Lords Sitting of 18 July 1939

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl Haig—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL.
SHEFFIELD CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.

LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
The King's consent in respect of His Land Revenues and in right of His Duchy of Cornwall, signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
COLNE VALLEY WATER BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
BRISTOL WATERWORKS BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NEWQUAY AND DISTRICT WATER BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.
SILEBY GAS ORDER, 1939.
RHONDDA GAS ORDER, 1939.
DARLINGTON GAS ORDER, 1939.
ENNERDALE GAS ORDER, 1939.
WELLINGTON (SALOP) GAS ORDER, 1939.
MUSSELBURGH GAS ORDER, 1939.
HUDDERSFIELD GAS ORDER, 1939.
GLASGOW GAS ORDER, 1939.
BRIDGNORTH GAS ORDER, 1939.
ASHFORD GAS ORDER, 1939.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders standing in my name be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On question, Motion agreed to.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EASTERN VALLEYS (MONMOUTHSHIRE) JOINT SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (FALMOUTH) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HEMEL HEMPSTEAD WATER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
PORT GLASGOW BURGH AND HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
STIRLING BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PUBLIC TRUSTEE (GENERAL DEPOSIT FUND) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (PUBLICATION OF REGISTER) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.10 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, this Bill has a very high-sounding title, but it is

259
a very simple Bill with a simple object—namely, to alter the date of the coming into force of the register from October 15 to October 1. Elections, as many of you are aware, usually take place in the autumn, and your Lordships will no doubt all agree that it is essential that as many voters should be on the register as possible, especially as regards municipal elections, on which it may be said truly, owing to the early system of local government in this country, that the foundations of our liberties are based. There was a very interesting debate in this House on May 4 of last year, on a Motion by Lord Derwent calling attention to the apathy at elections, especially municipal elections. Several remedies were suggested, which I am not going into at this moment, and Lord Munster, who I regret not to see here in his place this afternoon, replied for the Government. Lord Munster, as your Lordships are aware, may be called the Poo-bah of the Government, because he always has charge of very important measures. I am very proud of Lord Munster, because I think I may claim to be one of his political godfathers, and your Lordships will all agree that he has done very well.
Lord Munster, in replying for the Government, rather disposed of the question of General Elections, because he said that in the last six General Elections no less than from 75 to 80 per cent. of the electors had voted. It is true that higher figures have been obtained, but on the whole your Lordships, I think, agreed then, and will agree to-day, that that is not at all an unsatisfactory figure. He went on to say:
"I come now to municipal elections. The percentage of electors who record their votes at these elections is, I know, unfortunately much smaller … but in London since 1922—that is to say, at the last four elections of county councillors and the last six elections of borough councillors—the percentage has generally been between 30 and 40. I think it is to be very much regretted that a keener interest is not shown by the people not only in London but in the provinces in municipal elections."
We had a number of figures in that debate, and I do not wish to weary your Lordships with them to any great extent, but I will give figures for two of the biggest boroughs in London at the last municipal elections. I see Lord Snell
260
and Lord Strabolgi present, and these figures come from one of the publications of their Party. In Wandsworth there were 245,973 electors, 49,147 who had removed, and 49,539 new names. In Islington, one of the biggest boroughs in London, on the old register there were 200,371 electors, 47,181 had removed, and 41,194 new names. As your Lordships are aware, elections are held for municipal contests all over the country on November 1. The register is out on October 15, and it gives the parties concerned very little time to make the necessary arrangements. The voting in the North of England is much better as regards local elections than it is in the South, and London has lagged far behind any other part of the country. That is due not to any inherent vice on the part of the Londoner, but because the Londoner shifts from one part of London to another in a much greater degree than the voters in any other part of the country.
In March of this year a meeting was held at the Home Office, the Ministry which is responsible for registration. The meeting was what is known as the Advisory Electoral Conference. This meeting was attended by representatives of registration officers, of all the political Parties, and of the Government Departments concerned. I understand that there was general agreement that the register should be published at an earlier date. Your Lordships will doubtless note that all political Parties were represented and agreed on this point. Therefore, there is nothing to be said as regards any difference of politics in this Bill, to which I hope your Lordships will give a Second Reading. I am bound to tell your Lordships, however, that certain difficulties were pointed out as regards existing contracts made by the Stationery Office with the printers, and also as to the alteration of certain other dates, but I venture to hope that if the Government agree to this Bill those alterations can easily be inserted on the Committee stage.
Your Lordships are no doubt aware that many public bodies, and municipal authorities do not as a rule take much notice of a Bill until it has passed the Second Reading, and I may say that I delayed putting this Bill on the Paper to suit the convenience of the Government. But I should like to inform the House that certain bodies have commented

261
favourably on the Bill. The Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, which represents all the boroughs in London, whatever be their political complexion, passed a resolution in favour of the Bill, and in their Report they say:
"The alteration of the date of publication of the register as proposed would be advantageous, particularly in cases where, as frequently happens, an election takes place in the autumn."
Then they go on to say what I have already told your Lordships:
"We feel, however, that to enable registration officers and their printers sufficient time in which to carry out their work, it will be necessary for other dates in the programme of revision, including the qualifying period, also to be brought forward, but the Bill makes no provision for these consequential alterations."
I might observe on this that there is a great difference in London, because we have these very important elections triennially—they take place on November 1—whereas in the big towns in the rest of the country, like Liverpool, Birmingham and Manchester, they have annual elections. The most important body in London are the London County Council. This matter, I understand, was considered by the appropriate committee as long ago as March last, and it was clearly stated that the London County Council have no objection to the Bill. I should like to point out, however, that the Bill does not affect the County Council so much, because their elections are fixed by Statute and take place on a certain date in the first week of March.
The Bill is a one clause Bill. Subsection (1) refers to the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926, by which one register was substituted for two, and at the same time the qualifying period was reduced from six to three months. The dates were altered in respect of the 1929 register, because special power to alter them was conferred by a special Statute—namely, the Equal Franchise Act, 1928. I hoped at one time that this alteration could have been effected by an Order in Council, but on closer examination of the matter, I was informed that this could not be done, and that an Act of Parliament was necessary to carry out the alteration which many of us so much desire. I hope that your Lordships, after this explanation, will show your approval of the principle of the Bill by allowing it to have a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord fessel.)
3.23 p.m.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, we have no objection to this Bill; on the contrary, there would seem to be some general convenience should the Bill finally become law. I should like, however, to say that I suspect that in the noble Lord's criticisms about the small number of people who have voted there is a certain amount of what in these days we call "wishful thinking." I do not doubt that he feels that if a greater proportion of London's electors had voted at the last County Council election, the results might have been different. So they might. But we must always remember that a small vote is not necessarily unsatisfactory. The British people have a way of not interesting themselves so long as things are going right. It is the same, I have noticed, in your Lordships' House. If something arises which touches the interests of your Lordships, or in which noble Lords are interested and suspect a grievance, we have the pleasure of seeing a great many of your Lordships present, but in ordinary circumstances they take very little notice of what happens. Now it is so in popular elections. If the government of a community appears to the electors to be going on well, whether it be of the county or the State, then they are inclined to let things go, but if things begin to go wrong, then immediately a larger number of them vote.
Well, I feel that we must not be too alarmed because only 40 per cent. voted at the last London County Council election. The results seem to me to be entirely satisfactory. But I agree with the noble Lord that it is very desirable that a far larger number of our citizens should participate in the responsibilities of electing their representatives. Democratic government becomes something of a farce if only a small minority participate in the work. So I should on every ground, whatever the result might be, wish to see a larger number of voters take part in elections. If this Bill, by bringing forward the date, would help, that would be something to the good. But the mere alteration of the date will not create that political conscience in the people which is on all grounds desirable. So far as I know, those interested in local government and in national government, of all Parties, would be very glad if the date

263
when this register becomes effective were brought forward, at least to the time which is proposed by the noble Lord. I therefore support the Second Reading of the Bill.
3.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: My Lords, His Majesty's Government consider that the objects of the Bill are good, and the arguments in its favour are valid. There are, however, certain practical points which require consideration. I do not think that any of your Lordships doubt that the annual revision of these lists of names and addresses which together form the register of electors is a lengthy, elaborate and costly procedure. The dates governing the various stages in the preparation of the register are laid down by Statute. The present dates are contained in the Third Schedule to the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926, which abolished the spring register, and instituted the system of one register a year instead of two. It is necessary for the moment to consider only one of these dates—August 18, which is the last day for the receipt of objections to claimants, and of claims to be registered as absent voters. The significance of that date is this: between August 18 and October 15 the registration officer has to hold any revision courts that may be necessary to decide on claims and objections received, and to prepare a copy of the register for the printers, the proofs have to be printed, checked and returned, and the register finally printed and bound. Thus, the registration officer and the printer have between them just over eight weeks in which to complete the final stages of the register.
In some cases, in favourable circumstances, it is possible to save a few days and to have the register ready for issue before October 15. But taking the country as a whole, the period of eight weeks is no more than sufficient. This statement is based on the advice of representative registration officers and of His Majesty's Stationery Office (who are responsible for making the contracts with the printers). The noble Lord's Bill would reduce this period of eight weeks to six weeks, and it is the considered opinion of those responsible that the proposal is impracticable. It is hardly necessary to emphasize the importance of
264
securing that the register, when completed, should be as accurate as humanly possible: if a mistake is made, there is no means of correcting it until the next annual revision. To curtail the concluding stages in the preparation of the register by anything approaching a fortnight would, even if practicable, greatly increase the risk of mistakes, mistakes for which there is no legal remedy. For this reason alone the noble Lord's Bill cannot be accepted as it stands.
That is not to say, however, that His Majesty's Government have discarded all idea of advancing the date of publication of the register, if it should prove to be practicable in some other way—that is to say, by advancing some or all of the other dates contained in the Schedule to the Economy Act. His Majesty's Government admit the force of the arguments for revision, and they are in fact already exploring the practicability of advancing all the dates, including the qualifying period, by a fortnight. While it is too early yet to reach a definite conclusion, it seems likely that this would be feasible, at any rate so far as England and Wales are concerned.
There is, however, a further complication. All that I have said relates to England and Wales. The noble Lord's Bill specifically excludes Scotland and Northern Ireland. It would alter the operative date of the register for England and Wales, but would leave the Scottish and Irish registers unchanged. So far as Northern Ireland is concerned, the Northern Irish register already comes into operation two months later than the English register, and Northern Ireland would not be affected by any alteration of the date for England and Wales. The Scottish register, however, comes into force on the same date (October 15) as the English register.
The municipal elections in Scotland take place during the first week in November, and, if there is a case for an earlier register in England, there would seem to be an almost equally strong case in Scotland. Accordingly, although no representations have reached the Scottish Office in favour of an earlier register in Scotland, His Majesty's Government have given consideration to the possibility of making a change there similar to that which has been suggested for England and Wales. But here we meet

265
with special difficulties. Owing to a system of tenancy peculiar to Scotland, a large number of removals take place every year on or about May 28, with the result that the work of revising the register cannot be begun in Scotland until some time later than the commencement of the revision in England. The qualifying period accordingly ends a fortnight later in Scotland, and the dates for the various stages of revision are also later. This means that the total time taken in revising and printing in Scotland is already less than the time taken in England, and it may not be practicable further to curtail that time, or, alternatively, to start the work of revision earlier. It appears therefore to be impossible to meet the demand for an earlier register in England, without having different dates of operation in the two countries and this might be inconvenient to Scottish candidates in the event of a General Election being held early in October.
To summarise the attitude of the Government, so far as England and Wales are concerned the Government agree that there would be advantages in antedating the publication of the Register from 15th to 1st October. As regards Scotland, for the reasons I have explained, it does not seem possible to alter the present date of publication. In the event of a General Election for Parliament being held either between 1st and 15th October or shortly after 15th October, Scottish candidates would seem to be at a disadvantage as compared with English candidates and this is one of the difficulties that must be met in the consideration of this matter. His Majesty's Government are much obliged to the noble Lord for having given the opportunity for a discussion of this question. His Majesty's Government are not in a position at the moment to give any definite undertaking to introduce legislation next Session, but the matter will be carefully considered in the light of the various considerations raised in the course of the debate this afternoon before the legislative programme for next Session is settled.
3.37 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I am very sorry to receive from the noble Viscount the intimation that His Majesty's Government are not going to do anything. This matter has been debated and thought over
266
in certain circles not only in London but all over the country for a good many years. I myself have hammered away at this story since 1930. I am not at all convinced by what the noble Viscount has said about Scotland. I cannot speak for Scotland. Scotland itself has never shown any dissatisfaction with the present system. There has been, as the noble Viscount has said, no representation made to the Scottish Office on this subject. I do not quite understand what he said about Northern Ireland. It seems to me they are going to be left alone, and therefore they are out of the hunt. I do not see why, because Scotland comes into the picture and has not asked for anything—there has been no movement as far as I understand in Scotland—unfortunate England and Wales are to have this perpetual disability placed upon them.
As regards Lord Snell's remarks—I am sorry he is not in the House at this moment—I must point out that he is not quite in agreement with the leader of the body he adorned when he was in the London County Council, for Mr. Herbert Morrison, in his well-known paper, whose name I shall not mention but which is published every month, strongly advocated the revision of the register. It is rather distressing for me to see that Lord Snell, having got away from Mr. Morrison and the London County Council, is now in favour of small electorates. I should not have thought that was a doctrine which would appeal to his colleagues on the Front Opposition Bench. I do hope the Government will reconsider this matter because it is a burning question in many quarters. As regards the argument about the registration officer not being able to do his work in eight weeks, everybody knows that appeals in these days are few and far between. It is not like in the old days when an election was fought out in the Registration Court, when there were smaller electorates. Appeals are very few to-day. I should like the Home Office to inquire how many questions come before the registration officer which have to be decided in this way to give time for an appeal to the County Court. I am extremely dissatisfied with the answer of His Majesty's Government, and I hope they will reconsider this matter and next Session will introduce a Bill on these lines.
On Question, Motion negatived.

COTTON INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.40 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, this is an important Bill of 39 clauses and 7 Schedules which is intended to provide powers which will enable the cotton industry to improve its organisation with a view to checking the serious decline in trade which has taken place in recent years. The causes which have led the cotton industry to ask for legislation to enable them to seek the aid of Parliament to put their house in order are too well-known to your Lordships for it to be necessary to refer to them other than quite briefly. Your Lordships are aware, I think, that since 1914 there has been a very serious decline in the export trade of the industry due to causes quite beyond the control of the industry. During the War there was naturally a heavy fall in our production of cotton goods, and this led to the establishment or expansion of local industries in some of our principal markets. India, China, Egypt, Canada and Brazil between them took more than one-half of the total exports of cotton piece goods. The exports to these countries have now fallen to less than one-tenth of the quantity in pre-War years This development of economic self-sufficiency has accounted for more than two-thirds of our total loss of exports. The other third is mainly attributable to Japanese competition. Low labour costs coupled with the effective co-operation of her commercial interests have enabled Japan to cater for an increasing share in the demand for the cheaper classes of goods. The surplus of productive capacity consequent on the fall in demand has led to an economic price cutting both in the home markets and in the overseas markets which the industry still holds. This in turn has still further weakened the position of the industry and has delayed the modernisation of plant which the severity of Japanese competition has rendered imperative.
Now it has long been realised that this fruitless competition can only be eliminated by reducing the capacity of the industry to something approaching that necessary to satisfy normal demands. Your Lordships will recall the proposals that were submitted by the spinning section
268
of the industry some years ago and which were subsequently embodied in the Cotton Spinning Industry Act, 1936, very often known as the Spindles Act, which was conducted through another place by my noble friend the Lord President who was then President of the Board of Trade and which I had the honour to take through your Lordships House. This Act dealt with the problem of redundant capacity in that section of the trade, and it will not be necessary for me to do more than say that the experience of the working of that measure has shown the considerable advantage of dealing with redundant capacity by a statutory scheme which enables the redundant plant to be removed from the industry speedily and in an orderly manner, rather than by a war of attrition (in which firms are removed from the industry by a process of bankruptcy), which would necessarily leave all the remaining firms in a seriously weakened position.
In a widespread industry such as the cotton industry, however, redundancy schemes must rest on a statutory basis in order that the considerable burden of purchasing redundant plant can be distributed equitably among all the concerns in the industry. Redundancy exists in other sections of the industry besides the spinning section and one of the main objects of this Bill is to provide facilities for further schemes on the lines of that adopted for spinning under the Spindles Act to which I referred just now. Efforts have been made on a voluntary basis in the industry for dealing with another aspect of the problem of surplus capacity. The volume of trade now available is quite insufficient to occupy anything like the whole machinery of the industry, and fierce internal competition has led to producers accepting orders at prices that very often do not cover manufacturing costs. This has brought the trade down to wholly uneconomic levels. Some efforts have been made by voluntary price-fixing schemes to remedy this state of affairs, but the success of these schemes has suffered, and is always liable to suffer, from the fact that they possess no means of preventing, in times of bad trade, individual firms from breaking away from the agreements and undercutting minimum prices. The inevitable result has been the weakening of the resources of the industry. If business is continually carried on without profit and

269
sometimes at a loss, no provision can be made for replacement of obsolete machinery, and the industry must descend, stage by stage, to a state of inefficiency. In these circumstances, the second main object of the Bill is to provide means whereby the price structure of the industry may be underpinned by schemes for minimum prices.
Now two years ago reorganisation schemes requiring legislation were submitted to my right honourable friend Mr. Stanley at the Board of Trade by the printing and dyeing sections which, after careful consideration, my right honourable friend on behalf of the Government found himself unable to accept because these schemes did not appear to have any relation to the problems of the cotton industry as a whole but were schemes designed to deal only with the particular sections with which they were concerned. At the same time the industry were informed that the Government were ready to give any help they could towards reorganisation of the industry on lines which the Government and Parliament could approve, and the Joint Committee of Cotton Trade Organisations were invited to prepare a scheme of reorganisation for the industry as a whole. This Bill is based upon proposals prepared by the Joint Committee in response to this suggestion. The first draft of the joint Committee's proposals was submitted in November, 1937. Prolonged discussions were necessary both between interests within the industry and with other textile interests that might be affected by the proposed legislation. As a result of these discussions numerous modifications were introduced with the object of securing the greatest possible measure of agreement among the interests concerned. In December last the Joint Committee submitted to the Board a revised draft of their proposals embodying these modifications. These proposals were circulated by the Joint Committee among firms in the industry in order to obtain the views of the industry on them.
Subsequently a Command Paper No. 5935 was issued containing the draft of a Bill based substantially on the revised proposals of the Joint Committee. A ballot of the industry was taken under the direction of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade on this draft Bill and steps were
270
also taken to ascertain the views of the operatives and of the merchants. The firms who voted on this question represented over three-quarters of the estimated number of firms in the industry and on the basis of employment the proportion exceeded five-sixths. For the industry as a whole the proportion of votes in favour of the Bill was 65 per cent. measured by the number of firms, 72 per cent. measured by employment, and 70 per cent. measured by output. Replies from the three trade unions consulted indicated that they were in favour of the Bill.
On the other hand the reports from the. Chambers of Commerce showed that the merchants were opposed to the measure. The Government were then faced with the dilemma that the industrialists and operatives were in favour of the Bill while the merchants were opposed to it. The Bill, however, was essentially one designed by the producers to remedy the grave difficulties with which they were faced, and in the circumstances my right honourable friend and His Majesty's Government felt that the views of the merchants could not be allowed to override those of the industry in general. In the circumstances the Government decided to introduce the measure as a Government Bill, which is the Bill now presented to your Lordships During the course of its passage in another place, however, considerable modifications were made in the Bill to meet the objections raised by the merchanting interests. Opposition also came from the rayon producers, but here again after lengthy discussions Amendments were made in the Bill to meet many of their objections. I shall refer later to the various Amendments which have been made to meet the views of merchants and rayon producers.
I now turn to the Bill itself and with the permission of the House I will deal with some of the more salient features. First of all the Bill is essentially an enabling measure. Its purpose is to provide machinery for the organisation of the industry and the formulation and approval of sectional schemes. The co-ordinating body is the Cotton Industry Board, constituted under Clause I and the First Schedule. The Board is to act generally as the mouthpiece of the industry. It is to consist of fifteen members. Three of them are to be appointed as independent

271
persons having special knowledge of the industry, and will be remunerated. The remaining twelve will be persons associated with the cotton trade and will be appointed after consultation with the appropriate trade organisations representing industrialists, operatives and merchants. The Board has among others the important function of the consideration from the point of view of the industry as a whole of schemes relating to redundancy and prices in particular sections. Various duties in connection with trade development are also laid upon it. In the discharge of these functions the Board will sit as a whole. On the other hand the independent members are to sit alone for the purpose of discharging certain functions where the Board has to examine the details of individual businesses and in such cases they will exercise the full authority of the Board.
Clause 2 provides for the appointment by the Board of Trade of a Cotton Industry Advisory Committee, consisting of three independent persons. Broadly the duty of this body is to advise and assist the Board of Trade in matters relating to the industry. In particular it will be the duty of this Committee to consider sectional schemes from the aspect of trade and industry generally. Clause 3 provides for the appointment of a Representative Advisory Council, whose duty it will be to advise the Cotton Industry Board in the exercise of its functions. The council will consist of representatives of all the interests engaged in the industry as well as merchants and rayon producers.
The most important part of the Bill deals with sectional schemes which are dealt with in Clauses 6 to 18. They may be one of two kinds—schemes for the elimination of redundant plant, and schemes for fixing minimum prices. Redundancy schemes will be of considerable benefit to the industry as they will enable production to be concentrated and so reduce the costs of manufacture. The provisions relating to redundancy schemes follow very closely those of the Cotton Spinning Industry Act, 1936. The schemes are to be administered by boards consisting of independent persons. One provision is new in the sense that it did not appear in the Act of 1936, and this I am sure will please noble Lords opposite. It is that schemes may provide for compensation
272
to employees who lose their employment as a result of the purchasing operations of a redundancy board. That is to be found in Clause 8 (3) (b). To provide the money for its activities a board will be empowered to raise loans. As in the Spindles Act the Board of Trade is given power, subject to the approval of Parliament, to guarantee the fund of a redundancy board out of which any such loan is serviced. The total amount for all such schemes to be guaranteed is limited to £2,000,000.
I now turn to Clause 23, which empowers the Board of Trade to extend for a further period of two years the purchasing powers of the Spindles Board set up under the Cotton Spinning Industry Act, 1936, and also contains other provisions varying that Act. I should add, however, in regard to Clause 23, that while the representative trade organisations have requested that the purchasing powers should be extended by two years, the Board of Trade do not intend to do so unless there is a suitable weight of opinion in the industry in favour of that course, and that a ballot of the cotton spinners is now being taken to decide the point.
I have already indicated the need for some means of underpinning the price structure of the industry and that the Bill enables the various sections of the industry to draw up schemes of minimum prices which will have statutory effect. The danger of price schemes is that the price fixed under the scheme for a product will be too high. Considerable care has been taken in this Bill to ensure that this danger does not arise. Schemes are to be formulated by the sections concerned, who submit them to the Cotton Industry Board. A scheme will show the maximum allowance which can be included in a minimim price for depreciation and profit. This will be expressed as so much per unit of output. The other sections concerned to whom the scheme must be sent will then be in a position to see how the scheme will affect the prices of the products. Thus in the yarn scheme the allowance for depreciation and the allowance for profit will be expressed at so much per lb. of yarn. The other interests concerned, for example the weavers, will then be in a position when they are considering the scheme to be able to see the maximum effect the

273
scheme can have on the price of yarn, which is of course their raw material.
It will be open to any of the interests concerned to make representations to the Cotton Industry Board regarding the scheme and the Cotton Industry Board are required to take such representations into consideration when the scheme comes before them. Further, the schemes after having been considered by the Cotton Industry Board are sent to the Cotton Industry Advisory Committee and the Board of Trade, who have before them the report of the Cotton Industry Board. This should provide ample safeguard so far as depreciation and profit are concerned. The safeguard as to the allowance for the actual cost of manufacture is rather different as, being a quantity varying from time to time according to the cost of materials, wages, etc., it cannot be inserted in the schemes themselves. When the price board fix a price for a product it does not become effective until the Cotton Industry Board have authorised it. This duty of the Board is discharged by the three independent members to whom I referred earlier in my speech.
Before giving their authorisation the Board must satisfy themselves that the minimum price fixed by the price board does not exceed the maximum limit defined in Part II of the Third Schedule. This maximum limit is determined by taking an average of the costs of a group of the most efficient undertakings and adding to this the amount stated in the scheme for depreciation and profit. A further safeguard has been added—Part II of the Third Schedule with regard to prices. It is open to anyone who can prove to the Cotton Industry Board that his costs of production are lower than those of the firms who have set the standard for the determination of the minimum price, to sell at a reduced price which will reflect the difference in cost. This will enable the exceptionally efficient firm to reap the advantage of its improved machinery or technique.
Another important provision which should be of considerable assistance in the development of trade is contained in Clause 9 (1) (f) by which the Cotton Industry Board can authorise derogations from minimum prices in order to increase or maintain the consumption of products either generally or in a particular area.
274
These concessions should be of considerable use in enabling the industry to concentrate its efforts on meeting foreign competition in the market where it is most severely felt. The concessions must be available to all persons in the section concerned and to registered merchants.
Clause 19 permits the Cotton Industry Board to undertake research and propaganda for the industry which will be paid for by levies on the industry. In addition Clause 21 gives the Beard of Trade power, subject to the consent of the Treasury, to add contributions from the Exchequer to contributions made by the industry for research. Clause 4 provides for the establishment of an Export Development Committee to advise the Cotton Industry Board on export problems affecting particular markets or particular classes of goods. This will be an important committee, since the Cotton Industry Board must always bear in mind in considering minimum prices imposed by schemes submitted to them the effect those prices may have on the export trade.
No doubt your Lordships would wish me now to refer briefly to some of the main criticisms of the Bill and the steps that were taken in another place to meet these criticisms. Perhaps I should commence by explaining that the industry has two main raw materials, raw cotton and rayon. The production of rayon is an important home industry in the hands of large and well-organised concerns. The use of rayon by a number of industries, of which the cotton industry is the most important, has developed in an amazing manner during the past few years, and rayon has taken the place of raw cotton as well as of other textile raw materials for certain classes of trade. The producers of rayon are outside the scope of the Bill, and in so far as the production of rayon is concerned they will not pay any levies or be subject to any restrictions, but they fear that the cotton interests are so strongly represented on the Cotton Industry Board that schemes designed to promote the trade in goods manufactured from rayon may be rejected if they conflict with schemes concerned with cotton.
A number of Amendments were made to the Bill in another place to meet the objections of the rayon producers, of

275
which the following are the more important. First, the right of the Cotton Industry Board to veto a sectional scheme has now been removed and, whether the Cotton Industry Board approve or not, the scheme must be sent forward to the Board of Trade. Secondly, the constitution of both the Cotton Industry Board and of the Export Development Committee has been amended so as to provide a substantial representation of the rayon interests. Thirdly, provision has been made enabling the Board of Trade to set up the Rayon Committee under Clause 15 of the Bill, notwithstanding that the majority of the interests of the cotton trade concerned with rayon may not be in favour of that course. I understand that the rayon producers attach considerable importance to these changes, which it is hoped have gone a long way towards removing their objections to the Bill.
I have already mentioned that the merchants were not in favour of the Bill. A number of Amendments have been made to meet their criticisms, including the revision of the constitution of the Export Development Committee to provide a greater representation of merchants on that body. Provision has also been made that merchants must be consulted regarding any terms and conditions that may be imposed on the sale of goods under price schemes. Other changes have been agreed in close consultation with the merchants, and there is now some ground for thinking that an expression of opinion at a recent meeting of Lancashire merchants, that there is "a real chance of a great deal of good coming from the Bill," may be taken as representing the attitude of merchants generally.
In conclusion, I would urge that this is an enabling Bill. Nothing will or can be done under the Bill unless the cotton industry, by an appropriate majority, asks that it should be done. Ample safeguards are contained in the Billing various difficulties that are likely to arise in relation to schemes of the kind for which provision may be made, and there is full opportunity for the review of schemes and for their modification, where necessary, by the Board of Trade and by Parliament. This Bill was generally welcomed by all Parties in another place. The Second Reading took place on March 27 last without a Division.
276
Since then it has spent a great deal of time in Grand Committee upstairs, and was so amended, and I think I may say improved, that the Third Reading was taken last week also without a Division. I have explained as well as I can the provisions of this very difficult and technical Bill, though I am afraid I must confess that I know nothing about cotton and also—it is a dreadful confession to make—that with the exception of frequent journeys to and from Ireland and Scotland I do not believe I have ever been in the County of Lancashire.
I happen, however, to have a great friend who is a representative of one of the most afflicted areas in this once prosperous County, a Member of Parliament in another place. I have very often talked with him about his constituency, and I have been very greatly struck by what he has told me about the bravery and the uncomplaining endurance of these gallant people—not only of the operatives, who have been thrown out of work by many thousands, but also of the many people who were once owners of mills and employed large numbers of workpeople and are now in very severe straits indeed. I esteem it a very great privilege to be allowed to introduce a measure of this kind to your Lordships. It is introduced by His Majesty's Government as a real effort to restore at least part of its former prosperity to this great County. I hope that the Bill will have an easy passage through your Lordships' House, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
4.7 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I venture to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, that this is an important Bill. It is not only important, but I think your Lordships will agree that it is highly interesting. To my mind it is one of the most interesting Bills that have ever been introduced into Parliament. I want, if I may, to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, because I think that if this fact of which I remind your Lordships is accepted and recognised, it really in a way explains the genesis of this Bill. The decline of the Lancashire cotton industry—Lancashire is practically a distressed area to-day, a most dreadful thing to

277
contemplate—is, of course, as the noble Lord has said, partly due to changing conditions: the growth of local textile industries abroad and so on. The once great monopoly of cotton has been broken into in country after country, not least in our own great Empire of India. This problem came before us when we were in office as a Labour Government, and we did our best to tackle it then. We did not quite have time when the events happened about which the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, well knows and which jockeyed us out of office. I was at pains then to make inquiries about the Japanese competition, which was particularly stressed by the noble Lord, and which has, as your Lordships know, been a great menace to us in the East, in Africa and elsewhere.
I am informed from Japan—I have not been there for many years and so I have not seen the more important developments myself—that instead of having a number of little industries scattered about in a number of little cotton towns, one doing the weaving, another doing the spinning, another doing the printing, another doing the finishing, another doing the dyeing, and so on, you have in Japan a super-factory into which the raw cotton is taken, and it is spun, woven, dyed or printed and finished, and all the rest of it, under the same roof. That, combined with low wages and Government assistance in every kind of way, explains to a great degree this fierce Japanese competition which has so hit Lancashire. Lancashire built up this vast industry on free competition—on what is called in Yorkshire, at any rate, rugged individualism. These independent masters, some of them rising from the ranks—and some of their grandsons have gone back to the ranks, as the noble Lord said—by their energy and their virile independence not only built up the great Liberal Party but also built up this great industry. Now you see the highly rationalised, trustified industry in Japan competing with them, and the poor fellows are bewildered and they have not known what to do.
I approach this Bill with very mixed feelings accordingly. Here is this industry, which was so well organised in the past and which was founded by men with such great energy and adaptability, having to come almost cap in hand to the Government for assistance. Assistance
278
for what? To allow them to bring in a measure for compulsory price-rigging, for forcing amalgamations, and needless to say they were met with the opposition of the merchanting interests at once. Here you have the representatives of all producing parties, including trade unions, wanting to do something to help their thousands of members, having to fight the merchants all along the fine, and you cannot wonder at this conflict. Here you have syndicalism, which has been so condemned in the past, brought up against the individualism and Free Trade doctrines of the merchants; the merchants have lost, and they now try to make terms. Now the rayon industry want to be in it also. They are going to suffer from very great competition too. I wonder if the Government have paid attention to the development on the other side of the Atlantic of a new synthetic silk, which is I believe about to effect another textile revolution. It is "Nylon," which has been produced after years of research and experiment and the expenditure of immense sums of money. I understand that two vast plants are now in course of completion in the United States by the firm of Dupont de Nemours. This synthetic silk, I am informed, will be cheaper than real silk, just as attractive, and far more durable than rayon, and you will presently have the rayon industry in trouble. I hope that the great rayon companies in this country have made arrangements to manufacture "Nylon" over here.
I said that one could not help—anyone who has studied this subject and knows Lancashire—approaching this Bill with mixed feelings. I wonder what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, thinks about it. He knows Lancashire and its troubles. What a change since the conditions of the golden age of Cobden, Bright and Samuel. What does the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, think of this? What has happened to the great doctrines of Free Trade? I cannot help shedding a tear, as an old Free Trader, when I see this revolution being brought about by a so-called Conservative Government underpinned by so-called Liberals. They have my sympathy sitting on both sides of this House. What about the former High Priest of Free Trade doctrines, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir John Simon? We have heard the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, introduce this

279
Bill, with its compulsory fixing of prices and the compulsory elimination of so-called redundant factories, and the forcing of the virile, successful, profit-making minority into some partnership with redundant semi-bankrupt concerns. I should imagine that great Free Traders of the past would turn in their graves, and that our Free Traders of the present day would turn in their political graves.
Having said that, one has to realise, as my friends did in another place, that this is an honest attempt by the industry itself, and the trade unions and the Board of Trade, to meet a very difficult situation. They have done their best under world conditions which we, of course, must all deplore, because it is really not so much Japanese competition as world conditions which explain the present distresses in Lancashire. Before dealing very briefly with that, may I say that we shall propose one or two Amendments to which I will refer. They are Committee points, but nevertheless they have been spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Temple-more, who said for example that there would be compensation schemes for workers displaced, but that they only "may" be brought in. In the case of railway amalgamations, electricity amalgamations, and the London Transport Bill, there had to be compensation for workmen displaced by schemes of amalgamation, and we think there ought to be the same in this Bill. We thank the Government for what they have done, but we think that they should have gone further. The other point is with regard to the governing body, the Cotton Industry Board. We do not think that the 600,000 work-people are sufficiently represented. Out of a Board of fifteen they are to have only two representatives, and this Board will have the great duty of bringing forward these schemes which may mean ruin to thousands of families, and on which the whole future of the industry may depend. That is a Committee point, important as it is.
As has been stated, this Bill has not been opposed on Second or Third Reading by my friends in another place. Nevertheless, the Bill itself has grave defects in principle. We cannot agree that at this time it is good in principle to scrap perfectly good productive plant, modern up-to-date plant as much of it is, capable
280
of producing textile goods, while millions of people throughout the world, and a great many in this country, are ill-clad and in need of the products of these mills. That brings me back to the whole position of the world markets which really makes this Bill necessary. I do not want to embark upon a debate on foreign affairs, but I am sure there is not one of the noble Lords supporting the Government but would agree that if only we could bring about more settled conditions in the world, break down or reduce the trade barriers, and raise the living conditions of the teeming millions of people in Asia and Africa, who need these textile goods, then we should not have these splendid mills and machinery rotting in Lancashire. This whole principle of artificially creating a scarcity in order to keep up prices, is anathema to the Labour Party, and we must oppose it whenever we find it enshrined in any Government Bill. We think it is wrong in principle to create scarcity by destroying plant and preventing people from producing when you have on the other hand great poverty and distress and great need for the very things which you are forbidding manufacturers to make and bring to market.
That is the fundamental defect in the Bill, and we must make that protest. In the meantime I do, on behalf of my Party, welcome certain features of the Bill, and particularly Clause 19. I think the noble Lord skated rather rapidly over Clause 19, which is of fundamental importance. I can see in this clause particularly, and indeed in the Bill itself, an opportunity for organised marketing, and perhaps barter agreements, which I think are required in certain markets. I know this is exercising the attention of the Government. I know also that only certain markets are suitable for that sort of treatment, but we believe that certain markets are suitable for treatment by bulk export marketing schemes, and we see the germ of that in Clause 19 and in other parts of the Bill. It may be necessary to do for textiles, and cotton particularly, what the New Zealand Government have done for the dairy producers there. They buy the whole of the dairy products of New Zealand, and market them in bulk, with great benefit to all concerned. We believe that something of that sort will have to be done in particular markets for the cotton industry. This may sound something like totalitarian trade methods,

281
but while totalitarian trade methods are exercised by other countries, we may in self-defence have to adopt them, particularly in regard to special markets. I could not refrain from shedding a tear at this further blow at laisser faire and the Manchester school, and indeed the individualism of the Manchester man at his best.
4.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I had not intended taking part in this debate, but I cannot allow to pass the challenge thrown out by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. It is true I have been for some time especially associated with Lancashire, a County in which I happen myself to have been born, and for two Parliaments I represented in the House of Commons a constituency the principal industry of which was the manufacture of cotton. But, on the other hand, for the last four years I have not been in close touch with the various sections of the industry, and this Bill, as the noble Lord has said in the course of his very lucid and complete exposition, is a highly technical and difficult Bill. It has passed through some changes, both pre-natal and post-natal, and it is difficult for anyone who is not in close touch with the industry at the present time to be able to offer any very useful comment. It was for that reason that I had not intended to speak. I was hoping that noble Lords who were closely connected with the industry would give this House the benefit of their advice. But the noble Lord who has just spoken has raised some questions of principle on which perhaps your Lordships would allow me to make a very few observations.
On what he regards as the grave of Free Trade and individualism he drops a somewhat crocodilian tear. I gather that his general attitude to the Bill is that, while profoundly disapproving of its fundamental principle, he approves the Bill itself. Let him not make the mistake of thinking that Liberalism is, or has been, opposed to industries organising themselves in order to promote the efficiency of their manufacture or of their distribution, or indeed to advance the welfare of the various sections which are engaged in it. On the contrary, we have for many years past strongly advocated that the various industries should draw together, should create bodies representa-
282
tive of the whole trade, and should take measures in regard to research and in regard to marketing which would promote their welfare. For ten years past we have advocated, for example, that agriculture should organise itself with regard to the improvement of its methods and its marketing, although not endorsing every one of the actual methods that have been adopted in recent years.
And especially in these days when, in totalitarian States, the Government take under their protection whole industries, organise them as a single unit, and come into a market with the whole trade in one hand, it is impossible for British industries to compete with those methods, adopted whether it be in Russia or in Germany or elsewhere, by the mere individual methods that have come to us from earlier times. It is essential, I think, that an industry like the steel industry or the coal industry should draw together, and should be able, when occasion requires, to act as a whole and to make headway, if necessary with the assistance of the Government, against the measures adopted in other lands which I have described. Where such methods of organisation take the form of steps taken by the industry itself, and not imposed upon it by the State, we should not certainly be prepared to oppose them ab initio and as a matter of principle.
With regard to the Lancashire cotton trade, of course the whole trouble has arisen from the immense drop in its exports, and that is partly due to a cause which is seldom mentioned, and which has not been mentioned to-day, but which is fundamental. The reason why the Lancashire trade first arose, and attained its great dimensions and wealth and prosperity, was due to the fact of the humidity of the Lancashire atmosphere. It is a strange and, one may say, an unnatural thing that cotton, which is not grown in this country of course, should be brought across the Atlantic, should be spun and woven in this island, and then distributed from here all over the world. And it was the advantage of climate which was unquestionably the origin of this prosperity. But now, owing to the introduction of artificial humidity, the Lancashire climate can be produced anywhere. I have visited cotton mills in India where, in the dryest of dry climates, you

283
find a degree of humidity, artificially produced, in the weaving sheds which is precisely of the same order as that which exists in Lancashire. And that is the fundamental reason why in this age we find that the Lancashire trade is subject to this severe competition in other parts of the world.
But this Bill shows how completely futile it is to attempt to deal with the competition of other producing countries by means of tariffs. This Bill is not the evidence and proof of the failure of Free Trade; it is the evidence and proof of the failure of tariffs. For tariffs were introduced into this country supported by the argument that if only we had the power to tax the goods of other countries we should immediately secure free entry into their markets for our goods. "Give us," we were told, "the retaliatory weapon, give us something that we can hit back with, and then you will find that the markets of the world will be open to British products; then you will find Lancashire and all the exporting districts flourishing as they used to in old days, and as they have not done in modern times." What has happened? That weapon has been granted to those who believed in it, and efforts have been made to smash through the protective gates of other countries, but it is found that no success has attended those efforts. The value of our exports in the last ten years has fallen by one-third, and the value of the exports of this country last year was less than it was in 1913, and this year the figures were almost precisely the same as last year.
So far as Lancashire is concerned, so far from the tariff weapon having enabled her exports to grow, at the present time the cotton exports of Lancashire are less than they have been at any time since the middle of the nineteenth century—less even than they were in the disastrous years of the cotton famine, which were coincident with the American Civil War. That is the lesson that may be drawn from this Bill. So we have the attempt made by the elaboration of organisation, by the elimination of redundant machinery, and the fixing of minimum prices to try to restore some degree of prosperity to this heavily-stricken County where, indeed, depression has been extreme and poverty most pitiful. As the noble Lord has said, if there were a revival
284
of trade owing to the mitigation of the international difficulties of the present time, no doubt all industries would in some degree flourish, but even then I question whether in Lancashire, faced with the general economic conditions of the world, the tariffs that have been adopted in many countries, and the fact that cotton-cloth can easily be produced in a country no matter what its climate may be, that revival could be very complete.
This Bill is one of extreme elaboration. The schemes that are to be adopted are surrounded by all kinds of safeguards and qualifications, minorities are protected, all kinds of compromises have been agreed to, in order to meet objections from various quarters; and for my own part I question whether the schemes which are proposed will very easily get under way. Whether they will succeed in their purpose I cannot foresee. I do not feel very optimistic, but for my own part, since this Bill is desired by great majorities in the trade, since it is the trade's own effort to achieve some measure of restoration of prosperity, while regretting the necessity for such a Bill I should not be prepared to oppose it.
4.34 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, I ask your Lordships' indulgence in addressing the House for the first time. My only reason for doing so is that I feel that expression should be given to what some of us in Lancashire feel who are not in favour of this Bill. After listening to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, I rather feel in speaking against this Bill as if I had just come out of a museum. I still believe in individual initiative and enterprise. I have attended trade meetings dealing with this Bill before it was drafted, and I have been unable to get a clear and detailed answer as to how this measure will help our export trade. The noble Lord, Lord Templemore, referred in sympathetic terms to a number of the cotton masters in Lancashire. I feel just as sympathetic as he does about them. I do feel that this Bill may help them, but it is very doubtful whether it will help the trade of the country, whether it will enable us to produce more cheaply than we are doing at present, and indeed I fear it will have the reverse effect.
I have asked at meetings which I have attended how our exports are to be made cheaper, which can be the only real object of such a Bill, and the answer has been

285
that it will restore order out of chaos, it will put an end to the present dog-fight. The friends of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, have been telling us for the last quarter of a century that we should restore order out of chaos. They have indicated the means, but so far their advice has fallen very largely on deaf ears. We have not believed in the bureaucracy which Socialism entails, and in this Bill we have an example, not of Socialism, but certainly of the bureaucracy which will attend Socialism. Like Lord Strabolgi, I welcome Clause 19. I believe that we can get closer down to our dealings with foreign countries by means of the machinery permitted by this Bill; but the things that really interest Lancashire, or the bulk of the people in Lancashire, are redundancy and price fixing.
I presume it is expected that by the scheme of redundancy we shall get nearly full working in our mills. If that is the case, other things excepted, we should get very much cheaper production. Of that there is no doubt, but there are factors which would take away from that cheapening of production. If we have this redundancy scheme we shall have to pay levies to finance it, and that will tend to make production not cheaper but dearer. When we get into the position that this scheme is fully working we shall want profits, and we have been told this Bill has been put before us in order that we may get those profits. When we have paid for our redundancy and have paid for our profits it is very problematical whether we shall be able to sell more cheaply. I myself believe prices will go up and not down and that trade will not be at all assisted.
It is interesting to ask whether there is any precedent for this scheme of redundancy. There is a precedent in an Act passed in 1936—the Cotton Spinning Industry Act. In that measure a scheme was brought forward for the spinning section of the cotton trade, and a Spindles Board was created for the purpose of dealing with redundancy. That Spindles Board has operated, and it would be interesting if the Government would tell us whether, in fact, the redundancy scheme introduced under that Act has produced cheaper yarn for export or for use here and so reduced the price of other goods for export. I have no statistics on the subject, but it is common
286
talk on the Manchester Exchange that yarn is dearer and not cheaper since the introduction of that scheme. If a redundancy scheme works that way in the case of cotton yarn, there is no reason to suppose it will work in any other way in regard to cotton goods as a whole.
I am afraid, with regard to the minimum price, that the Committee will experience considerable difficulty in assessing the price on account of the great differences of capital charges in various concerns. A good many places have changed hands and have been bought at very reduced prices. I presume that any minimum price scheme will make provision for certain capital charges, interest on debentures and loans, and so on, and it seems to me it is going to be very difficult to assess the minimum price in some cases. Take, for instance, a mill costing £60,000 which has been sold for £6,000 and another mill which remains in the hands of its original owner. Obviously if the purchase price of £60,000 is put on to the cost of production in both mills it will make the products of the one which has changed hands and been sold at a scrap price very much dearer than they are at present. The noble Lord, Lord Templemore, has told us that in a case like that the owners can go to the Board and say they can produce more cheaply and obtain a dispensation, but the tendency, I think, will be for them to get a dispensation which will go half way, which will allow them to produce more cheaply and at the same time permit them to make a very considerable profit.
One matter that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was that of compensation to the workpeople. I hope that he will be successful in getting an Amendment passed on that subject. I hope also that the Government will take into consideration the difficulties that will attend compensating these workmen. When they come up to the Unemployment Assistance Board to have their cases considered any compensation that they may receive under this Bill would be nullified by the rules of the Board unless some special provision is put into the Bill to enable them to receive differential treatment to that which the ordinary applicant receives. There is one other point I should like to mention. I hope the Government may put into some part of the

287
Bill words that will indicate to those who have to deal with this compensation that they can deal with it in a differential manner. I mean this. I think when it comes to a question of compensation, that compensation should be given more liberally to men and women who are past a certain time in their lives, and also to those who suffer from some disability which has not disabled them from carrying on their occupation in a cotton mill but is practically a complete bar to them ever getting employment again.
4.44 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, the Bill has had a comparatively favourable reception. Even the noble Lord opposite (Lord Strabolgi), though he is loathe to praise anything done by this Government, has come to the conclusion, I think, that it is not such a bad Bill. He asked me about price fixing hampering trade development. I should like to say that care has been taken in the Bill to secure that price fixing shall not hamper trade development. Clause 9, subsection (1) (f), is specially intended to provide a means whereby all sections of the trade, merchants and producers, may co-operate in special efforts to develop trade by a reduction of the normal prices for classes of goods and in markets where such special efforts are necessary. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, gave us a very interesting speech. I hope he did not intend to entrap me into an argument about Free Trade versus Protection for I do not for a moment intend to indulge in that this afternoon. I know I would get the worst of such an argument because he is a far better debater than I am. I gathered, however, that on the whole he did not disapprove of the Bill.
I should like to congratulate, if I may, the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, who spoke last, upon his maiden speech, which I am sure was listened to with great interest. It is always interesting to us when someone who is an expert on his subject comes to address your Lordships' House and I hope we may often hear the noble Lord again. He asked me whether the point of the redundancy clause was to get better production. That is so. I think he asked also if there was any precedent for this. I do not think he can have been present when I made my speech in introducing the Bill.
LORD CAWLEY: I am sorry I came in rather late.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I did say that the great precedent was found in the Spindles Act, as it is known, of 1936. I do not think I have any other question to answer. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Strabolgi) said that he and his friends would have one or two points to bring forward on the Committee stage. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, did not say the same thing. I shall await with interest to see those Amendments. I may add that I propose to set down the Committee stage for next Monday, July 24, which I think will give plenty of time. I should like to say only one other thing before I sit down. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Strabolgi), as he and his supporters have often done before, rather twitted my noble friend Lord Runciman and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for changing their views, as far as I could make out, about Free Trade and Protection. Possibly they may have done so. Personally I merely regard them as sensible people who alter their views when they see they ought to be altered.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
4.48 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. I think there are two primary reasons why this Bill should commend itself to your Lordships in every part of the House. The first is that there are no Party politics in the Bill; it is above Party politics. The second reason is that, although the Bill is called the Riding Establishments Bill, its object is to help the conditions under which one of man's greatest friends lives—namely, the horse. Before I come to the terms of the measure itself, I should like to say a word or two to explain to your Lordships the situation which has arisen and which seems to make a Bill such as this necessary. Those who go riding have increased phenomenally in the last few years, and that is a very fine thing, but it has led to a curious paradox. It is a

289
joyous thing to see more and more people indulging in riding horses, but it is a tragedy when that should bring in its train the fact that more and more horses are being over-ridden and badly cared for in certain riding establishments.
To give your Lordships some idea of how riding has increased I understand that whereas a few years ago there were only 400 riding schools in the country that number has now increased to nearly 2,000; and that whereas in Richmond Park during a week-end not long ago it was quite a common sight to see ten or twelve people on horses or ponies, now, if the weather during the week-end is fine, you can see as many as 600. There is no doubt that that has been due in the main to the fact that there are a great number of splendid riding establishments not only around London, but around all the bigger towns in the country. In what I am now going to say about other establishments, I want to make it quite clear that I am second to none in my admiration of the way in which all the old established riding schools are run. They are run splendidly, and the horses are well cared for. But in those good riding schools a proper price is charged. If anyone wants to take out a horse and ride it for an hour he has to pay round about 5s. or 7s. 6d., and at that price a reasonable profit can be made by the proprietor of the establishment: Unfortunately, however, a mushroom growth of riding school has sprung up all round London and round the bigger towns. In order to draw clients from the better riding schools, the schools of this mushroom growth send out horses for riding at ridiculously low figures. The charge is sometimes as little as 1s. or 2s. an hour. Then finding that it is not possible to make a profit on those terms, the proprietors cut down their establishments and the horse, which they look upon almost entirely as simply a money-making machine, is always the first to suffer.
I have here a copy of a letter, which appeared in The Times newspaper for June 6 of last year, written by Sir George Cockerill, the honorary director of the International League for the Protection of Horses. That letter sets out the state of affairs better than I can. It says:
"It is common knowledge that in recent years rapidly increasing numbers of persons with small incomes have taken to horse-exercise. This vogue, so healthy in itself,
290
and so much to be encouraged, has had one deplorable result. Riding-schools are springing up all over the country which, in many cases, are owned by people who know little of horses and merely look upon them as money-making machines. Often these establishments are started with insufficient capital in unsuitable districts, with the result that the proprietor buys any horse he can pick up cheaply. In order to secure some sort of clientele, he is forced to reduce his charges to a point at which he can make no profit, except at the cost of the horse's sufferings. He buys inferior forage, cuts fend down to a minimum, allows shoes almost to drop over before re-shoeing, and puts up with cheap, ill-fitting saddlery and an inadequate and often incompetent staff. He is, moreover, impelled to hire his horses to people who, through inexperience or callousness, bring them back to stable exhausted and sweating, with the usual consequences of sore backs or girth-galls. Unscrupulous riding-school proprietors will continue to extract profits from the sufferings of their horses so long as they are permitted to do so unchecked."
My honourable friend Commander Tufnell, who was in charge of this Bill in another place, tried a very interesting experiment. He got an expert horseman to visit 150 riding establishments, and with your Lordships' permission, I will read some extracts from his report. It was found that of the 150 riding establishments visited 43 per cent. were excellent, but 32 per cent. were indifferent and 25 per cent. were hopelessly bad. Here is a short extract from one of the reports. The visitor had been shown good horses in a moderately nice stable, hut, the report says:
"Further investigation showed others which were kept in a back yard normally unseen by any visitor. The condition of these horses was appalling, as most of them were covered with lice, some had running sores, and all were painfully thin …. The general condition of the whole place was awful. The horses which could not be seen by a casual visitor were left to suffer every possible discomfort; poor forage, and very little of it, and often there was not time to give them all water. The establishment being hopelessly understaffed, the horses could not be properly looked after."
Another case was that of an establishment run by a man of the gypsy type, and about that the report says:
"I found seven horses in here in stalls. One single horse stall had two horses in it so tightly jammed together that they had no freedom at all. There was no bedding to be seen, and all the horses were very thin. They were mostly ex-Army horses and pretty hardy …. Very rough hay was the only thing fed."
It may occur to some of your Lordships to ask why the present laws are not
291
sufficient to deal with cases like those. I think the answer is quite clear. In the first place, it is almost impossible, except as an expert horseman, to get access to these riding establishments. Secondly, if one does get into one of these establishments, one is shown only what the proprietor wants one to see. The real proof, however, that further legislation is necessary is to be found in the fact that in the year 1937 Our Dumb Friends League brought forward 133 cases where horses were grossly unfit but only obtained one conviction. In the last two years, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals brought forward 304 cases and only succeeded in obtaining twenty-three convictions.
In the summer of last year this thing boiled up and there was a great deal of correspondence in The Times. I have the letters here, but I will not weary your Lordships by reading them. I will only say that every one begs Parliament to deal with the matter and pass the necessary legislation. The writers were Major Faudell Phillips, Sir Archibald Weigall, Sir Percy Laurie, late assistant Commissioner of Metropolitan Police, and the late Sir Frederick Hobday, one of the best known veterinary surgeons, who unfortunately died a few weeks ago. In March last, my honourable friends Commander Tufnell and Captain Heilgers introduced a Bill in another place. It was in a much more complicated form than the measure which is now before your Lordships. When the Bill was introduced in another place, it had eight clauses and six Schedules. It provided that every riding school should be registered, and that a charge of one guinea should be made when registration took place. In Committee, with the invaluable help of the Home Office, the Bill was immensely altered. It was almost redrafted, it was very much simplified and, as I think, very much improved.
With your Lordships' permission I will go through the clauses of the Bill as it is now presented to your Lordships. Clause 1 provides in subsection (1) that:
"A local authority may authorise in writing any duly registered veterinary surgeon to inspect any premises which they have reason to believe are used as a riding establishment, and any duly registered veterinary surgeon so authorised shall, on producing, if so required, his authority, have the right at
292
all reasonable times to enter those premises and to inspect such parts thereof and such horses found thereon as he may consider necessary for the purpose of ascertaining whether any offence under this Act is being or has been committed on or in connection with those premises or in connection with any such horse."
Subsection (2) says that a veterinary surgeon may be paid for his work by the local authority.
Clause 2 provides that:
"If any person—

(a) lets out any horse on hire for riding at a time when the horse is in such a condition that the riding thereof will be likely to cause suffering to the horse; or

(b) uses any horse for providing, in return for payment, instruction in riding at a time when the horse is in such a condition that its use for that purpose will be likely to cause suffering to the horse; or

(c) keeps any horse which is used for the purpose of being let out on hire for riding or for providing, in return for payment, instruction in riding, in so neglected a state or in such conditions that suffering is, or is likely to be, caused to the horse; or

(d) wilfully obstructs or delays any duly registered veterinary surgeon in the exercise of his powers of entry or inspection under this Act; or

(e) with intent to avoid such inspection conceals any horse;"

he shall be guilty of an offence and be liable to a fine of £25 or £50 for any subsequent offence.
Subsection (2), of course, is also important, because it provides that only a local authority can prosecute, and a local authority can only prosecute on direct information supplied by their own veterinary surgeon. An interesting point arose there in another place which I must mention to your Lordships. Some members of another place thought that that provision might act as a definite bar or hindrance to individuals, or bodies like the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, from bringing even the actions which they have been successful in bringing in the past. I have the OFFCIAL. REPORT of the debate here, from which I gather that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department definitely assured the House that the previous right of such societies suffers no harm at all, but that under this Bill, which sets out the new penalties and new conditions, only a local authority can prosecute, and then only upon the advice of their veterinary surgeon. Clause 3 is the interpretation and expenses clause.

293
Clause 4 deals with the short title, says that the Bill, if your Lordships are willing to allow it, shall come into operation on the first day of January, 1940, and excludes from its provisions Northern Ireland and Scotland.
That is the Bill, and I hope I have shown your Lordships that there is an actual need for it, I could have given many more cases, had that been necessary, but your Lordships will, I hope, think that I have made out a good case. In support of it I believe that there can be found ranged every lover of the horse, every well-established riding-school, every organisation in the country which has been established for the sake of horses, like the National Horse Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Show Hack and Cob Association and the International League for the Protection of Horses. I should imagine there is hardly anybody who could be found against the Bill, for this main reason: although there was a fight on the Bill in the Second Reading stage in another place, yet owing to the immense amount of work done by Captain Heilgers and Commander Tufnell, whose Bill it is, it is now an agreed measure as far as another place and those outside Parliament are concerned.
For myself I love a horse, and in the words of Whyte-Melville,
"I freely admit that the best of my fun
I owe it to horse and to hound."
There may be some of your Lordships—and I thought from a recent debate which took place in this Chamber that there are some of your Lordships—who may not like or ever indulge in the physical and mental exhilaration of riding. I am, however, perfectly certain that they would be the first to lend a hand to protect a horse against the improper conditions under which so many horses are called upon to live to-day. So, in commending this Bill to you, may I, greatly daring, suggest to your Lordships that we should "cut the cackle and come down to the horses"? I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Denham.)
5.3 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I just wish to say a word on behalf of my noble friends in support of this Bill, and to express our hope that it will reach the
294
Statute Book as soon as possible. We are well aware of the evils which the noble Lord has so graphically described, and I should like to congratulate him, if he will allow me to do so as an old colleague of his in another place, on the very excellent and interesting way in which he has introduced this good little Bill. He did not mention one type of horse which I have seen very overworked, and that is what we used to call the "hireling" which goes out on hunt. As a naval officer I used to move about too much to be able to keep a stable of my own, and I was very often dependent in various parts of the country on hirelings, and knew a good deal about the subject in the old days. Some of the stables rather abused their position and worked the horses too hard. We always used to insist on a horse being hunted for only three days a fortnight. I think that was the recognised rule, except where you had second horses and luxuries of that kind, and it may be possible in these days of motor horse transport to work them rather more; but that is the safe rule. I hope that rule will continue to apply, and I hope that local authorities will see also that in the hunting counties the bad eggs among the riding-masters are suitably dealt with. I beg to support the Bill.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, in supporting this Bill I may say that the noble Lord has given an admirable explanation of the Bill but did not mention one small point: a donkey is a horse for the purposes of this Bill.
5.5 p.m.
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Bill, because I once held the position in this country for over a year of Controller of Horses and Animals. I should like to join with my noble friends on the other side of the House in wishing the noble Lord success in this measure, and hoping that he may be privileged to guide this Bill through a Second Reading—a privilege which was not accorded to me in respect of the Bill which I moved, as I think there was some mistake in the collection of voices, for my friends on this side of the House were all in favour of it. One or two small points I should like to bring before your Lordships. In Clause 3, the interpretation clause, reference is made to the ass. I

295
do not see why the mule is not brought in. I do not know whether any of your Lordships has ever ridden a mule. It is not a very comfortable animal, nor is the ass a very comfortable animal, to ride. I should have thought, however, that that poor, despised, neglected animal, which was most useful in the War—I had some thousands under my care—and is useful everywhere, ought to have been mentioned, and I think it is a pity it is not included. We cannot very well amend this Bill, because that might create Parliamentary difficulties. Another thing I should like to point out is in the interpretation clause a little further on, in paragraph (ii): the phrase "as respects." I think that is a very clumsy phrase; it should be "in relation to." I think that if the noble Lord had been well advised he would have found that those words are more commonly used in modern phraseology.
It would be a pity, as I say, to spoil this Bill by moving Amendments to it. It is a very useful Bill, and I am sure that if carried into effect it would do a lot of good. On the other hand, I must make one protest, and that is against giving the local authorities such a lot to do. Time after time Bills are introduced into this House which throw more burden on local authorities. They have an awful lot to do. Nevertheless, I should think that this is such a small matter, compared with the other great matters with which they have to deal, that we should do well to give the Bill a Second Reading. I hope, however, that care will be taken to persuade the local authorities to get to work. This Bill is simply permissive, and some of the local authorities will want a good deal of moving to induce them to take action, because they have to pay the expense.
The only other question I should like to ask the noble Lord is why certain cases failed. He told us that out of a number of cases brought into court by these two well-known societies, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Our Dumb Friends League, convictions were only secured in a few. What greater success does he anticipate from the passing of this Bill? If cases brought by those very reputable and well-known societies failed, why should we expect the courts to give judgment against
296
defendants in cases brought even on the certificate of a veterinary surgeon employed by a local authority? I should be very glad to have an answer about that. As regards what Lord Strabolgi said about the hiring out of horses for hunting, I think they are covered by the Bill. The noble Lord may know, if he has read the debate in another place—which I dare say he has—that there was a good deal of controversy over the hiring out of horses, for hunting with packs, by farmers who were not actually letting horses out for hire in the same way as some of the local establishments. That is all I have to say, and I wish the noble Lord every success.
VISCOUNT BRIDPORT: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who introduced the Bill, pointed out, the promoters in another place met the Secretary of State on a number of points in the Bill. His Majesty's Government hope that the Bill as it now stands will meet with your Lordships' approval, and find its way on to the Statute Book.
5.10 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, if I may I would like to thank your Lordships' for the very friendly way in which this Bill has been received. As regards Lord Jessel, he asked me one question which it is not very easy to answer. I think the main reason why prosecutions have been so signally unsuccessful is that prosecutions have had to take place in the main under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, and by Section 1 (1) (a) of that Act the words which govern the cruelty are "any unnecessary suffering." That has up to now been a very great drawback to all those who are trying to prove cruelty. In this Bill the word "unnecessary" is omitted, and the expression used is "likely to cause suffering." I am instructed that that is going to be of enormous value to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and to our Dumb Friends League. As regards the omission of the word "mule" from the interpretation clause, I am assured by the promoters that the reason is that they could not find one single case of a mule being ridden in this country at the present time. As regards local authorities, I can agree more with the noble Lord when he said that it is now up to the local authorities to take advantage of the Bill.

297
It is permissive in Clause 1, and I hope there will be sufficient momentum among all those who love and ride horses to urge them to do it. I thank your Lordships very much again for your kindly reception of this measure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHARITABLE COLLECTIONS (REGULATION) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I do not think it is necessary to add anything to what I have already said on this Bill and I therefore move that it be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Courtown.)
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, to the Commons.

MINING INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
5.13 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, Section 5 (2) of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, limits the expenditure of the Mines Department to £250,000 in any one year. This has been interpreted as including allied services (for example, Office of Works and Stationery Office). With the increase in the work of the Department in recent years it has been increasingly difficult to keep within this limit, and this has been recognised by Parliament, which has provided that the expenditure incurred under the Coal Mines Act, 1930, and the Coal (Registration of Ownership) Act, 1937, should not be taken into account for the purposes of the £250,000 limit. The action already being taken administratively as a result of the Report of the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal Mines, and the decision to introduce legislation on the question, will add
298
considerably to the annual cost of the Department. Steps have already been taken to strengthen the administrative staff at headquarters, and the headquarters inspectorate, and the strengthening of the inspectorate in the provinces has been announced in another place.
The annual expenditure involved when these administrative steps have been taken would raise the Department's estimate above the limit of £250,000, and as it would not arise directly out of an Act of Parliament the expedient used in 1930 and 1937 of excluding it from the limit is not available. I would like to point out that the passing of this Bill cannot, of course, affect in any way the necessity for submitting estimates in respect of all expenditure. The Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Templemore.)
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Might I ask the noble Lord one question? I gathered from what he said that the whole of the expenditure under this Bill would appear upon the estimates of the appropriate Departments, and that nothing would be charged on the Consolidated Fund.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I gather that that is so.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LONDON AND HOME COUNTIES TRAFFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE
5.17 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR rose to call attention to the composition of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee; and to move for Papers. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I do not intend to inflict upon your Lordships too long a speech at this late hour in the afternoon, but I would like to say that I appreciate the kindness of the Leader of the House, who conveyed to me a message that I might perhaps postpone this Motion until tomorrow, when there was little on the Order Paper. Unfortunately, business out of town prevents my being present, and therefore I could not postpone my

299
Motion. That does lead me to remark that it is rather extraordinary that a Motion which has been on the Paper for some time for to-morrow, and was on the Paper for that day so late as last Thursday, has disappeared. It was a Motion by Earl Howe on the dealings with the Report of the Select Committee on the Prevention of Road Accidents, so ably presided over by Lord Alness. That has disappeared, but no request came to me to take my Notice of Motion off the Paper—I presume because there is no reference to the Advisory Committee in the Report by the Select Committee.
It seems to me that anything which refers to the Select Committee is more or less taboo in certain Departments, and that there is a tendency for the Report of the Select Committee to be pigeonholed. They cannot very well pigeonhole the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, because they are in being, but it does not follow that the Traffic Advisory Committee are altogether satisfactorily constituted, and the Committee may be said to be not at all improved by the 1933 Act. Under the 1924 Act nineteen members constituted that body, and by the 1933 Act, an Act which was promoted by the London Passenger Transport Board, the numbers were increased to forty-one. The representation of transport and road vehicle interests was increased by the 1933 Act from four to seven, and the increase was effected by giving the London Passenger Transport Board two members, and the amalgamated railways two members, while one member represented taxi-cabs, one member represented mechanically-propelled vehicles and one member represented horse vehicles. The representatives of transport before 1933 were as laid down in subsections (1) and (2) of Section 1 of the 1924 Act. That Act lays down the constitution pretty elaborately and provides for one member to be appointed by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, two by the London County Council, one by the City Corporation, two by the councils of Metropolitan boroughs, one by the councils of the administrative counties in the First Schedule, that is to say in the London traffic area north of the river, and one for those south of the river; one by the county boroughs within the London traffic area, one by the Metropolitan Police, one by the City
300
Police, and one by the Minister of Transport.
It will be noticed that those are all official members, who are interested in road construction and responsible for the upkeep and improvement of roads and for the policing of the area, that is to say, traffic management. But the actual members representing the road users are extremely few, both under the 1924 Act and under the 1933 Act. The representatives of the transport interests on the Committee immediately before 1933 were one for railways, one for London Underground Railways and London omnibuses, one representing the London Omnibus Proprietors' Association, that is, the independent omnibuses, and one for other means of transport—horse vehicles, taxi-cabs and private cars. The effect of the 1933 Act was to increase the representatives of the other means of transport from one to three, of whom one represented taxi-cabs, one horse vehicles, and only one mechanically-propelled vehicles. There does not appear to have been any discussion before a Parliamentary Committee for the Bill of 1933, except for the application of the Westminster City Council for one member, which was conceded, and an application from the Labour Party for an increased representation, which was also conceded. The representative of the transport interests before the Act of 1933, Mr. Turner, was appointed by the Minister of Transport as a representative of the other means of transport on the nomination of the London Cartage Association, and he remains a member as representing the mechanically - propelled vehicles to-day.
The composition to-day is somewhat different. The Secretary of State still has one representative as before, the Minister of Transport has one as before, the London County Council has six instead of four; the City Corporation, one as before; the City of Westminster one against none before, and the remaining Metropolitan boroughs six instead of two; the Middlesex County Council and the Essex County Council have three instead of one; the Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire County Councils, grouped together as being north of the river, have one, and the Surrey and Kent County Councils, being the areas south of the river, have two instead of one; the

301
County Boroughs of Croydon, East Ham and West Ham have one between them, as before. The Secretary of State has one to represent the Metropolitan Police, as before, and the Secretary of State, as representing the County and Borough Police Forces in the London traffic area outside the Metropolitan area, has one; the Corporation of the City of London have one to represent the City Police; the London Passenger Transport Board have two (that is new); the four amalgamated railways have two; the Minister of Labour has six as against three, to represent the interests of labour engaged in the transport industry within the London traffic area. The Minister of Transport, to represent the interests of mechanically-propelled road vehicles within the London Traffic Area, has one, as before; the Minister of Transport, to represent the interests of persons providing or using horse-drawn vehicles, has one; and the Minister of Transport, to represent the interests of taxi-cabs, has one.
Perhaps the most interesting comparison to make is between the representatives on the Committee who pay into the Road Fund and those who do not. The London Passenger Transport Board have got two representatives. Of course they pay in respect of public conveyances such as omnibuses, although I believe they do not pay in respect of trolley-buses because these do not use petrol. They have a police licence, of course, but I am not quite sure that trolley-buses pay anything into the Road Fund. It is interesting to note in this connection that when the London County Council many years ago tried to get power to run trolley-buses so as to improve the traffic of London they were turned down time after time by Parliament, but as soon as the London Passenger Transport Board came in—a nominated and not a representative body—that Board got the powers; which does not seem to be quite in accord with the idea of representative institutions as far as local government is concerned.
The London Passenger Transport Board, as I say, have two representatives, and they may be said to be representing those who pay into the Road Fund. Then there is a representative of mechanically-propelled road vehicles—they pay into the Road Fund. Then horse-drawn vehicles—they do not pay into the Fund,
302
but taxi-cabs do. So that really you have only got on the Advisory Committee four representatives of those who pay into the Road Fund. The rest of the Committee consists of people who draw money out of the Fund, and they are thirty-seven in number. It is therefore thirty-seven against four on this Advisory Committee which is advising the Minister how to carry on the traffic of London on behalf of road users, I presume, as well as on behalf of those responsible for the construction and improvement of the roads. This is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is unsatisfactory notwithstanding recent legislation, and the legislation, be it noted, was not a Public Bill but a Private Bill promoted in 1933 by the Transport Board—a nominated body, a Board which owes its existence very largely to the Act of 1930 passed by a Labour Government. Our right honourable friend Mr. Morrison was responsible for the London Traffic Act of 1934 too, but I always understood the Labour Party stood strongly for representative institutions. It is a curious thing that two of the Acts originated by a Labour Government put in nominated bodies rather than duly elected representatives to carry on the public service of London.
My point this afternoon is to make representations to the Ministry of Transport that it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs that people representing the expenditure side of the Road Fund should so outnumber the users of the roads on this Advisory Committee. The users of the road, if they had sufficient voice, would be able to move the Minister to action, but when they have only got four representatives out of forty-one obviously they have not very much influence on the Advisory Committee, which is supposed to advise the Ministry on all matters relating to the use of the roads, as compared with those who derive benefit by getting large grants from the Road Fund which is contributed only by the people who use mechanically-propelled vehicles on the roads of the London traffic area—that is, roughly speaking, Greater London. I do not think I need say more than point out the rather absurd position in which we find ourselves in this matter, and I beg to move for Papers.
5.37 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, it is regrettable that I should have to take up

303
your Lordships' time at this hour, but there are points about this debate which have to be made. Although I quite realise it will involve legislation to alter the constitution of this Committee I am—I shall probably find, ultimately, foolishly—an optimist. I hope the Minister will be bringing in legislation to implement some of the recommendations of the Alness Report. If he does that, he will have a suitable opportunity for altering the constitution of this Committee. I am also further sufficiently an optimist to have a faint hope—I admit it is a very faint one—that the words spoken in this House are sometimes read in the Ministry of Transport. I therefore feel that it is possible that at least consideration will be given to making the London Traffic Advisory Committee representative of all classes of that traffic. The railways admittedly have their own tracks in London, but I cannot really see, beyond their need for delivering goods, what their need is for a very big representation on this Committee.
To all intents and purposes the London Passenger Transport Board are as much a railway as a road body, and one would have thought one representative for them would have been plenty. The four amalgamated railways have two representatives, and then in the representation of trade unions appointed by the Minister of Labour we find representatives of the National Union of Railwaymen and the Railway Clerks' Association. Really, I would ask, what has the Railway Clerks' Association got to do with London traffic? I cannot see the connection. I think we might abolish some of the railway representation and replace it with road users' representation. It appears to me that the private car owner is represented by one man who is appointed by the Employers' Federation, which I believe is itself largely railway-controlled. In all common fairness the lorry owner, the coach driver, and the private owner ought all to have a proportionate number of representatives, and I suggest a very fair proportion out of a total of forty-one would be six. If we can get something of that nature, then we may possibly get a fair deal for the private owners of vehicles on London streets. At the present moment the recommendations that come from that
304
Committee strike me as being absolutely and utterly designed to drive the private owners of vehicles off the streets of London altogether. I very much hope the Minister, when next he is introducing legislation on motoring matters, will incorporate an alteration in the constitution of this Committee.
5.40 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, first of all I would like to apologise to the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, who has introduced this debate, for the postponement of a Motion which I had on the Paper for to-morrow. I withdrew it, I may say, at the urgent request of the Minister of Transport and not because of my own wish. If I had had my way that Motion would certainly have remained on the Paper, and we should have had a debate about it. The Minister however, pointed out that he was not yet in a position to discuss the Alness Report in Parliament, and that he had given a certain undertaking in the other place in regard to his future action in reference to that Report. Therefore a further debate at this stage would merely be a rehash of one we have already had in your Lordships' House, and I do not think would have led to any particularly useful result.
On the subject of the Motion before us to-day, I want to do what I can to try and support the points made by the noble Marquess, Lord Aberdeen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who have preceded me. From the point of view of the motor world the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee—I must give it its correct title—is really a most one-sided body: There are forty-one members on the Committee. One almost prays for a committee on which forty-one members sit if one really wants to get any sort of work done. However, let it stand. Out of forty-one representatives the ordinary private car owner, as has been pointed out, has one representative who really is the head of a great organisation to deal with the road transport industry. In fact it comes to this, that the private car owner, who is providing scores of millions of pounds a year in taxation, has no representation on this Committee at all.
I have in my hands the last issued Report of the London and Home Counties

305
Traffic Advisory Committee, and it deals with Sir Charles Bressey's Report, it deals with the Blackwall Tunnel and Charing Cross bridge, and it deals with cycle tracks and the widening of streets and closing of streets, and with traffic lights and all sorts of things like that. But, above all, it has several pages under the heading "Traffic Control" devoted to proposals with regard to waiting vehicles. I am not going into those proposals but am merely going to refer to them in this way by saying that if brought into force they would affect the owner of every single motor vehicle that comes near the central area of London, an area that starts at Shepherd's Bush and goes on well through the City the other way. I mention that merely to show the magnitude of the problem with which this Committee deal.
We ought not to forget that a third of the population of the British Isles lives, I believe, within fifteen miles of Charing Cross, and, presumably, the greater number of motor car owners are concentrated in that area. It seems to me to be extraordinary in fact to be a gross injustice, that in the composition of a Committee of forty-one that deals with matters that affect the motor car owner at every stage and for which he is largely paying, he is given no real effective representation at all. The county councils, borough councils and so on have an enormous representation—twenty-two, I think, out of a Committee of forty-one. Then the taxicab owners have representation. It is true, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, that they do contribute in motor taxation, and therefore it is perhaps a good thing that they should be represented. I do not know how many taxi-cabs there are supposed to be on the streets of London—sornething between 10,000 and 14,000 I believe. How many private motor cars are there on the streets of London? Several hundred thousand.
Again, take the railway interests. I really cannot see why the railway interests should have such an enormous representation as they do have, because not only have they their direct representatives but they have indirect ones as well. The Minister of Transport appoints a representative of horse-drawn traffic, and the distinguished representative who is appointed to represent that interest is Major Paterson, of the well known firm of
306
Carter Paterson, which is owned by the railway companies. Therefore he is another indirect representative. Moreover, the London Passenger Transport Board and the main line railways have representation between them. I cannot see what possible reason there can be for those interests having any say about traffic lights and cycle tracks and things like that. It cannot concern the representatives of the main line railways very much how the cyclist gets in or out of London, nor can they be expected to take a very lively interest in whether the cyclist has a good cycle path, because if he has the chances are he will go out into the country on his bicycle on a Sunday instead of patronising the main line railways. Therefore I feel that it is somewhat of an anachronism that the dice should be loaded so heavily in favour of the railway interests as they appear to me to be.
At this hour I am not going to weary your Lordships with a long speech, but I do venture again to plead with the Government that the composition of this Committee might really be seriously considered so as to make it more representative of the interests with which it has to deal. I feel that that is really what Parliament intended when the Committee were set up, but I think the Committee have gradually drifted away, as the noble Marquess has shown, very far from what Parliament intended. I plead with the Government that greater representation should be given—in fact that some representation should be given—to the car owner. He has none at the moment; he is quite unrepresented; he is paying all the money; and I say if you pay the money you should have some say in calling the tune.
5.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I must apologise for being here to answer the Question of the noble Marquess, but my noble friend who would have done so has been called away on official business, and the task of replying has been handed over to me. The noble Marquess has called attention to the composition of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee. He has described the representation on that Committee, and other noble Lords who have spoken have discussed the Committee's constitution, and have complained that the private owner is not sufficiently represented on

307
the Committee. As the noble Marquess said, the Committee under the 1924 Act consisted of nineteen members, and under the 1933 Act that was increased to forty. I will not bore your Lordships by enumerating the exact numbers of these representatives, but the point I want to make is that twenty-three members of that Committee represent local authorities. The reply to the complaint of the noble Marquess that the number of representatives of transport interests is comparatively few is that the problems which the Committee have to consider are essentially problems of local government. Outside the London traffic area the matter is dealt with entirely by the local authorities. It is doubtless for that reason that Parliament decided that the predominant representation on the Committee should be that of local authorities.
The purposes for which traffic regulations might be made under the London Traffic Act, 1924, were specified in the Act. Those purposes include prescribing the conditions subject to which, and the times at which, vehicles may be loaded or unloaded; prescribing the conditions subject to which vehicles of any particular class or description delivering or collecting goods or merchandise may stand in streets; and prescribing places in streets where vehicles of any particular class or description may or may not wait, either generally or at particular times. The question of vehicles waiting in the streets was referred to, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It may interest your Lordships to know that regulations as to "No waiting" have been in operation in Piccadilly Circus, St. Giles' Circus and Marble Arch since 1930, in Oxford Street and certain side streets since 1931, and in Wigmore Street, including Cavendish Square and part of Mortimer Street, since 1936. Generally speaking, there have been no complaints that trades have suffered or that private motorists have been inconvenienced.
I understand that the Advisory Committee recommended that these restrictions should be extended to other parts of London and that the Minister of Transport has received protests and complaints from various bodies and persons following notice of his intention to make the regulations. The Committee's recommendation has been referred back to
308
them, and at the Minister's request the Committee are holding public sittings in the autumn to give all those who have made representations an opportunity to explain and amplify their views in public should they so desire. When the public sittings have been held the Committee will report to the Minister whether they desire to modify or alter their recommendation in any way. It will then be for the Minister to take a decision, and your Lordships may rest assured that he will do so only after most careful and personal examination of all the available evidence. I understand that the Minister has undertaken to publish the proceedings at the public sittings and the Committee's report to him. I apologise for having so very inadequately dealt with this subject of which I only had very short notice, but I can assure all those noble Lords who have spoken that the matters raised will be represented to the Minister of Transport.
5.55 p.m.
LORD ELTISLEY: My Lords, may I venture to say that the answer given by the noble Earl is not one which will satisfy a good many members of your Lordships' House? We have put forward a simple request that we should receive more representation, a fair deal and a square deal. We feel that important interests are not being listened to by the Minister of Transport. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, put a very important Motion on the Paper, and very considerable pressure, he told us, was put upon him to withdraw it. If I may say so, I am afraid he has listened almost too closely to that pressure. We feel that the interests of private motorists and others are more and more being made subservient to already established interests, and we hope that the matter will receive very careful consideration at the hands of the Minister of Transport in the near future.
5.56 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I do not think there is need for me to say much in reply. I feel considerable sympathy with the noble Earl in having to reply on a subject on which he has not been primed beforehand, but it is satisfactory to hear that the Advisory Committee are likely to sit in public to receive representations about the "No waiting" regulations. It

309
would not be a bad idea if the Committee always sat in public. Then people would know what they were doing. They usually sit behind closed doors and no reason is given in public as to why they come to certain conclusions. As the noble Lord, Lord Eltisley, said, our grievance is that the Committee are wrongly constituted for their work, and I was glad to hear the noble Earl say that
310
the matters raised in this debate will be brought before the Minister of Transport. In the hope that the Minister will pay close attention to what has been said in your Lordships' House I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at three minutes before six o'clock.