Lords Sitting of 17 June 1948

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD(LANDS) BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  ASCOT RACE COURSE BILL.
  Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  WILLIAM BROWN NIMMO CHARITABLE TRUST (AMENDMENT)ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.
  CHURCH OF SCOTLAND TRUST (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
  Read 3a, and passed.

  NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED) REGULATIONS.
  4.5 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved. These regulations are all of some importance and perhaps I ought to say a word in support of them; I assure your Lordships it will be a very brief one. Your Lordships will recollect that on April 29 last, you gave a Third Reading to and passed the National Assistance Bill. That measure provides for a comprehensive State service of financial assistance according to need, and it replaces a variety of existing services. The new service is to be administered by the National Assistance Board, and in deciding whether a person is or is not in need
  932
  and as to the extent of his need, the Board, acting through their local officers, must give effect to regulations made by the Minister of National Insurance. But before the Minister can make those regulations, he has to submit them in draft to both Houses of Parliament and obtain approval by an affirmative Resolution. The draft before your Lordships is the draft of the regulations which were debated last evening in another place, found acceptable and approved. I ask your Lordships to adopt this Motion, and substantive regulations in the terms of the draft will then be made to come into operation on July 5. That is the day which is also appointed for the commencement of the National Insurance schemes, the National Health Services Act and the Children Act. So it will become—I am sure your Lordships will agree—a red letter day in the history of social legislation in this country. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, so far as I know, these regulations are quite acceptable. I believe that they have been worked out very carefully, and I know some of the people who have been concerned in working them out. Certainly we, on this side of the House, have no objection to them.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PENSIONS (INCREASE) ACT(EXTENSION) ORDER, 1948.
  LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Pensions (Increase) Act (Extension) Order, 1948, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Pensions (Increase) Act (Extension) Order, 1948, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament.—(Lord Walkden.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented by the Lords with White Staves.

  AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  4.8 p.m.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of Amendments read.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
  Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Morrison.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I, at the outset, make one general statement? On page 7 of this Bill an amendment to the draft has been made without authority of the House. From line 24 on that page "subsection (1)" has been removed before the words "section thirty-seven" I would like confirmation from His Majesty's Government that that amendment is correct.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the answer to the noble Earl is that Clause 37 of the Bill as originally introduced contained two subsections. Subsection (2) was deleted by Amendment in the House of Commons. Consequently, what had been subsection (1) of Clause 37 became the whole context of Clause 37. The deletion of the words "subsection (1)" was therefore carried out as a matter of consequential printing correction in exactly the same way as subsections in a clause are re-numbered when a subsection is added or dropped out or clauses in a Bill are re-numbered when a new clause is inserted. As an illustration, may I point out that the noble Earl has an Amendment in the form of a new clause on the Paper to-day. I am not going to say now whether it will be accepted or not, but if it were accepted the whole of the numbers of the clauses subsequent to that would have to be amended. Those alterations would not require any special notice; such things are done as a matter of form. It is, indeed, a matter of everyday use. The making of such corrections takes place in nearly all Bills, and it is a necessary practice if the sense of a Bill is to be preserved following Amendments.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Compensation for disturbance]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (7), to omit "six" and insert "nine" The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is in the nature of a drafting
  934
  Amendment, designed to give effect to a suggestion made in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the period of six months stipulated in subsection (7) of Clause 5 should be altered to nine months to bring it into line with the period of nine months stipulated in subsection (1) (a) of the clause. I am grateful to the noble Earl for having drawn attention to the point.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 12, leave out ("six") and insert ("nine").—(Lord Morrison.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Restrictions on termination by notice of tenancies of holdings]:
  7.—(1) Where notice to quit a holding or part of a holding is given to the tenant there of, and not later than one month from the giving of the notice to quit the tenant serves on the landlord notice in writing requiring that this subsection shall apply to the notice to quit, then, subject to the provisions of the next following subsection, the notice to quit shall not have effect unless the Secretary of State consents to the operation thereof.
  (2) The last foregoing subsection shall not apply—
  (c) where permanent pasture has been let so that subsection (5) of section five of this Act applies to the lease;
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (2) after paragraph (c) to insert:
  (d) Where the notice to quit relates to the garden of a dwelling house which garden was immediately prior to being let in one occupation with such dwelling house and such dwelling house has not been let to the tenant of the garden."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friends, Lord Kinnaird and the Earl of Arlie, who have both asked me to say how much they regret that they are unable to be present to-day owing to important public business in Scotland. Your Lordships will remember that in Committee we moved an Amendment to this clause with the object of excluding gardens and private policies from the security of tenure provisions of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, was able to come some way to meet us on the question of policies, for which we are duly grateful. He also showed some sympathy on the matte of gardens, but

  935
  explained that there were certain difficulties in making a provision to cover them. I do not intend to go over the whole ground again and repeat the reasons for excluding gardens from the security of tenure provisions. This Amendment is a straightforward attempt to meet the case. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, said on Committee stage that he would look into the matter again to see if there were any possibility of meeting a straightforward case, and I hope that this Amendment may be able to supply that possibility. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 41, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the noble Lord has given a perfectly accurate account of what happened at a previous stage. For reasons which I will now explain and which I hope will satisfy the noble Lord, I am sorry I am unable to accept the Amendment. We discussed in Committee an Amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and I said that any cases of gardens should be considered on their merits within the general framework of the clause. It is true that I undertook to consider further what I described as the case of the "straightforward" garden, to see whether it were possible to achieve a definition of such a garden which could not, as I put it, open the door too wide to a whole variety of questions that might arise. I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving the present Amendment, which I appreciate has been prepared in a sincere endeavour to meet the suggestion I made in Committee.
  I have carefully considered this matter, in conjunction with my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State, and I should like to give one or two reasons why the Amendment cannot be accepted. It must be kept in mind that Clause 7, as a whole, represents a careful definition of Government policy, applicable both to England and to Scotland, on this very vexed question of the measure of increased security of tenure which should be given to our tenant farmers in the wider context of the Government's agricultural policy as a whole. From this point of view, a garden, once let on lease for agricultural purposes, becomes just as much an agricultural holding as would ten acres
  936
  of land or a whole farm. That being so, and keeping in mind the general layout of the clause, there is no reason why resumption as of right should be allowed in the case of a garden let on lease any more than in the case of any other agricultural subject. The Secretary of State, after consideration of the views expressed in your Lordships' House, is not inclined for his part to agree to any exception being made in the clause in the case of garden ground, and he is satisfied that in another place a very firm stand would be taken on this question. He is not disposed to agree to any whittling away from the general principles of the clause by the inclusion of further exceptions to its provisions.
  Your Lordships will recognise, I hope, that the clause as it stands permits all the circumstances of each individual case to be brought to the Secretary of State for investigation, and that the Secretary of State may be relied upon to exercise the discretion accorded to him under the clause in a fair and equitable manner. Moreover, when the decision of the Secretary of State is not acceptable to either party concerned, there is a right of appeal to the Land Court, a body which, as your Lordships have assured me in another connection, possesses the confidence and respect of owners of land throughout Scotland. Under the clause, the Land Court will be in a position to examine the the facts of the case de novo and to reach an independent and binding decision in the matter. In view of the fact that the clause as it stands is specially designed to ensure that full opportunity should exist for a proper consideration of any application by an owner for consent to a notice to quit where a tenant objects to its becoming effective; in view of the fact that there is full scope for appeal to the Land Court if the decision of the Secretary of State is not acceptable to either of the parties; and in view of the fact that the clause as a whole represents firm Government policy on this question, I hope that the noble Lord will be willing not to press his Amendment further.
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his extremely detailed reply. I cannot say we were particularly optimistic that the Government would budge on this point, and we certainly do not intend to press it. I can only say that we will put

  937
  the situation on record. We feel that owners in future will not be well advised to let their private gardens on lease, but will be well advised to take every possible step to keep their gardens in hand and, if necessary, have the cultivation, and so on, carried out on contract rather than to enter into a lease. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
  "(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply with respect to any part of a holding which part of a holding is temporarily in the occupation of and worked by the tenant or occupier of an adjoining holding where the landlord on the termination of the agreement under which the said part of a holding is so occupied is desirous in the interests of efficient farming that it should revert to the holding of which it previously formed part."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment with slight variations in order to meet the minor request which the noble Lord made on Committee stage. This again deals with the much vexed question of Clause 7. I particularly regret that the noble Lord should say that it represents Government policy. If this was covered in the English Bill, it means that we are discussing something which has already been decided when we come to the Scottish Bill. Was this matter already decided? If that is the case, why were we not told? I took no part in the discussions on the English Bill, but had I known this I would then have advanced the argument. It is most unfair to have a Bill decided before it comes to this House, and then for it to be said that we cannot amend it.
  The point is that a tenant farmer would be allowed to let a field to a neighbouring farmer if he does not want to farm it himself. It allows a certain amount of mobility and prevents fixity on a certain type of farm. Clause 7 applies only to sub-tenants or to owner-occupiers; it does not strictly apply to the landlord at all. There are two grounds on which the owner-occupier is able to regain his farm under Clause 7. One is that he can show that it is in the interests of efficient farming, and the other that he can show hardship. If those are the only reasons for which he can get back his field, he will let it in circumstances where he can show quite definitely that he is a
  938
  more efficient farmer than the other man, and where he is sure that the other man cannot claim hardship. In other words, he will let it to a man who is a bad farmer and comparatively well off. It is much harder to tell a "hard luck" story against some one who is not so well off than it is to tell one against somebody who is well off. I suggest that in the interests of efficient farming there should not be this fixity of tenure, which will prevent farmers who, through age or other circumstances, desire to let their own field to their neighbour, from so doing. I submit that this is not an incursion even into the policy of Clause 7; it is simply an extension of what I have described as neighbourliness, which has been going on all the time.
  The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said that he has great experience in dealing with hardship in relation to houses. With, great respect, hardship in land has nothing to do with hardship in houses. Everybody should have a house, and it is one of the hardships in this country that they have not. But one car not possibly say that because a man has not got a farm, that in itself is a hardship. I mention that matter only in passing. The real issue is that farms will not be let, except in conditions where the man who is to farm them is not efficient, and where he cannot tell a "hard luck" story. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 49, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, to begin with, I must say that I do not accept the noble Earl's statement with regard to what I said on the previous Amendment, that Government policy merely means slavishly following the English Act. The sense in which I used the term "Government policy," as I think he will appreciate if he reflects for a moment, does not mean English Government policy but the policy of the Government as a whole, in which Scotland, as well as England, is included. It was to the policy of the Government as a whole, and not to the English section alone, to which I was referring. The noble Earl is correct in saying that, when I spoke on the Amendment in the Committee stage of this Bill, I assumed—erroneously as it turned out, and I admitted it immediately afterwards

  939
  —that the noble Earl might not have subtenancies in mind. I now understand that that was, in fact, what he intended, although he is also concerned about the letting of parts of their holdings by owner-occupiers. So far as owner-occupiers are concerned, there can be no question of sub-letting. If an owner-occupier lets his land, he creates not a sub-tenancy but a tenancy. I am afraid the termination of such a tenancy will have to be left to be dealt with under the provisions of the clause. On this footing, if the basis of an application for the Secretary of State's consent to a notice to quit is to secure more efficient farming, and the owner-occupier can establish the point, he need have no apprehension as to the decision. Moreover, if he has let the land for a fixed and definite period, he can found his application on hardship as well as on efficient farming.
  On the question of hardship, I should like to take this opportunity of emphasising that hardship is not confined to financial hardship. I appreciate the argument of the noble Earl, that there is a substantial difference between hardship in a person not having a house in which to live and hardship in regard to land. But when hardship is pleaded in regard to houses, it is not financial considerations that are important. I would emphasise that in cases such as the noble Earl has mentioned, hardship is not confined to financial hardship.
  Sub-letting is a matter between tenants and their sub-tenants, and except where, in sub-letting, a tenant is in breach of the terms of his lease, the landlord does not normally come into the picture until the termination of the lease he has granted to his own tenant. It has been recognised that the question of sub-tenancies requires special consideration and exceptional treatment. Noble Lords will be aware that in subsection (8) (e) of the clause the Secretary of State is empowered to make regulations, on the one hand, for excluding the application of subsection (1) in relation to sub-tenancies in such cases as may be prescribed and, on the other hand, for safeguarding the interests of sub-tenants. In view of what I have said on the previous Amendment, and repeated in my first sentence in regard to this one, about the careful manner in which this clause has been framed to
  940
  reflect the Government policy on this important question, and for the reasons which I have stated, I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The noble Lord has not in any way met my point that tenants will be reluctant to let their farms to neighbours, because they have no assurance of getting them back; and that if they do so it will be in circumstances not desired by this Bill. However, I do not propose to press the matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.20 p.m.
  Clause 11 [Variation of rent of holdings]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to omit "of an arbiter." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, which is of a drafting character, has been put down following consideration of a suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in Committee. He suggested that it should be made clear that in cases where arbitration as to the rent of a holding is undertaken by the Land Court instead of by an arbiter, the date of any direction by the Court that the rent of the holding should continue unchanged should rank as the commencement of the five years' period which must elapse before it is competent for the tenant to apply again for revision of his rent. The deletion of the words "of an arbiter" will, it is hoped, give effect to the noble Earl's suggestion. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 5, leave out ("of an arbiter").—(Lord Morrison.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 25:
  Construction, citation and application of Part I.
  (2) Without prejudice to section forty of the Act of 1923 (which relates to land belonging to His Majesty in right of the Crown) it is hereby declared that the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1923 and 1931, and this Part of this Act and the Schedules therein referred to apply to land notwithstanding that the interest of the landlord or the tenant thereof belongs to a government department or is held on behalf of His

  941
  Majesty for the purposes of any government department; but in the application thereof to any land belonging, or an interest in which is held, as aforesaid the said provisions shall have effect subject to such modifications as may be prescribed.
  4.30 p.m.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (2), after "such" to insert "necessary" The noble Lord said: My Lords, some of your Lordships will remember that we moved a similar Amendment to this on Committee stage. The object was to ensure that the last words of Clause 25 did not, in fact, enable the Government or a Government Department to evade their responsibilities as an owner or occupier of land. Those are the responsibilities laid down in the first Part of this Bill with regard to good estate management, good husbandry, the provisions of security of tenure and so on. On both the Second Reading and on Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, gave; us assurances that any modifications which were intended to be made in the case of Government Departments would be modifications of procedure only. I should like to make it quite clear to the noble Lord that I have complete faith in his assurances as such, but I am certain that most of us would agree that assurances are not a satisfactory substitute for something in the Bill. We have seen before how assurances have not been kept. In fact, I always feel that it is a little unfair to allow Government spokesmen to offer assurances, because they themselves can give no guarantee that those assurances will not subsequently be departed from.
  When I moved the Amendment on Committee stage, the noble Lord said that it was not sufficiently wide in its terms to cover all the matters which it might be necessary to deal with by way of regulation. This Amendment is an effort to meet that case. We propose to say "such necessary modifications" I hope that that is a suitable phrase. It occurs in at least two other places in this Bill. If your Lordships would look at Clause 72, with regard to proceedings of the Land Court, it says:
  "The provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, with regard to the Land Court shall, with any necessary modifications, apply.…"
  942
  Again in Clause 77 (3):
  "Regulations shall be made by the Secretary of State—
  (d) for applying, subject to any necessary modifications.…"
  and so on. I think both those cases are close parallels to the ones we are considering, and they are modifications as regards procedure. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 20, alter ("such") insert ("necessary").—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, it might be as well if I dealt with the noble Lord's last point first, and admit at once that the words "necessary modifications" do appear elsewhere in the Bill. In Clause 72 there is no question of prescription by regulations, and the reference is to such minimum, modifications as are necessary to reconcile the differing codes covered by the Small Landholders and the Agricultural Holdings Acts respectively. Reference is also made in Clause 77 to "necessary modifications" and in Clause 78 to "such modifications as may be required." But, as I have already said, the circumstances are not strictly comparable with those affecting procedure only in Clause 25, with which we are dealing now.
  The noble Lord is perfectly correct when he says that I gave an assurance, and I am a little surprised that he does not accept the assurance but has put down the Amendment again. The assurance that I gave was, broadly speaking, that any modifications to be made will be modifications as to procedure. But I would remind the noble Lord that, apart from my assurance—which may not be worth much in his opinion—prescription will be by way of statutory instrument and Parliament, which will have the opportunity of approving or disapproving any proposed modifications. In view of the fact that Parliament will have the opportunity of approving or disapproving any modifications, I am sure that the noble Lord will not expect Parliament to be called upon to consider modifications which are not necessary. In the light of that fact, perhaps the noble Lord would not wish to pursue his Amendment further.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, does the noble Lord really think that there would be no unnecessary modifications? If so, why not put the word in? It would not in any way restrict the power the noble Lord wishes to use.
  LORD MORRISON: I think the answer to that question is that it is most undesirable that the way should be left open for anybody to question in the courts the need for any modifications Parliament has approved.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, the noble Lord has rather let the cat out of the bag. The real anxiety is that these modifications—which I think I am right in saying require only negative approval —should in any way be questioned by the courts. We all know that the one anxiety of a bureaucrat to-day is to see that his decision shall not be questioned by the courts. This is a question of principle, and I hope that the noble Lord will say that he feels strongly upon this matter. It certainly is a point of principle and is not a small matter.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, if I may be permitted to address your Lordships again, I would like to welcome the intervention of the noble Earl into our Scottish affairs. I hope it will continue and that we may hear from him frequently in these debates, because I am sure that his excellent knowledge of agriculture would do Scotland a great deal of good. May I say that I am advised—when I get into legal matters, as the noble Lord said, I am completely out of my depth and, therefore, I use the term "I am advised"—that the regulations might, for example, prescribe that a particular type of case should be dealt with by the Land Court instead of by the Secretary of State. But it is not "necessary"—that is the noble Lord's word—that the Court should deal with the case, although it might be desirable in the view of the Secretary of State. Any other body or person might act equally well—the sheriff's court, an arbiter or even a local policeman. If, therefore, the Amendment should restrict the modification to what is necessary, it might prove to be impossible to make desirable modifications in procedure.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Does that mean that unnecessary modifications may be put in the Bill? The converse to restricting
  944
  the Bill to modifications which are necessary, is to allow unnecessary modifications to be made under the Bill. I cannot understand why this word "necessary" should not be inserted. Personally, I welcome the intervention, of my noble friend Lord De La Warr in this discussion, because he has a wide knowledge of these things, and I hope that he will often intervene on behalf of Scotland. I believe the whole body of opinion is in favour of this word "necessary" which, as my noble friend has said, already appears in two other clauses of the Bill. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to accept the Amendment.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I am sorry, but I am unable to accept this Amendment. I am advised that if the modifications must be contained in regulations which have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, it is unnecessary to put in that they shall be necessary modifications. No one would imagine that both Houses of Parliament are going to pass modifications which are unnecessary.
  LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lords who have supported me on this point. I cannot say that I am entirely satisfied with the reply. I never for a moment doubted the sincerity of the noble Lord's assurance—I hope he does not think that. I merely pointed out that these assurances are not always lived up to in the future. I do not intend to press this point, but I would point out that so long as the Government take this attitude there is bound to be considerable suspicion about their intentions. I should have thought that if they wished the country to regard their actions without suspicion they would have included this word in the Bill. However, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 25 to insert the following new clause:
  "The provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to any holding to which the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, respectively apply."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to move this Amendment, omitting the last

  945
  word but one—the word "respectively." There is in this no question of principle, I think, except that I believe it is a principle in your Lordships' House—and, indeed, it is our duty—to see that legislation, which affects the man in the street, is clear, comprehensible and such as to enable him to comply with the law without undue difficulty.
  What I seek in this Amendment is to make quite clear that Part I of this Bill, which deals with tenancies, does not apply to small holders. In Scotland, there are two entirely separate systems of land holding: the landlord and tenant system and the small holder system. They bear no relation to each other whatsoever, and they are dealt with by separate Acts of Parliament. It appears to me that the first Part of this Bill is construed as being one with the 1923 Act, and the noble Lord appears to imagine that that confines application of Part I to agricultural holdings. "Agricultural holdings" means, every single form of agricultural land in the country. I have already ventured to read to your Lordships the relevant passage in the 1923 Act, and that leaves no doubt whatsoever that it covers every form of agriculture, from market gardening upwards.
  I do not think the Government wish to upset the small holder system. It started with the crofters in 1886, and was a simple solution of an extremely difficult problem which arose after 1745 and the big changes in the structure of life in the Eighteenth Century. I am certain that the Government do not intend to upset that, but large passages in Part I of the Bill are directly contrary to the whole principle on which those Acts proceed. It should be made quite clear to the crofter and the small holder that that Part of the Bill does not apply to them. With great respect, I think it falls to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, to explain the matter in simple and concise language. I raised this point on the Committee stage, and the noble Lord replied:
  "My information is that they are excluded, except in so far as other Acts of Parliament may apply to them."
  I do not know what that means, but even if it meant anything—and it might —all I can say is that the Amendment which I am moving does not refer to other Acts of Parliament; it refers only
  946
  to this Part of this Bill. Therefore, it appears to be exactly what the noble Lord had in mind. As I have said, there is nothing in principle between us, except that I feel very much more strongly than the noble Lord does the need of making the Statute abundantly clear. It is utterly inexcusable that there should be made a Statute in which there is any dubiety about the intention of the Government. We are shortly to have a consolidation of agricultural Acts. Now is the lime to see that the meaning is clear, and that there is no dubiety as to the intention. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
  ("The provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to any holding to which the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, apply.")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  4.45 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, it is certainly correct that the noble Earl has been persistent, both in your Lordships' House and in the discussions we have had on the subject in the precincts of the House, in his endeavour to secure amendment in the sense now proposed. I do not blame him for being persistent, because I recognise that he feels strongly that something is lacking. But as a layman—and I frankly acknowledge my extreme reluctance and complete unfitness to embark on the discussion of and tenure in Scotland, a system of tenure which is unique, which has been evolved for many generations, and which is full of legal and other intricacies—I cannot help feeling that the noble Earl is attempting to do something that might have been done equally well in 1886, in 1911, in 1923 or in 1931—all milestones in the relevant legislation. It may be, as the noble Earl has just indicated, that there is room for clarification and codification of the long series of Acts that relate to land tenure in Scotland. But I am satisfied that this stage of the present Bill is not the appropriate occasion for attempting something that is not so simple and straightforward as the noble Earl appears to imagine. I hope the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment if I outline some reasons—in my opinion good reasons—for which, as I am advised, it is unacceptable.

  947
  It is suggested that because small holdings and agricultural holdings have in common the feature that they are both holdings of agricultural land, and are held by a tenant from a landlord, any enactment relating to an agricultural holding will apply to a small holding. That is not so. The position is that small holdings are a special class within the general class of agricultural holdings, and are subject to a separate statutory code differing in many respects from the agricultural holdings code. Let me give a few examples. First, certain categories of land can be the subject of a lease under the Agricultural Holdings Acts but cannot be small holdings within the Landholders Acts; secondly, the landholder is subject to special requirements in relation to the use and cultivation of his holding; thirdly, special provisions apply in relation to the fixing of the rent of a small holding; fourthly, a landholder has, subject to statutory conditions, complete security of tenure; fifthly, there is a special right of succession to a small holding; sixthly, there are special provisions with respect to a landholder's right to compensation for improvements made by him. There are other specialities, but the foregoing should suffice to show that the holding within the Landholders Acts is the subject of a distinctive code of law.
  The landholders code and the agricultural holdings code have existed side by fide for a very long period. It does not, however, appear ever to have been suggested before that it is legitimate to apply to small holdings the law relating to agricultural holdings, except in so far as Parliament has expressly so directed. The indications, in fact, point the other way. The fact that there are two codes under different names shows that the Legislature intended to give different treatment to the two types of holding, and to treat them separately. It is further evidence of the intention to keep the codes separate that where Parliament has desired to incorporate any part of the agricultural holdings code into the landholders code, Parliament has made express provision to that end. There is, moreover, the well-known rule of statutory construction, that where Parliament has passed special legislation for a special class, that special legislation is not to be regarded as varied or derogated from by general legislation, unless Parliament expressly so provides.
  948
  In the present case, Part I of the Bill is to be construed along with the Agricultural Holdings Acts of 1923 and 1931. It has never been suggested that the provisions of those Acts are applicable to small holdings in lieu of the provisions of the Landholders Acts, and there is therefore no ground for suggesting that Part I of the Bill can be applied to small holdings in lieu of the landholders code. I realise that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has given much close study to this point. I am sure he will realise from the lengthy and considered reply which I have given that the Secretary of State and his advisers have not treated my noble friend's Amendment lightly but, on the contrary, have given it long and detailed consideration. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl may now be more satisfied in his mind, at least to a sufficient extent that he may not wish to press this matter further.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, in the interests of clarity I should like to say that there are two types of tenant. There is the landholder and there is the small holder. We always keep them quite apart, because they sit under entirely different codes. I take it that, when the noble Lord was replying and he referred to small holdings, he meant landholdings, which are held by landholders' tenure. I want to ask the noble Lord to make it perfectly clear because there are those two types of tenant.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, may I venture to intervene for a moment? I realise that it is most unusual for anybody other than a Scotsman or an agriculturist to intervene in a discussion of this sort, but I do so because I have followed the discussion. Although I am neither a Scotsman nor an agriculturist, and I do not make the smallest claim to have any special intimacy with the land codes of Scotland, I have followed with attention what the noble Lord opposite has said. If the noble Lord will excuse my saying so—and I hope he will accept it as a compliment—I should like to say that, if he makes many more speeches like the one which he last delivered, he will be well on the way to becoming an accomplished expert on the subject of Scots land law, which I am not. But with great respect to the noble Lord, it seems to me that to a large extent he was addressing himself to the wrong point. He gave abundant reasons—I followed

  949
  them clearly—for saying: "The Government do not intend Part I of the Bill to apply to these small holdings, these crofts." I am quite convinced that they do not because, even with my small knowledge of this subject, I can see clauses in Part I which would be quite inapplicable to such cases. That is clear to me. But that was not the point of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. His point was: "Ought not this Bill to make the position quite clear, so that the ordinary people, the crofters, can understand it?"
  The way in which I should have thought it would present itself was this. Of course, there are in Scotland, not two systems but at any rate a general system of land tenure, upon which has been imposed, by way of exception, the very special code—the code for the tenure of small landholders, originating, as my noble friend said, in the Crofters Acts. The first question is: Is Part I of this Act intended to apply to small holdings, as distinguished from the ordinary agricultural holdings? I am perfectly confident that the answer to that question is "No." If I may say so, the noble Lord gave a number of reasons why that must be the intention of the Government. Very well; be it so. But the next question is: "Is it quite clear in this Bill, as clear as it might be, that that is the intention and meaning of Part I?" If we suppose that some crofters—and there are many intelligent crofters—buy a copy of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act of this Session and read Part I, will it be quite plain to them that Part I does not apply to small holdings?
  I am afraid that I do not accept one statement which the noble Lord made in that part of his speech which dealt with the legal position. I do not know these things for myself, but I happen to have here a copy of the Encyclopœdia of the Laws of Scotland, a compilation which was controlled by the late Viscount, Lord Dunedin. This is the volume that contains an article on the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts. I see that the author of this article is J. S. C. Reid, who is none other than the present Member for Hillhead in another place, and was Lord Advocate. Admittedly, he is a person of the highest authority on this sort of subject. I turn to page 242 of this volume, written by Mr. Reid, and I find that he says this about the Agricul-
  950
  tural Holdings (Scotland) Act—not the Small Holdings Act but the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act. He refers to the definition of "holding" in that Act, in Section 49. He goes on to say:
  "This definition provides for no minimum size, and accordingly includes holdings which come within the scope of the Small Holdings Acts"
  It is not for me to say whether or not that is right. All I know is that here is a very considerable authority, writing in this most authoritative book which was supervised by the late Viscount, Lord Dunedin, than whom there has been no greater lawyer of this generation, either in England or in Scotland. In those circumstances I think it not unreasonable for my noble friend Lord Selkirk to ask: "What is the objection to making this plain?"
  Do your Lordships recall that when the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, was making his speech, he did not dispute that "clarification"—that was his word—was needed? He seemed to think, however (as it often appears to those instructing speakers on the Government side, whatever the Government may be), that this was not a suitable occasion for clarification. That is what the noble Lord slid. It has been recorded. He did not deny that clarification might be required, but he said that this was not a "suitable occasion" for it. Why is that so? Why should not we at any rate make a beginning, and clarify the Bill in the way which my noble friend suggests? I am perfectly willing to believe that, if you put this matter before a skilled lawyer—I could even do it, myself, although I do not know Scots law—the conclusion he would come to would be that this Part does not apply to these crofts and crofters. But nobody can say that, on the face of this Bill, that is entirely clear. I know that in the legislation of Scotland there is this contrast. I observe merely that the definition of "holding" in the Agricultural Holdings Act is, according to the opinion of these very great authorities, a definition which does not provide for the exclusion of the crofts and, accordingly, includes holdings which come within the scope of the Small Holdings Act. The noble Lord has told us that he does not mean that at all, and I am perfectly sure the Secretary of State does not mean it. We are, unfortunately, rather deprived of advice on the subject of Scots law at the moment.

  951
  To everybody's deep regret, Lord Thankerton has left us, and the other Law Lord from Scotland is not available. In another place, there are Members able to argue this matter, and I have no doubt that the Lord Advocate on the one side, and Mr. Reid on the other, could put it straight in no time. There seems to be a good deal to be said for inserting this Amendment here, in this House, if only for the purpose of having it made clear by the great authorities on this subject who are Members of another place.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, as a layman I intervene with some hesitation in a matter which so closely concerns lawyers, but I do so as a layman who at one time had occasion to administer the land laws of Scotland. I am puzzled about this matter. It is quite clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has said that the Government do not intend Part I to apply to crofters. I would underline the importance of the area known as the Crofting Counties in Scotland, and I fear that if the Bill passes as it stands there will at least be some doubt in the minds of many people throughout a wide area in Scotland as to whether, unintentionally, Part I of this Act should apply to them, and thereby produce a chaotic state of affairs. Lord Morrison has clearly shown us that it would be most unwise to attempt to apply Part I of the Act to crofters. I therefore underline the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount that it may be necessary that this should go back to another place to be cleared up by the law officers concerned. There is no point of principle between us. None of us wishes to apply this Part of the Bill to the crofters and yet, on high legal authority which I am unable to analyse, there seems to be a definite doubt as to whether it might be so applied.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, with the consent of your Lordships, I will make a brief reply. I am advised that in this matter there has been no difficulty up to now with regard to any of the previous measures that I mentioned. Small holders and crofters in Scotland are perfectly well aware of all their rights and, so far as I am advised, there has never been any doubt; nor is there likely to be now. I was impressed by the noble and learned Viscount's reference to Mr. Reid,
  952
  of whom I have pleasant memories from another place. Mr. Reid has written a book on this subject. As an ordinary person, I feel that it is an extraordinary thing that Mr. Reid, who was a leader of the Opposition in regard to this Bill when it was discussed word by word and line by line in another place, and who had written a book about it, did not even mention this point, nor did any other honourable Member of another place. Far be it from me to put myself in such a high position as Mr. Reid as a great authority on this matter, but if I had written a book (especially such a big book as that), I certainly would have made reference to it.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: I think I ought to intervene to say that this is a collection of articles on a series of subjects—for instance, on animals, appeals, apprentices, arbitrations and so on. It is not all on this subject.
  LORD MORRISON: What I was going to say was that the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, with all his experience, apparently did not think of it when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. If I may say so with all due modesty, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that clarification is needed, but I doubt whether he would say that the Report stage of a Bill which has already been through all its stages in another place, and been through Second Reading and the Committee stage here, is the point at which to embark upon what may be a considerable undertaking. To be perfectly plain and straightforward—as I hope I always am—I have no authority at all to accept any suggestion of sending this Bill back to another place, and I must leave it to noble Lords opposite to do what they think is wise and prudent.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I hope we shall not get "hot under the collar" about this matter. We all accept the noble Lord as one of the most straightforward of our friends; but, if I may say so with great respect, he has somewhat misconceived what the function of this House is. He said that it is an extraordinary thing that here was a Bill which went through another place and, although that place contained great Scots lawyers, attention was not drawn to this matter, and it has now come to your Lordships' House and has reached the Report stage, where it is raised for the

  953
  first time. As a matter of fact, that is not so, because this particular point was raised here by my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, on Second Reading. As Mr. Morrison—Morrison minor—has said, the essential function of this House is to revise and to look and see what are the points which have been overlooked. I make the noble Lord a present of this—that none of the great lawyers on his side of the House, nor on ours, raised this point in another place when this Bill was being considered. But if it is a good point, that is all the more reason for raising it here; and, with great respect, I submit that it is a good point.
  There is no question of principle between us. The noble Lord says that the Government do not want this Bill to apply to that kind of holding. But there is a genuine doubt—and we should not have raised this point if we had not consulted with Scottish lawyers about it—as to whether the Government's intention is being carried out. Surely if there is the faintest doubt about that, it is not sensible for us, that doubt having been raised, to leave it to either a small holder or a large holder to resort to litigation and get the matter settled in the Courts. Let us accept this Amendment and put it in now. Let it go back to another place, where it was never considered, and, if the great lawyers in another place are agreed that this is an improvement—a question which they can agree in two minutes—then the matter will stand. If they are agreed that the words are unnecessary they can strike
  Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
  them out, and I do not think we have a great constitutional issue about it. But I am quite clear what our duty here is—to put these words in, for the sake of clarification and to give the other place a chance of saying whether they agree.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding on this point. I would suggest that the noble Lord should consider whether there is any point that would be carried by accident. Why not take it back and consider it and let us bring it up on the Third Reading? There will be time to do that.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, may I, with your Lordships' permission make one point? I would like to withdraw this Amendment, and move it again, not as a new clause but as a new subsection (3) to Clause 25. I believe that will be more satisfactory.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 23, line 21, at end insert:
  ("(3) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to any holding to which the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, apply")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  On Question, Whether the said subsection shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 37, Not-Contents, 12.

  CONTENTS.

  Sutherland, D.

  Elibank, V.

  Hatherton, L. [Teller.]

  Long, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.

  Margesson, V.

  Killearn, L.

  Reading, M.

  Simon, V.

  Llewellin L.

  Swinton, V.

  Lloyd, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  O'Hagan, L

  De La Warr, E.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Polwarth. L [Teller.]

  Munster, E.

  Broughshane, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Portsmouth, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Rochdale L.

  Rothes, E.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Saltoun, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Stanmore, L.

  Clwyd, L.

  Teviot, L.

  Arbuthnott, V.

  Clydesmuir, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Addison, V.

  Henderson, L.

  Nathan, L.

  Hall, V.

  Holden, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  Stansgate, V.

  Milverton, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Morrison, L.

  Walkden, L. [Teller.]

  Chorley, L. [Teller.]

  5.17 p.m.
  Clause 27:
  Powers of Secretary of State in cases of bad estate management or bad husbandry.
  27.—(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the owner of agricultural land is not fulfilling his responsibilities to manage the land in accordance with the rules of good estate management, or that the occupier of an agricultural unit is not fulfilling his responsibilities to farm the unit in accordance with the rules of good husbandry, the Secretary of State may, after affording to the owner or the occupier, as the case may be, an opportunity of making representations to the Secretary of State, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State, serve on such owner or occupier a notice (hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as a "warning notice") to that effect, and so long as such notice continues in force—

  (a) any person authorised by the Secretary of State in that behalf may at all reasonable times enter upon the land to which the notice relates for the purpose of inspecting the way in which it is being managed or farmed, as the case may be;

  (b) the Secretary of State shall have the powers of direction and dispossession conferred by the following provisions of this Part of this Act.

  For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the fact that a person is both the occupier of the unit and also the owner of the unit or part thereof does not prevent the serving of notices under this subsection both in relation to farming and in relation to management.
  (2) A warning notice served under the last foregoing subsection shall specify the general grounds on which the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) of this section.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (2):
  "and shall also specify so far as practicable in what respects the person on whom the notice has been served has failed to observe the rules of good estate management or of good husbandry as the case may be prescribed in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules respectively"
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, I beg to move this Amendment. This, or a similar Amendment, was moved during the Committee stage, and Lord Morrison then said:
  "I would ask the noble Duke to leave it over to the Report stage so that I may give him a definite answer in regard to the other suggestion he has made"
  This Amendment is proposed to enable some degree of general specification to
  956
  be made in the cases of warning notices. The original Amendment, it was suggested, was too narrow and laid down too precise grounds, so we have now put down this Amendment requiring that such information as is practicable shall be given. The idea is that the warning notice should be as helpful as possible, in order to enable the farmer, if he so wishes, to better his ways and thereby to improve the standard of agriculture. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 24, line 23, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I am sorry to say that the addition of the words to which the noble Earl has just referred does not remove the objections which I raised during the Committee stage, when I was unable to accept the previous Amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch. Whatever interpretation one places on the word "practicable," it is clear that the acceptance of this Amendment would make it necessary for the Secretary of State, when issuing a warning notice, to specify in precise detail the grounds on which the notice was based. I will not weary your Lordships by repeating the arguments I have already advanced in Committee, in an endeavour to show that the person concerned will have every opportunity to be fully informed of his shortcomings before the warning notice is actually issued to him. To attempt to specify the precise details in the notice would involve the issue of a succession of intimations, at different dates, as fresh breaches of the rules occurred and would prejudice or render difficult any subsequent proceedings that might be necessary if no improvement were forthcoming. It might not be inconceivable that an ingenious landlord or tenant could play off a Committee by remedying a specific deficiency—while allowing others to develop—in such a way as to prevent for many years the exercise of effective sanctions against him.
  The detailed statement envisaged by this Amendment would not be of value in the event of later proceedings before the Land Court. It is more than probable that the ultimate evidence on which the Committee seek to dispossess the owner or occupier may relate very largely to

  957
  matters which had not arisen when the warning notice was served, and which could not therefore have been specified if a detailed statement had been sent at that time. A detailed statement in writing would thus be of no advantage, either to the recipient or to the Land Court. I am sorry to appear unsympathetic to the desire to amend this clause. All I can say, in conclusion, is that the point raised in this Amendment has been fully considered by the Government during the earlier stages of the Bill, both in another place and in your Lordships' House, and they have reached the conclusion that they cannot see their way to amend the clause in the manner suggested.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should like to ask two questions. Will a warning notice state simply and barely that the recipient is a bad farmer, or will there be some degree of specification? The second question appears to come from the answer to the first. Is it correct to say that a notice will be given for one reason—concerned, say, with sheep—and the eviction for something entirely different?
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, my conception of what will happen is that the first indication given will be that the person concerned will be called upon to interview the agricultural executive committee of his area. In the general discussion which will take place, he will be left in no doubt whatever about what are the complaints made against him. They may vary from month to month. For the life of me I cannot conceive that any person would get himself into the position of receiving a notice without having a very good idea of why he received it.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 29:
  Directions to secure good estate management and good husbandry.
  (6) Without prejudice to the bringing of proceedings under the last foregoing subsection, where a direction under this section to carry out any work is not coin plied with any person authorised by the Secretary of State in that behalf may enter upon the land to which the direction relates and any other land managed or, as the case may be, farmed in conjunction therewith, and carry out the work required by the direction, and the reasonable cost of carrying out work in the exercise of
  958
  powers conferred by this subsection shall be recoverable by the Secretary of State from the person to whom the direction was given.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (6), after "complied with," to insert:
  "and the Secretary of State is satisfied that an adequate opportunity has been afforded to the person to whom the direction has been given to carry out the direction."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a new point not raised on Committee stage. In the event of the Secretary of State giving directions, certain pains and penalties follow if they are not carried out. This Amendment is intended to ensure that the Secretary of State will give adequate opportunity for the recipient of directions to carry them out. For example, if a new byre were required, adequate time would have to be given to obtain a supply of materials and the necessary man-power. I think it is a reasonable and modest Amendment, and in view of the penalties which will follow upon a direction not being carried out I think it is reasonable that this opportunity should be given. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 26, line 49, after ("with") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment would define in the Statute something to which effect might otherwise be given administratively. As the noble Earl knows, an Amendment in similar terms was tabled in another place, but was not called. I should like to thank the noble Earl for putting the Amendment down now, and I am pleased to accept it.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  5.27 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, alter Clause 31, to insert the following new clause:
  Application of Part II to landholders.
  "—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Part of this Act, in the application of the foregoing precisions of this Part of this Act to land held by landholders, there shall be substituted for the references to owners of agricultural land references to landholders and the said provisions of this Part of this Act shall, subject to the following provisions of this section be read and construed accordingly.
  (2) Where a warning notice is in force in relation to the management of land held by a

  959
  landholder and the Secretary of State is satisfied that the management thereof does not while the notice is in force show satisfactory improvement and certifies accordingly the Secretary of State shall have power by order to terminate the occupier's interest in and to require him to give up his occupation of that land or any part thereof specified in the order, as from such date not earlier than three months after the making of the order as may be specified therein and to require that the proprietor shall as from the said date let it to a tenant approved by the Secretary of State:
  Provided that in any case where under this subsection the approval of the Secretary of State is withheld the proprietor may require that the matter shall be referred to the Land Court and the provisions in that behalf of Part VI of this Act shall apply accordingly.
  (3) For the purpose of this section the expression 'landholder' shall have the meaning assigned to it by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931."
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am afraid we are back here on familiar ground. We have established that Part I of the Bill does not affect small holders. Part II does. There are now existing two entirely different systems of land tenure, and what is meant by "good estate management" and "good husbandry" is carefully defined under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules. How can we operate the Bill without providing for the separate application of the two systems of land tenure, in which the management and husbandry are on entirely different bases? Frankly, I do not think we can do that. May I give one or two examples? Once one starts working the Act, what may or may not happen can be carried a long way. In Clause 29 (2) (b), the proviso says:
  "Provided that a direction…shall not be given to the tenant of a holding to carry out…on the holding any improvement falling within Part I of the First Schedule to that Act unless either the landlord has consented…"
  Under the small holdings system the landlord does not consent, and it would be quite outrageous for the tenant to ask the landlord to consent. This proviso has no application whatsoever.
  Again, subsection (4) of the same clause says the direction shall be given to the owner of the land:
  "… notwithstanding the terms of any lease to which he may be a party"
  The factor to which that applies has no relation to the owner of the land. It is no responsibility of his, and I am at a loss to see how that can be applied.
  We go on to the position where the owner of the land is dispossessed for bad estate management. If the proprietor has no responsibility whatsoever for estate management, it is a little difficult to see why he should be dispossessed. Even more curious: if he is dispossessed, who will then pay compensation? Will it be the Secretary of State, or the proprietor? This Bill has been drawn up for the landlord and tenant system and it has been pushed, without adequate application, into an entirely different system, one to which it has no relation. My new clause proposes certain ways of doing it. I do not say that it is the only way or the best way. In fact, I do not attach a tremendous importance to my clause. What I am saying is that something must be done to enable Clauses 29, 30 and 31 to apply more fully and more equitably to the particular circumstances of small holders in Scotland. I feel that it is up to the noble Lord, if I may say so, to see that, by reasonable application, some of the points I have mentioned will work in this Bill as at present framed. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 31, insert the said new clause. —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I take it that the noble Earl will have no objection to discussing this Amendment with the Amendment next but one on the Marshalled List, which I understand is a consequential Amendment?
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No.
  LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl said that we were largely back on old ground. That is true, so far as I am concerned, except that I am advised that these two Amendments are unnecessary. In so far as they are further evidence of the anxiety of the noble Earl to ensure that some clear distinction should be drawn between the tenants of agricultural holdings and the tenants of landholders' holdings, there is nothing that can be added to the discussion that has taken place on his earlier Amendment, which noble Lords opposite saw fit to put into the Bill. If, however, this Amendment is designed to raise a new point—namely, to safeguard the owner of a landholder's holding against the sanctions which the Secretary of State is permitted in certain circumstances to exercise under

  961
  Clauses 29, 30 and 31, then I suggest that the Amendment is unnecessary. If we go back to the initial step from which all these sanctions flow, we find in Clause 27 that
  "when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the owner of agricultural land is not fulfilling his responsibilities to manage the land in accordance with the rules of good estate management…the Secretary of State may…serve on such owner…a 'warning notice.' "
  Clearly, if the owner of a landholder's holding had no responsibilities for estate management, the Secretary of State could not take this initial step of issuing a warning notice to him, and the noble Earl's fears that the compulsory acquisition of the holding by the Secretary of State might follow would be groundless.
  The noble Earl completed his statement on this Amendment by saying that this clause which he proposes is not necessarily the only way, and not necessarily the best way, to deal with the matter. After an admission of that sort, I am sure he will not expect me to say: "Though I admit this is not necessarily the only way, or the best way, I can accept the Amendment." I am sorry I am unable to go so far as that, and I cannot accept this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I suggest to the noble Lord that he might say he will look into the Amendment and see whether it can be worded in a better way, rather than reject it arbitrarily, as he is doing?
  LORD MORRISON: I have endeavoured to explain, that the whole of the information that is at my disposal indicates that the Amendment is unnecessary.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: With great respect, I put one or two questions to the noble Lord. I referred specifically to certain Parts of the Bill and asked what is supposed to happen. It is clear that what happens is not what is laid down in this Bill. Something entirely different has to happen. With great respect, I think it is something on which, even if it is not necessary to put it in the Statute, we should have some adequate explanation. Take this example. A crofter is held liable under this Bill for bad estate management, and he manages his own estate. What action is supposed to be taken if he is moved out? Who pays his
  962
  compensation? With a tenant, no compensation is due. A bad farmer would not draw any compensation. But it is clear that some compensation would have to be paid to the crofter, no matter how bad he was, because the house would probably be his property, and various other buildings would also be his property. Does the proprietor pay compensation in those circumstances, or does the Secretary of State? In this Bill it says that the Secretary of State will purchase. I take it that that is not meant. It may mean that the Secretary of State will pay compensation to the crofter, and put in someone else. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could answer those questions. If not, I would ask the noble Lord to consider the matter between now and Third Reading.
  LOUD MORRISON: The only further statement I can make is that I am advised that, as a general rule, the estate management provisions of Part II of this Bill cannot be applied to the owners of lard-holder's holdings. I am sorry I am unable to make any further statement.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.36 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 31, to insert the following new clause:
  Application of Part II to statutory small tenants.
  ".—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with persons appearing to him to represent the interests of landlords and statutory small tenants of agricultural holdings, by order vary the provisions of this Act so as to modify in their application to statutory small tenants the provisions of this Part of this Act in the same way (and to such extent as he may deem appropriate) as the said provisions are modified in relation to landholders by the immediately preceding section of this Act.
  (2) In this section the expression 'statutory small tenant' has the like meaning as in the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931"
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an Amendment dealing with the same subject, but in the case of statutory small tenants. I do not propose to press this Amendment. I would point out, however, that the noble Lord has said specifically that this Part does not apply to owners. In that case I have to refer the

  963
  noble Lord to certain passages in Clause 30 where specific reference is made to owners and where it is laid down that:
  "The Secretary of State shall not give to the owner of land…direction…"
  except in certain circumstances. I am afraid the interpretation is really impossible. The clause I desire to insert is purely an empowering clause for the Secretary of State. I suggest that the Secretary of State should take powers to deal specifically with this very small and somewhat varying class of landholder. In the circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will examine this matter, because I do not think it is a purely academic point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 31, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I gather that the noble Earl does not desire to press the Amendment. I will give him briefly such information as I possess on the matter. It is not considered either desirable or necessary to take power to modify the provisions of this part of the Bill in their relation to statutory small tenants. The tenure of this class of holder is governed by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act 1886 to 1931 and, in some respects, by the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts of 1923 and 1931, as amended by this Bill. The relationship between these two codes, to which reference has been made in the discussion on a previous Amendment to-day, is by no means a simple matter, and I am advised that the introduction of the clause suggested by the noble Earl would not help towards a simplification of the position. No difficulty in the administration on this part of the Bill in relation to statutory small tenancies is anticipated. They form, in any event, a small and relatively unimportant proportion of the agricultural holdings in Scotland. Incidently, it would be a difficult matter to discover
  "persons appearing…to represent the interests of statutory small tenants."
  They have no central organisation and, so far as is known, no acceptable representative who could be consulted.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the last words of the noble Lord's
  964
  statement, that there is no representative of statutory small tenants who could be consulted. That seems to be one of the major reasons why adequate provision has not been made in this Bill for that particular class of landholder. I will not press the Amendment, but I would ask the noble Lord to consider this matter further before Third Reading. I am certain that there is a point here which requires examination. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 33:
  Power of Secretary of State to take possession where occupier dispossessed and no other arrangements made.
  (9) A certified copy of an order under subsection (1) of this section requiring a tenant to give up his occupation of any land shall be a sufficient warrant for ejection against the tenant or any party in his right in the event of non-compliance with such order.
  5.40 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (9), after "copy" to insert "signed by the sheriff." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a point which was raised, indirectly, on the Committee stage. The clause, as drafted, suggests that it is the Secretary of State's intention that the sheriff's officer shall act directly on instructions issued from the Secretary of State's office. I think it is highly improper that a judiciary officer should act on the instructions of the Secretary of State, or for that matter on instructions from any Department at all. It appears to me that a judiciary officer should act invariably only upon instructions issued by the judiciary itself. This Amendment is not intended in any way to complicate the procedure or to make it more difficult, but simply to define what appears to me to be the logical position—namely, that the warrant, after signature by the sheriff, will go to the sheriff's officer, and will not proceed directly from the Secretary of State to the sheriff's officer. I think that is reasonable and, if I may say so, I consider that, in the long run, it is the proper way. I believe that during the war an abbreviated course of the nature laid down in the clause as at present drafted was taken under Defence of the Realm Regulations. But bad precedents made during the war should not be continued in peace time. If it is wrong for a judiciary officer to be instructed by the

  965
  Department, then I think this Amendment, or something similar, should be accepted by His Majesty's Government. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 35, line 16 after ("copy") insert ("signed by the sheriff".)—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl is batting on a sticky wicket this afternoon, or whether I am—probably both of us—but here again I am unable to accept his Amendment. When the noble Earl moved his Amendment in Committee to delete the whole of this subsection, he suggested, if I understood him aright, that although the question of eviction arose at the end of a long cycle of procedure, during which adequate opportunity of appeal to the Land Court had been provided, it was desirable at that final stage that the procedure of the sheriff's court should be used before summary ejection took, place. His present Amendment is slightly different in form, but is equally unacceptable.
  The subsection provides that when the Secretary of State has exercised the responsibility placed in his hands by Parliament, and has decided that eviction of a tenant in the circumstances envisaged in this clause is necessary, an order to that effect shall be sufficient warrant for ejection. As I have mentioned, that stage cannot be reached without opportunity being provided for appeal to the Land Court, and the order of the Secretary of State follows complete investigation and proof in the same way as does a decree issued by a sheriff in a different class of case. A copy of the sheriff's decree in the latter case is sufficient to enable a successful party in the action to instruct a sheriff's officer to enforce the decree. Similarly, under the subsection, a certified copy of an order by the Secretary of State is sufficient warrant for the ejection by the sheriff's officer of the tenant concerned. The latter, be it noted, is in fact simply a squatter, and possesses no rights as tenant.
  I have said enough in Committee, and to-day, to show that, in the Government's view, there is no need for any further inquiry by the sheriff after the signing of an order by the Secretary of State. The noble Earl's Amendment, nevertheless, seeks to make the copy order bear the
  966
  signature of the sheriff before it can be executed. That would serve no useful purpose. It would either reduce the sheriff to the status of a rubber stamp or, alternatively, it would place him in the position of having to make further inquiries and possibly needing proof before appending his signature. Neither of those alternatives is desirable, and I am sorry, accordingly, that I cannot accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I feel that protest is necessary that a judiciary officer should be moved by a Department. I feel that it is wholly wrong. I am not proposing any inquiry; I am not proposing any delaying action at all, and I am not proposing that the sheriff shall become a rubber stamp. What I am saying is that the certified copy has to be in order before it receives his signature. In the circumstances, I do not propose to press my Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 46:
  Returns of numbers, etc., of deer.
  46.—(1) The Secretary of State may by notice in writing served on the owner of any land require him to make a return in such form as the Secretary of State may require showing the number of deer of each sex which to his knowledge have been killed on the land during such period (not exceeding five years) immediately preceding the service of the notice as may be specified therein, and also a return showing the number of deer of each sex which he estimates to be on the land.
  (2) If any person on whom a notice under the foregoing subsection has been served—

  (a) fails or neglects to make the requited return within thirty-six days after the service of the notice, or

  (b) in making such a return as aforesaid knowingly or recklessly furnishes any information which is false in a material particular,

  he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
  LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, in subsection (2) (b), to omit "recklessly." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend. I do not want to appear obstinate or in any way unreasonable about this clause, because we had a good deal of discussion upon it at an earlier stage. As your Lordships know, this clause empowers the Secretary of State to serve a notice on any landowner demanding that he shall furnish a return of the num-

  967
  ber of deer killed on his land during a period up to five years past, and to furnish an estimate of the deer he considers to be on his land at the time. I think some noble Lords said on Committee stage that any estimate of the number of deer on land at any time must be in the nature of a very wild estimate indeed. I do not propose to press that point any further. If His Majesty's Government are determined to have such information, in spite of its inaccuracy, I will not hinder them.
  I would, however, like to draw your Lordships' attention to the penalties which are proposed. Subsection (2) of the clause says:
  "If any person on whom a notice under the foregoing subsection has been served—

  (a) fails or neglects to make the required return…or,

  (b) in making such a return as aforesaid knowingly or recklessly furnishes any information which is false in a material particular,

  he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds."
  I do not contest the first part of that subsection. If he is required to make the return, he must make the return. But I do think the wording of the second part is rather peculiar, although I know it is a common formula to be found at the end of nearly every return of the character one has to fill up in these days. I quite agree that, if it is a question of making a return of the number of livestock on a farm or the number of tons of potatoes, a man should be able to produce a reasonably accurate answer, and, if he produces a reckless one, he should quite rightly be convicted. But it is a little unreasonable that he should be expected to produce a return of the number of deer which, as we explained before, may be completely inaccurate and, at the same time, that he should be liable to be convicted for giving reckless information. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, himself said in Committee that it would be almost impossible to prove that an owner had given inaccurate information. If that be the case, surely it is unnecessary to provide that he shall be liable to conviction. I do not intend to pursue that point any further, but merely to suggest that the clause would be made more sensible by the omission of the word "recklessly." I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 45, line 31, leave out ("or recklessly").—(Lord Polwarth.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, now that we have emerged into the deer forests I feel on stronger ground. This is a perfectly simple and straightforward issue. As the noble Lord has said, Clause 46 requires that owners of deer forests shall make a return to the Secretary of State of the approximate or estimated number of deer in his forests. The noble Lord said, in effect, that that is almost impossible. From my investigations into the matter—not investigations on the spot—I find that when the owner of a deer forest desires to let his forest he always seems to be in a position to give what he regards as a fairly accurate esitmate of the number of deer in the forests——
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: No; the number which can be killed, which is quite a different proposition.
  LORD MORRISON: The short point is this. No objection was taken by any noble Lord to dealing with a person who might say "I refuse to give this information," on the ground that he would be defying law and order. I am sure that none of your Lordships would for a moment countenance that. The other case is of the man who, in my opinion, is equally bad, who does not say bluntly "I will not give you this information; I will not make a return." What he does is to make a reckless return, a return not based on an estimate. I agree with what the noble Lord has said in quoting from my remarks on the Committee stage: there is no question of tying anybody down to absolute accuracy; it just cannot be done. But there is a wide difference between the man who says "I refuse to make any return", and the man who says "Well, your guess is as good as mine; put down anything." I am advised that the retention of the words "or recklessly" is legally necessary to cover the case of a person who, when called upon to make a return, furnishes information which is false in a material particular because he has made no effort whatsoever to ascertain the facts. The use of the word "recklessly" is common form. It appears in several Statutes. For these reasons I hope the noble Lord will not wish to press the Amendment.
  LORD POLWARTH: In the case that the noble Lord has just mentioned, would the point not be covered by the word "knowingly"?
  LORD MORRISON: I am advised that the word "recklessly" appears in a number of Statutes and that it is common form.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: "Reckless" involves a lack of care. What lack of care would be involved in not counting one's deer?
  EARL DE LA WARR: Could the noble Lord tell us what the other Statutes are?
  LORD MORRISON: The provisions of this subsection are on all fours with Section 81 (2) (a) of the Agriculture Act, 1947, which refers to the furnishing of agricultural statistical information. That is a General Act and is applicable to Scotland.
  LORD POLWARTH: I will not detain your Lordships, because I think we all realise that the inclusion of this clause in the Bill will achieve virtually nothing. I should just like to suggest that when the noble Lord pays his long-promised visit to Scotland this summer he will arrange for some of his advisers to send him out for a day with one of your Lordship's stalkers in one of your forests, so that he may spend a pleasant time in counting deer. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.55 p.m.
  Clause 50:
  Prohibition of night shooting, and use of spring traps.
  50.—(1) If any person—

  (a) between the expiration of the first hour after sunset and the commencement of the last hour before sunrise, uses a firearm for the purpose of killing hares or rabbits; or

  (b) uses or knowingly permits the use of a spring trap for that purpose;

  he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this section, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) to omit "of a spring trap." The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will perhaps be for your Lordships' convenience if I discuss the next
  970
  three Amendments together, because they all deal with the question of traps for rabbits. Having left the deer forests, we are now amongst the rabbils! When this clause reached your Lordships' House from another place, it prohibited entirely the use of spring traps of any kind for the purpose of killing hares or rabbits. As I mentioned to your Lordships in Committee, I have been very impressed by your fears that if the clause were allowed to stand in its present form the effects upon agricultural production might be serious. Similar fears have been expressed by the representative organisations and by prominent members of the agricultural industry whom I met during my recent visit to Scotland. After very earnest consideration, the Government have reached the conclusion that if the interests of food production are to be adequately safeguarded—more particularly in the near future—the clause should not be allowed to stand in its present form.
  The Amendment which I now submit for your Lordships' approval has been designed in order to permit, at the discretion of the Secretary of State, the use of a steel trap in a rabbit hole for such period as may be necessary in the future to enable adequate supplies of efficient humane traps to be made available to the industry. Whether these traps take the form of that shown to your Lordships during the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, and demonstrated so brilliantly by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, or whether the ingenuity of our inventors may produce different types, of course I am unable to say. But I should like to take this opportunity of inviting, on behalf of the Government, those societies which are interested in the protection of animal life in this country and in the prevention of cruelty to animals in any form, to use their best endeavours to secure that the inventive genius of our people is fully employed in the effort to achieve a satisfactory solution of this problem, so that the Secretary of State may be able to decide as early as possible that the period during which the use of the steel trap should be authorised can be regarded as having come to an end.
  The effect of the Amendments I am going to move is threefold. First, the use of humane traps of a type approved by the Secretary of State is legalised, in all circumstances, whether in a rabbit hole

  971
  or in the open. I might add that the Secretary of State, before approving any particular type or make of trap, would undertake consultation with the responsible organisations interested in the prevention of cruelty to animals. Secondly, the Amendments provide that the use of any non-approved type of trap shall be illegal, except to the extent that it may be authorised by order of the Secretary of State for use in a rabbit hole only. On this, I might explain that the Secretary of State may well take the view that when this clause is brought into operation he should simultaneously make an order to cover the whole of Scotland, so that there should be no interruption of the present destruction of rabbits. Thirdly, it is provided that when, at some future date, the Secretary of State is satisfied that adequate supplies of humane traps are available, he will be entitled by regulations—which will be submitted to your Lordships' House—to withdraw any order or orders he may have made authorising the use of the steel trap. At that stage, the position will have been achieved—and we all hope that it will be achieved quickly—when the only traps which may be legally used will be those approved by the Secretary of State with due regard to humanitarian considerations.
  I suggest to your Lordships that these Amendments give full weight to the general anxiety displayed in your Lordships' House and in another place, that the use of the steel trap should be abolished at the earliest possible moment, while at the same time, until such abolition becomes feasible, safeguarding the interests of agriculture and avoiding any prejudicial effect on the supplies of food which are so urgently needed at the present time. Your Lordships will remember that on the Committee stage, in return for the withdrawal by several noble Lords of their Amendments on this subject, I promised that further consideration should be given. I hope these Amendments may prove satisfactory to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 15, leave out ("of a spring trap").—(Lord Morrison.)
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for meeting my point. It is one which is vital to the agri-
  972
  culture of Scotland. I am bound to say that the form of the clause appears a little too complicated. It seems a rather complicated method of catching rabbits. My only anxiety is that it will catch more than rabbits, and involve some unwary farmer in penalties. That will not be so if the Secretary of State issues a comprehensive order soon after the passage of the Bill. On that assurance that it is intended so to do, we accept this Amendment.
  LORD RENNELL: May I, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Amulree, who, as your Lordships know, is very interested in this subject and has given ocular demonstration of his interest, thank the noble Lord for the Amendment? It entirely meets his point.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 16, after ("purpose") insert ("of a spring trap other than a spring trap of a type and make for the time being approved by the Secretary of State").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 20, at end insert—
  ("Provided that it shall be a defence for a person charged with the offence mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection to prove that the trap was used under an authority granted by the Secretary of State and that it was used in a rabbit hole.
  (2) The Secretary of State may from time to time by order authorise the use for the purpose aforesaid of spring traps other than traps of a type and make approved by him, and such authority may be granted as respects all land in Scotland, or as respects the land in any county or any part of a county, or as respects any particular land or class of land, as may be specified in the order:
  Provided that when the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are available in sufficient quantities spring traps of a type and make approved by him he may by regulation withdraw all authorities granted by him under this subsection; and after such regulation has been made it shall not be lawful for the Secretary of State, unless such regulation is revoked under subsection (1) of section five of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, to authorise the use of spring traps other than traps of

  973
  a type and make approved by him.")—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR LORD CLYDESMUIR moved, after Clause 61 to insert the following new clause:
  ".—(1) The Secretary of State shall as soon as possible after the end of each financial year prepare a report as to the exercise and performance by him of his powers and functions under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts 1923 and 1931 and this Act with respect to agricultural land belonging to or acquired or farmed by him and on his policy and programme with reference thereto which report shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
  (2) The Secretary of State shall also prepare in respect of each financial year, in such form and manner and at such times as the Treasury may direct, an account showing separately the results of the discharge of his functions in relation to farming and in the management of land.
  (3) On or before the thirtieth day of November in each year the Secretary of State shall transmit to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the account prepared by him under the last foregoing subsection in respect of the financial year last ended and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine and certify the account prepared by the Secretary of State and lay before each House of Parliament copies of that account together with his report thereon."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a clause which will appeal to Scotsmen, as it is designed to secure the careful handling of money and the publication of accounts. I moved a clause on the Committee stage but withdrew it for further consideration. I now move it again, with slight alterations. The purpose of the clause is, first, to remove the "iron curtain" which has come down between the people of Scotland and the Department of Agriculture, due to a war-time Treasury regulation. Secondly, it is to ensure that north of the Tweed we have no less full and accurate information of the trading activities of the Department of Agriculture than is available in England of the doings of the Agricultural Land Commission, which is, as nearly as possible, a comparable body. The clause which I now move differs in two ways from that which I moved on the Committee stage. In the first place, I have added an injunction to bring forward a report, as well as to render accounts. But that is, of course, in line with the report: which has been issued in the past by the Department, and should not in any way be a contentious matter.
  974
  It is a report which is most valuable for its information, covering a wide scope of activities.
  Secondly, there was the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, described as impracticable, that trading accounts should be rendered for each agricultural holding. I propose that that should be replaced by an instruction to show separately the results in relation to the farming and management of land. Those are the words used in the English Act in relation to the Commission. The trading activities of the Department of Agriculture are very far-reaching and are constantly extending. The Secretary of State is the largest landowner in Scotland. He controls almost 750,000 acres of land. Besides owning land, he conducts a wide range of farming activities. Some of the work done by him, or by his Department, is experimental, and when valuable results are being achieved by experiment, I agree that an allowance for that must be made in the accounts. None the less, much of the work of the Department of Agriculture of the Secretary of State compares closely with the functions of the landowner and the tenant, of whom we hear so much in this Bill. I conceive it to be of the highest importance that full information should be available for purposes of comparison. Your Lordships will be aware that there are critics who aver that a Government Department carry out activities uneconomically. I offer to the noble Lord a candlestick on which to set the light which has been held under a bushel now for some years past. In 1940, on account of the Second World War, the Treasury stopped the publication of these accounts, but the Second World War has been over now for three years, and the publication of the accounts and the report has not been restarted.
  The form in which the accounts were previously published hardly gives the information which it is intended should be available to the public in England of the activities of their Commission. Therefore, I am moving this clause, which would ensure that such information should be available. The noble Lord may say to me that, when I was Secretary of State, I was not directly enjoined by Statute to make such a full report or lay such accounts. In point of fact, however, the

  975
  activities of the Department are constantly increasing, and this Bill is an important factor in the situation. Therefore, I feel that there is nothing revolutionary in the proposal that the Act should contain an injunction to the Government Department to report and lay accounts before Parliament. On the Committee stage, the noble Lord spoke of the existing statutory authority which now exists but which apparently has been in cold storage for a few years under the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act, 1921. As I read that Act, however, it is left to the discretion of the Treasury as to which Government Departments should be required to lay accounts and in what form they should lay them.
  I went to the Scottish Office from the Treasury, so I am in a position to know that they are generally a very good watchdog indeed. The Treasury seem to have snoozed somewhere in the last nine years, when they did not encourage the presentation of the accounts of the Department, although I agree that during the period of the Second World War the situation did demand economy, I therefore feel that the Act itself, apart from the existing statutory authority which the noble Lord quoted, should contain a clause to ensure that the public of Scotland are kept fully aware of the numerous beneficial activities of the Department of the Secretary of State. I do not think it would be an undesirable duplication; it would, in fact, be in line with other legislation, and would be a proper thing for which to ask. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to accept this clause in its present form, and to give us an assurance that there will be a resumption of the publication of the accounts and report, in such full form as may be necessary. I know that the noble Lord would wish that such information should be available, and that criticism should not be offered, but the fact is that the people of Scotland are less well informed of the activities of their Department than those South of the Border are of the activities of the Commission. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 61 insert the said new clause. —(Lord Clydesmuir.)
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, for having put down his Amend-
  976
  ment (although I am not going to accept it), since it enables me to amplify the statement on this question which I made in Committee, and which I think will be reasonably satisfactory to the noble Lord. In the first place, the noble Lord is probably better aware than most of us here that the Secretary of State is under a statutory obligation to submit to Parliament an annual report on the proceedings of the Department of Agriculture. It is true that there has been a dispensation from this obligation since 1939, but I am authorised to say that publication will be resumed about the spring of next year, when a report in respect of the year 1948 will be presented to Parliament. It is hoped to include in this report a section or sections dealing with the years 1939 to 1947 inclusive.
  I also referred in Committee to the proposed publication of comprehensive accounts showing separately the results of the farming and management of agricultural lands under the Secretary of State's control. I am now authorised to say that accounts in respect of the Financial year 1948–49 will be published next year. In this connection, I should perhaps mention that in general the agricultural lands coming under the Secretary of State's control are, and will be, lands of a comparatively low agricultural standard which, in some cases, have suffered from bad estate management or bad husbandry. The Department's main concern will be to restore these lands to a satisfactory condition, and the Department's farming activities—as distinct from management—will be, in the main, temporary and incidental for improvement of the lands. It would be a mistake for anyone to assume that the financial and other results from the management and the farming of such land during the period of rehabilitation may fairly be compared with the results obtainable from agricultural lands of the standard normally to be found in Scottish agriculture. With this further explanation, I hope the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
  LORD POLWARTH: May I just ask the noble Lord one question? Does his statement mean that the accounts to be published will show separately the results of the Department's operations in the management of land, as distinct from those in the farming of land?
  LORD MORRISON: I think that the kind of composite account contemplated will not be really informative, in view of the differing conditions that will obtain on different properties. But I can say that in the ordinary course the Department would give in their annual report any information of special interest on this subject. I think I may also say that if there is any particular holding in which any noble Lord is interested at any time, he has only to ask the Department, and he will be given the fullest information in their possession.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord did not quite appreciate the position in which we find ourselves at the present day. The last time he spoke, on Committee stage, he quoted the Act of 1921. The Act of 1921 does not impose any statutory obligation on the Department of Agriculture for Scotland to make any report whatsoever. What it does is something quite different—namely, that if the Treasury ask them, they have to make reports in such form as the Treasury may lay down. There is nothing whatever laying a statutory obligation upon them; it is only such Departments as the Treasury may lay down; and it does not even say every Department.
  LORD MORRISON: The noble Earl knows that they have to go before the Public Accounts Committee.
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: But, if I may say so, the Treasury are concerned primarily with speculation; they are not concerned with the economic side—and it is the economic side which we are most anxious to see clearly brought out. It is not enough to say that the Department will always be farming bad land. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the Department are at present farming 200,000 acres. That is a very large amount of land. Is that held only temporarily, or is it a matter of permanence? It is now three years since the end of the war, and we have had no report of any sort. Can the noble Lord tell us what is the statutory dispensation, or what is the dispensation which has allowed the Department to go for eight years without making any report or any financial statement in regard to the position at the present time? I feel that it is absolutely reasonable that the land in Scotland (which, after all, is much
  978
  the same as that in England), should receive the same consideration and be the subject of the same sort of reports as are required in regard to land in England. There is nothing to indicate that at the present time there is the same kind of obligation upon the Department as there is on the Land Commission. I will not press this point any further, but I would like to have an answer to this question—namely, is it not true that this very large amount of land (over 200,000 acres) is now being farmed? And is there any statutory obligation, other than the 1921 Act, under which the Department are obliged to report?
  LORD MORRISON: I think the answer to the last point is that there is a general Treasury authority which dates back to 1939, like many other authorities that were given to the Treasury, at the time when the noble Lord was Secretary of State for Scotland. I should have thought the noble Lord's knowledge of the Small Landholders Act of 1911 might have told him that it contains the statutory obligation to publish an annual report as distinct from trading accounts. If I may say so—and I do not wish to say anything unpleasant—it is rather remarkable that, although this has been the position since 1939—a period in which noble Lords opposite have been in power for a good deal of the time and which includes the war—we have had to wait until now for it to be suggested that there is some weakness on the part of the present Government in administration, from the point of view of accounts or of reports. I may be wrong in feeling that, but I am unable to find any other explanation as to why the suggestion should suddenly have arisen that, because there is a Labour Government in this country, there should be any slackness in not seeing that the finances and accounts necessary to carry on these public undertakings are made as easily available to the public of this country as they are by any other Government.
  EARL DE LA WARR: If I may say so, that observation of the noble Lord seems singularly irrelevant. As public lands are increasingly taken over, and managed and farmed by the State, so our concern in connection with the accountancy and so on increases. The noble Lord has not quite appreciated our print.

  979
  We should not like him to think we are not grateful for the very full undertaking he has given us with regard to the accounts for the year 1948–49 and for the previous years from 1939. But an assurance on that point takes us only a portion of the way. What some of us would like to know is, why should there be this differentiation as between England and Scotland? Where these lands are taken over by the State in England they are put under the administration of the Land Commission; and when we were discussing the Agriculture Act, under which the Land Commission were set up, the Government were prepared to accept the sections with regard to accountancy that are put down in this Amendment—namely, the compulsory separate publication of the accounts for farming and for land management.
  In the case of Scotland the lands are not placed under the Land Commission, because there is no such body there; they are under a Department. The suggestion of the noble Earl, which seems to me most reasonable, is that the same provisions for accountancy as apply to lands which come under the English Land Commission should apply to lands under the Scottish Department. Surely that is reasonable. We were not satisfied—and the Government admitted that it was reasonable for us not to be satisfied, because they accepted our suggestion—with assurances with regard to land in England. Why should we now be satisfied with assurances relating to the accountancy for land in Scotland? Surely if statutory obligations are laid on the Government for the annual publication of these accounts respecting land in England, the Government should be prepared to accept entirely the same statutory obligation with regard to land in Scotland.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the noble Earl, through no fault of his own, was unable to be present at our deliberations on the Second Reading and Committee stage of this Bill. Perhaps, as he was not able to be present, he will do me the honour of reading some remarks which I made in Committee explaining this particular point. I do not want to repeat myself, seeing that what I said during the Committee stage is in print.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Lord that this question has been raised by me not out of any desire to score some small point, but in support of the view that we should, in this year of Grace, be receiving adequate reports on the operations of the Department of Agriculture. It is quite true that for nine years the Treasury barred publication of these reports, and if any Secretary of State must stand in a white sheet I stand along with him, because we were all a party to that Treasury injunction. But I feel that now the bar should be removed, and that accounts and reports should be published. This matter is brought clearly into relief when we note that the English Act contains an injunction to the Commission—as the noble Lord has said—to put forward such accounts and reports. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison, has to-night given us an assurance further to that which he was able to give us on the Committee stage. I then asked him whether, on my agreeing to withdraw the Amendment, he would be prepared to say something on the Report stage.
  If I understand correctly—and I would like to be assured that I do, for I and my friends feel keenly about this matter—Lord Morrison's assurance now is that it is the purpose of the Secretary of State to bring out in the Spring of next year a report and accounts covering the present year—that is, the year 1948—and that there will also be a report covering the blank years. That, I gather, would bring up to date the reports with regard to years which have been left out—an omission for which the Secretaries of State, including myself, who held office during that period must share responsibility. Further, and to this I attach a good deal of importance, I understand it is the intention—to use the noble Lord's own words on the Committee stage—to publish:
  "comprehensive accounts…showing separately the results of the management and farming, respectively, of agricultural lands under the Secretary of State's control."
  Substantially, those are the words I use in my proposed clause. That is all we are asking for; we wish to be no better off, but, certainly, no worse off in regard to information than our friends South of the Border. While, therefore, I should like to have seen statutory provision in-

  981
  cluded in the Bill—and I do not think it is an unreasonable or revolutionary thing to ask—I will content myself now by thanking the noble Lord for his assurances (which I hope I have correctly repeated) and ask leave of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 68:
  Establishment and functions of Agricultural Executive Committees.
  (3) In the exercise of the functions delegated to them an agricultural executive committee shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State, and a sub-committee shall comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State or by the agricultural executive committee by whom the sub-committee were established.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "by the Secretary of State or" and insert "(whether on the requirement of the Secretary of State or not)." The noble Lord said: I regret very much that the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, is not present, for the Amendment which I am now proposing—the last Amendment to this Bill—has been put down because during the Committee stage, he expressed some apprehension at the fact that subsection (3) would leave the Secretary of State free, if he so wished, to issue directions to sub-committees of agricultural executive committees without the knowledge of the main committees. It was certainly not the intention that agricultural executive committees should be by-passed in this way, and I promised to put down an Amendment to make it quite clear that subcommittees will, in each case, receive directions through the main committees. I am indebted to the noble Earl for drawing my attention to the point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 55, line 24, leave out ("by the Secretary of State of") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Morrison.)
  THE EARL OF SELKIRK: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Glasgow, may I thank the noble Lord for this Amendment?
  On Question, Amendment: agreed to.

  EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL.
  6.27 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hall.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
  Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:
  Central Youth Employment Executive.
  7.—(1) For the purpose of facilitating the establishment of a comprehensive youth employment service, the Minister may make arrangements with the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for the performance of any of his functions under this Act in relation to persons to whom this Part of this Act applies through an executive body, to be known as the Central Youth Employment Executive, consisting of such persons, being officers of the Minister, the Minister of Education or the Secretary of State, as may be appointed in accordance with the arrangements.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANhad given Notice of two Amendments in subsection (1), the first of which was to omit the word "and." The noble Viscount said: The first Amendment which stands in my name relates to the next Amendment which is printed immediately below it, and, with the permission of the Committee, perhaps I may be allowed to speak on both of them at the same time. These Amendments, I admit, were put down largely as an exploratory measure, since neither in the text of the Bill nor in the reports of any of the discussions which have taken place here or in any other place is there to be found any mention of the position of the delinquent children who are the care of the Home Office. I know quite well, of course, that delinquent children are dealt with by other Acts and could not properly be dealt with in this Bill. Nevertheless, the employment of delinquent children is a matter which is both important and difficult. The success or the failure of efforts made for the employment of delinquent children really decides whether all the work of probation officers and of approved schools has been successful or not in the case of the boys and girls affected. Therefore, though we feel that there must be some line of

  983
  demarcation between the different Acts, there ought not in practice to be such a line of demarcation.
  We desire the facilities of the youth employment service to be used to the full for delinquent children—both those who have been at approved schools and those who have been on probation. It is not an easy matter to employ such young people. Employers, when approached, have not only to think whether, out of kindness of heart, they can take such young people into their service, but they have also to bear in mind their responsibility to those who will be the fellow employees of these young people if they are engaged. They have to make certain before engaging them that it is right to employ ex-delinquents side by side with other people. For that reason we feel that the Home Office, and, no doubt, the corresponding Department in Scotland, ought to be closely associated with this youth employment service. We should welcome any statement from the noble Viscount which will reassure us that this, in fact, will be so. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 5, line 43, leave out ("and").—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for raising this point, because it is necessary to clear it up. He will know that under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, a statutory obligation is placed on the managers of approved schools to assist boys and girls to find suitable employment on their release, to visit and be friend them when they have taken up work, and to provide, where necessary, financial assistance for their support. Although the present Bill, in its definition of school, excludes approved schools, the provision I have just mentioned meets the type of case the noble Viscount has in mind.
  The youth unemployment service does not regard itself as dissociated from the problem of young persons coming from approved schools. The number of approved schools is very small—though I am not suggesting that they are on that account not important or that we should
  984
  not do our best for children coming from those schools—and, in the opinion of the Government, it would be unnecessary and uneconomical to provide for an officer of the Home Office to be a member of the Central Youth Employment Executive. I assure your Lordships, however, that there is a close liaison centrally between the Executive and the Home Office, and that locally the youth employment officers will cooperate with the headmasters of approved schools in assisting them to discharge their statutory responsibilities. Similarly, youth employment officers are encouraged to work in close co-operation with probation officers, in order that their advice may be available in matters affecting juvenile delinquents. These arrangements are working to the satisfaction of my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Minister of Labour and National Service. I assure your Lordships that we regard this work as important, and I hope that, in the circumstances, the noble Viscount will not press his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like to thank the noble Viscount for his full and fair statement, and to say at once that for my part I regard the state of affairs, as he has explained it, as very satisfactory. I do not feel, therefore, that I need press this Amendment. I imagine that if there were any particular reason for a representative of the Home Office to attend a meeting of the Central Youth Employment Executive without being a member, it would be departmentally possible and would be done in proper cases. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. I will not move the second Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clauses 8 to 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13:
  Notification of particulars.
  (3) Any regulations made under this section shall make provision for restricting the disclosure of any particulars furnished thereunder, for prescribing the conditions under which records of any such particulars shall be maintained and the purposes for which they may be used and for requiring such records to be destroyed after such period as may be prescribed by the regulations.
  (5) In relation to any area in which a scheme under section ten of this Act is for

  985
  the time being in force, subsection (1) of this section shall have effect as if for the second reference to the Minister there were substituted a reference to the local education authority, and as if the references to schools did not include any school maintained by that authority.
  VISCOUNT HALL VISCOUNT HALL moved, to add to subsection (3):
  "Provided that any person being a parent or the guardian of a person of whom particulars have been so furnished shall be entitled, on application to the officer having the custody thereof, to examine those particulars in his presence, but shall not be entitled to receive or take copies thereof."
  The noble Viscount said: This is the Amendment to which I referred on Second Reading. When this Bill was discussed in another place, it was generally agreed that the parent should be allowed, if he wished, to know what information was contained in the school report under Clause 13 (1). It was also generally agreed that there should be no question of a parent receiving a copy of that report, which, was to be treated as confidential. This Amendment will give parents the right to know the particulars provided by the school, if they so wish. May I remind your Lordships that, in accordance with Clause 13 (3), the particulars will be confined to the health, ability, educational attainments and aptitudes of the person to whom they relate—in short, to particulars which are essential if adequate advice and assistance is to be given in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 35, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Hall.)
  LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I welcome this Amendment. I do not think any of us likes a report on a child to be shown to a third party other than the parents, but in this case I think it is necessary. If the reports are to be of value to the youth employment officer, he must feel free to write all he wants about the child. On the other hand, the parents' position must be maintained. I think this Amendment does it fairly and reasonably. I have some doubt about the prohibition of parents taking a copy, because in my own mind I cannot decide where a copy starts and where a copy finishes. If you are shown a report across the table, you must not take a copy; but if you take out a notebook and make notes of the main
  986
  points, are you or are you not taking a copy? There may be some difficulty in the interpretation of that, but in the vast majority of cases difficulty will not arise if the Act is administered in the spirit which we know will be the case. I welcome the Amendment as implementing the promise given in another place.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT HALL VISCOUNT HALL moved, to add to subsection (5):
  "Provided that subsection (3) of this section shall apply to any particulars kept by the local education authority in accordance with the scheme with respect to pupils of any school so maintained, as if those particulars had been furnished in pursuance of regulations made under the said subsection (1)"
  The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is consequential to the last. It is designed to give full effect to the Amendment to subsection (3) which has just been accepted. It provides simply that the regulations under subsection (3) and the facilities which will be granted to parents by the Amendment will apply equally to all particulars, whether provided by the schools under Clause 13 (1) or by the local authorities in accordance with their schemes. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line, 45, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Hall.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 14 to 22 agreed to.
  6.40 p.m.
  First Schedule:
  National Youth Employment Council and Advisory Committees for Scotland and Wales.
  CONSTITUTION OF COUNCIL AND COMMITTEES.
  1. The members of the Council shall be appointed by the Minister and shall be thirty-four in number, consisting of—
  (a) a chairman and four other persons (including the chairmen of the Advisory Committees for Scotland and Wales) appointed as being independent persons;
  VISCOUNT BRIDCEMAN VISCOUNT BRIDCEMAN moved in paragraph 1 (a), to delete "four" and substitute "eight." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment was put down because we feel that the free places on the Council are not quite sufficient for all the interests that should be represented. I know that the composition of the Youth Employment Council as pro

  987
  posed in the Bill is taken almost directly from the Ince Report, but I venture to suggest that one small improvement could be made. There are now, in effect, only two free places on the Council which are not taken by nominated members of one sort or another. Although there are four independent members, two are to be the chairmen of the Scottish and Welsh Committees. I think the Council would be greatly strengthened if there were more room for independent persons. It often transpires that an independent person, joining a committee in his private capacity, is more valuable than a nominee of other people. Moreover, there are various interests which ought to be represented—possibly the Services, in view of the fact that so many young people with whom the youth employment system is dealing will shortly be going into the Services and one wishes their employment to be continued. But I do not think that is so important as two other categories I shall mention.
  First, there are probation officers, of whom I will say no more, because I have already mentioned them in my previous Amendment. I think the noble Viscount took the point. Secondly, there are the voluntary youth organisations. On this side of the House, we feel that it would be a great source of strength if the voluntary youth organisations could have at least one representative on the Council. They do a great deal of work, and they cover a large number of young people. Surely, it would be to the advantage of everybody, and not least the young people, if their work were to be associated with the work of this Council. I take it that this will be a working Council, and not a mere facade body—I am sure that is not the intention. We could, by putting down Amendments, have specifically instructed the Ministry of Labour to appoint representatives of these various interests, but, after consideration (I may say that we have since had consultation with the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, for which we are grateful) we decided not to do so. We thought it would be simpler, and would give the flexibility for which we always ask on this side of the House, if we put down a straightforward Amendment increasing by four the number of free places to which the Minister could nominate any persons, including, we hope, representatives of the interests I
  988
  have mentioned. It may be that eight is not quite the right number—I do not claim any divine inspiration for that number, any more than, I suggest, there is divine inspiration for the number thirty-four. It is possible that the noble Viscount opposite may have something to say on the subject and, without adding to what I have said, I beg leave to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 9, leave out ("four") and insert ("eight").—(Viscount Bridgeman.)
  VISCOUNT HALL: The composition of the Council will be seen from the First Schedule. It is made up of representatives of organisations and associations dealing with education and the various branches of industry, and some of the associations dealing with the youth movement. The noble Viscount rightly said that the Council will comprise thirty-four members. It is a fairly large number. We do not want to convert it from an active advisory body into a debating society. We are naturally anxious to avoid that. During the last day or two, I have consulted my right honourable friend, who is willing to agree that provision shall be made to permit an increase in the number of independent members, if that should be found necessary. It is suggested that instead of making the number eight, we should make it six. That would give two additional members to meet the point so ably put by the noble Viscount. I think it will be better to do that by a Government Amendment on the Report stage. If your Lordships agree to that course, I will arrange for an Amendment to be put down on the Report stage which will permit an increase to a number not exceeding thirty-six. I think that will cover the point made by the noble Viscount and, in the circumstances, I hope he will not press his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount for the way in which he has met us on this Amendment. Although the number six instead of eight will be a fairly tight fit, I think it will cover all the essential additional members for which we ask. I fully agree with the suggestion of the noble Viscount, that it is better to deal with the matter by a Government Amendment on the Report stage. In view of the assurance I have received, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) BILL.
  6.43 p.m.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  GAS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.
  BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Select Committee, with amendments.
  CARDIFF CORPORATION (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment.

  GREAT YARMOUTH PORT ANDHAVEN BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at a quarter before seven o'clock.