Lords Sitting of 23 January 1945

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
  Read 2a.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
NORTH DEVON WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
PLYMPTON ST. MARY RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
REIGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
SOUTH SHIELDS CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.
METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a.

PEERS' VISITS TO FRANCE.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, with your permission, I venture to address a question to His Majesty's Government of which I have given them private notice, as follows: To ask His Majesty's Government whether they can make a statement regarding the provision of facilities for Peers to visit France.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. His Majesty's Government have given careful consideration to this matter and I am glad to be able to say that the transport position is such that it is now possible to afford facilities for travel to France which the Government hope will be satisfactory to noble Lords. In the first place, if a delegation of members of this House, of any Party, should be invited by a corresponding political Party in France to meet them, the noble Lords so invited will be given facilities to travel by air, subject of course to military requirements. Secondly, a limited number of air and sea-rail passages will be made available each week for noble Lords who wish to visit France. These places will be distributed by ballot under arrangements which are being made by my noble friend Lord Templemore, the Chief Government Whip in this House. Detailed information can also be obtained from him. It will, of course, be necessary for every noble Lord travelling under the latter scheme to apply individually for an exit permit and a French visa in the usual way and to make his own arrangements for accommodation in France.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I am very much obliged to my noble friend.

LIMITATION (ENEMIES AND WAR PRISONERS) BILL. [H.L.]
2.8 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, there are two Bills on the Paper to-day of which, in each case, I shall propose the Second Reading. The second Bill—the Bill dealing with contributory negligence—is a Bill of very general importance and interest and I have no doubt that it may give rise to some speeches. I hope it will not be opposed. The present Bill—the Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Bill—is a Bill of very technical character, and while I do not expect that it will meet with any opposition, I hardly think that your Lordships will wish to have a very extended explanation.

631
Perhaps the simplest way to put the matter before the House is to remind you that civil claims in our Courts have to be brought within a certain limit of time or else they become what is called Statute-barred. To take the most ordinary instance, a claim on a simple contract has to be brought within six years of the cause of action arising. Now the situation we have to deal with arises partly because the war is prolonged and, secondly, because of the very wide area of Europe which has been, and to some extent still is, in the military occupation of the enemy. In the same way large parts of Asia are still in the occupation of Japan. If I may therefore give an illustration, the result is this: that Norwegians living in Oslo, or Dutchmen living at The Hague, or indeed British subjects living in Singapore, are for the purpose of pursuing actions in the British Courts to be treated as enemies. It must be so, because of course, if they were at liberty to bring actions while the war is going on, the fruit of their actions, if they were successful, would really inure to the advantage of Germany or Japan as the case may be. Even if they did not receive the money, those enemy States would at least have got their hands on a credit which had been created in this country as a result of the judgment, by means of which they might increase the sum total of their resources. Therefore the Trading with the Enemy Act defines an enemy as including people who are not only enemy subjects but who are residents in areas which are under the military occupation of the enemy, or companies and corporations which are carrying on business there. Such persons, though they may have perfectly good claims, which they ought to have the opportunity of enforcing, if they wish, in our Courts, are in danger of losing those rights altogether because of the lapse of time since their claim arose, it may be shortly before the war.
That is one instance which shows that something has to be done. Another instance is to put the position in the reverse way. There are individuals and companies in this country who have, or believe they have, perfectly good claims arising, it may be, just before the war, against enemies in Europe or in Asia in the sense that I have described. These would include, of course, actual Germans,
632
Nazis, living in Berlin or wherever it may be. There our Courts do not say they will not entertain such an action. Of course they will entertain an action which is brought by a British subject, but as a practical matter the action cannot be brought because there is no means by which you can serve the writ and bring the other party before the Courts and satisfy all the other conditions. Enemies certainly will not facilitate the service of writs on people who are within the boundary of their military occupation. There again there is a serious risk that a great many perfectly good claims will not be met, or if necessary litigated, as they ought to be, merely because of a lapse of time. We had the same difficulty at the end of the last war but not in so extreme a form, first of all because it did not last so long, and secondly, because the extent to which the occupation spread was not so great, and it was dealt with on that occasion in a rather different way. It was dealt with in an article in the Treaty of Versailles which was followed by a Statute in this country. Those are two examples which I think will satisfy your Lordships that something of this kind is needed. The effect of this Bill is to say that, where there is a party that is an enemy and consequently cannot have proceedings going on at present, the period which is the maximum period under the statutory provision shall be calculated leaving out that part of the time when, for reasons I have explained, an action could not be brought.
There is one further matter which I ought to mention. If your Lordships have examined the text of the first subsection of the Bill in which the word "enemy" appears and if you turn over to Clause 2, the Interpretation Clause, you will see that "enemy" means "enemy" in the sense of the Trading with the Enemy Act; consequently, the provisions in this Bill would appear at first sight also to give a new benefit to actual enemy subjects—actual Germans or Japanese—whose claims, whatever they may be, if brought after the war is over in our Courts would, as things now stand, be barred by the Statute of Limitation. I need hardly assure Your Lordships that it is no part of the intention of the Government or of my intention that we should, at this time of day, confer this new benefit upon those who are, in the full and natural sense, our enemies. The explanation is that while

633
one might think on looking at the Bill that that is a possibility, it is intended, and indeed I think to a large extent already provided, that the fruits of any such judgment would not go to the enemy plaintiff but would go to the Custodian of Enemy Property. Already the Custodian of Enemy Property, under a law which was passed not so long ago, is engaged in collecting assets available in this country which would be the assets of our actual enemies and the intention is to carry that through more or less on the lines that prevailed during the last war, with the result that a fund will be created out of which our own citizens can be compensated for the claims which they have against enemies on the other side. It only remains for me to say that your Lordships may be assured that no such benefit will be realized by those who are actually enemy subjects. That is not what I am proposing at all. What I am proposing is, as the result of the recommendations made to me by a very responsible Committee which I appointed, that we should now indicate by this Bill that the limitation period will not be calculated in the way in which it would be calculated under our general law but, for the reasons I have explained, will have blotted out from it the period during which it was impracticable or illegal to sue. I hope what I have said is sufficient to explain the general purpose of the Bill. I deliberately do not go into further details and I ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) BILL. [H.L.]
2.16 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the second Bill to which I referred and, as your Lordships have been able to endure the first of my discourses, I hope you will be interested in the second, because it deals with a much more attractive subject. If there is a collision between two ships and the owner of one of them claims damages
634
from the owner of the other for negligence, the second ship will not escape liability for its own negligence by saying that the first ship was negligent also. There may arise what is called in the Admiralty Court a condition of "both to blame" and in the Admiralty Court, when the result of the evidence is that both ships are to blame, the Court decides what is the proper proportion of the fault between them. Is one side more to blame than the other? The Court fixes the fractions, it adds the damages together and it makes each ship bear its proper proportion of the whole. This maritime rule is now embodied in our Maritime Conventions Act, 1911. That is what happens if two ships run into one another. The consequence is, according to the law of the sea, that if an injured ship proves that the other ship was in fault and helped to cause the damage, it may get a certain amount in compensation even though the first ship was negligent also.
But, instead of two ships, let us take the case of two motor cars which come into collision, or perhaps there may be a running down case in which an individual citizen is injured. The defendant motor car may be proved to have helped to cause the accident by its negligence through furious driving, if you like, and yet it may get off altogether if it proves that the plaintiff also was in fault in some degree. That is what lawyers call the defence of contributory negligence. If the defendant proves that the plaintiff contributed to his own negligence, the plaintiff can recover nothing at all. To give an example: if a woman is crossing the road carrying a basket or a baby on a windy day and is trying to keep her umbrella up, and if she is run over by a motor car which is being driven recklessly at 100 miles an hour and therefore cannot be stopped in time, the woman cannot recover anything if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court—in the old days it was largely to the satisfaction of the jury—that she contributed to the accident by her negligence: say, that she did not take care to look along the road before she started to cross. One result of that of course, in the days when there were more juries than there are now, was that juries were extremely unwilling to produce such a result and sometimes indeed gave the plaintiff more money than the plaintiff really ought to have had.

635
The proposal of this Bill is in substance to apply the Admiralty rule to Common Law cases. It has long been held not only by many lawyers but by most laymen who have considered the subject that this Common Law rule ought to be altered. There is a Standing Committee of distinguished lawyers which from time to time at the request of the Lord Chancellor considers an alleged defect in the law and recommends how that defect should be remedied. We have made use of this Committee many times. The Chairman of the Committee is my noble and learned friend Lord Wright and on it you get judicial talent, practising solicitors, practising barristers and law professors a body of people well competent to advise. The eighth Report of this Law Revision Committee—it is available to your Lordships if you wish to see it; it is a White Paper—recommends that the Admiralty rule is the fairer rule and should be adopted in Common Law cases. I entirely agree with the view of the Committee. That is in substance the purpose of this Bill.
If your Lordships will be good enough to look at the Bill you will see in the first few lines of Clause 1 the substance of the matter there set out, and I am glad to say set out without the use of any technical word whatever. I trust this may be regarded as a model of drafting. Let me see if anybody doubts what this means:
"Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage shall not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof shall be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage:"
In many cases it will be half and half. I may say that where there is a jury the jury will still determine it. That is the ma in proposal, the kernel of the Bill. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is very good sense and that we ought to do our part in passing it into law.
There are some subsequent provisions in the Bill which I do not think I need explain in detail at this stage though I think one or two of the provisions may have to be examined carefully in Committee. There is, however, one thing about which I must offer your Lordships a short explanation. Clause 2 at first sight
636
may raise doubt as to whether it is right. I think I can satisfy your Lordships if I may say just this. Clause 2 provides that there shall be no change in the law which at present applies when a workman claims against his employer in respect of damage caused by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. At first sight that looks wrong. But your Lordships are aware that the Government are considering proposals for a new scheme for Workmen's compensation based on quite new principles. Until that scheme is worked out and enacted by Parliament I am on reflection satisfied, and I am advised, that it really would be better to leave the law of workmen's compensation as it is for the following reason. It is a slightly technical reason but those familiar with the Act will readily follow it. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act a workman has an option. He may make a claim and try to establish it against his employer independently of the Act. For example, he may say that his employer was liable to him because he failed to fence machinery. That has nothing to do with the Act. Alternatively, if the workman prefers, he may claim compensation under the Act. But he must not do both. That has always been the provision which Parliament has made. But Parliament made this provision which is very much in the workman's favour. It said that if a workman tried to get compensation independently of the Act and failed, then he should still have the opportunity of getting compensation under the Act.
Your Lordships will see that if we apply this new law regarding contributory negligence to such cases as this there will be instances—perhaps many instances—in which the workman, instead of failing against his employer, will win but he will only get a fraction of his damages. If we were to leave things in that condition the workman by the fact that he has got a little compensation would be deprived of getting any compensation whatever under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I felt that this was a difficulty. There was sitting a Departmental Committee on Alternative Remedies set up by the Home Office and I brought this matter before the Departmental Committee. Indeed I attended and did my best to explain to the Committee this difficulty and we now have the advice of the Committee. This Committee, which contains of course

637
representatives of organized labour and representatives of employers, also contains a number of other people especially competent to deal with this sort of question. In its Interim Report on the subject—it is Command Paper 6580 Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on Alternative Remedies (Contributory Negligence)—the Committee unanimously recommend what is contained in Clause 2.
The view the Committee takes is that it really would be not to the advantage of the parties in cases of that sort to get this new law applied to them in the interval before the new workmen's compensation code is enacted. In many cases it would be calculated to deprive the workman of the alternative remedy which he certainly ought to enjoy if he fails in the first action because he might no longer fail but might get perhaps £50 whereas he hoped to get £500. I am therefore acting strictly in accordance with the advice which the Departmental Committee unanimously gave, the advice which as I have said is to be found in the White Paper to which I have given the reference. The matter has been closely examined, and I feel that the right course is to insert Clause 2 as it stands.
Such is the nature of the Bill. It will, undoubtedly, effect an important change in the law, and, in the course of time, will affect thousands and tens of thousands of people. I am very glad to have had the opportunity of bringing it before Parliament, and I commend the Bill to the House as embodying a much needed reform in the branch of the law to which it applies. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.32 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I rise only to ask a question on a specific point. From what the Lord Chancellor has said it might appear that in the instance he gave, in a running down case, the person who was obviously driving most recklessly could be relieved of part of the damage be caused by the negligence of the person he ran down. Of course, the amendment to the law which is now proposed makes it better than it was before but I take it that it does not make it good enough. I should have thought that, especially in these running down cases, where a man is so flagrantly breaking the law, he ought to be liable for the
638
whole of the damage he causes whether there is negligence on the part of the other party or not. It would seem to me a deplorable view to take—and if nothing was said I thought it might be taken—that when anyone recklessly breaks the law by driving at a hundred miles per hour he can get off paying some of the damage to the unfortunate individual he strikes because that individual is partly at fault. I think that the Lord Chancellor may be able to remove some of our doubts, if he will. Judging from the instances he gave of the wording of the Bill, matters would appear to be as I have suggested.
2.34 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, it happened that a few days ago at the Law Courts I went into the Court of Appeal for a few moments, and while there I heard the learned Lord Justice who was presiding over on of the Divisions of the Court deliver judgment. I heard only a few words but they were something to this effect: "The plaintiff put his foot upon the pedal that set in motion the machinery which caused the damage. It was a lunatic act, but I fear that that concludes the matter." I left the Court holding even more strongly than I have held for many years past the view that the time had more than arrived when a modification of the law was required in order that contributory negligence should not be a defence, a complete defence, to a claim for damages. That very afternoon—for it was last Wednesday—the Lord Chancellor introduced this Bill for its First Reading with a few explanatory words drawing attention to the White Paper which he has mentioned to-day. I could not help thinking what a happy coincidence it was that I should go, as it were, straight from the Courts where I had heard effect given to this harsh doctrine to this House to find that at last it was to be ameliorated.
My noble friends on these Benches and I welcome the fact that this Bill is now about to be carried into law—as we may assume that it will be. The Report of the Departmental Committee to which the Lord Chancellor has referred is not, perhaps, the clearest of explanatory documents in itself, but it is perfectly plain that it is an ample foundation for the whole of the contents of this Bill as regards its main purpose. I think I

639
may, possibly, have one or two Amendments to suggest at a later stage, and perhaps I might indicate now two points which trouble me, in the sense that I am not quite clear whether I understand the purpose lying behind them. One relates to the proviso to Clause 1. I have no doubt that the Lord Chancellor, if he speaks at the close of this discussion, may clarify that issue, and I will not dilate on the subject now. I have no doubt that it can be dealt with in the course of this discussion by the Lord Chancellor and the position explained, otherwise the way will be open for an Amendment.
A further matter to which I should like to refer is this. It is of course the case that the provisions with regard to workmen's compensation tally with the recommendations made in the White Paper and, in effect, preserve the position for the workman. There is, however, one point, as I find it, of some obscurity in the White Paper on page 6. It is indicated there that the members of the Departmental Committee were considering whether an action brought by a workman against a person other than his employer where the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment should or should not be included in this Bill. The Committee begin their statement with some words of emphasis:
"We are clearly of opinion that these actions should be included in the Bill."
Then, after giving reasons, they rather water it down and state:
"We therefore recommend that actions by workmen against persons other than their employers should not be excluded from the Bill."
It is a technical point, but reasons are given by the Committee for the conclusion at which they arrive.
One of them seems to me to be based, if I may say so with respect, on perhaps rather dubious grounds. I say that because of the actual wording of the Report. The members of the Committee state that "it is doubtful whether the workman will suffer any disadvantage if these actions are included in the Bill," and then go on to state that it is arguable whether certain disadvantages would not arise. They then use a phrase which always strikes doubt in my mind—"if this argument is sound"; and continue "then the workman not having recovered damages is
640
not barred from recovering compensation." That is very much the point which the Lord Chancellor mentioned earlier to-day as to choice of remedy. Then they go on to a second point, where their argument seems to me to be perfectly clear and easy to follow, and they arrive at the conclusion which I have mentioned, that action against third parties should not be excluded from the Bill. They seem, if I can read their minds aright from what appears here, to have been confronted with two arguments, one decisively in favour of not excluding such actions from the Bill and the other put forward with more doubt; and they seem to have come to the conclusion that on the balance of advantage these actions should not be excluded from the Bill. I am not expressing an opinion here and now upon this subject; I am merely indicating that this is a point which seems to me worthy of consideration and upon which I may desire, on behalf of my noble friends and after consultation, to put down an Amendment. I am simply keeping the way open to do so.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord Chancellor a question which I think he will feel is a proper one for him to answer—he will tell me if he does not. Whereas the Departmental Committee make it clear that they have had no consultations with representatives of organized labour and with organizations representative of employers and workmen in regard to some of the earlier matters which they have considered, but intended to do so before making recommendations, they appear in this matter to have arrived at a conclusion without such consultation, and indeed to have thought it unnecessary. I wonder whether perchance the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, since the signing of this Report, has had an opportunity of consulting with representatives of organized labour. If that is so, and if they are in accord, the point that I am putting to your Lordships can be disregarded. With those observations, I say on behalf of my noble friends that we support the Bill now before your Lordships.
2.43 p.m.
LORD MACMILLAN: My Lords, you will have observed that in this measure you are invited to legislate for Scotland as well as for England, and the noble and learned Lord Chancellor has suggested that I might add a word from the

641
Scottish point of view to what he has said. The law of reparation in Scotland is rather different from the law of reparation in England; it has a different history and a different incidence. It reflects to some extent the ancient Roman law with which we have so long been associated in Scotland. As time has gone on, however, the laws of the two countries have fortunately come to be very much the same; but while we have shared the merits of the law of England, in many respects I am afraid that we have also shared some of its demerits, and among its demerits is this plea of contributory negligence.
In Scotland, as in England, the pursuer (if I may use my native vocabulary), if he is found to be guilty of any negligence whatever, loses his suit and is without any redress for the wrong which is done to him. In other words, the defender must be liable for all or for nothing. That state of affairs, of course, does not reflect the facts of life; it is not consonant with what happens in daily life, where almost every incident that happens is contributed to by more than one person. It is very seldom indeed that you find a case where all the fault is on one side, but if the fault is on both sides the law has hitherto said: "We can do nothing for you; we shall not distribute the blame and we shall not distribute the damages." That has constantly been felt to be a serious defect, and it is to remedy that injustice, both in England and in Scotland, that this measure is proposed.
It does not go the whole length, and the observations already made on it show that it does not deal with all possible points. It still leaves a very large area of debate—of remunerative debate, possibly —for members of the legal profession as to what is the proximate cause and the remote cause and those other questions of which we hear so much at the Bar of this House in another capacity. The mere fact that you cannot remedy the whole of the law at one time, however, is not an argument for not doing something to remedy it as far as possible. What has happened is that Lord Wright's Committee, with the Lord Chancellor's blessing, has from time to time seen that really flagrant defects in our law are examined and redressed. Hitherto there has been very little chance of doing that in Parlia-
642
ment, because these matters were dealt with in comprehensive Statutes, and a comprehensive Statute is a very difficult thing to get through Parliament; but now we are proceeding piecemeal, and one point after another is being taken up and put right.
This Bill, as I say, applies also to Scotland, and I may perhaps—I do not know whether your Lordships are sufficiently interested—translate to you one of the provisions to be found in Clause 5 of the Bill, which deals with the Scottish case. In England you have Lord Campbell's Act, which, as you know, gives a right to the relatives of a person who has been killed by negligence to recover, and you now have also the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1934. These measures do not apply in Scotland. We have always had in Common Law in Scotland a right on the part of relatives to sue for damages in respect of the death of a person which has been occasioned by negligence. That is known as the action of solatium. We are very fond of Latin words in Scots law, and the word "solatium" represents that particular form of consolation—pecuniary consolation, and on that account none the less welcome to a Scotsman—for the loss of a near relative which has been brought about by negligence.
To such an action in Scotland there was exactly the same defence as there has been in England. If you could show that the deceased person had in any degree, however minute, contributed to the calamity which had 'befallen him, there was no remedy at all and no redress could be given. Now, by this clause, that has been put right, and the result will be that in effect the person who has suffered a wrong will recover what he ought to recover, no more and no less. He ought not to recover all that he has suffered if he has himself contributed to some extent to the wrong which has been done to him. The sum that he will recover will be pro tanto diminished, and he will receive what he ought to receive, no less and no more. The Bill has been already so fully brought before your Lordships by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor that I do not wish to say more than is necessary to extend to it a welcome on behalf of the law of Scotland, to which I think it will also contribute an important and valuable reform.
2.49 p.m.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: My Lords, I should like to say one or two words on this Bill. It is an excellent thing that this Bill has been introduced, because of late years, since the introduction of motor cars and mechanically-propelled transport generally, the pedestrian has suffered very much. In the old days, before the advent of the motor car, if you were run down by a pair of horses in the streets of London it was commonly supposed that this was the fault of the coachman, and that you could recover damages from the owner of the carriage. That was the common supposition—whether it was right or wrong I really cannot say. But since the advent of mechanical transport the position of the pedestrian has suffered very much indeed. The custom has grown up now for the driver of a motor car or any mechanically propelled vehicle to sound his horn and expect the pedestrian to get out of his way; he does not attempt as a rule to slacken speed, and if you are not sufficiently agile you have no chance of crossing the road. I do not know whether this question will be considered by the Committee presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wright, or how it should be dealt with, but I think that it is a very important matter.
There is no question that a great many drivers think that all they have got to do is to blow their horn and that there is no obligation to slacken speed. Yet it is far easier to stop a motor car than to stop a pair of horses in a London street. We remember very well the great controversy which took place over the question of the bearing rein, sponsored by the late Duke of Portland. The bearing rein was necessary in London for the very reason that a coachman could not pull up quickly enough to stop and avoid running over somebody unless he had a very severe bearing rein on his horses. There is no difficulty whatever in stopping a motor car, while on the other hand there was cruelty in having a bearing rein. For that reason I hope some steps will be taken to see that this custom which has grown up absolving the driver of a motor car from the necessity of stopping when he sees an unfortunate man or woman crossing the road at a time when he or she is very likely looking the wrong way, will be dealt with and something be done to
644
safeguard and protect the unfortunate pedestrian.
2.52 p.m.
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I do not wish to detain this House more than a very few minutes but as I was to some extent responsible for the idea of altering the law of contributory negligence I do want to say a very few words to welcome this Bill, which gives effect to a desire that I have felt for a considerable number of years. The whole law of contributory negligence was unfair. Many people have felt that, and the law of negligence is one which ought to be made as correct and as apt as possible, because it affects most nearly the whole mass of the population. In my experience as a Judge of Assize I constantly had instances in which the unfairness of the rule was only too prominent. And where you have an unfair rule of law it generally carries with it two very undesirable consequences. One is that juries in considering the facts, when they are told that the fault was the plaintiff's and they ought to find for the defendant, however much they thought the defendant was to blame, generally slur over in their minds—quite honestly I am sure—the awkward and unfair aspect of contributory negligence. Consequently you do not get the facts properly dealt with. The other undesirable result is that where you have an unfair rule the Judges are deeply interested in trying to devise modifications, qualifications and distinctions which will mitigate the unfairness. That is indicated in this particular case by the fact that there are masses of refinements and distinctions which have been introduced for that very reason. I do not want to say more than this, because the Lord Chancellor has so lucidly and cogently explained the purpose of this Bill, and it seems to me very desirable. Clause 1 I think will get rid of difficulties about cause, proximate or remote; the language is perfectly simple and perfectly clear and most apt. I do welcome this Bill and hope that it will receive a speedy passage into law.
2.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in reply at the end of the debate. First I would wish to thank your Lordships very sincerely for the friendly welcome which has been given to this Bill

645
in all quarters and on both sides of the House. The view which your Lordships at present are disposed to lake is, I am quite satisfied, the view which will be taken by the public who are interested in the subject and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wright has just observed, there are immense numbers of people interested. Those who perhaps will be most relieved by the Bill will be among the poorest of our population, who really are not of course in a position to spend great sums of money in a lawsuit. So much for the general provisions of the Bill.
I deliberately refrain from discussing now details which are perhaps more appropriate for the Committee stage, but I will just say a word, if I may, in reply to two observations of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. In the first place Lord Nathan called attention to the proviso at the end of Clause 1 (1):
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any claim under a contract and shall not operate to defeat any defence arising under a contract."
I think Lord Nathan was well justified in raisin, a query about that particular language. The second part of the provision is plain enough—
"Provided that this subsection…shall not operate to defeat any defence arising under a contract."
Evidently if you have made a contract with someone and have entered into a free bargain with him that you are not going to compensate him if he is himself partly negligent, you are quite entitled to do so. I think, for example, that a dentist would be quite entitled to say, "I am not going to compensate you if I should hurt your jaw when you go on shaking your head." On the Committee stage I will put down myself words to deal with the earlier words of the proviso.
Then my noble friend also asked an important question in regard to Clause 2. I will not go into the detail now. He has himself taken the trouble to examine the unanimous Report of the Monckton Committee, but I would just point out that among the members of that Committee there was a very well-known member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, Mr. George Isaacs, M.P. He has often been the adviser of the organized workmen of this country in these rather technical matters. I have not myself personally made inquiries outside, but I have been in communication with the
646
Home Office who, as I know, always keep in very close contact with organized labour and with organized employers, and I have every reason to think that the proposal which this Committee has made is one which will be generally agreed to. The question may turn up in another House; but I think that, as far as we are concerned, we can hardly do better than follow the advice given by those who went into the matter most carefully.
Then there is one other matter which I will venture to deal with. The picture of a motor car doing one hundred miles an hour and a much embarrassed lady struggling on a windy day with her umbrella went to the romantic heart of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, and led him to say that it was a mistake not to give the whole amount of the damages to the partly negligent female. Of course the answer to that is, as my noble, gallant, and legal friend in his more legal moments will appreciate, that you have to lay down a rule which will apply to all sorts of cases. It will even apply to the unromantic case of two motor cars running into one another at the same speed and each responsible for half the damage. It would lead to very odd results if each of them was to recover the whole amount from the other—in fact, the arithmetical calculation is entirely beyond me. As Lord Macmillan said, whether in England or in Scotland, the pursuer, as they say in Scotland, or the plaintiff, as we say in plain English, ought not to recover all his damage if he has contributed by his carelessness to his injury. But I concede at once to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that if we have so tragic a case as the one by which his emotions were stirred, I should expect the proportions to be extremely unequal, and I would say that much the larger part of the damage ought to be met by the motorist.
Those are the only explanations I think I need offer at this moment and I am very glad that this Bill is thus far launched on its way. As Lord Clanwilliam said just now in that most interesting speech going back to the old days, the situation has changed. We have even now in London, and I believe in Paris, crossings on the highway marked out by those large metal insertions in order that you may know where to walk if you are not to pay the whole of the expenses of your own funeral. I have been told—I do not know if it is

647
correct—that the practice in some foreign capitals suggests that if you go across the road anywhere except between those narrow boundaries which the French call passages cloutés then you are fairly exposed to the full fury of the taxi driver, and the only safety in getting across is to keep strictly within the lines thus drawn. I do not know how that may be. But although I recognize the change to which my noble friend refers, it still remains the law that if you are injured by somebody who is driving a vehicle, albeit a motor car, and your injury is due to his negligent driving, you are entitled to recover damages from him, and there have been many cases where large damages have been awarded. The difficulty hitherto has been, as was pointed out by my noble and learned friends, that both in England and in Scotland you lost your right to that if the man against whom you claimed could show that your negligence had contributed in a small degree to the result. Although that is a very old piece of law, I think it has worked quite a considerable injustice in many cases, and I am delighted to find that both lawyers and laymen in this House believe that that law should be changed.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

NURSES BILL [H.L.]
3.4 P.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I think I may explain the objects of this Bill in a very few sentences, and this may suit the convenience of the House rather well as I see there are still two Motions and one question on the Order Paper for this afternoon. The object of the Bill is to correct a drafting error that occurred in the Nurses Act and the Nurses (Scotland) Act—an error with serious consequences, which was unfortunately overlooked when these measures passed through Parliament in 1943. These two Nurses Acts were intended as a safeguard for private patients or hospital authorities by protecting them from unfair treatment, such as a demand for excessive fees or the ministrations of an unqualified nurse on the part of nursing agencies to whom they might apply for
648
assistance in cases of illness. In order to prevent the occurence of such abuses, the Acts laid down certain conditions to which those who run these agencies or nurses' co-operatives, as they are commonly called, would be obliged in future to conform. These regulations included the duty only to supply nurses with accepted professional qualifications, to keep detailed records in every case and to obtain a licence from the local licensing authority.
At the time Part II of this Act was reexamined by the Minister to fix the date on which its provisions were to become operative, it was first noted that the expression in the Act "agency for the supply of nurses" was so broad and indefinite that it might be taken to cover such perfectly innocuous organizations as county and district nursing associations. Those of your Lordships who live in the country know what excellent work district nurses, sent out to visit by their local associations, do in poor homes. Not only do these district nursing associations, being voluntary bodies, enjoy a reputation unimpaired by the sort of conduct against which these Acts were aimed, but some of the smaller associations in country districts might even find it impossible to carry on their ordinary nursing duties if they were obliged to conform to the regulations I have just described. The only way to safeguard these district nursing associations and at the same time to apply the necessary measure of control prescribed in the Nurses Acts for the nurses co-operatives, was to narrow down the meaning of "agency for the supply of nurses" so as expressly to exclude those bodies with whom no one has ever desired to interfere.
The present Bill would exempt from the regulatory provision of Part II of the Nurses Acts district and county nursing associations and other organizations doing similar work in rural areas. Your Lordships will notice that it is a very short Bill with only three clauses, of which the third clause relates to the title. Clause 1 deals with the matter for England and Wales and Clause 2 does the same thing for Scotland. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AMENITIES OF THE COUNTRYSIDE
3.8 p.m.
LORD MOTTISTONE LORD MOTTISTONE had the following Notice on the Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they can ensure that in all planning schemes adequate steps are taken to prevent the disfigurement of the neighbourhood by ugly signs or advertisements; whether they will consider the introduction of such additional legislation as may be necessary to secure the powers needed for this purpose; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, Lord Woolton, who was to have replied to the Motion standing in my name, is most unfortunately laid up and unable to leave his room. He regrets infinitely any inconvenience caused, but I understand he wishes to make the statement himself as it is of some importance. Therefore I have no alternative, while apologizing for this unavoidable delay, but to ask your Lordships' leave to postpone this to an early date. I understand that Lord Woolton's condition is such that in a few days he may be quite well again. He could not possibly come to-day, however, and he asked me to express to your Lordships his infinite regret. Therefore I beg leave to postpone the Motion.
Motion postponed.

PHILATELISTS IN THE FORCES.
3.9 p.m.
LORD MIDDLETON LORD MIDDLETON rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the fact that members of the Forces serving overseas are prohibited from sending postage stamps to the United Kingdom; to make suggestions; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Motion is to draw the attention of the Government to a grievance that is felt by a considerable number of members of the Forces serving overseas. Your Lordships know that wherever men serve they wish to send articles of use or interest to their families at home as often as they can. I have no idea what the volume of parcels handled by the Army Postal Service is, but it must be colossal. Foodstuffs are sent home in considerable quantities but the amount any individual may send is restricted and due regard is always paid to the needs of local inhabitants. Materials for making garments, silk stockings and gloves and
650
so on are sent home under proper regulations. All parcels are censored before dispatch, the contents are noted on outside wrappings and if the goods are dutiable the duties are paid at this end. But a concession is made once a year, I think, for each individual, when dutiable goods may be posted free of duty by any member of the Forces and sent home provided an appropriate certificate is attached to the parcel.
But it seems that postage stamps, used or unused, may never be sent home by members of the Forces. It is true that licences may, in certain circumstances, be issued for the importation of postage stamps, but I am credibly informed that such licences are granted to dealers only and never to private collectors, so it would seem that the interests of the middle men are very well served. Unfortunately, this war-time regulation is not generally known in the Forces. I have been unable to discover that any order has ever been published, as far as the Army is concerned, warning soldiers that the embargo exists and that senders as well as recipients are liable to heavy penalties for infringement of the rules. Many members of the Forces are enthusiastic philatelists and others have children or friends who collect. I know as a fact that a considerable number of officers and men have sent home postage stamps in all innocence, quite unaware that they were doing any wrong. I may add that those serving in Italy have unrivalled opportunities to make valuable additions to their collection of stamps since the Armies there include troops from so many parts of the world.
I have heard through welfare officers of the hot indignation of men who have, in all innocence, sent stamps home and have had those stamps seized presumably in censors' offices, with the result that the pecuniary losses to the senders have been considerable. Knowing that I was interested in this matter, though I am not a philatelist myself, a senior officer wrote just before I left Italy a few weeks ago as follows:
"I learn that I am a sufferer. I bought stamps in Algiers and in Corsica and was given other Vichy French stamps by inhabitants in Corsica. I am faced with the difficulty of keeping safely an accumulation of stamps abroad, as I am liable to be moved about with a kit allowance of 40 to 100 lbs. In June I sent some to the United Kingdom, in ignorance of the prohibition. I now hear that they were seized. I have no information as to whether

651
'seizure' means 'confiscation' and if not, what formalities I must fulfil to re-obtain possession."
If senior officers in high places find these difficulties it is not surprising that other ranks are liable to get into trouble.
It is scarcely necessary in your Lordships' House for me to dilate on the merits of stamp collecting, but I do submit with great respect that it is far better that men should spend their money sensibly on things that have a permanent value and interest, rather than waste it on atrocious rubbish in the way of souvenirs that so many buy for outrageous prices. I presume that the rules against importation are based upon Treasury measures to safeguard the exchange value of sterling, and it may well be that unlimited importation of stamps is undesirable, but surely it will be quite easy to frame rules to prevent abuses. All parcels and letters are censored in units and censoring is most conscientiously carried out. I suggest that proper restrictions could protect sterling and at the same time satisfy collectors. I trust that in this matter the Government will not be unsympathetic and will be disposed to find a way that will remove a grievance which is very widely felt by men serving their country overseas. I beg to move.
3.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF EFFINGHAM: My Lords, I should like to agree, from my own knowledge, with what has been said by the noble Lord who has just spoken. In my own case I have had stamps sent to me from America by a friend. Two sets of unused stamps were sent and were surcharged, and also some used American stamps. I finally got a letter from the Stamp Control Committee, as I suppose it is called, saying that the Eritrea stamps had been forfeited and that they were sending me the used American stamps. What will happen to the others I do not know. I have no knowledge as to the number or what happened to them, but I do know that stamps are being continually forfeited which are being sent to one, not at one's own request, by friends who know that one is a stamp collector and wish to help. About six months before the commencement of the war one of the Maharajahs was good enough to send me a complete set of his own George VI stamps. If he wished to send them as used stamps and put then on envelopes
652
the probability is that they would be forfeited—why, I cannot think. They did not cost me any money, I was giving nothing for them. I was not therefore sending any money out of the country. I did not even know of the existence of the Eritrea stamps. They were bought in New York and sent to me here.
As I have said, stamps are being continually forfeited. Yet I can think of no better way for a serving soldier to invest his money to-day than by buying stamps. It is much better for him to do that than to buy the rubbish that a great many of them send home. Stamps have increased enormously in value in the last four years. People who have been lucky enough to get them are very much better off to-day and they have something that they can turn into money right away. Some of the Government offices get stamps in the natural course of their business and people know that this is so and try to buy some of those stamps. I did so myself the other day and the answer I got from the clerk who handled the stamps when they came into the office was that the order from the office was that these stamps were only to be sold to dealers. Why that should be so I cannot think. Why the ordinary English citizen, if he is able to buy stamps, should have to pay perhaps 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. profit on what the dealer gives the Government, is something that I cannot understand. Certainly I think that at any rate the Forces should be allowed to send stamps for the benefit of their relatives.
3.19 p.m.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Middleton has brought forward a matter this afternoon dealing with a grievance which he says exists, and I have no doubt he is right, among members of the Forces. These matters always call for, and receive, a sympathetic hearing in your Lordships' House. I will endeavour to explain the reasons for these regulations as far as I am able to do so. As my noble friend may be aware, this control of stamps has now been in operation for some years. It was instituted in June, 1940. Its primary object was to save foreign exchange by preventing the use of it on an article which was not strictly a necessity. Another important object was to assist the work of the Ministry of Economic Warfare and the Trading with the Enemy Department. Postage

653
stamps are a ready means of paying money to enemy agents and receiving foreign exchange and they have even been used to transmit messages.
The general policy is to prohibit all stamps having any sort of enemy taint, no matter from what country they originate, and all those involving loss of foreign exchange. The control of postage stamps, of course, needs special knowledge and it has been delegated by the Board of Trade to the British Philatelic Association who have given a great deal of invaluable help to the Board of Trade. The Association works on broad principles laid down by the Board of Trade. The arrange rents are well understood by the trade although difficulty does arise with private individuals, as my noble friend stated just now, through their unfamiliarity with the regulations. The administration, I can assure my noble friend, is as liberal as possible. If only a few stamps obviously imported for private purposes are involved they are usually released, and travellers who return or who are repatriated to this country are allowed the return of their collections against suitable guarantees regarding disposal. It very seldom happens that confiscation takes place; instead, the control usually arranges to hold the stamps until the regulations can be relaxed. This is, of course, in marked contrast to the procedure regarding every other commodity where goods whose importation cannot be licensed are confiscated and sold by the Customs.
These regulations which I have described are the general arrangements. The importation of ex-enemy stamps by members of His Majesty's Forces raises special problems. It may be argued that the acquisition from our liberated Allies of stamps issued during the enemy occupation cannot now be of any direct service to the enemy. That is very likely true, but it may still be a handicap to the Ministry of Economic Warfare in their efforts to stop the traffic in enemy stamps abroad, since the existence of a large legalized gap in the control would make it much more difficult to identify those ex-enemy stamps which are still acquired from enemies to their advantage. It may also be said that since our troops in liberated countries are free to spend their pay there on what they like there can be no advantage by way of conserving foreign exchange in preventing
654
them from spending part of it on postage stamps. This again is quite true as far as it goes, but if members of the Forces were allowed to import stamps acquired with their own money without question there would be a real danger that some of them would be got at by dealers and would on their behalf acquire collections for commercial purposes against some kind of arrangement for payment at a later date. If these stamps were once admitted into this country it might be very difficult to refuse to allow payment to be made and this would of course involve an avoidable loss of foreign exchange. In this way an avoidable loss of foreign exchange would still take place.
Concessions are made to members of the Forces in the sending of a limited number of gift parcels of dutiable goods but similar concessions are not readily applicable to postage stamps whose value is often a matter for experts and would not be readily determined by the normal censoring officer. For this reason when a member of the Forces knowing nothing of the regulations sends over his collection of stamps in a letter which is detected by the censorship the stamps are sent to the control, which releases small quantities obviously intended for private purposes and in other cases holds them temporarily as I have described. The control is thus generously administered, but a general immunity from control would give rise to the difficulties to which I have referred. While there is no desire to maintain control longer than is necessary the dominant consideration must be the conserving of exchange and prevention of possible advantage to the enemy. I have answered my noble friend to the best of my ability. He said in his speech that members of the Forces—officers and men—were not aware of these regulations. That may very well be so. There are present in your Lordships' House this afternoon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty and the Under-Secretary of State for Air. I am sure they will note what has been said and I will make it my business to transmit what has been said to my noble friend Lord Croft at the War Office so that we may hope to get these regulations more generally known. As to the suggestions which my noble friend made at the end of his speech I will see that they are passed on to the proper quarter.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I would like to ask my noble friend why it is necessary to differentiate against private persons in favour of the dealer.
3.25 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords, I feel that I must condole with my noble friend who has given such a very unconvincing answer to a very straight question. I think he can scarcely have been satisfied with his own answer and I hope that he will make representations to the noble Lord, Lord Croft, with a view to the matter being gone into much more closely. At this stage of the war we are burdened with regulations which seem to increase instead of decrease. Naturally we have all been ready and willing to accept regulations in the belief that they did some good and that the authorities considered it necessary to burden the population with them, but the more one goes into these things the more it seems that some of these regulations are merely made by the bureaucracy whose duty it is to fill up their time by devising regulations putting burdens on innocent people. This matter touches very closely the censorship. It is a censorship matter and it touches the matter of communications between England and Northern Ireland. Some of your Lordships know the delays which are going on because of this censorship, the things that are taken out of letters by the censor and lost and the number of letters that take a fortnight to get across. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Croft, will take the matter to higher quarters and see whether the censorship cannot be relaxed.
3.27 p.m.
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Marquess in offering sympathy to my noble friend in the matter of the reply he has made to my question. I asked for a fish and if I did not get a stone I certainly got something of the order of a newly hatched minnow. I hope that not only will there be some relaxation of the regulations but also that a better statement will be given of the reasons for them than we have been given so far. I have served in eight countries since 1942 and I know the morale of our Forces is very high. But they are extremely indignant about this question. I am afraid the answer which has been given will cause grave dissatisfaction. I hope the suggestion made by
656
the noble Marquess will be adopted. Having made my protest I think there is nothing left for me but to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Would my noble friend give an answer to the question I asked about differentiation in favour of dealers?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I did not get up to answer my noble friend's question because I did not think that I could do so. If he will allow me to find out I will communicate with him but I cannot answer his question this afternoon. While I am on my feet perhaps I may be allowed to answer the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry. He said he hoped I would bring the matter to the notice of the Under-Secretary of State for War. I said that I would do so.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I am afraid my noble friend did not fully apprehend my suggestion. I said I hoped he would bring the matter to the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Croft, with a view to his taking it to a higher authority.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TRAPS FOR RABBITS.
3.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW THE EARL OF ONSLOW asked His Majesty's Government which counties have been authorized by the Ministry of Agriculture to set steel traps for rabbits in the open, and not in accordance with Clause 5 (1) of the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Act, 1939; how many of these counties have availed themselves of this permission; whether the Minister is satisfied that the operators concerned are thoroughly skilled in the proper methods of setting the traps; and whether he is aware of the danger caused by these traps to birds and animals, other than rabbits, and if so has this been called to the attention of the Committees; and what steps they are taking to avoid it.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in troubling your Lordships with this question I would say just a word or two if your Lordships will permit me. I am not raising the question particularly on the ground of cruelty to rabbits, nor on all the grounds dealt with under the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Act, 1939,

657
which resulted from the work of the Committee presided over by my noble friend Viscount Mersey, who, I regret to say, is not in his place to-night. What I wish to know is what is the real value of these traps if they have any. I gained some experience in this matter when, in order to assist in the destruction of rabbits after the outbreak of the war, I gave leave to a number of people—to the policemen and to a number of persons working on my property—to kill them. This was done most effectively so that now there is hardly a rabbit on the place. The method used for the destruction of the rabbits was, I believe, exclusively that of ferrets and nets. I understand from the war agricultural executive committee of my own county, Surrey, that they have given permission to use steel traps in the open in only a few cases—barely half a dozen in all. I wonder, therefore, whether a campaign against rabbits carried on by these means on such a small scale can be of the slightest value at all, and whether in view of the nuisance caused by these traps set in the open, the method should not—as it could quite easily—be abolished.
I am speaking on behalf of the Society for the Preservation of the Fauna of the Empire, of which I happen to be President. We are anxious to know whether it would not be possible to make some modification at least in this unfortunate Order. The reason is not, as I have said, that of cruelty to rabbits. That is not what we are particularly dealing with at the present moment. The suggestion I put forward is that this method of trapping is quite unnecessary, and it involves the destruction of a large number of birds and animals who get caught in these traps when they are set in the open. A great many birds, we are told, have been caught and killed by these steel traps set in the open. Nobody wants to see that sort of thing happen. As we all know, there are birds which are of great value in connexion with agriculture. If the Natural History Museum were open, your Lordships might go there and see, in the front hall, a glass case in which are displayed specimens of a number of birds which are valuable to agriculture and which, no doubt, are liable to be caught by these traps. I cannot see what value these traps can have. From the evidence we have in Surrey and from what the war agricultural executive committee say I do not believe
658
that they have any value for catching rabbits in large quantities. The only people who seem to me likely to benefit from the use of these traps in this way are poachers and poulterers. I am told that poulterers offer good prices for rabbits which are captured by some method which does not cause such damage as shooting, for example. The poachers, no doubt, if they hear of places where these traps are set will naturally go and steal them, and thereby increase their own gains. I do not see how anybody else benefits very much by this system of trapping.
The information which is available to me suggests that this method, while it does not do any particular good in reducing rabbits in large numbers, does do a considerable amount of harm. One knows that if these traps had been set before the war it would have been against the will of Parliament, and against the will of most people, and those who had done it would have been liable to imprisonment or to being fined. Therefore, my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk and my right honourable friend Mr. Hudson might have found themselves in a very difficult position. But, of course, they have protected themselves by the Order to which I have referred in my question. I do not know whether it will be suggested that great advantage has been derived from the Order. I understand that an inquiry was held a little while before the war, but that there was not time for it to be brought to a conclusion, and therefore any deductions drawn from that inquiry cannot be of great value. I would be very grateful if the noble Duke will tell me the names of the counties which have power to issue these licences and will give me any other information relating to matters touched upon in my question, which he is at liberty to disclose.
3.37 P.m.
LORD CROMWELL: My Lords, if I may interpose before the noble Duke replies, I would like to say just a few words. Perhaps I may claim to have rather special knowledge in this matter, as I am the Chairman of a county war agricultural executive committee. When I read this question, I understood that the noble Earl was placing emphasis on the words "in the open." So far as I am aware it has always been legal—or anyhow it has been legal for some considerable time

659
—to set steel traps, and the only difference between what is being done now and what is permitted under the ordinary law is that they may now be set in the open. The permission has been given by the war agricultural executive committees acting as agents of the Minister. Having said that, may I add that I would not like noble Lords to think that the experience to which the noble Earl has referred, of the county war agricultural executive committee of his county is common, or that the view which that committee appears to have formed is held by the committees of other counties?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I only said that the war agricultural executive committee in my county has issued licences to the number of less than half a dozen, I think. I did not express any opinion otherwise regarding their experience.
LORD CROMWELL: I understood that the noble Earl was saying—and if I am mistaken I apologize—that the view expressed by the war agricultural executive committee of his county was that these traps were of no practical value in destroying rabbits.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: No, that is the deduction I drew. It is my own opinion.
LORD CROMVVELL: I think that is a wrong deduction to draw from such an answer as that given by the Surrey County War Agricultural Executive Committee. I say that in view of the experience of my own committee and of the committees of other counties in which I have had the opportunity of making inquiries. Certainly in my own county, Leicestershire, which I represent as Chairman of the county war agricultural executive committee, our experience has been that there are only two means by which rabbits can be reduced in large numbers. These methods are gassing and the use of steel traps—not set in the open, but put inside the runs and down the holes.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I was speaking entirely of traps set in the open under this Order.
LORD CROMWELL: The noble Earl did not emphasize that point, and I thought that perhaps noble Lords might have misunderstood his question. If he
660
confines his remarks to traps in the open that is another point. But these traps would still be efficacious if set in the open. I do not approve of them being used in that way, and in my county we do not authorize traps to be used in the open at all. My view is that gassing and traps are the only two really efficacious ways of doing away with rabbits when they have become very numerous on any estate. The disadvantage of gassing is that the rabbits are lost for food for the nation. The advantage of traps is that by their use the animals are kept down to a reasonable number, and the ones caught are available for consumption by the people of this country.
3.39 P.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE DUKE OF NORFOLK): My Lords, I think that possibly I had better make it quite clear in fairness to the noble Earl who asked this question that it is specifically stated in the second line of his question, as set out on the Order Paper, that he is asking about authorization "to set steel traps for rabbits in the open." Although the noble Lord who has just sat down was, possibly, referring to steel traps in general, I have taken it that this question deals entirely with steel traps in the open.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If I may interrupt, I would state that it deals entirely with steel traps in the open. They are the only ones which can catch birds.
THE DUKE OF NORFOLK: I will first reply to the various points raised by the noble Earl in his question. All county war agricultural executive committees in England and Wales have been authorized under powers conferred by Defence Regulation 63 (5B) to give authority for the setting of spring traps in the open for the purpose of killing rabbits. Of the 61 counties, 50 have given such authority since the Regulation was made in January, 1941. My right honourable friend the Minister has instructed the committees to take care that the operators concerned are thoroughly instructed in the proper method of setting the traps, and he is satisfied that the committees carry out these instructions. He is aware of the possible danger to birds and animals other than rabbits and, while he has not specifically called the attention of the

661
committees to this danger, he is satisfied that they also are aware of it and that as responsible bodies they may be relied upon to do all in their power to minimize the possibility of injury to birds and other animals.
I think that all your Lordships will agree when I say that the wild rabbit does do an enormous amount of damage to growing crops, and in certain areas, and particularly in woodlands and scrublands, there is really no possible means of destroying the surface-living rabbit except by the use of the steel trap. Gassing and netting in such country as I have described do not meet with any success. It was for that reason that in the national interest the use of extreme methods was considered justifiable, and the prohibition of the use of steel traps in. the open imposed by the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Act, 1939, was removed by this Defence Regulation 63 (5B). I will quote the actual words of that Regulation. It provides:
"Nothing in subsection (1) of Section 5 of the Prevention of Damage by Rabbits Act, 1939 (which restricts the use of spring traps for the purpose of killing hares or rabbits), shall apply to anything done during the continuance in force of this paragraph under an authority given by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and in accordance with such conditions as may be imposed by him."
Under the powers which have been conferred by this Regulation, the Minister authorized the county war agricultural executive committees to give authority for the setting of these traps in the open, but only or the following conditions. First of all, the authority is given by the war agricultural executive committee to the occupier of lands or to trappers, and where the committee are of opinion that the open trapping is necessary in order to effect the destruction of rabbits. Secondly, any spring traps set in the open must be visited at reasonable times, and at least twice every day between sunrise and sunset. The county war agricultural executive committees have further been instructed that where possible they are to reduce the permission which they give to the minimum. That may well answer the question raised by my noble friend regarding the fact that in Surrey some half-dozen only have been given.
I want to emphasize to the noble Earl that, whereas an enormous number of
662
rabbits may not be killed by this method, nevertheless there are cases in which it is not possible to kill rabbits other than by this method, and with the food shortage and the serious position which we are still in, we cannot allow rabbits to breed in certain areas simply because we do not use the one method by which we can keep them down. As I told the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he raised this matter in this House in November last, my right honourable friend has considered very carefully whether he would be justified in withdrawing this war-time regulation, but, owing to the serious shortage of food, he has reluctantly decided that he is not in that position. I would, however, emphasize in conclusion that my right honourable friend and the Ministry of Agriculture consider that gassing is a very efficient means for destroying these rabbits, and we are doing everything possible to minimize the use of this trap in the open. We are satisfied that it is only in the very restricted areas to which I have referred, where we cannot manage with gassing or netting, that these operations are in fact being carried out.
3.44 P.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his very full reply. I am not quite satisfied with it; on the other hand, I am very glad to hear that the restriction on the use of traps in places where other means of destruction can be employed is to be rigorously insisted on, as is shown by the action which my county committee are taking. At the same time it has been shown that it is possible to destroy rabbits by other means than open traps, and therefore that open traps are not really necessary, except in cases where nothing else can be used. In these circumstances I hope that the noble Duke will impress on those with whom he has an opportunity of conferring that the restriction of these traps to a minimum should be proceeded with. I say this in the interests of those animals—and indeed of human beings—who may be caught in these traps, because the traps are a nuisance and a danger to all who come in contact with them.
House adjourned at a quarter before four o'clock.