purpose of these three clauses. Therefore we should have some safeguard in the Bill of the kind I am proposing in this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 11 after ("subsection") insert the said proviso.—(Lord Addison.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM): It is satisfactory to learn from the noble Lord opposite that he approves of this part of the Bill but is concerned in making provision in regard to stock suppliers of eggs both for hatching and poultry. I hope I shall succeed in convincing the noble Lord that the Amendment he has moved is unnecessary. One object of the proviso to subsection (3) is to enable the Commission—and I would point out it is only if the Commission think fit—to exempt from the requirement to register those small poultry keepers who occasionally sell hatching eggs or day-old chicks. The Commission may also think it desirable to exempt for a specified time some other classes of stock suppliers and to tighten up their control as the administrative machine, when it is set in motion, becomes more effective.
I think the noble Lord will recognise that it is already clear that the intention of the stock improvement provisions of the Bill is to "clean up" the stock supplying side of the industry. It is only fair to assume that the Poultry Commission will do the best they can to carry out the intentions of Parliament, having regard both to the ultimate objective and to the need for progressive action. It is desirable that the Commission should not be hampered in their task—which is a very formidable task because nobody can judge the number of suppliers who exist to-day—by any avoidable restrictions. If this Amendment were inserted it would limit the control and powers of the Commission, because obviously any exemption from the requirement to register must necessarily interfere to some extent with
6
the comprehensiveness of the proposed control. It is for that reason that I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: I hope that your Lordships will not be satisfied with that explanation. As you will see, the provision to exempt is absolute. There are no limitations at all. If it were limited by any form of words which the noble Earl can invent on the lines of my proposed Amendment, I should not have a word to say. It is quite obvious that there may be small suppliers here and there who supply their neighbours across the lane, whom it would be quite reasonable to exempt, and there may be other special cases. But that is no reason why there should be exemption without any qualification whatever. I hope I am not asking too much when I ask the noble Earl to see if between now and the Report stage he can invent some words which will carry out the intention which he himself has just expressed. If he will do that I shall be satisfied, but if not, I should have to divide the Committee.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I should be glad to look into this matter before the next stage of the Bill, and I would ask the noble Lord also to consider in the intervening period the points which I have emphasized. The Poultry Commission, being composed of reasonable persons, will not give exemption to any class of stock suppliers unless the state of the industry is such that there are a larger number of persons than the noble Lord himself visualises needing such exemption, We are agreed generally, and all classes of the industry are equally agreed, that it is highly desirable that as many stock suppliers as possible should come within the provisions of Clauses 2 to 6 of this Bill. For the reasons I have stated it is quite possible that the Commission will find certain classes of stock suppliers, which at present can only be described as undefined, for whom exemption would have to be proposed for a definite period. For that reason I do not think I can hold out much prospect of being able to invent words which would satisfy the noble Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Regulations as to supplies of stock and of eggs for hatching.
3.—(1) With a view to securing that fowls not intended for immediate slaughter and fowls' eggs for hatching are supplied in good condition in all respects, and in particular in respect of freedom from disease, the Commission, after consultation with the Stock improvement Advisory Committee to be constituted as hereinafter provided, may make regulations to be observed by registered stock suppliers … and, without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by this provision, the regulations may in particular provide—
(e) for prescribing the manner in which fowls sent out from hatcheries are to be classified and described.
4.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (e) of subsection (1), to leave out "and described" and insert "described and packed, and the fowls, or the packages in which they are sent out, are to be marked." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to define more accurately the intention underlying paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of Clause 3. The subsection shows generally the purposes for which regulations may be made by the Commission to control the distribution of poultry stock, and paragraphs (a) to (g) show particular purposes for which regulations may provide. It is desired that the Commission should be empowered to require, for example, that where day-old chicks are sent from a hatchery to be sold by auction, they should be sent in a suitable scaled container marked with a description of the chicks and the address of the hatchery. The Minister is advised that this Amendment is necessary to give the Commission power to grant exemption that would cover the kind of example I have quoted.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, leave out ("and described") and insert ("described and packed, and the fowls, or the packages in which they are sent out, are to be marked;").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Breeders' accreditation scheme.
4.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Commission, after consultation with the said Stock Improvement Advisory Committee, to make and submit to the Ministers a scheme
8
providing, in the case of persons who breed fowls in connection with a business of supplying fowls not intended for immediate slaughter or fowls' eggs for hatching and in relation to whom and to whose premises the conditions specified in the scheme are satisfied, for the issue to such persons on application by them of certificates certifying premises at which such breeding is carried on as being accredited breeding establishments.
(5) The said scheme may include all such incidental provisions as may be requisite or convenient for the operation thereof, and in particular provisions as to the form, issue, custody, production and return of such certificates as aforesaid.
(6) When the said scheme has been made and submitted to them, the Ministers, after consultation with the Treasury as to the financial provisions thereof, may by order approve the scheme with or without modification, but the order shall be of no effect until it has been confirmed by a Resolution passed by the Commons House of Parliament.
4.38 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (1), after "hatching" to insert "or who carry on hatcheries for those purposes." The noble Lord said: It will be within your Lordships' recollection that on the Second Reading I called attention to the excessive number of schemes and registers that may be brought into being by this Bill. I shall have something to say about that prodigious number—because it really is prodigious—when we come to Clause 20. This is a case in which there are two schemes which appear to be for the same purpose. In Clause 4 it is provided that there may be a scheme as set out in the clause, to which I have no objection except in regard to minor matters, for persons who breed fowls in connection with a business of supplying fowls not intended for immediate slaughter, or fowls' eggs for hatching. In other words if a man sets out to supply day-old chicks, or eggs for hatching, he will come into a scheme for that purpose as provided in this clause.
But if your Lordships look at Clause 5—and this Amendment stands related to the later Amendment in my name to leave out Clause 5—you will see that there is a second scheme for persons who carry on hatcheries. The fact is, of course, that a man who sells day-old chicks will sell them after they have been hatched, and the place where they have been hatched—unless it is under the mother hen—will, I suppose, be a hatchery. As

9
a matter of fact, I should think 99·9 per cent. of the eggs that will be sold under the scheme and of the day-old chicks of Clause 4 will come from a hatchery; so why in the world do you require a separate scheme for a hatchery? It is in order to reduce the shocking redundancy of the Bill that I am proposing to put into this clause the operative words from Clause 5, so as to secure that the scheme covers those "who carry on hatcheries for those purposes." I cannot see that those words are in the least necessary, but for some reason the Ministry of Agriculture think they are, and that is why they have invented this new Clause 5. It seems to be quite unnecessary; but anyhow, if you put the words into Clause 4 then it covers the lot. Therefore I suggest that we might have one scheme instead of two, and one register instead of two, because they are doing exactly the same thing; and thereby we should at all events lighten the Bill of Clause 5, which is entirely unnecessary if you put the purposes of Clause 5 into Clause 4. I therefore beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 29, after ("hatching") insert ("or those who carry on hatcheries for those purposes").—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Addison, has quite correctly informed the Committee that under Clause 4 and Clause 5 there are two separate voluntary accreditation schemes, one for breeders' undertakings and the other for hatchery undertakings. The noble Lord is under a great misapprehension when he says that those schemes make part of the Bill redundant. I do not think he has appreciated that the effect of this Amendment, which is really to delete Clause 5 and to throw the hatcheries accreditation scheme into the breeders' scheme under Clause 4, is that the hatcheries scheme would then become eligible for the premiums provided under the Bill for those undertakings which are concerned with breeding purposes. The Poultry Technical Committee presided over by Sir Duncan Watson, while recommending assistance for breeders, made no such recommendation for assistance for hatcheries. The reason for proposing financial assistance to accredited breeders during the first years of the scheme—as the noble Lord will know, there is for seven years a total sum of £250,000,
10
which will be on a declining scale—is that those breeders who voluntarily decide to come into it will be put to additional expense, through the elimination of unsuitable birds and the necessity of keeping records, for which they will not be able immediately to recoup themselves. After a time the improvement in their flock may itself naturally provide the financial reward for their additional outlay, but that cannot be expected in the initial stages of the breeders' accreditation scheme.
The voluntary accredited hatcheries scheme may not involve the same sort of additional expense, and therefore it is not necessary in that case to give Exchequer assistance. The main condition of the hatchery may be assumed under Clause 5 to be that it receives only hatching eggs supplied by accredited breeders. That is a very fundamental difference between the two kinds of undertakings, which the noble Lord believes to be very much the same. But the hatcheries accreditation scheme will possibly involve less expense and will certainly benefit by having a breeders' voluntary scheme, in so far as they are almost certain to get the greater percentage of their eggs from those breeders who have voluntarily embarked upon the breeders' accreditation scheme, and they will therefore not have to employ persons to go from one producer to another testing and grading eggs for hatchery purposes. Therefore, partly because of the implications and partly because the two undertakings are in the main separate sections of the industry, it would be quite impossible and quite contrary to the recommendations of the Technical Poultry Committee to join in that one scheme the breeders' section and the hatcheries section of the industry.
LORD ADDISON: I must express myself still completely bewildered and dissatisfied, because the fact is that every breeder who sells day-old chicks has a hatchery. There is no doubt about it, and therefore it would have to come under Clause 5.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but I would wish to qualify that. There are a great number of hatcheries that have no breeding establishments at all. The noble Lord referred in his Second Reading speech to disreputable advertisements, and it is true that some of the hatcheries con-

11
cerned have stocks of birds for display to potential buyers which are not the produce of their own hatcheries. But it is not correct to say that every breeder's establishment has a hatchery as the technicians in the poultry industry describe it. When I talk about an accredited hatchery scheme I refer to those sections of the industry that buy eggs, not by tens of thousands but by hundreds of thousands, and sell to the market day-old chicks. That is quite apart from the breeding establishment, which essentially deals with the improvement of poultry stock.
LORD ADDISON: I will not inflict myself upon your Lordships, because I have two vital Amendments coming after and therefore I will not ask you to divide on this Amendment; but the absurdity remains the same. If the hatcheries in any case are of the undesirable character to which the noble Earl has referred—and it is true that some are—then that is all the more reason why they should come under this strict supervision. In any case Clause 5 provides fairly drastic supervision for the hatcheries which is almost identical with that provided in Clause 4. I am quite sure that the legal advisers of the noble Earl will easily adjust the wording, and we can deal with it on Report. At all events the noble Earl has really advanced no reason why we should have these two schemes when we could deal with both classes quite easily in one.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord has not referred to the financial reason I gave him.
LORD ADDISON: On that I should say that if the hatchery is not good enough to receive the premium, there is all the more reason why it should not receive it. I do not want a hatchery to receive a premium if it is not good enough.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (5), to leave out "may include all such incidental provisions as may be requisite or convenient for the operation thereof, and in particular" and insert "shall include." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is governed by an Amendment of substance in the new Clause 39 and that clause is of a machinery character. All it does is that it
12
arranges the structure of the provisions relating to orders and regulations in a more convenient form. It is clearly better to provide generally in a separate clause for such matters as incidental provisions for schemes and regulations rather than to deal with them several times in the individual clauses. Therefore they have been grouped together in the new Clause 39 which I shall submit to your Lordships when we come to that part of the Bill. This Amendment which is now before the Committee is a drafting Amendment consequent of that new clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 40, leave out from ("scheme") to ("provisions") in line 42 and insert ("shall include").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.52 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (6), to leave out "the Commons House" and insert "both Houses." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is moved in order to make inquiry as to why the Government propose to place an affront upon this House. If you look at the clause as it stands, your Lordships will see that regulations and schemes made by the Ministers after consultation with the Treasury as to the financial provisions thereof may by order approve the scheme, but the order shall be of no effect until it has been confirmed by a Resolution passed by the Commons House of Parliament. This House is not to have anything to say on the subject at all. I want to know why. So far as the financial provisions are concerned, the point, I gather, relates to the limitation of the powers of this House under the Parliament Act, for which I had the honour of voting years ago—and I do not repent of having done so—but the order will contain many other things besides financial provisions, and I think it is most desirable, this being a House of some leisure and containing members with experience, that it should be given an opportunity of discussing these things. I do not see why we should be ruled out and I therefore beg to move the Amendment in my name, that both Houses of Parliament shall have a chance of seeing these proposals.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 6, leave out ("the Commons House") and insert ("both Houses").—(Lord Addison.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I would like to say just one word in support of the admirable constitutional speech of the noble Lord, and I say it with the greater pleasure in view of his deplorable revolutionary antecedents. There is no reason that I can see why a scheme of this sort should not come before this House. It is obvious that this House cannot increase a grant which may be made when the scheme conies before this House, but it is not merely a question of a purely financial provision coming before this House. The main plan is the issue of certificates and the conditions under which they are to be issued, and these are matters which are well within the cognisance of this House. This House has power in other matters to reject a scheme, and that it should be debarred from considering these orders merely because there are financial provisions seems to me to be wholly unnecessary and opposed to precedent.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am just as anxious that your Lordships' rights and privileges should be respected on every occasion as the noble Lord opposite and Lord Rankeillour, but I think those noble Lords have read into this clause an affront which does not exist. Let me point out that in Clause 4 the breeders' accreditation scheme is a voluntary scheme and therefore the regulations imposed on the persons concerned will have been voluntarily decided by them. In the ordinary way therefore it would not be necessary to provide for any such scheme to come before either House of Parliament for approval, but the breeders' voluntary accreditation scheme has a monetary sum attached to it and it is for that reason, as public moneys to the extent of £250,000 for a maximum period of seven years are concerned, that the regulations have to go before another place for approval. That is the only reason why the regulations are laid before the other House for approval, and it was thought that it would be encumbering the machinery unnecessarily for a voluntary scheme of this character to be submitted to your Lordships' House. I would remind the noble Lord opposite that regulations under this clause are entirely different from the usual agricultural regulations upon which your Lordships' House has very often passed an affirmative Resolution under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, because this
14
scheme can only come into operation and will only be effective if it is agreed upon voluntarily by the section of the industry concerned.
LORD STRABOLGI: As your Lordships are discussing a Poultry Bill, perhaps I may be allowed to use the old country expression that "What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander," and if orders are coming before the other House, I think your Lordships should support us as the guardians of the Constitution and of the privileges of this House in demanding that they should also come before your Lordships' House. I would point out that we have in this House the admirable machinery of the Special Orders Committee, which has proved itself quite recently to be a very valuable piece of organisation and these orders can be examined there. The other place has not got that machinery, and we have an advantage there. I think it right that this House should at any rate have an opportunity of examining these orders. As to the financial provisions, I would remind your Lordships that the Finance Bill, which deals with so many hundreds of millions of public money, comes before your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I think the position taken up by the noble Earl, Lord Feversham, is quite untenable. I should like to know whether he suggests that in future all voluntary schemes shall go only before the other House. If they are to come before this House also there is all the more reason why these orders should come before this House.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Any voluntary scheme of this character would not be submitted to either House if it did not involve financial provision from the public purse. Your Lordships will observe that Clause 4, subsection (3), definitely gives a limitation to a financial issue, but although there is reference in the clause to another place it is an additional safeguard on the financial side and it is on the financial side that the order is submitted to another place. None the less if it is the wish of your Lordships' House that the machinery should come before your Lordships, I will be very pleased to bring the matter before your Lordships on the Report stage and I feel sure there is no good reason for the order not being approved by this House as indeed it will be by the other House.
LORD ADDISON: If I am allowed to understand from that that the noble Earl on the Report stage will introduce words which will secure that this House shall have an opportunity of considering these orders I will withdraw my Amendment. Am I to understand that?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: What I will do is to make some reference to the point raised by Lord Rankeillour and the noble Lord opposite, and so far as I can now see without further reference my view is that the noble Lord's Amendment can be met.
LORD ADDISON: Well, we must wait and see I suppose, but it does not sound at all satisfactory. The fact that the scheme is voluntary is neither here nor there. The point we are discussing is that a Minister of the Crown gives his authority to a certain scheme, and that scheme contains within itself the imposition of certain obligations, altogether apart from the premiums, upon a very large number of breeders of this particular class of stock, who have to do as they are told. It means that obligations are imposed on a large number of citizens by the authority and with the blessing of a Minister of the Crown, and this House is entitled to know about the matter. No, I am not content, and I shall divide the Committee.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am sure the noble Lord will understand that this is more a constitutional than a departmental point. Therefore it would be necessary, before I gave a specific undertaking, to discuss the matter with my right honourable friend and if necessary, as it is a constitutional point, with the Leader of the House.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Could not the noble Earl leave it this way—that he would allow the Amendment to be carried now, on the understanding that if some really grave objection is raised afterwards he reserves the right to reverse his decision on Report?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I am grateful to my noble friend for having made that suggestion, and I will gladly accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 22, leave out ("they think") and insert ("it thinks").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDISON: The next Amendment deals with the point we have just discussed.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 24, at end insert—
("Provided that no scheme so amended shall have effect until it has been confirmed by Resolutions of both Houses of Parliament").—(Lord Addison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Hatcheries accreditation scheme]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next two Amendments are consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 19, leave out ("described and")
Page 9, line 20, after ("classified") insert ("described and packed, and the fowls, or the packages in which they are sent out, are to be marked").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: There is a further drafting Amendment, consequent upon the proposed new Clause 39. It is exactly similar to the Amendment I moved to Clause 4, page 7, line 40.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 26, leave out from ("scheme") to ("provisions") in line 28, and insert ("shall include").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDISON: My point in the next Amendment on the Paper, to leave out Clause 5, was dealt with in my first Amendment to Clause 4, and therefore I do not move.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Stock Improvement Advisory Committee.
6.—(1) For the purpose of giving advice and assistance to the Commission in the discharge of its functions with respect to the maintenance and improvement of the quality of fowls not intended for immediate slaughter and fowls' eggs for hatching, there shall be constituted a committee, to be called the "Stock Improvement Advisory Committee."
(3) In appointing the representative members of the said Committee, the Ministers shall secure that the interests of the following classes of persons are represented, that is to say,—

(a) producers in Great Britain of such fowls or eggs as aforesaid;

(b) persons who carry on in Great Britain the business of supplying such fowls or eggs;

(c) local authorities in England; and

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 12, after ("the") insert ("health and").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (3), to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "(a) registered stock suppliers." The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to simplify the description of the classes of persons who are represented on the Stock Improvement Advisory Committee. The two classes of persons at present described in subsection (3) (a) and (b) together constitute the persons who, unless they are to be exempted by the Commission, will be required to register as stock suppliers. It will therefore be clearer to substitute "registered stock suppliers" for those two paragraphs.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert the said new paragraph (a).—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.6 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON had given Notice of an Amendment in subsection (3), to insert:
"(b) Persons who purchase such products in Great Britain for the purpose of producing poultry products therefrom."
The noble Lord said: I think the Amendment we have just made is a distinct improvement in the Bill, and saves redundancy. The purpose of this Amendment is quite different. It is to secure that on this Committe which is to advise the Commission as to the essentials of a stock improvement scheme there should be persons who are representative of, or who know about, certain subjects. The Amendment we have just passed secures that there should be somebody representing registered stock suppliers, which
18
is quite right. But it is also very important that the people who buy the goods should also be represented. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are now consolidated into one—namely, stock suppliers—and there will also be on the Committee local authorities and other persons who appear to the Minister to be affected. Those are the three classes named. There are at least, I should say, 100,000 purchasers who will purchase these goods, and it seems to me most important that they should have on this Committee somebody who can speak with experience and knowledge on their behalf. I cannot imagine why they are omitted. I therefore move this Amendment, so as to secure that those who buy these things have some representative on this Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 26, insert the said new paragraph (b).—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I agree with the purport of the noble Lord's remarks, but I think this Amendment is redundant. In the provisions for the constitution of the Stock Improvement Advisory Committee, it has naturally been thought important that specific provision should be made for the representation of those interests which will be most directly affected by the operations of the Commission on the stock improvement side, that is to say, registered stock suppliers. It is fully recognised, however, that there will be other interests—and prominently among them the commercial egg and poultry producers—which will also need to be represented; but in order to avoid the need for referring specifically to each of these other interests, they have all been included in paragraph (d) of Clause 6 (3), which runs in part:
"such other persons, if any, as appear to the Ministers to be immediately affected.…"
I assure the noble Lord that it is certainly the intention that commercial producers should be represented on the Advisory Committe. I submit to him therefore that his Amendment is not necessary.
LORD ADDISON: I take it that what the noble Earl has said is an assurance that this class of persons will be represented on the Committee. In those circumstances I shall not press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in paragraph (c), in subsection (3), to leave out "England" and insert "Great Britain." The noble Earl said: The reason for the difference between paragraph (c) of Clause 6 (3) and the provisions of Clause 11 was that in England local authorities are directly responsible for agricultural education. Therefore they are connected closely with stock improvement problems, whereas in Scotland they are not. For that reason, under this clause, there was no specific mention of the local authorities in Scotland being on the Advisory Committee. Since the original draft of the Bill the Association of County Councils in Scotland have asked that the Scottish local authorities should be expressly included, and as it is obviously desirable to encourage local authorities to take an interest in this important question of stock improvement the Amendments which stand in my name have been put down for submission to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("England") and insert ("Great Britain").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 33, leave out from ("eggs") to the end of line 34.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Poultry products to be graded on sale.
7.—(1) No poultry product produced in the United Kingdom shall be sold or exposed for sale on or after the day that is the appointed day in relation to that product unless—
Provided that—
(i) nothing in this subsection shall have effect in relation to a sale by wholesale of dead poultry or of eggs where the seller is a person engaged in poultry farming activities and the poultry or eggs were produced by him in the course of those activities, to a sale of cooked poultry or cooked eggs, or to a sale effected in the course of the business of an innkeeper or refreshment house keeper or of any similar business; and
(4) Where a person is charged either—

(a) with having acted as mentioned in the last preceding subsection, or

(b) with having acted in contravention of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section in relation to a poultry product marked with a grade designation other than that appropriate to the grade to which it belongs, or otherwise indicated as being of a grade other than that to which it belongs,

and it is not proved that he so acted with intent to deceive, it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he purchased the product from a registered wholesale trader or (in the case of eggs) from a wholesale dealer licensed under the Marketing of Eggs Acts (Northern Ireland), 1924 to 1937, in the same state as respects marking or other indication of grade as that in which the product was sold or exposed for sale, and that he took delivery of the product not more than four days before the day on which the act in respect of which he is charged was done.
5.11 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in proviso (i) in subsection (1), after "those activities," to insert, "unless so provided under a scheme made in accordance with this Act." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment that stands in my name, and I must add just a word of explanation. This clause relates to the grading and marking of eggs and other products. Responsibility for that is placed really upon the wholesale trade. Administratively no doubt that would be easier to deal with, but it is provided in paragraph (i), beginning on line 14 of page 11, that
"nothing in this subsection shall have effect in relation to a sale by wholesale of dead poultry or of eggs where the seller is a person engaged in poultry farming activities,"
and so forth. That is to say, if an ordinary producer sells his eggs and other products, he is not regarded for that reason as being a wholesale trader. That is what this exemption means, which is quite reasonable, but it may, and I am afraid will, have the effect—if an important Amendment which I shall move later is not accepted—that the producer may easily find himself with no incentive to grade or mark his products properly.
We all know it is a great advantage to a producer to grade and pack his products in accordance with the requirements of the market. In that way he gets a better price, and it would be a profound mistake in policy to deprive the producer of any incentive to grade and mark his products properly. As this stands there

21
is no incentive to do so at all. The whole responsibility of grading is placed on the wholesale trade, and the producer may be completely exempted. It is quite certain that if any rational scheme is provided under a later clause of the Bill, Clause 20, for the better marketing of poultry products, it will certainly improve grading and marking, and the producers will, quite properly, be required to grade and mark their produce by some machinery or other either at a packing station or elsewhere. At all events the producer ought to be assured that he will get the advantages which arise from it.
Therefore it ought to be provided here that where a scheme has been drawn up under the provisions of this Bill for the marketing of poultry products, and the scheme includes proper grading and so forth, that scheme shall not be exempted and the produce so graded shall be brought into consideration. That would only be secured by putting in some such words as I am proposing here. It is most important that these words should be in because we shall offer to the producer later on in the Bill the possibility of getting for himself the advantages of grading and marking, and not having them entirely absorbed, so to speak, by the wholesale trade, which might easily be the case. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 19, after ("activities") insert ("unless so provided under a scheme made in accordance with this Act").—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: As the noble Lord has informed the Committee, this Amendment relates to Clause 20, which deals with service schemes. As there is possibly some misunderstanding as to the nature and scope of a service scheme, it might be for the convenience of the Committee at this stage—as the noble Lord's Amendment refers to that clause—to attempt very briefly to clarify the general situation before dealing more immediately with the noble Lord's Amendment. In the first place I should make it quite clear that the improvements in the methods of marketing both home produced eggs and poultry which we expect to flow from a system of standardisation will not be dependent upon the existence of a service scheme. It will be consequent rather on the operations of the Poultry Commission in prescribing
22
suitable grades for eggs and table poultry and also in enforcing the sale of these products by reference to these prescribed grades. It may also be of some assistance to your Lordships to point out that the principle underlying the service scheme provisions is to enable the interests concerned, if they so desire, to do for themselves certain things which will be additional to, and ancillary to, the main functions that will be exercisable by the Poultry Commission.
There is no intention that a service scheme shall be the same thing as an agricultural marketing scheme, but on a smaller scale. Consequently the powers available under a marketing scheme are not all reproduced in the service scheme provisions, neither are there the same safeguards under Clause 20 as under a marketing scheme. For instance, no provision is made which will enable the authorised body administering a service scheme to coerce either producers or distributors except to the extent of requiring them to make whatever contributions are to be provided under the scheme towards the cost of administration; and, secondly, to furnish such information as the authorised body may require for the working of such a scheme. I should like to convince the noble Lord that it was never the intention that a service scheme should impose upon the egg and poultry producers a requirement to grade those products which they sell by wholesale, because that would be outside the scope of the authorised body administering the scheme. The general intention of the Bill is to place the responsibility for grading upon the Poultry Commission (subject, of course, to the particular limits that are set by the Bill itself).
I submit that it would be highly undesirable that a body administering a service scheme should have power to impose and enforce grading requirements. There is, of course, nothing in the Bill to prevent producers grading their produce on their own account if they wish to do so, but that does not necessarily, and should not, mean that a service scheme for this purpose ought to be employed. I hope, with this short explanation of the difference between the functions of the Poultry Commission on the one hand and the body administering the service scheme on the other hand, that the noble Lord might feel disposed not to press his Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: All I can say is that for something like ten years every Minister of Agriculture of every political Party has united in endeavouring to induce producers to pack and grade their produce fairly, and the whole purpose of the Agricultural Grading and Marketing Act and the National Mark and the rest has been to induce producers to grade and pack their stuff better. They get a better price because they do it, and so they should. That is the whole purpose of grading. Now we are informed that the Government, or at all events the present Minister of Agriculture, for some reason seems to think there is something wrong if a service scheme is to include the proper grading of the produce. I say with great respect that the service scheme is an absurdity if it does not include the proper grading of the products.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord merely to say this? My right honourable friend and myself fully endorse what the noble Lord has said as to the necessity of grading the produce of the producer not only in respect of eggs and poultry but in respect of the majority of primary products. However, the onus of the grading and marking of poultry produce and eggs is in this Bill not placed upon the producer, because it is estimated that there are about half a million producers, but it is placed, generally speaking, upon the wholesaler. There are only two exemptions in the Bill whereby a person does not have to grade, and your Lordships will see they are in the proviso to Clause 7 which exempts producers in so far as they sell their own produce by wholesale. If the producer sells his products by retail then he is subject to the provisions of Clause 7. It also exempts those persons who are in business as innkeepers or refreshment-house keepers or in a similar business. Those are the only two exceptions, and I hope the noble Lord does not think that, because the onus of grading is not put upon the small poultry man, the Minister of Agriculture is not paying due attention to the all-important question of grading. What is done is to place the responsibilites upon those persons who handle a great quantity of eggs, and in the opinion of the Department I represent it would be unsatisfactory to extend the functions of a service scheme under Clause 20 to cover
24
such an operation as that which the noble Lord has in mind.
LORD ADDISON: All I have to say is that the explanation of the noble Earl makes it worse and worse. It means that we are going to have in the conception of the Ministry a service scheme for the better dealing with poultry products and yet they do not regard it as important or even important enough to be mentioned that the products should be properly graded. Really it is amazing. I shall not trouble the Committee with many Divisions, but I shall trouble it with one Division when we come to Clause 20. I know how futile it is, with so small a Party as that to which I belong, to divide the House, and I do not want to waste the time of the House unnecessarily. It is outrageous that there should be no benefit accruing to producers because they themselves participate in a scheme which will properly grade their produce.
My Amendment does not in the least interfere with the major responsibility of the wholesale trade. As the noble Earl has explained, it leaves it exactly as it is. All it says is that where under any particular scheme the producers themselves grade and mark their eggs, so far as that grading and marking are concerned, provided they accord with the general scheme of grading and marking which the Commission requires, the scheme should not then be exempted from this clause. It means that those who grade and mark the eggs properly will get a little extra for doing so, and they are entitled to have it, and so are the producers if they fall in with the general provisions of the clause. It is in order to give them a chance of so doing that this Amendment is moved. I am not going to divide the House upon it. I have entered my protest. I say it is absurd that it should not be provided.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (4) to leave out all words after "that" ["and that he took"] and insert "the sale or exposure for sale took place within such a period as may be prescribed, being a period running either from the date on which he took delivery of the product or from the date indicated by a prescribed mark as being the date on which it was packed." The noble Earl

25
said: Clause 7 (4) provides a warranty defence for a parson buying poultry products from a registered wholesaler, subject however to certain conditions. One of those conditions is that the person who would be charged with an offence must have taken delivery of the product not more than four days before the day on which the act in respect of which he would be charged was done. Clearly some time limit must be set, because the quality and also the grade of eggs and poultry is liable to deteriorate if they are kept for long periods. But the extent of the time limit must largely depend upon trade practice. It might well need to be different for eggs and for poultry, and the period of time might also need adjustment as trading conditions vary and change. Therefore it is proposed that a time limit should be fixed by regulations of the Commission which shall be made after consultation with the Marketing Advisory Committee, and such period, according to the condition of the industry, may be capable of amendment at a later date without fresh legislation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 21, leave out from ("that") to the end of the subsection and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
General provisions as to wholesale trade in poultry products.
(2) A person shall be deemed to carry on the business of selling by wholesale poultry products produced in the United Kingdom if he sells any such product by wholesale in the course of any business carried on by him other than that of an auctioneer:
Provided that—
(a) a person engaged in poultry farming activities shall not be deemed to carry on the business of selling poultry products by wholesale by reason only of a sale of dead poultry produced by him in the course of those activities of a sale of eggs so produced; and
5.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMhad on the Paper two Amendments to subsection (2)—namely, to leave out the words "other than that of an auctioneer" and also proviso (a). The noble Earl said: I think it would be convenient if, with the leave of your Lordships, these two Amendments
26
and the two Amendments to Clause 9 standing in my name were considered together. The object in leaving out the reference to auctioneers and to producers of eggs and poultry in Clause 8 is to insert somewhat similar provisions in Clause 9. It is considered that such provisions will be more appropriate in Clause 9, and they can take a form which will overcome certain difficulties that have come to light since the Bill was drafted. It is desirable that the Bill should make it quite clear that there is no intention to require either producers or auctioneers, selling by wholesale, to undertake responsibility for grading. All the principles of subsection (2) of Clause 8 are to be preserved.
If these Amendments are accepted, the position will be that no producer who sells only his own products and no auctioneer in respect of his own auctioneer's business will be required to register as a wholesale trader, but any such producer or any such auctioneer will be fully at liberty to do so if he desires. Any producer and any auctioneer who chooses to register will, of course, accept the responsibility attaching to registered wholesale traders generally, and, in return, retailers purchasing from him would be able to make use of the warranty defence to which I referred earlier. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, leave out line 5.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 7, leave out lines 7 to 12.—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Registration of wholesale traders in poultry products]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 9, after ("that") insert—

("(a) this subsection shall not apply to a person engaged in poultry farming activities, so far as regards anything done by him in relation to a sale of dead poultry produced by him in the course of those activities or of eggs so produced, or the use by him of any premises for keeping, or applying any process to, any such poultry or eggs;

27

(b) this subsection shall not apply to any person carrying on the business of an auctioneer, so far as regards anything done by him in the course of that business, or the use by him of any premises for the purposes of that business; and

(c)").—(The Earl of Feversham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line t, leave out ("preceding").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Regulations as to wholesale trade in poultry products]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (1), immediately before paragraph (a), to insert:
"(a) for securing that the grading of poultry products is properly performed;".
The noble Earl said: This in fact does not add anything very material to the contents of the clause, but it is intended to make quite clear that the main object of the regulations affecting wholesale traders is to ensure that the grading is carried out both effectively and correctly.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 2, at end insert the said paragraph (a).—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13:
Marking of eggs preserved by cold or chemical storage.
13.—(1) Provision may be made, by regulations applicable to any class of eggs, for requiring either—

(a) that eggs of that class, which are to be placed in cold storage or in chemical storage in premises used for such storage of eggs by way of trade or for purposes of gain, shall not be so placed until they have been marked in the prescribed manner; or

(b) that eggs of that class which have been so placed shall not be removed from the premises (except for the purpose of destruction) until they have been marked in the prescribed manner.

5.34 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (1), to substitute "shall" for "may" ["Provision may be made"].
The noble Lord said: This clause relates
28
to the marking of eggs that are placed in cold or chemical storage. It requires that they should be marked in a proper way to show that they have been so treated, which is entirely right. It provides that eggs of the class referred to, which are to be placed in cold storage or in chemical storage, shall not be so placed until they have been marked in the prescribed manner, and that they shall not be taken out of storage and put on the market until they are marked. That is to say, the idea is to secure that persons who buy eggs which have been in cold storage or chemical storage will know that they are buying preserved goods. That is quite right too.
I remember certain enthusiasts who tried to persuade us that a certain advertisement was quite right and proper. The advertisement was to this effect, "Straight from the hen to the breakfast table." But the eggs to which it referred had come 6,000 miles. Well, we naturally inquired what had happened during the time of transit. The journey made had been straight—if you can draw a straight line so far—but the eggs had, in fact, been preserved. The public when they read this attractive advertisement no doubt thought they were new laid eggs. This clause is designed to secure that eggs which have been preserved should be so marked, but I want it provided that they "shall" and not "may" be so marked. I do not want the marking to be an accident, or subject to some future decision. There ought to be no dubiety about it.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 14, leave out ("may") and_ insert ("shall").—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: If the noble Lord will refer to subsection (2) of this clause he will see that all classes of eggs
"shall be subject at all times on or after the appointed day to one or other of the requirements aforesaid."
Therefore it is obligatory upon the Commission to adopt either (a) or (b) under subsection (1) of the clause. I do not think that the Amendment is necessary. It is subsection (2) which provides in very definite terms that on or after an appointed day all classes of eggs for preservation are marked at one or other of two points in the process of bringing them to market. The reason why "may" is put

29
in subsection (1) is that, for example, marks placed on eggs before going into some particular kind of storage are liable to be affected by the conditions of storage and consequently the mark might become illegible. Therefore it will be obviously desirable in such a case that marking should be done before removal from the store. That is why there is an alternative in the forms (a) and (b).
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Control of importation to secure marking of preserved eggs]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If your Lordships look at subsection (2) (c) of this clause you will see it says that:
"A direction may be given and a licence may be granted for a specified period or without limit of period, but may be suspended or revoked by the Ministers at any time during the currency thereof."
There is no provision whatever for any appeal to the Courts by an aggrieved person. I suggest that an aggrieved person should as of right have access to the Courts. I hope that the noble Earl will consider the point between now and the Report stage and that he will himself move an Amendment giving access to the Courts by aggrieved persons.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I will consider the point raised by the noble Viscount.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17:
Power of Board of Trade to regulate importation of poultry and eggs.
(2) The Board of Trade may by order regulate the importation into the United Kingdom of any such eggs, as may be described in the order, if it appears to the Board—
(a) that there have been or are being taken, under organised and comprehensive arrangements, such steps for the storage of eggs as are practicable and necessary for the purpose of modifying the seasonal variation in the supplies thereof or in the prices thereof;
5.40 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in paragraph (a) of subsection (2), after "eggs," to insert "under a scheme for the marketing of poultry products made under subsection (2) of Section twenty of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This clause concerns the powers of the Board of Trade with regard to the regulation of imports. It is provided that they may regulate importation into the United Kingdom if it appears to them that certain conditions, set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), are satisfied. Under paragraph (a) it must appear to them
"that there have been or are being taken, under organised and comprehensive arrangements, such steps for the storage of eggs as are practicable and necessary for the purpose of modifying the seasonal variation in the supplies thereof or in the prices thereof."
I want to know what "organised and comprehensive arrangements" means. It might mean anything. If you have a proper scheme for the storage of eggs on behalf of the producer, as may be provided under Clause 20 (2), that I can understand. That would be a "comprehensive and organised arrangement"; it means something. If it relates to something else, I should be glad if the noble Earl would tell us to what kind of thing it relates.
I can only imagine a "comprehensive arrangement" being one under which a large number of persons enter under some organised scheme, and the only provision in the Bill for such a scheme is that which is indicated at the bottom of page 24. I therefore think that we ought to provide here that where the Board of Trade find that steps have been taken under Clause 20 (2), as is provided later on, that should be sufficient to show to the Board of Trade that "organised and comprehensive arrangements" have been made. The phrase means something then, but there is no other provision in the Bill by which I can find that any meaning can be attached to it. I therefore move that those words be there inserted in order that we may have some information as to what we are legislating about.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 13, after ("eggs") insert ("under a scheme for the marketing of poultry products made under subsection (2) of Section twenty of this Act").—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The purport of the noble Lord's Amendment would be, I hope to point out, unnecessarily to limit the powers of the Board of Trade to regulate imports. It may be that a comprehensive storage scheme will be promoted independently of the provisions

31
of this Bill. As the noble Lord will know, storage is already being conducted in different parts of the country to-day, and it is quite possible that a storage scheme might be initiated, for instance, by a federation of packing stations, or alternatively by the formation of a large corporation for this very purpose. I would recall to the noble Lord opposite that during the Second Reading I said:
"It is clearly undesirable that any substantial efforts the industry may make by storage, in order to secure more even distribution of supplies, should be jeopardised by excessive supplies of imported eggs."
It is the intention in this Bill that if the Board of Trade are satisfied that storage schemes are sufficiently comprehensive and are effective in taking supplies off the market, particularly during the flush season, and that such a measure is necessary to secure the successful operation of these schemes, the Board will be enabled, with the approval of Parliament, to take steps to regulate imports by order.
The real criterion in deciding whether import regulation is desirable is the quantity of eggs taken off the market and put into store, surely not the machinery by which the eggs are taken off the market. If the noble Lord's Amendment were to be accepted, he would be creating a situation where the Board of Trade could only take into account a scheme made under Section 20 (2) of this Bill. Therefore it is a restrictive Amendment, and one which I hope the noble Lord will not press.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Incidental provisions as to orders of Board of Trade]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (2) of Clause 19:
"Any order made under any of the said provisions shall be laid before Parliament as soon as may be after it is made."
To lay the order before Parliament is not much good unless Parliament has the right to annul it, and I hope my noble friend between now and Report will consider that suggestion and perhaps move an Amendment to make these orders annullable as orders are under Clause 22.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: If the Board of Trade order is varied or revoked, it must receive the affirmative approval of Parliament, and there is also ample opportunity for the producers to protest.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Do I understand from my noble friend that an order must have an affirmative Resolution before it is laid?
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: It has to receive an affirmative Resolution.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: These particular orders mentioned in subsection (2) are to receive an affirmative Resolution? I see nothing about it in the Bill.
LORD ADDISON: I rise to support the noble Viscount. With all respect, there is nothing in the Bill to provide that these orders shall receive the approval of Parliament, so far as I can see. The noble Viscount's point is a sound one.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Perhaps it would save time if my noble friend looked this point up between now and Report.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I will certainly look the matter up between now and Report, and I shall be glad to communicate with the noble Viscount before that time.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20:
Purposes and scope of service schemes.
(2) On the request of any body or bodies appearing to the Commission to be substantially representative of the interests of any class or classes of persons engaged in Great Britain in the production of any poultry products or in the marketing of any poultry products produced in the United Kingdom or in any of those activities, the Commission, after consulting the Marketing Advisory Committee, and any other bodies appearing to the Commission to represent the interests of such of the said persons as appear to the Commission to be concerned, may make and submit to the appropriate Minister a scheme providing, in relation to poultry products, for—

(a) the insurance thereof;

(b) measures of publicity or other measures calculated to increase the consumption thereof;

(c) the storage thereof;

(d) the establishment of an agency, or the appointment of agents, for the sale wholesale thereof; and

33

(e) any purpose similar to any of the purposes aforesaid;

or for any one or more of those purposes.
(3) The Commission, after consulting the appropriate Advisory Committee and any bodies appearing to it to be representative of interests concerned, may make and submit to the appropriate Minister a scheme providing for—

(a) the encouragement of research as respects any matter relating to the poultry industry; and

(b) the establishment of a market intelligence service in relation to the marketing of poultry stock, eggs for hatching and poultry products;

or for any one or more of those purposes.
(5) A service scheme may be made so as to apply to the whole of Great Britain or to any part thereof, and so that any powers or obligations under the scheme are conferred or imposed by reference to the whole of Great Britain or to any part thereof.
5.47 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "or in the marketing of any poultry products produced". The noble Lord said: This is a very important Amendment, and I propose to divide the Committee upon it if the noble Earl will not accept it. It is so important that I must plead for the clemency of the Committee for two or three minutes while I explain it. I propose that line 27 on page 24 should be omitted. This is one of the numerous provisions in this clause which lays down that a scheme may be promoted on the request of persons substantially representative of persons engaged in the production of poultry products, and they submit to the Minister a scheme for doing certain things which are set out at the bottom of the page. I propose in a later Amendment to add a number of other things to those there recited, but that is not the point at the moment. The point is that it is provided here that a scheme may be promoted by those engaged in the production of poultry products or by persons engaged in the marketing of poultry products. I propane to omit that last class of persons, and I think it is most important that they should be omitted.
It ought not to be possible under this Bill for a big distributive organisation to come in and frame a scheme which will cover the various purposes set out in this subsection. The result would be inevitably that the producer would in fact be subject
34
to that vast combine, so to say, which had been so brought into being. The purpose of this Bill is to improve the lot of the producer; that I take to be its primary purpose. I have not a word to say against the efficient distributors. They are perfectly well able to look after themselves, and I hope that nobody will receive the impression that I have anything adverse whatever to say in respect of them; but they are not concerned in this business. I know, for example, that some very important distributors have excellent schemes for the selection, grading and packing of their own produce, and there is no reason at all why they should not continue to have them; but this Bill gives statutory authority to certain schemes the aim and purpose of which is to benefit the producers. A scheme promoted by the distributors, however well intentioned it may be, will not primarily be promoted for the benefit of the producers, but will naturally be for the benefit of the distributors. Of course it will, and we could not expect it to be anything else.
But let me recall to your Lordships what happened in the case of pigs. This is a very similar case. There we had allowed to be created, quite wrongly, as subsequent history showed, a board which was called the Bacon Board, promoted and formed by the factory interests. They, just like other people in business, are generally well equipped and generally well able to look after themselves. But the Factory Board, the Bacon Board, really was the channel through which the producers' pigs had to go if they were big enough to be bacon pigs. What was the result? We found that the producers set up what was called the Pig Board, which had to sell pigs to the Bacon Board. The purpose of the Bacon Board was to get the pigs at as low a price as they could. I am not blaming them for that. The less they gave for pigs, and the more they sold them for, the bigger profits they got. But the result of the operations of the Bacon Board was that the producers soon began to find that they made better prices by selling their pigs as pork than by letting them grow until they were a bit older, and selling them for bacon. In the result, of course, the consumer had to pay more.
This was entirely foreign to the whole conception of the Agricultural Marketing

35
Acts, and the provision in this Bill, subject to what I shall say later on, really gives the whole case away beforehand. One thing is necessary before all others—namely, that some organisation should be promoted which will help the scattered producers. They are pretty helpless as it is, and it will be difficult to promote anything which will help them sufficiently. If this Bill stands as it is there is no doubt whatever as to what will happen. The pig distributors' organisations, either unitedly or separately, will build up schemes for doing these things and the producers will in fact have no other channel open to them for the sale of their produce. That ought not to be in a Bill which is designedly framed for the promotion of the producers' interest. It is all to the good that the big distributing organisations should make schemes, and the better they are the better for the public; but that is not the purport of this Bill. Here we are endeavouring to help the producers to get together for receiving the advantages, whatever they may be, that will arise from these schemes. I shall have something later on to say about the disorder of these schemes, but so far as any benefits are derivable from them they ought to be derived by the producers, and the only way of securing that is to see that they are framed by or on behalf of the producers. If we leave these words in the Bill we may be perfectly certain that that will not be the case.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, leave out line 27.—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord has drawn an analogy between Clause 20 of this Bill and the pig and bacon industries. I cannot but think that there is a certain amount of association in the noble Lord's mind with the marketing schemes for which he was responsible in 1931, and about which no person, either in or outside your Lordships' House, is better informed. There is, however, a wide difference between the objects and functions of the two types of schemes—namely, the scheme that one gets under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931, for the improvement of the producers' returns by regulation, and the scheme that is suggested in Clause 20 of this Bill, which is similar to those under
36
Section 27 of the Livestock Industry Act.
A marketing scheme, although resembling a service scheme in that it cannot be initiated without the approval of those who will participate in it, is primarily a matter for the producers themselves. It is generally regulatory in its character, and it can impose upon the participants certain obligations which are statutorily enforceable. A service scheme, on the other hand, while it might only concern one group of interests in the industry, would usually affect more than one of those groups of interests. A service scheme cannot impose obligations upon individuals except to make financial contributions towards the administrative costs, and also to coerce members to furnish information authorised by the administering body. Nor can it involve sanctions against individuals save in these two respects.
Therefore, in general the object of the service scheme provisions is to enable the different interests within an industry—in particular, producers and distributors—to get together to afford services to all sides of the industry which will be to their mutual advantage. The noble Lord will remember that from the Report of the Reorganisation Commission it was clear that the industry was not yet ripe for self-imposed regulatory schemes, and therefore the alternative method of achieving some of the objects and recommendations which the Commission brought to light has been aimed at in this Bill; for instance, the provisions of the Bill regarding regulations as to compulsory grading. At the same time the Bill follows the precedent of the Livestock Industry Act in providing a field within which the different classes of persons within the industry may join together in organising services on the stock improvement side as well as the marketing side, with the purpose of introducing greater efficiency, or possibly economy.
It might perhaps be helpful to remind the Committee here that the purposes for which service schemes may be promoted are set out in the three subsections of Clause 20. The first subsection deals with the various kinds of schemes for stock improvement purposes. These schemes can be initiated by what are called stock improvement interests. But subsection (2) deals with certain market-

37
ing matters, and it is that subsection to which the noble Lord's Amendment is directed. Schemes under that subsection can be prepared only at the instance of marketing interests. Subsection (3) deals with two matters which it is thought might prove to be of such importance, on either the stock improvement side or the marketing side, or on both sides, that the Commission itself, rather than either of the two sections, should have power to take the initiative; though of course no scheme could come into effect unless all the interests concerned were in favour of it.
Perhaps I may quote one or two examples whereby service schemes for the various sections of the industry are directed to help the industry at large. The classes interested in a particular scheme might be quite different from the classes interested in other schemes. For instance, it is possible that producers of table poultry may promote a scheme for insurance against loss of table poultry in transit. Auctioneers and those registered stock suppliers who supply day-old chicks may quite possibly introduce a scheme for improvement of conditions of sale at auctions. It is possible that auctioneers may decide upon a scheme governing some particular aspect of auction sales; and so on. Not only will the interests vary very considerably between the schemes, but also the rate of contribution that will be required for the different schemes will vary according to the nature of the schemes. It is not on the same plane as what the noble Lord imagines; all schemes will not be brought into force together on a given date. They will be introduced at various times, as the respective interests of the industry may decide, for their mutual benefit.
Under the present arrangement the body responsible for running a particular scheme will consist of representatives of the interests concerned, and they will be able to concentrate the whole of their attention upon it; whereas, as I understand from the noble Lord's other Amendments, which greatly affect this Amendment, he visualises one central body grouping together the service schemes. That would entail representation of every section of the industry, whether it be on the production side or the distribution side. That would not only make a very ponderous authorised body to deal with the service schemes but it would also add
38
very greatly to the expense. I hope that, with that explanation, which does affect some of the subsequent Amendments, the noble Lord will see that the lay-out of this Bill is very different from what the Reorganisation Commission visualises under the Agricultural Marketing Acts. To help the producers there are occasions when good can only come by drawing into a scheme, of which the majority of the section concerned are in favour, the other sections, such as the distributors, which the noble Lord does not want to bring within the provisions of this Bill at all.
LORD ADDISON: I do not think your Lordships really apprehend the very vital matter that is raised by this Amendment. Most of the speech of the noble Earl did not relate to it at all. It related to subsection (1) of this clause, which my Amendment does not affect at all. He is quite right in saying that you might have a scheme to improve auctions. That is true, and I have deliberately left that alone. The Amendment I am proposing relates to something quite different. It relates to a scheme dealing with poultry products, that is to say, eggs and chickens. I submit that a man who sells eggs over the counter is not, as such, a member of the poultry industry. You might just as well say that the people who sell eggs sell butter and cheese and all sorts of things as well, but they are not by that fact members of the different industries which produce the butter and the cheese. They have no relation, as such, to them.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: Has the noble Lord got in mind the hagglers—those persons who go round from farm to farm and collect the eggs? They do not fall into the category to which the noble Lord has referred under subsection (1). The auctioneers also may, for the benefit of the producers, set up a scheme for the better organisation of sales at auction marts. Both those come under the subsection to which the noble Lord has an Amendment.
LORD ADDISON: I was not concerning myself with the higglers at all. What I am looking at is the organisation of big distributors, who are very powerful and efficient people, and I wish them well. The point I am on here is that it is not for them—because they are not

39
members of the poultry industry—to frame schemes for the better marketing of eggs and chickens in the interests of the producers. If they framed a scheme I have no doubt it would be a very good scheme, I have no doubt it would be a crushingly efficient scheme, in which the unfortunate producers would have very little to say. What I am concerned about is to see that this is a producers' scheme, and nobody else's. That is why I am moving this Amendment, and it is a vital Amendment. If this proposal goes through as it is, it torpedoes the whole Bill so far as the producer is concerned. The ordinary man who sells his eggs and chickens will not have a ghost of a chance if this is left in. I am not a hit satisfied with the explanation of the noble Earl. I shall certainly divide the Committee upon the Amendment, and do everything I possibly can to oppose the retention of these words in the Bill, because it spoils the whole Bill.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The noble Lord said just now that the main point of contention with regard to this Amendment is that the well organised wholesale distributive undertakings will, by their efficiency and organisation, squeeze out the small producer who is engaged in poultry production. The noble Lord, and indeed the rest of us have no great experience of these service schemes, because service schemes were first made possible by the Livestock Industry Act, 1937. Under that Act there have been mooted three schemes, none of which has
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
actually come into operation. But because those schemes have not come into operation, it does not mean that the provisions of the Livestock Industry Act have failed. Neither in that Act nor in this Bill can the Minister approve a service scheme unless he is advised that those who are affected in each section of the industry are preponderatingly in favour of it.
LORD ADDISON: With great respect to the noble Earl, this is a very vital matter. Those "concerned" in the scheme—those concerned in a scheme framed by the distributors would be the distributors.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: As the noble Lord said just now, it could not be said that the distributors were properly within the poultry industry, but they are dealing with poultry products purchased from the producers and the producer is vitally affected. Therefore I can assure the noble Lord that the Minister must take into account the attitude of the producer with regard to the formulation of a scheme of this character. It is correct that the promotion of that scheme might only be at the instigation of the distributors' interests, but because it is at the instigation of the distributors' interests that does not mean that the producing element would not make representations to my right honourable friend.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 4.

CONTENTS.

Maugham, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Bridport, V.

Jessel, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Kenilworth, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V. (L. President.)

Goschen, V.

Lamington, L.

Mersey, V.

Lawrence, L.

Luke, L.

Zetland, M.

Addington, L.

Mancroft, L.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Rankeillour, L.

Feversham, E.

Rennell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Rushcliffe, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Greenway, L.

St. Levan, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Midleton, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Templemore, L. [Teller.]

Minto, E.

Holden, L.

Teynham, L.

Munster, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Wardington, L.

Stanhope, E.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Wolverton, L.

Wicklow, E.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Addison, L.

Snell, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Marley, L. [Teller.]

6.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (b), to insert:
"(c) measures calculated to improve the conditions under which sales thereof through auction markets are effected."
The noble Earl said: If your Lordships turn to Clause 20 you will see that subsection (1) provides that the Poultry Commission may, in certain circumstances, make service schemes for a number of purposes including the improvement of conditions under which poultry stock and hatching eggs are sold by auction. That is paragraph (c). It is felt that there might be advantage in extending subsection (2) to include a similar provision relating to sales of poultry products at auction markets, and it is understood that auctioneers generally would welcome such a course. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 37, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Thus Earl of Feversham)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.20 p.m.
LORD ADDISON LORD ADDISON moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (b), to insert:
"(c) the establishment of a market intelligence service in relation to the marketing of poultry products;
(d) the provision of packing stations by or in behalf of the producers of poultry products;
(e) the obtaining and providing of feeding stuffs for producers of poultry products;".
The noble Lord said: I have inflicted so many Amendments on your Lordships, and you have supported the Government so very generously in the Lobby, that I think perhaps it would meet with your approval with respect to the other Amendments that I have on the Paper if I made now what general statement I have to make and said no more about them after I have heard what the noble Earl has to say, unless, as I hope, he will accept them. This series of Amendments is intended to try and mike a service scheme something like an efficient, business-like scheme. All that the Bill proposes—and there never was a more shadowy Bill before Parliament than this—is that the producers who are to sell the bulk of the eggs and chickens of the country can have a scheme which will deal with insurance, and a scheme which will deal with publicity—that is all to the good—and they can have a scheme which will
42
deal with storage and they can appoint an agent. The auctioneers also can provide a scheme, and if your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see that it is provided that any scheme may relate to one or other of the things I have just mentioned, so that you might have one scheme for auctioning a few eggs, and you might have another scheme for insuring eggs, and then, if you will look at subsection (5), you will see that a scheme may be for the whole of Great Britain or any part thereof.
In other words, you might have a scheme for Cornwall, and another for the Home Counties, and another for Cumberland, and goodness knows how many other schemes you might have. As a matter of fact the result will be a medley of schemes and odds and ends and bits. This country will be littered with schemes and nothing else. To pretend that that is going to be something which is to enable the poor poultry producer, doing his best to get a living by producing eggs and chickens, to do it more efficiently, really is an absurdity. We shall have scores of schemes if we have the kind of thing that the noble Earl seems to be advocating. My Amendments are really designed, first, to add to a scheme the three things stated—that it shall have a marketing intelligence service, that it shall provide for proper packing stations, and that it shall help the producers in buying their feeding stuffs to obtain any advantages which may arise out of collective large-scale purchase. If you have those provisions put into the scheme the producers would stand to benefit.
What is the good of plastering the Tubes with advertisements "Buy more eggs" when, as a matter of fact, the people who are managing the whole of the eggs produced, are the big producers? Under the proposal your Lordships have just supported with a large majority, I can imagine that the poor producer will be less able to afford a trip to London than ever to see these advertisements. Any-how, the producers will know there is one scheme for Cornwall for insurance, another scheme, an auctioneers' scheme, in Lancashire, and that somebody else in Little Pedlington has a scheme for something else. And that is supposed to be the policy of His Majesty's Government for benefiting 150,000 poultry producers

43
or whatever the number is. I hope that before Parliament is finished with this absurdity it will have knocked it all out. It is not worthy of being called a policy. It is, as a matter of fact, allowing everybody to have a bit of an innings, but the person who will not have any innings will be the most helpless person of the lot. However, if the noble Earl at this late hour will repent of his wrongdoings and accept my Amendments, which really hang together, I will withdraw all those animadversions and give him my blessing. Anyhow I move my Amendment in the hope that it will be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 37, at end insert the said paragraphs.—(Lord Addison.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: In spite of my endeavour to explain the limited purpose of service schemes on the noble Lord's last Amendment, Lord Addison remains quite adamant in his belief that the Government have instituted a new form of organisation and machinery which is going to be nothing but a hindrance to the person who is mostly affected and that is the producer. I can only repeat once again that we visualise these schemes operating in an entirely different fashion from that which the noble Lord has in mind. I can only think that he perseveres in his condemnation of these schemes because he has running in the back of his mind the recommendation of the Reorganisation Commission, of which he was such a prominent member, that the country should be divided up into twelve regions, that each region should be governed by a single body, and that there should be packing stations scattered over the areas but controlled by an authorised marketing organisation from the centre. It is unnecessary for me to repeat the nature of the schemes which provide for the number of services to which the noble Lord has referred, but I should like for a moment to deal with the question of packing stations to which he alluded.
It would be inconvenient to attempt to provide packing stations through the machinery of the service scheme. It is true that a service scheme may be made so as to apply to the whole of Great Britain or to a part thereof. The noble
44
Lord thought, as a result of that, there would be innumerable service schemes clotted all over the country. I think he recognises that there may be a necessity for a service scheme in Wales and another in England, and if the Amendment which stands in his name later were to be carried it would mean that the sections of the industry involved would be excluded from taking, say, four or five counties of England into the Wales area for the convenience of geographical grouping unless they took in the whole of England. I do not contemplate that we shall see a service scheme inaugurated on a county basis, or for a particularly small section of the industry. The schemes will be largely upon a fully representative basis. It would be easy to imagine the difficulties which would arise if, under one service scheme administered by one authorised body, it was proposed to finance, establish and supervise a number of packing stations dotted about England, Scotland and Wales. The alternative of a separate service scheme for each packing station is hardly more attractive, particularly when one bears in mind the procedure which has to be followed in accordance with the Third Schedule before any such service scheme can come into effect.
The noble Lord referred to the question of feeding stuffs within a service scheme. I should again point out that the general intention behind the service scheme idea is to enable the various groups interested to come together for matters in which they have mutual interests. It has not been contemplated that the service schemes for this Bill or the Livestock Industry Act should be trading organisations. As my right honourable friend the late Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Morrison, said in another place, that would involve difficulties arising from other Statutes. It would be quite contrary to the main intention, which is mutual assistance for services other than trading services. For those reasons I am unable to accept the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment standing in my name is a drafting Amendment, which is needed merely for the sake of consistency. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 42, leave out ("require") and insert ("requires").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Power to require information]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: There is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 38, leave out ("have") and insert ("has").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 to 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Loans and grants for improvement of packing facilities]:
LORD ADDISON: My Amendment in subsection (1), to insert "in accordance with the provisions of a scheme under Section twenty, subsection (2), of this Act," is really covered by the general condemnation of the noble Earl, so I will not delay your Lordships by moving it.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Provisions as to regulations]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to omit subsection (3). The noble Earl said: This Amendment is related to the new clause following Clause 38 to which I have already referred. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 33, leave out subsection (3).—(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 37, line 40, leave out ("required to be").—(The Earl Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved to leave out subsection (6). The noble Earl said: This Amendment is of a machinery character. It arranges the structure of the provisions relating to orders and regulations in more convenient form. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 12, leave out subsection (6).—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 38, line 16, at end, insert the following new clause:
Incidental provisions as to regulations, schemes, etc.
("39.—(1) Regulations and any scheme, order or rules made under this Act may make provision for such matters as are incidental or supplementary to any of the matters for which provision is made thereby by virtue of the preceding provisions of this Act.
(2) Nothwithstanding anything in subsection (4) of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, regulations and rules made under this Act, or contained in a scheme or order made thereunder, shall be deemed not to be statutory rules to which that section applies.")—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.
Clause 41:
Interpretation.
41. In this Act, except where it is otherwise provided or the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby assigned to them respectively that is to say—
"The Ministers" means the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State acting jointly;
"poultry" means fowls, and domestic ducks, turkeys and geese;
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The purpose of the first Amendment standing in my name is to simplify the machinery for effecting the various payments which under the Bill fall to be made by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 37, leave out ("acting jointly").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in the definition of "poultry," after "turkeys," to insert "guinea fowls." The noble Lord said: In the definition in this Bill poultry means "fowls and domestic

47
ducks, turkeys and geese." We think that it ought to include guinea fowls, which I believe are increasing in this country.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 40, after ("turkeys") insert ("guinea fowls").—(Lord Strabolgi.)
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: I have great pleasure in informing the noble Lord opposite that I accept his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM moved, after the definition of "prescribed," to insert "'process' includes, in relation to poultry products, grading and any operation incidental thereto." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is, I think, desirable in order to make it clear that the term "applying any process" as used in Clause 9 in relation to poultry products would include such operation as "candling" eggs, which is part of the "process" of testing and grading them.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 6, at end insert ("'process' includes, in relation to poultry products, grading and any operation incidental thereto;").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First and Second Schedules agreed to.
Third Schedule [Provisions with respect to confirmation of service schemes]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: In this Schedule there is a drafting Amendment which is needed for the sake of consistency.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 10, leave out ("them") and insert ("it").—(The Earl of Feversham).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Provisions with respect to the making, confirmation and publication of Commission's regulations]:
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The first Amendment to this Schedule is purely a machinery Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 8, leave out ("next twenty-eight days on which that House has set after") and insert ("period of forty days
48
beginning with the date on which").—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 12, at end insert—
("In reckoning any such period of forty days as aforesaid, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.")—(The Earl of Feversham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
6.37 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 1.]
Clause 4, page 3, line 41, leave out ("1934") and insert ("1938").
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, the first Amendment is purely drafting and is necessary in order to correct a date. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out ("1934") and insert ("1938").
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, this second Amendment is made with the same purpose as the preceding one. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("July nineteen hundred and thirty-nine") and insert ("January nineteen hundred and forty").
THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND: My Lords, the effect of the last Amendment is to postpone the coming into operation of the Act from 1st July, 1939, to 1st January 1940. It is quite obvious that it is not now possible to bring the Act into operation at the original date. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Marquess of Zetland.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PATENTS AND DESIGNS (LIMITS OF TIME) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
6.39 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, you will remember that this Bill deals with the limit of time within which certain things must be done in regard to patents and designs. The Amendments which have been made by the Commons since the Bill left your Lordships' House are all of a minor character, and I propose to ask your Lordships to agree with all of them. I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 47.]
Clause 2, page 3, line 36, after ("before") insert ("or on")
Clause 2, page 3, line 41, after ("before") insert ("or on")
Page 4, line 8, at end insert the following new subsection:
("(2) The following consequential Amendments shall be made in the principal Act—

(a) In Section three, in subsection (2), for the words 'accept the application,' there shall be substituted the words 'accept the specification';

(b) in Section three, in subsection (5), for the words 'application shall be accepted,' there shall be substituted the words 'specification shall be accepted';

(c) in Section three, in subsection (6), for the words 'an application has been
50
accepted,' there shall be substituted the words 'a specification has been accepted'; and

(d) in Section ninety-one, in subsection (2c), the words 'to accept an application for a patent, or,' shall be repealed.")

Clause 5, page 7, line 23, at end insert the following new subsection—
("(5) This Act shall come into operation at the expiration of one month from the date on which it is passed.")
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I beg to move that we agree with the Commons Amendments en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH (MONEY) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BANK FOR INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS AND CZECH GOLD.
6.40 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI rose to ask His Majesty's Government, what were the circumstances under which the British directors on the Bank for International Settlements failed to support the French directors in resisting the surrender to the German authorities of the gold held on account of the Czecho-Slovak National Bank by the Bank for International Settlements in London and Switzerland; what representations were made by the French Government to His Majesty's Government on this subject, and what action was taken by His Majesty's Government; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question which stands in my name refers to a matter which I think has created great surprise and indeed resentment in the minds of the British public. The act of making available the £10,000,000 worth of gold and credit which stood to the account of the Czecho-Slovak National Bank to that Bank soon after the invasion of Bohemia and Moravia meant that this money was really released for the use of the German Government. I do not think there is any dispute about that fact, and I am sure that the noble Lord who

51
I understand is speaking for the Treasury in this matter would not wish to dispute it. Actually £6,000,000 was held in London in the Bank of England and £4,000,000 in Switzerland, but it was all nominally in the Bank for International Settlements and stood to the credit of the Czecho-Slovak National Bank until that bank fell with other supplies in the German invasion of Czecho-Slovakia. This money, this £10,000,000 worth of good foreign exchange and gold, expended on copper, nickel and other materials represents about £10,000,000 of armaments.
I wish to say a word at this stage about the Bank for International Settlements itself. Your Lordships are aware of the circumstances in which it came into being, its object and what it was intended to do, but I think some attention is required to its executive. The President of the Bank for International Settlements is a distinguished Dutchman, Dr. Beyen, of well-known Nazi sympathies. He is about to relinquish his post to join the great Unilever combine, which has large frozen Reichsmark credits in Germany. The Continental manager of Unilevers in London is a certain Herr Franz Schicht, who plays a prominent part in organising the German Nazis in London. So much for the President. I now come to a distinguished German banker, Herr Hechler, who was formerly the assistant general manager of the Bank for International Settlements. He is known as a protégé of the two English directors of the Bank, Mr. Montagu Norman and Sir Otto Niemeyer. In 1937 the French general manager, M. Quesnay, died, and the English directors insisted on Herr Hechler's appointment to the post in the face of strong opposition from the French directors. I am the last person to blame Herr Hechler, as a German citizen, for doing all he could to have this Czech money made available for his own Government.
It may be argued that the British and French directors on the board are in a minority vis-à-vis the German and the Austrian and other directors who would naturally be expected to vote with them. Certain directors belong to countries which are so under the shadow of the Nazi menace that they can do nothing else. But even so, if the British and French directors are in a theoretical minority, they could always enforce a modification
52
of the Statutes of the Bank by threatening to withdraw their deposits and thus reducing the Bank to insolvency. The power of the British and French directors is therefore very great indeed. That directorate is like the board of a company in which one man is in such a strong position as a shareholder that if he withdraws his support the company comes to an end. That is the exact position there.
I am not going over the events which are in your Lordships' minds; I am trying to fill in some of the gaps in the story which have not appeared in the discussions which have taken place so far in another place. On March 24 the French Ambassador called on the Foreign Secretary, the noble Viscount, Lord Halifax, requesting his influence on the British directors to support their French colleagues in resisting the transfer of this very large sum to Prague. This message, according to my information, was passed on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Simon, who in his turn passed it on to Mr. Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England and also one of the two British directors. As far as I have been able to ascertain, that is just all that happened, except that the money was released to Prague.
Before the matter was ventilated in the House of Commons, efforts were made to keep the whole business secret. Thus on May 15 a member of another place, Mr. Sandys—and I have had no communication with that gentleman on the subject at all—proposed to ask a Question about this anticipated transference of funds, but he was dissuaded by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury from putting it; and then, of course, there was public agitation and the matter had to be ventilated. But efforts were soon made by His Majesty's Government to hush up the whole business.
I understand that the defence is that the directors of the Czech National Bank deposited this money in the Bank for International Settlements, and that when they asked for the money to be transferred to them there was no alternative but to do so. That is the defence: the morals of banking, the ethics of international finance, and so on. The truth is, of course, that the directors of the Czech National Bank were not free agents after the invasion of Czecho-Slovakia, and

53
they were acting under duress. There have been numerous precedents where similar requests have been refused when the people making the request have been known or suspected to have acted under duress. I will quote to your Lordships, if I may, three examples, all well known. The first is that of the Russian deposits held at Barings, the Midland Bank, and other banks in this country. It has always been refused to surrender these deposits, even though the nominal owners requested their return, on the plea that these nominal owners were not free agents in the matter. That situation exists to this day, as far as I am aware.
The second example is that of Martins Bank, which held up £1,250,000 worth of Bank of Spain money at the request of the Burgos authorities during the Spanish Civil War. The reasons given were that the board of directors were believed not to represent the proprietors of the Bank of Spain, and the money was held up. The third example is that of the Austrian deposits in London banks after the Anschluss. Many requests came signed by former Austrian directors of businesses which had been taken over or controlled by the German Nazis, asking for their deposits to be given to them, and the requests were refused on the ground that they were acting under duress, were not free agents. Of course this was exactly the case with regard to Prague.
Now, by the answers made in another place, it appears that the Law Officers of the Crown have argued that the Statutes of the Bank for International Settlements did not compel the British directors to consult His Majesty's Government. That may be so, but The Hague Agreement setting up the Bank for International Settlements was broken by the Germans themselves long ago, when they refused to ratify or carry out the Lausanne Agreement of 1932. That invalidated the whole of the Statutes of the Bank for International Settlements. If that is not held to be a sufficient argument, the Prime Minister himself, and the noble Viscount, the Foreign Secretary, have branded the invasion of Czecho-Slovakia as a gross illegality, and that is accepted by every Party in your Lordships' House. No one has defended that invasion, and in face of that illegality I suggest to your Lordships that it is surely absurd to pretend that the English directors of the Bank for
54
International Settlements could act, so to speak, in a vacuum, without consulting the British Government.
I further suggest that His Majesty's Government had ample warning of what was afoot. I do not think it can be denied that they had warning conveyed to them through the French Ambassador in London, and they should have taken the necessary action but did not do so. Now it may be said: What is the use of seeking to lock the stable door after the horse has been stolen? When a horse has been stolen I think it is a wise policy to find out who left the door unlocked and I repeat, if I may, what I began by stating, that this whole transaction has aroused not only very considerable interest amongst the public but also considerable resentment. I beg to move for Papers.
6.52 p.m.
LORD WARDINGTON: My Lords, the Motion of the noble Lord is concerned with various questions of banking principle and practice, and perhaps it might not be without some use, but might be of some help in the discussion, if I ventured to say just a word from that point of view. There are three points, as I see it, of major importance. The first is involved in the question: Were the Bank of England justified in handing over the gold on the instruction of their customer, the Bank for International Settlements? Whether or not it was known or presumed that this gold was Czech gold, or whether it was handed to Germany direct or via the Bank for International Settlements, in my opinion does not make any difference. The answer must remain: "Yes, they were justified."
This answer is in accordance with the fundamental principles of banking, which are held especially sacred, perhaps, in this country, and the confidence of the public in the integrity of the banks would be rudely shaken if there was any departure from those principles. If they knew it was Czech gold, and I am speaking without any inside knowledge whatever—I am only going on what I may happen to know as a banker, and what I have read of what took place in the other House, and what I have read in the Press—the Bank of England may have disliked exceedingly, if they knew what was the destination of the gold, having to carry out this order, but as a bank

55
I think it was their duty to do as the customer asked them to do, however much it might be against any individual wishes, and however much against political or other views. In the absence of any legal embargo or instructions I feel that the Bank of England were bound to carry out the instructions of the customer.
I do not know whether the noble Lord opposite would accept the application of this general principle to this particular case, but possibly he might be more sympathetic to its application in a different case. I remember that in the General Strike I was asked by a Cabinet Minister whether it would not be desirable, and in the interests of the country, that the banks should refuse to hand over the large sums of money and securities deposited in their hands by the trade unions. This money, it was suggested, was being used against the interests of the country, and it might therefore be the patriotic duty of the banks to refuse to hand that money over. I told my questioner that I thought that that was an impossible thing to ask of the banks, and of course, as a matter of fact, the banks never were asked to do anything of the sort. This was purely a private conversation. The banks without hesitation, even although they may have disliked it and may have believed that the money so released was going to be spent against the interests of the country, released it, because they felt it was their bounden duty to do so.
The second point is: Were the Bank for International Settlements justified in obeying the instructions of their customer, the Czech Bank? I venture to suggest that the answer to that question must be the same as the answer to the first question, in accordance with the same principle. They had, I presume, the written instructions of their customer, and the signatures which they had been authorised to honour were appended to those instructions. The objection is raised that the Bank for International Settlements ought to have known that those signatures were obtained under duress. Whether that was so or not, I cannot say. It is general knowledge, of course, that the whole country was overrun by the Germans, and we all resent the fact that the Germans have got these ill-gotten gains in consequence of their action. But although the country was dominated by the
56
Germans the authorities of the Czech Central Bank apparently would be put in this dilemma: either they had got to carry on and do the best they could under those unfortunate circumstances, or they must resign. They did not resign, they did carry on, and did append their signatures to these instructions, and I contend that the Bank for International Settlements were only doing their duty in honouring those signatures.
Similar problems of the same kind are arising in this country, I believe, to-day. A German Jew refugee, for instance, signs, possibly under compulsion, an irrevocable order to transfer his assets, which are in a bank in this country, to Nazi nominees to whom he gives the order, and then, on his arrival in this country, he may go to the bank where his assets are and say he wishes to revoke that order. My contention, in that case also, is that the bank would not be entitled to accept his revocation and to go back on the order under which he instructed the bank to hand over his assets to a third party and which is presented by that party to the bank. However much sympathy the English bank might have with such a case, I presume the bank would tell him that, before they could do what he suggests, he would have to go to the Court and get the Court to place an injunction on the bank and prevent them from handing the money over.
The third point to which I would like to refer is involved in the question: Ought the English representatives on the Bank for International Settlements to have reported to His Majesty's Government and asked them to intervene; and ought His Majesty's Government to have intervened and to have given an order to the Bank of England, or the representatives of the Bank for International Settlements to disregard the instructions of the Bank for International Settlements to the Bank of England? Before one can answer that question one must look at the constitution of the Bank for International Settlements. As the noble Lord opposite has pointed out, it was formed some years ago by various countries, to be a safe harbour of refuge in times of stress and political anxiety, as well as in ordinary peaceful times. It was to be entirely outside any political interference of any sort. That was an essential part of its constitution. We were pledged to

57
uphold that Article in its constitution, and it seems to me to be quite clear that we should have broken our pledges if we had endeavoured to interfere and bring pressure to bear on the Bank for International Settlements.
A lot has been written and said about control and interference by the State with ordinary central banks. I have in my hand a very interesting and forceful article by a distinguished political economist, who writes:
"If there is one lesson which recent financial history has taught us, it is that the State can never be trusted not to abuse any power it has over the Central Bank."
And he goes on to say:
"It is no exaggeration to say that three-quarters of the financial dislocation which followed the War was due to the domination of banking and currency systems by Governments. It is scarcely necessary to quote examples—the experience of such countries as Russia, Germany, Austria, Poland, France … speaks for itself."
I might also point out that it was the Labour Government which took the responsibility, and accepted the credit, for putting into force the Dawes Plan for the reorganisation of the German financial system, and that one of its cardinal provisions insisted that the new German Bank of Issue was to be entirely free from Governmental control or interference. If this is a sound principle in regard to a central bank, it is all the more sound in regard to an international bank.
It is not merely a question of opinion, to my mind, but it is one of moral integrity. We accuse other nations of breaking their word and departing from their solemn promise for political purposes when it suits them best, and I hope that we are not going to enter into any competition of that sort. In any war of that kind I hope and believe this country would be hopelessly handicapped. Therefore I submit, with all deference, that the Bank of England were right in obeying the instructions of their customer; that the Bank for International Settlements were also right; and that His Majesty's Government were right in keeping their pledge and refusing to interfere with the actions of the Bank for International Settlements.
7.6 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wardington has dealt very largely with the question of the duties and responsibilities of the Bank of
58
England and the Bank for International Settlements with regard to this matter. It is my duty to state the views of His Majesty's Government as to their duties and responsibilities in this matter, which I agree has roused considerable interest and a certain amount of feeling, both in this House and in another place, as well as in the country.
The noble Lord opposite in the first part of his Question on the Paper, though he did not dwell very much on it, asks what were the circumstances in which the British directors of the Bank for International Settlements failed to support the French directors in resisting the surrender to the German authorities of the gold held on account of the Czecho-Slovak National Bank by the Bank for International Settlements in London and Switzerland. The noble Lord would appear to assume as a fact that the French directors of the Bank for International Settlements resisted the transfer of this gold. I do not know on what information that assumption is based, but if it arises from newspaper reports of a statement made by M. Bonnet to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French Chamber of Deputies on June 21, then I would observe that according to the report which appeared in The Times of June 22, M. Bonnet's statement was to the effect that the transfer was carried out by the Executive of the Bank and that a protest by the French Government came after the event.
In these circumstances the first part of the noble Lord's Question would appear to be of a hypothetical character. But in any event I would point out, as regards the British directors or members of the Council, that they have no responsibility to His Majesty's Government. The essential feature of the Bank for International Settlements under the arrangements made in 1930 was that it should be a non-political body, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place has explained that the British members of the Council are in no sense representatives of His Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord further asks what representations were made by the French Government to His Majesty's Government on this subject and what action was taken by His Majesty's Government. The reply to this part of the Question is that the French Government towards the end of

59
March expressed the hope that means could be found to prevent the transfer of the gold stated to be in London. His Majesty's Government replied that they were precluded from taking any steps to prevent such a transfer because, firstly, the administration of the Bank for International Settlements was not a matter under the control of His Majesty's Government; and, secondly, that the immunities granted to the Bank for International Settlements by the international Agreement of January, 1930, and the Protocol of July, 1936, would have precluded restricting the transfer of the gold in London even if this had been otherwise possible.
The misconceptions inherent in the suggestion that action could and should have been taken by His Majesty's Government to prevent the transfer of this gold stated to be deposited with the Bank of England were dealt with in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on June 5. He then explained the position of the Bank of England in a matter of this kind and added that he had sought the advice of the Law Officers on the principal points and that the statement which he was about to make was in accordance with their advice. He went on to say that His Majesty's Government are precluded by the terms of the Protocols of 1930 and 1936 from taking any steps, by way of legislation or otherwise, to prevent the Bank of England from obeying the instructions given to it by its customer the Bank for International Settlements to transfer gold as it may be instructed; the Czecho-Slovakia (Restrictions on Banking Accounts, etc.) Act, 1939, does not operate to prohibit the Bank of England from making such a transfer without the consent of the Treasury. Even if it did, it would be a breach of treaty obligations to withhold Treasury consent.
7.10 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Wardington, for intervening in this debate, and I should like to thank him 'for his advice and information which, coming from such a source, naturally carry the very greatest weight. I must say, howeevr, I should have thought that his arguments about the Czech credits held in the Bank of England would have applied also
60
to the credits frozen in London by order of the Government. They also were private deposits which the private banks, on executive Government action, were forbidden to release to their customers—and that with the support of all Parties in the House. The noble Lord's ethical arguments about the high principles of banking surely apply just as much to those deposits.
LORD WARDINGTON: If there is legal authority to withhold balances, that puts the matter on quite a different footing.
LORD STRABOLGI: It was done in the first case by executive action on the part of the Treasury, and of course the banks naturally paid attention when they were told there would be an indemnifying Act. But one would have thought the morality would have been the same in both cases.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD MAUGHAM): If the noble Lord will forgive me, having been concerned in the matter of the Russian banks, I may say that the circumstances were far more difficult because the moneys were deposited in the sort of case he is mentioning by Russian banks which no longer existed.
LORD STRABOLGI: I was talking of Czech money.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord is now dealing with another matter I beg his pardon.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I only referred to the Czech balances held in private banks in London, which were held up at the request of the Government and are still so held.
LORD WARDINGTON: I see no objection whatever in that action of His Majesty's Government and no difficulty in accepting the instructions of His Majesty's Government in a case of that sort. What I criticised was the suggestion that His Majesty's Government should interfere with the Bank for International Settlements.
LORD STRABOLGI: There is admittedly a distinction in this case, and that brings me to the Government reply to my Question. I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, for his very full reply, but there is something missing. Supposing there had actually been war between this country and Germany—and the Prime Minister himself

61
said we are not in a state of peace; we are neither one thing nor another—would it still be maintained by the Government that they were bound to allow this gold to leave this country because of the Statutes of 1930 which were never carried out by Germany? That shows the absurdity of the whole thing, if I may be allowed to use the expression. I do not want to enter into the niceties of the ethics of banking and International Law, especially in the presence of its great guardian, the present Lord Chancellor; but if it hail been desired to prevent this money from reaching its purloiners, I am sure means could have been found to do so. That is the feeling of the Englishman in the street, and that is what matters. However in the circumstances, I do not propose to press my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.