Lords Sitting of 6 April 1949

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH SPAIN
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I beg to ask the question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether the time is not propitious—perhaps, indeed, overdue—for considering a renewal of full diplomatic relations with Spain; whether they will initiate discussions in the United Nations with a view to the General Assembly rescinding their resolution of December 12, 1946, calling on all members to withdraw their Ambassadors from Madrid; and whether His Majesty's Government do not consider that the persisting unsatisfactory state of affairs vis-à-vis Spain is fraught with considerable potential danger in the existing European situation.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, I will answer together the first two parts of the noble Lord's Question. His Majesty's Government cannot consider appointing an Ambassador to Madrid so long as the Resolution passed by the United Nations General Assembly in December, 1946, remains in force. Nor, as my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State made clear in another place on March 23, are they prepared to propose the annulment of that Resolution or to initiate discussions towards that end. Should the General Assembly decide to annul that Resolution, His Majesty's Government will accept the decision. In reply to the third part of the noble Lord's Question, His Majesty's Government cannot accept the view that the present state of affairs is fraught with grave dangers.
  LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and, arising
  1022
  therefrom, may I ask whether His Majesty's Government will be prepared to support any representations that are made in the General Assembly to this effect and not only to accept the decision that is come to by the Assembly? Will His Majesty's Government agree that the North Atlantic Pact has been born as a direct result of the virtual sabotaging of the United Nations Organisation by the Soviet Union and her satellites; and would it not be highly desirable in the circumstances that Spain should be included as one of the signatories of that Pact, should she wish to be so included?
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I do not think it is the practice of the Government to announce in advance what decision they might make with regard to a matter such as that to which the noble Lords refers if it came before the United Nations General Assembly. In regard to the second part of the supplementary, the North Atlantic Pact is an association of democratic Powers. In inviting States to sign the Pact, there are more than purely strategic considerations to be borne in mind, and these considerations at present preclude the possibility of extending an invitation to Spain. In any case, perhaps I might add that it is not a matter for unilateral decision by His Majesty's Government which Governments should be invited to accede.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, what is the difference, so far as the North Atlantic Pact is concerned, between Portugal and Spain? Also, why is it that we have a Minister in Bulgaria, in Czechoslovakia and in Hungary, yet we are not allowed to have an Ambassador in Madrid?
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I do not think that supplementary question arises out of the original Question. If the noble Earl wishes for information on these points, perhaps he will be good enough to put down another Question.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, while the matter is still being considered by His Majesty's Government, and seeing that at the present moment His Majesty's Ministers are talking in terms of war, will they not consider a principle which was inculcated by Mr. Winston Churchill during the last war, and which has even older and higher sanction—that he who is not against us

  1023
  is with us? Will the Government make approaches in this matter while there is still some grace in doing so, and not wait until they have to do so of necessity?
  LORD HENDERSON: I cannot agree that His Majesty's Government and other Governments are talking in terms of war. We are talking in terms of peace.
  THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, will the British Government's representative to the United Nations keep an open mind, supposing that some other member of the United Nations proposes the revocation of the Resolution already made?
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am sure that in such a situation the representative of His Majesty's Government would consider all the elements of the situation as it then was.

USE OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
2.40 p.m.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE rose to call attention to the present state of the law affecting pedestrian crossings; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it so happens that by chance the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper has been called in what is Pedestrian Crossing Week, a week which, as noble Lords no doubt have noticed, has started in certain areas with the spirit of carnival, supported by elephants and other animals. No doubt this has attracted to the whole question of pedestrian crossings and their safe use a certain amount of momentary public interest; but what is required is a sustained interest. It is all very well to have these "stunts," if I may so call them, to attract attention for the moment, and focus the activities of a large number of policemen on crossings up and down the country, but something more than that is required. It is necessary to capture the real interest of the general public in the extreme importance, as a matter literally of life and death, of using pedestrian crossings and learning how to use them.
As I think everybody knows, a judgment has been given in the House of Lords on pedestrian crossings and the Minister of Transport has indicated that he proposes to take action in the matter. But Pedestrian Crossing Week is being observed under the old rules; and the old rules, I submit, are in a state of complete chaos. It is interesting to notice the
1024
reports of how Pedestrian Week is working out. In The Times yesterday there was a report containing one or two interesting points. For instance, we were told there that at a busy part of Harrow Road, out of one hundred pedestrians who crossed the road within fifty yards each side of the crossing only thirty used the authorised crossing place. Your Lordships can check this up for yourselves at any time if you go through Storey's Gate. I know of no more extraordinary place in the whole of London. There is a pedestrian crossing, with a refuge in the middle, so there is no excuse for not using it. Yet hardly anybody uses that crossing; the majority of people walk straight across by the gate, completely ignoring the crossing.
Another aspect of Pedestrian Crossing Week has been the coloured crossings. This is referred to in the same issue of The Times, where it is stated that these coloured crossings are more useful in attracting pedestrians to them. But even in places where coloured crossings exist, only half the pedestrians used them. It is further said in the same issue of The Times that, from the drivers' point of view, the striped crossings are much better than any others so far used. I can entirely subscribe to that view, as I am sure can many of your Lordships. At last, for the first time since pedestrian crossings were initiated, they can be seen by the drivers. Moreover, from casual observation I think the striped crossings are also appreciated by pedestrians.
The real point I want to make is this. Some time ago—I am not sure of the date, but it does not really matter—a London omnibus was approaching a controlled crossing and the lights were in favour of the driver; there was a taxicab drawn up close to the crossing on the near side. I have two copies of the Law Times containing the report of the case. The view of the driver of the bus at the pedestrian crossing was blanketed by the taxi standing close to it on the near side. Suddenly, a woman rushed out from behind the taxi, and before the bus driver could do anything about it she was knocked over by the bus and sustained injury. The bus ended up with its wheels actually on the crossing, so there can have been no suspicion that the driver was driving at an excessive speed. But the fact remained that he knocked this woman over

1025
on the crossing. The case, as your Lordships know, came to the House of Lords, and in delivering judgment Lord Porter said:
"The true position, under Regulation 3 of the regulations of 1941, was that the motorist must be able to see whether or not the crossing was clear up to the time when, going at the speed he was going, provided it was a reasonable speed, he would still be able to stop before reaching the crossing."
There was no suggestion that the bus driver was driving at an excessive speed, or was in any way to blame. But that is the state of the law.
We get a different view, however, from the Minister of Transport. In another place on November 15, 1948, some questions were put to the Minister about the use of pedestrian crossings. One Member asked the following question:
"Can the Minister tell us whether, where there are lights on the crossings, the pedestrian has the right to pass whether those lights are green or red?"
In reply the Minister said:
"No, sir, the pedestrian has not that right when the lights are against him."
Therefore, we have a complete conflict of view between the two authorities. There is the highest court in the country saying that the pedestrian may go on to the crossing and use it, notwithstanding the state of the traffic, and if he is knocked over on the crossing the driver of the vehicle which damages him is held to blame. Yet the Minister says that the pedestrian has not the right to do this.
Further, listening in to the B.B.C. two or three nights ago, I heard a similar opinion to that of the Minister given by a commentator. In effect, therefore, we have a combination of the Minister and the B.B.C. versus the House of Lords on this very important topic. Far be it from me to try and decide between them, but I submit that it is up to His Majesty's Government to take action in this matter. The Minister of Transport has already indicated that he proposes to take action shortly. In reply to another question on February 21, 1949, he said:
"I intend to lay before the House shortly certain Amendments of the existing regulations based on the Committee's recommendations.…"
That was on February 21. It is now April 6, and so far nothing has come out. All that has been given is an assurance by the Minister that he proposes to take action, for the most part on the
1026
lines of the Report of the Committee on Road Safety, of which I have a copy. If the Minister acts as indicated, he will in my view be taking very proper action. But the point is that this state of affairs has now existed for months; and there is complete chaos and uncertainty in the minds of drivers, and also, I think, in the minds of the general public, as to the real position. I submit that if the Minister is serious—as I am sure he is—action must be taken by the Government now to clear up this anomalous position.
The Minister has further indicated, in the course of speeches and announcements which he has made recently, that he proposes to conduct a number of experiments with guard rails on various routes. Chiswick High Road has been mentioned, and your Lordships know the very great length of that road. I do not know how many or what length of guard rails the Minister proposes to erect on that highway, but it must obviously take a considerable time. During the time it takes to conduct that experiment, report on it and consider it—it may take anything up to a year—it means that the delay will go on, and we have this position of uncertainty which may at any moment be translated into death and injury on the highway.
If the Government are serious about the question of safety on the roads—and I am sure they are—they must take more energetic action than they have taken up to now. It does not seem to me so much a question for experiment, because surely the time for experiment has gone. What have the Government been doing on this very important question during the last few years? They know perfectly well that action is required, and I submit that they should not delay any longer. If one looks abroad one sees that this question is dealt with differently in various countries. Before the war I was walking in the streets of Berlin, and inadvertently I crossed against the lights. A German policeman came up and made me understand that I was expected to give him a mark for having committed this offence, which I did, apologising as best I could in very bad German. If any of your Lordships went to Paris and tried to cross such a street as the Champs Elysées without using a pedestrian crossing—that is to say, if you were mad enough to do so—it would probably cost you a franc; and

1027
you would eventually have to attend at a court. It is not the amount of the fine, but the inconvenience of having to attend the court which is likely to impress the individual. I believe that in Sydney, in New South Wales, if you decide to cross the road you have to cross at right angles; and if you fail to do so you can be fined as much as £1.
Some penalties which are imposed upon people who use the highway negligently are more severe than others. I submit that if one is really concerned about public safety, the pedestrian must be regarded as a traffic unit; and if anybody uses the highway negligently—a pedestrian, a driver of a vehicle or a rider of a pedal cycle—he should be held responsible. It is all very well to talk about rights, but rights seem to me to carry responsibilities. I hope that the Government will be able to give us some indication that they are prepared to take action to clear up the muddle which exists. I hope the Minister will lay down that all pedestrian crossings, controlled and uncontrolled, will be treated in this new zebra fashion, which is a vast improvement on that incredible obelisk, the Belisha beacon. If they take action soon, I am sure that it will mean the actual saving of life on the highway. I beg to move for Papers.
2.55 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, when I listen to the noble Earl on road safety, I am instinctively reminded of Satan rebuking sin, especially as I remember the noble Earl in his summer days, when he was a colleague of mine in another place. He gave such great joy to the lay magistrates (before whom he so often appeared) by the ingenuity with which he made out a case that he, at any rate, was quite safe, at whatever speed he travelled.
EARL HOWE: May I ask whether the noble Lord has ever heard of the poacher who turned gamekeeper?
LORD CALVERLEY: In quite a small way I have endeavoured on occasion to be a very temperate gamekeeper, having done a little poaching—also in my summer days. I agree with the noble Earl that the present Belisha beacon should be transformed, but I would remind the House that the Ministry of Transport,
1028
under the leadership of Mr. Hore-Belisha, did some remarkably good work. I agree that the Belisha beacon is now out of date. I do not agree with the noble Earl's suggestion regarding zebra crossings, but on my way from the North it occurred to me that the Minister could spend his money better than on poster propaganda if he would transform the beacon by having a foundation of bright scarlet, surmounted at the top by Oxford blue, with a narrow streak of daffodil or golden yellow in the middle. I offer that suggestion to the Minister of Transport.
I would remind your Lordships that many of the provincial branches of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents are in disagreement with the Minister with regard to the recent editions of that cautionary poster "The Jimp." The average child thought it was an incentive to be impish, whilst the grownup has become so bored with the sequence of nine years' poster propaganda that he takes very little notice of it. But the noble Earl is under a sad delusion, and is living in his wicked past, if he thinks that His Majesty's Government have done nothing at all. I regret the absence of my revered leader, Lord Llewellin—I allow him to lead me on this issue alone, because he is the President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and I esteem it an honour to be one of his lieutenants in the West Riding. I would ask the noble Earl to reflect that there are seventy-one authorities, large and small, in the West Riding, and that of their own volition seventy of them have affiliated to serve under Lord Llewellin's leadership.
I would remind the noble Earl, also, that in the last two years 93,000 children were given illustrated talks in the schools of one county borough alone. I myself, as President of the West Riding branch of the Society, enjoy going round to the various townships—the smaller the better. And, while I feel that the noble Earl (I regret to say) is almost past praying for, I must say that I have found the children the real missionaries. If the noble Earl wants testimony to what has been done for road safety during the last three or four years, he will find it in the fact that there has been a steady decline in accidents—for which every one of us is profoundly thankful. When I speak to these children, the citizens of the future, I tell them that we who are

1029
over fifty—some of us over sixty: I will not go further than that—are past redemption and should be written off as bad debts—
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: Oh no!
LORD CALVERLEY: When I hear interjections from the noble and gallant Earl, I am reminded, although he is an Admiral, of Peter Pan; and I feel that for some of us at least there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, might say, hope for redemption.
"… joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."
I hope the Minister of Transport and the President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents will take notice of what has been said with regard to beacons, and I hope that the beacons will be made as bright as they possibly can be. I appeal also to the Government not to begrudge the money that local authorities are spending in having meetings all over the country. On Sunday evenings, I regularly address meetings which are attended by the local clergy. We speak to a number of persons, representing probably a tenth of the population of the very active township of Barnoldswick. There is very great interest in these meetings; not only children attend, but their parents also. In another part of the Riding we had 2,000 persons present at a meeting a week or so ago. We are rather proud of this work. I suggest to the noble Earl that instead of taking the rôle of a minor prophet, and having the word Ichabod inscribed over his doorway, he should adopt as his motto a slogan which has been adopted over the whole countryside, and that is, "Better be safe than sorry."
The work ought not to be interrupted on account of any financial considerations. It is a pity that the present Minister of Transport cannot recover some of the money taken from the Road Fund many years ago by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Winston Churchill, and use it for an active campaign for better roads. That would be a step in the right direction. I am sure we are all agreed that we do not want a police State here, or conditions in which a police constable would be empowered to fine a citizen the equivalent of a mark or a franc for transgressing the law The
1030
policemen, like the teachers, are doing a great work in giving guidance to the children and, through the children, to the parents. That is as it should be. We certainly do not want a situation to arise in which a magistrate is called upon to try a case in which an officious policeman has perhaps taken the name and address of a citizen, or even arrested him, because he has not traversed a hundred yards before crossing the road. At the same time, I am sure that whatever powers were given to the police would be used in such a way as not to imperil the liberty of the subject. I am sorry to have detained your Lordships, but after listening to the speech of the noble Earl I felt that these few points ought to be made.
3.8 p.m.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON: My Lords, I came here this afternoon without any intention of saying a word, but I have been moved by the wonderfully religious speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. Indeed, I had no conception that pedestrian crossings could lead to a speech of such beauty and such religious concern! But there was one reference which the noble Lord made to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, which perhaps needs a little clarification or explanation. I believe I am right in saying that the noble Lord referred to the noble Earl as being in the likeness of Satan. I think that that is perhaps going a little too far! With great respect, I should like to make this point: that amongst the members of your Lordships' House who have done more than most to assist in matters relative to the roads, the noble Earl must rank as Number 1. I wish to make that point, more especially because reference was made to the fact that the noble Earl has in past years suffered certain misfortunes from the road. Maybe he has; and maybe some of us who are here to-day have not been any more fortunate. But surely the very fact that the noble Earl has suffered proves that he has experience of road conditions.
The noble Earl is probably one of the most experienced motorists in this House and, in consequence, is best qualified—whatever misfortunes he may or may not have suffered—to speak on this subject. I understand that the noble Earl

1031
made the point merely that there are two conflicting opinions: one school of thought says that the pedestrian has the right of way to negotiate a crossing against the lights, and the other says he has not. I submit that before we paint the one-time Belisha beacons and make them more glorious, like Christmas trees, in blue, pink and green with white spots, it would be best to decide who is to pay homage to them. Who is to have the right of way? Is it to be the pedestrian or the motorist? I do not think we are debating any other issue.
3.10 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I hope that I shall have your Lordships' sympathy in speaking after the oratory to which we have just listened. I am sure that every one of your Lordships, except possibly myself, is deeply indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising this important topic. Although the theme of his speech has been pedestrian crossings, if I may be permitted to say so, his treatment of it has been in no sense pedestrian. As the Committee on Road Safety pointed out, these regulations raise questions of difficulty and complexty. Therefore, I approach this topic with a good deal of diffidence. Indeed, I wish I had a pedestrian crossing by which I could escape from the high-powered criticism of the noble Earl, delivered with all that velocity for which he is so famous and which has been referred to by my noble friend behind me. Of course, this problem of the pedestrian crossings and the regulations is part of the wider problem of road safety. A succession of Governments, your Lordships' House, and indeed the country as a whole, have watched with great anxiety the mounting lists of casualties on the roads and, although of recent months there has indeed been some improvement, nevertheless the situation is still altogether unsatisfactory. His Majesty's Government are determined to take all reasonable steps to bring down the number of these terrible accidents which cause not only so much pain and misery to the victims themselves, but also suffering and loss to their families in so many cases. On the other hand, one has to remember that transport provides the arteries of industry and commerce in the modern world, that
1032
the whole thing is a question of balance, and that one must bear in mind the need for keeping traffic flowing along the roads.
The noble Earl has drawn attention to this question of pedestrian crossings. The Government's view of the pedestrian crossings is that they are a very useful method of securing safety. It has been suggested that it would be a good thing to get rid of them altogether, but the Government do not accept that view. As the noble Earl has pointed out, they have instituted the present National Pedestrian Crossing Week, which is not—I hope the noble Earl will allow me perhaps to criticise a word he used—a "stunt," but is definitely an educational attempt to secure the very thing which he asked us to secure: namely, that pedestrians shall use those crossings instead of crossing all over the roads, and that the motorist shall have a due regard to the rights of the pedestrians on those crossings. So far as one is able to judge, Pedestrian Crossing Week has been going rather successfully. It may well be that it will have some permanent effect on the users of the roads. But, obviously, propaganda cannot be altogether successful so long as the regulations themselves which govern, or purport to govern, the situation are somewhat ambiguous. Of course, the situation depends on the Pedestrian Crossing Places (Traffic) Regulations, 1941. I quite agree with the view of the noble Earl that they are not altogether satisfactory. Indeed, they have been criticised on more than one occasion in the courts, and recently, as the noble Earl has just pointed out, in the important decision of your Lordships' House in the case of The London Transport Executive v. Upson, in which one of the regulations in particular was severely criticised by a learned and distinguished member of your Lordships' House.
This difficulty has been realised for some time, and the Minister of Transport referred the whole question of these regulations to the Committee on Road Safety, which not very long ago became a permanent Committee for the purpose of advising him on problems of this kind. This Committee, to whom I am sure your Lordships will agree we all owe a considerable debt for the care with which they have gone into the problem, published as recently as February last their

1033
Report, which has been referred to by the noble Earl in the course of his remarks. The difficulty is set out very clearly in paragraph 4 of that Report. With your Lordships' permission, I propose to outline as summarily as possible the main points which are made and to indicate the line which, with the advice of his Committee, the Minister proposes to take in order to approach the task of amending the regulations and making them clear and unambiguous. The difficulties centre round Regulations 3, 4, and 5, which go together, and in particular round Regulation 3, which is the one which has been criticised so much. This says:
"The driver of every vehicle approaching a crossing shall, unless he can see that there is no foot passenger thereon, proceed at such a speed as to be able if necessary to stop before reaching such crossing."
This Regulation 3 applies both to controlled and uncontrolled crossings. By a "controlled crossing," following the view of the Committee, I mean a crossing which is controlled either by a light or by a policeman; and by an "uncontrolled crossing," one which is not so governed.
If one were to take a strict interpretation of this regulation, it would appear to indicate that a motorist must approach a crossing at such a pace that, if at any time before he actually gets to the crossing a pedestrian steps on to it, he must be able to stop absolutely at once, which, as the Committee point out, if one took such a strict view of it, would bring practically all traffic on the roads to a standstill. Indeed, in your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity that view was not taken. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord du Parcq, who in the course of his judgment in another case in which he took part before we had the pleasure and advantage of his company here, said that the regulation must be construed in a reasonable sort of way and various other factors, such as speed and things of that kind, must be looked at.
But, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe says, the average motorist who is governed by this regulation cannot be expected to understand the niceties of the law as laid down in your Lordships' House, notwithstanding the well-known maxim that every citizen is supposed to know the law. Moreover, in connection with this regulation there is the difficulty that apparently it means, as your Lordships' House at
1034
any rate has held, that although a motorist approaching a crossing may see that the light is signalling him on, nevertheless if at any time before he gets on to the crossing a pedestrian steps on to it, then, notwithstanding the fact that the light is signalling him on, he still must give way to the pedestrian. Obviously, that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs and, as has been pointed out by the Committee in their Report, has lead to what is in effect a disregard of this regulation by motorists. The Committee therefore suggest that this particular regulation should be revoked, and the Minister of Transport is very much inclined to accept that advice and to make an order revoking it. I will explain the situation, so far as that goes, in rather more detail to your Lordships in a moment.
With regard to the other two regulations to which I have referred, Regulation 4 deals only with uncontrolled crossings, and the Committee consider that it should be retained. They suggest, however, that words should be inserted requiring drivers to approach such crossings at a speed and in a manner that will enable them to respect pedestrians' rights of free and uninterrupted passage. They suggest that, with the addition of words of that kind, Regulation 4 should be retained.
Regulation 5 deals with controlled crossings, and the discussion about that is of some moment, so perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read the Regulation as it stands.
"The driver of every vehicle at or approaching a crossing at a road intersection where traffic is for the time being controlled by a police constable or by signals shall allow free and uninterrupted passage to every foot passenger who has started to go over the crossing before the driver receives a signal that he may proceed over the crossing."
The Committee think that in substance that Regulation is a good one, but they point out that it raises two main difficulties. One is this conflict with Regulation 3. As this House has held, these two Regulations have to be read together and, reading them together, it means that although the motorist may from the lights or from the policeman have had the signal to proceed, nevertheless if the pedestrian is on the crossing the pedestrian has the prior right. That is the first difficulty, and the second relates to the respective rights and duties of pedestrians and motorists on what

1035
have been called "controlled crossings round the corner."
As your Lordships appreciate, the motorist is not necessarily intending to go straight across where there is an intersection; he may wish to turn off to the left or to the right, and there there may be another controlled crossing on which there may be a pedestrian. The Regulation as it stands does not deal with the situation in respect of that pedestrian, and that raises the difficulty as to who should have priority in circumstances of that sort. The Committee propose that, except in two sorts of cases, vehicles going over controlled crossings in accordance with the signals should have precedence over the pedestrian. Regulation 3 having been abolished, Regulation 5 will in effect stand, giving the motorist the right of precedence over the pedestrian—except, as I have said, in two cases. The first of those cases is where the pedestrian has already started to cross when the light goes green. In that case, the pedestrian, having already started to cross, will continue to have the right of precedence. The other case is similar. It relates to the "round the corner" foot passenger. If he is already on the crossing round the corner, then there also the Committee think he should have precedence. Your Lordships will find all this set out in greater detail on page 6 of the Report.
MY Lords, those are the most important points raised by the Committee in their Report. There are a number of other quite important suggestions made in respect of the amendment of the Regulations, to which the noble Lord has not referred and with which perhaps your Lordships would prefer me not to deal this afternoon. On the whole, the Minister feels that these proposed amendments are reasonable, and such as he is minded to put into effect. But under the Road Traffic Act of 1930 he is under an obligation to make certain consultations before he brings Regulations before Parliament, and it would be wrong for him finally to make up his mind to accept these recommendations before these consultations have been held. Draft Regulations are accordingly being prepared for circulation to the various interested bodies, in accordance with Section 111 of the 1930 Act. As soon as the comments of these bodies have been received, they will
1036
immediately be considered and the draft regulations, which will if necessary be amended, will be laid before Parliament, and will be brought into force as quickly as possible.
I ought to say that the Minister does not expect that the new regulations will completely solve the problem. Your Lordships will agree that this is not a problem which can be completely solved by regulations; in fact the regulations are merely machinery which may enable us to bring about a better situation than that which exists at the present time. The Committee make valuable suggestions for further research, and that sort of research is already being initiated by the Minister—indeed, considerable research is going on this week in connection with the National Pedestrian Safety Week. The Minister is confident that with the propaganda, publicity and education which is going on, and with the revised regulations, which may indeed have to be further amended when we see how they work in practice, a substantial improvement will be effected, and that the value of the crossings will be enhanced.
When all is said, however, we shall come back to the necessity for much greater co-operation on the part of both pedestrians and drivers of motor vehicles. Only if there is greater co-operation and greater readiness to exercise common sense and courtesy shall we be able appreciably to bring down this heavy roll of casualties which continually shocks us. The Minister is confident that the new regulations will make a substantial contribution towards that effect and if, with the regulations and with education, we can persuade the public to make greater and more sensible use of the crossings, and the motorist to give attention to the rights of the pedestrian, then I am sure your Lordships will agree that we shall have made some progress towards the removal of this terrible casualty list from the roads.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, may I ask him to make quite clear what opportunity this House will have of dealing with these regulations before they become law? For the moment I do not recall the exact provision that is made about this matter.

1037
It is of the very greatest possible importance, and certainly it ought not to be left entirely to administrative action. There ought to be full control over it by the branches of the Legislature.
LORD CHORLEY: I very much regret that I did not make myself clear. These regulations have to be laid and at such a time there will be an opportunity to discuss them, if your Lordships wish to do so.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: They have to be laid, but there is a considerable ambiguity about even that phrase, because in some cases they are laid and then automatically they become law; but in other cases there has to be a definite Resolution approving the regulations before they can become law.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a case where it must be a negative Resolution: that is to say, if a noble Lord wishes to challenge a regulation, he must move a negative Resolution, otherwise it becomes law.
LORD CALVERLEY: May I ask my noble friend if that means a Prayer?
LORD CHORLEY: No.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: May I ask the noble Lord whether the experiments in pedestrian traffic shortly to be conducted in Aberdeen are based on the recommendations in the Report to which he has been referring?
LORD CHORLEY: I very much regret that I am not in a position to give the noble Marquess any information with regard to what is being done in Aberdeen. If he will communicate with me, I will obtain the necessary information for him.
VISCOUNT ESHER: May I ask the noble Lord this question? Standing on one of these crossings, how is one to know whether the driver of a motor vehicle which is coming at one has seen these regulations?
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lord very much indeed for the reply which he has given. All I hope is that he will see to it that there is no undue delay. I quite agree with what the Minister proposes to do—namely, to revoke Article 3. I think that revocation is very necessary indeed, and
1038
I believe that his action in this connection will go a long way towards clearing up the position. We are all—notwithstanding the Satanic records of some of us—most desirous of doing all that we can to contribute to public safety on the roads. That is the great thing. Anything that drivers of vehicles can do to promote co-operation they should do, and the same applies equally to pedestrians. I am certain that, with good sense and give and take all round, this problem can be solved. I am sorry that I used the expression "stunt" in connection with Pedestrian Crossing Week. It was an unfortunate expression and it did not quite convey what I meant. I am very anxious that the public interest aroused by Pedestrian Crossing Week should not be allowed to die away but should be maintained, if that is at all possible. Having regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has said, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

INSHORE FISHING HARBOURS
3.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS rose to call attention to the state of the harbours used by the inshore fishing industry; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am afraid that since I put this. Motion down on the Order Paper it has become, rather unfortunately, topical as the result of the cut in the meat ration, but I think it is perhaps fitting that, in the week when this terrible thing has occurred, this House should consider promoting a remedy by increasing our fishing industry. So, although the Motion came on to-day purely by accident, it is, perhaps, not altogether a bad thing.
As your Lordships well know, this country is provided by nature with a singularly large number of good harbours, and men, at one time or another, have added a good deal to them and have built new ones. But I do not wish to call to your Lordships' attention all the harbours of this country—that would be rather too large a subject with which to deal in an odd corner of an afternoon. I wish only to bring to your notice questions relating to the smaller harbours which are of use to the inshore fishing industry. There are, of course, many large

1039
harbours which are used by the inshore fishing industry, but these are, in general, in the hands of public corporations or large companies and they are fairly well kept up. Where they have any shortcomings, they are shortcomings of a particular nature; each case needs dealing with separately and cannot be made the subject of a general debate. I would like to call to your Lordships' attention harbours of smaller size than these—the little harbours where a few fishing boats shelter behind an old stone quay or in some little creek or inlet, and where stone work or, perhaps, dredging work, which has put the place in a condition to receive ships, may have been carried out some time ago. In many instances a great deal of work on these harbours is needed, and I think your Lordships will agree that this is a matter to which the attention of this House should be called.
As your Lordships may know, fishing boats, and especially the small inshore fishing boats, have not a very great range. They cannot travel very great distances and they must not go far away from shelter. They can fish only at spots where their crews feel that, should the weather become heavy, they can get rid of their gear and make for shelter—in short, that they can cut and run for it. If these boats have no home within reasonable distance to which to go, they are in trouble, and they may be in very serious trouble. The fish, on the other hand, are by no means so limited in the matter of travel. They move along the coast according to the seasons and according to their own whims, and the fishing boats try to follow them. If there is an area of the coast—and this is the case with regard to quite large stretches of our coat—where there is no small harbour readily available for the smaller fishing craft, the fish, so to speak, "get away with it." As I say, the fish quite often move according to the season, and this may mean that a fishing boat working out of one harbour may follow the fish to the limit of its area, and then, as there is no harbour immediately beyond that point which it can use, it has to leave the fish and return home. That may mean giving up fishing until the season comes round again. I submit that it is therefore most important that we should maintain not only the big harbours but an adequate chain of small harbours all
1040
round our coast, to make certain that wherever the fish go our fishermen can follow.
The harbours to which I wish to call your Lordships' attention are little harbours of whose names you probably have not heard, unless you happen to belong to those parts of the country or have taken holidays there. Such harhours are, in fact, scattered along the whole length of our coast line. Some of them are, perhaps, harbours with walls, built, as so many of them were, by some old quarrying company or some old mining company. It may have been, in some instances, that they were built by a farmer, in order to enable small coasters to come in bringing limestone to be converted into lime for dressing the fields. But in the case of the majority of these little harbours you will find that the authority which originally built them has ceased to exist.
I can call several of these harbours to mind. I know one where a quarrying company built a little stone jetty to enable coasters to be brought in. Small fishing craft now use it and find good shelter behind it. But quarrying activities ceased years ago. No one is looking after the quay now; the sea has beheaded it for a length of some thirty yards and the area of sheltered water behind it gets smaller and smaller each year. As the sheltered water diminishes, the fishing craft disappear also. Another case I call to mind is one where there is a most interesting old jetty, originally built by the Romans, which is still fundamentally sound but is becoming damaged by the sea. Its original owners, of course, have gone some time now, and it has fallen into the hands of a large authority who own a considerable area of land and who are taking little care of the harbour and do not seem inclined to let anybody else take care of it, either. As a result, a very picturesque and useful little harbour, which for many years has been crowded with small fishing craft, is becoming emptier and emptier, and the time is foreseeable in the very near future when there will be no craft left there at all.
We must consider further that there are a number of inlets, bays and stretches of sheltered or nearly sheltered water, which not only have jetties which need looking after but which also would be much improved—and it would pay us to improve them—not merely by keeping

1041
the old works in repair, but by building new ones. I understand that it is the idea of the fishing industry to go in for a larger and more seaworthy type of coastal fishing boat. I think that is a magnificent idea. We so often find an English fishing craft and a big French sea-going fishing craft lying on their nets somewhere off our coast. A bit of a blow comes up. The Frenchman, using his greater seaworthiness, tucks his head in and stays there through the blow, riding to his nets. The small English craft, not being able to take so much, has to cut his nets and run for shelter, losing not only his catch but most likely his nets—a thing which should never occur. It might be of interest to His Majesty's Government to know that in general they are not the fishermen's nets but the nets of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, who pay considerable sums of money for them. To know that these nets are left lying around at the bottom of the sea must give the Minister a certain amount of pain.
Larger fishing boats must have decent harbours to go to, and there are so many places in our rocky coast lines where even a small breakwater or jetty would create a patch of deeper sheltered water for larger fishing boats, that something should be done to bring the importance of this matter to the attention of the fishing industry and the local authorities. The Minister needs no further powers. The powers already in existence, in the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, and in the special Fishery Harbours Act, 1915, are large enough. Both those Acts give the Minister powers to create harbour boards for the purpose of looking after small harbours. There is also the possibility of getting money for the purpose of erecting harbour walls and breakwaters from the Development Corporation, with the consent and backing of the Ministry of Agriculture. This money would be handed to a fishery harbour board which could be created by order of the Minister for the particular harbour where the work is needed. Although this power has been in existence for some time, it does not seem that local authorities and others interested in the coastal regions—the fishermen, the parish councils and the inhabitants in general—realise what they can do.
Over and over again we find fishermen, fishing from little boats in a small harbour or bay and selling their fish to the
1042
local fishmonger. When he is stocked up, he tells them he will take no more, and the fishermen limit their catch to the amount they know the fishmonger can take. I understand the Ministry are now doing their best to end this state of affairs by encouraging co-operatives of fishermen, who join together and arrange for transport to collect their catch and take it inland, where there is a larger demand for it. I am sure that this method must have the general agreement and approval of us all. But it does not seem to be realised that these fishermen's co-operatives can form the bases of harbour authorities by an order of the Minister under the Fishery Harbours Act, 1915, and that once they are so constituted they can apply, through the Minister and the Development Corporation, for subsidies, in the form of either grants or loans for the purpose of erecting breakwaters and other facilities they need. As soon as it became clear to the Ministry that the fishing of that area would be thus improved, the loan would be granted.
I am not asking the Government to increase their powers in this regard. It is much more a matter of asking the Government to advertise their powers, to bring them to the notice of local authorities, to broadcast them so far as they can and generally to try to push people into doing that which is good for themselves and good for the country. That is the main reason for my raising this question to-day. I wish people to realise that they can get great help from the Ministry if they get together and do something about it, and that, if they can show good reason, help will not be withheld from them. Something must be done in this matter, because at the moment we have a position where rural district councils and other local bodies are receiving requests from local fishermen to maintain these small and (many of them) antiquated harbours, and the councils are simply saying, "We cannot do what you ask because it would add a vast sum to our rates." That is not true. It would not add a vast sum to their rates. I would like the noble Earl, when he replies, to say so, and to amplify, so far as he can, the remarks I have made. I beg to move for Papers.
3.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I rise to say a few words in

1043
support of this Motion, which I think is one that has long needed ventilating. Out of sight is out of mind, and what goes on round the coasts is not attended to quite so closely as these terrible accidents, as they were called this afternoon, which occur on the roads. If a woman is knocked down in Piccadilly, the reports of that incident occupy far more space in the newspapers than a trawler lost off, say, the Scottish coast. I think the present state of the Benches in your Lordships' House illustrates the difference between the interest in pedestrian crossings and that in ships lost at sea.
The noble Viscount who moved the Motion has spoken about fishermen and fish. I propose to leave the fish out of my remarks, but I do want to say something about the fishermen. The fishermen are one of the finest communities we have, and unfortunately that community is dwindling. The more we can do to improve the conditions of the fishermen, the better for the country. At certain times we badly need these men, and we want them now to assist in the difficult food situation. The man who goes out to sea to fish, or in any small craft for any purpose, must have an uncomfortable, wet, cold and tiring job. When one thinks of the difference between the conditions of the fishermen, and what I call the pampered conditions of people living on the land, one can understand the temptation to the fishermen to say: "Look at the fine time they are having, and I have to go out to sea to-night:" so, naturally, he turns to the shore. I shall not be considered impartial when I say that I think the men who live on the sea are better than anybody else.
It is not only the fishermen. All round the coast there are men sailing in trawlers, drifters and other small vessels. If they know there is a good harbour into which they can go to get out of danger, they will go there. In my view, it is far more dangerous to try to enter a harbour about which you are not sure than it is to ride out the gale at sea. There will be more trouble round the coasts with people coming into the country in aeroplanes, which may well come down in the sea. The more harbours we have, and the more the boats are dispersed around the coast, the greater chance of survival those people have. Then there are the lifeboats. I am sorry that the noble Earl, the President
1044
of the Lifeboat Institution, has left the Chamber. Lifeboats are very often at sea, and have to remain at sea because they cannot run for harbour. The harbours we have at present should be looked after so that every person on the sea may have in mind that he can run for harbour when there is danger. Many a lifeboat has been lost because it could not find anywhere to go. Every time a gale warning goes up, sooner or later a drifter or some small craft will run ashore and will be lost. There have been three cases in the last forty-eight hours where small vessels have come to grief. If there had been a harbour for them to go to they would have been safe. I do not mean that we should build harbours everywhere, but where we have them they should be kept in "apple-pie" order, and we should see that they serve a useful purpose.
3.54 p.m.
LORD MOUNTEVANS: My Lords, in Norway, the country to which I have to go to live cheaply, they have a saying "Alle gode ting er tre"—all good things are three. In supporting the noble Lord who moved this Motion and the noble Earl, Lord Cork, I find that all three of us are, or have been, sailors. Twenty-five years ago the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries were fortunate in their choice of a Hull solicitor, the late Harry Moss-Blundell, to be Chief Inspector of Fisheries. He had the interests of the fishermen at heart, as have the two noble Lords who have spoken on this Motion. But in those days of peace that Chief Inspector of Fisheries, of forceful character, who really knew his job, inculcated a spirit of support for the deep-sea fishermen—the men manning the trawlers from Hull, Grimsby, Fleetwood and Aberdeen. So much attention was paid to the deep-sea fishermen that the longshore fishermen (as Harry Moss-Blundell called them) in their small craft were undoubtedly neglected.
Civil Service administration takes a long time to work, and also to change, but to-day every fish should find a market. The world food shortage makes it imperative that the Motion of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, should receive immediate attention. I should like to support the noble Lords who have spoken, especially when, as has been said, a lady knocked down in Piccadilly will attract much more notice than the loss

1045
of half a dozen fishing boats, or the loss of gallant fishermen's lives. In the lifeboat service, to which the noble Earl, Lord Cork, has given much attention—to the advantage of those who have had their lives saved, including myself recently—the voluntary crews who man the lifeboats are very often fishermen. The great point is that these harbours for small craft would house the lifeboats and make the lives of the crews more secure.
3.58 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, before the noble Earl replies I would like to ask whether there has been a recent survey by his Department of the condition of the harbours on the east side of the Irish Sea—that is to say, in Cornwall, Devon, South Wales, West Wales and North Wales. We hear these days of the overfishing of the North Sea, and the great development of fishing right up to the Dogger Bank, and the like, and the serious danger of the extinction of white fish by overfishing. The Irish Sea has nothing like the North Sea in quantity or variety of fish, but I have felt of recent years (I have been on the coasts of Wales) that there has been a steady decline in the number of local fishing craft in that part of the country. I could understand that before the war when, with the cost of transport, and so on, fishing did not pay; but I am sure that with the shortage of food, increased prices and better organisation of transport those fishing grounds could now be revived. The noble Viscount who introduced the Motion knows Pembrokeshire much better than I do, but it seems to me that there are along that deeply indented coast many old places which used to support a number of inshore fishermen with small vessels but which to-day have hardly any fishermen at all. I would like the Minister to pay particular attention to that part of the world.
Of course, other factors arise in connection with that. On the coast of Wales that I know best—that is, round South Carnarvonshire—the harbours were maintained for the slate trade; and it was the slate quarrying which largely maintained the smaller harbours round Cardigan Bay. To-day the slates have to be delivered in a hurry, for the purpose of some local authority's housing scheme, and they are railed forthwith. In the old days they used to go leisurely
1046
round in the small coastal steamers, find their markets and depôts and await sale. The last war put the finishing touch on a lot of that kind of trade. I would ask the noble Earl to consider making a survey as to which of our harbours could best be renovated, and that serious efforts should be made to organise all the way up those coasts the extension and development of the longshore fishing industry.
4.3 p.m.
LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I rise for one moment only. I am aware that the noble Earl who is to reply will speak from the point of view of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the matter about which I desire to make a few remarks, the Scottish fishing industry, really comes under another Minister. But the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his capacity as Minister in charge of the Scottish Fishery Department, work closely together, so I have no doubt that much of what the noble Earl says will be helpful to us in Scotland.
I would like to emphasise the importance of the Motion which has been raised by the noble Viscount. In Scotland, a great part of our economy is dependent on the fishing industry. Yesterday we passed an instrument in this House forming a new development area in the Cromarty Firth. Important as that may be in restoring a measure of prosperity to the Highlands, and in preventing depopulation, there is nothing so important as preserving the old indigenous industry of inshore fishing which is carried on all round the coast—and on the west coast in particular. One feature I would like to mention is the protection given by the Scottish fishery cruiser fleet. I cannot speak of what takes place round the coast of England, but during the war most of these vessels, as was to be expected, were absent on war service. Do I understand that they are now all back on duty? I do not expect the noble Earl to answer this point now, but I would be glad if he would ensure that the point is conveyed to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It would be encouraging to know that all these ships are again giving the measure of protection which is required for the security of inshore fishing. The importance of this old industry to all parts of the Kingdom, and

1047
especially to Scotland, cannot be neglected, and while promoting new industries, we should not in any way overlook one which has so strong a claim on our interests.
4.7 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, I think the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, has initiated a short but extremely interesting debate, and is to be congratulated on having supporters such as the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Mountevans. They have raised very far-reaching issues concerning our inshore fishing industry and its future development. In this, as with other industries, the position is gradually changing, and the tendency at present seems to be towards bigger ships, and for these ships to go out much further afield for bigger catches, coming back to larger harbours and ports. Just how far this is to the national interest, and how far, from the State point of view, we should support the inshore fishing industry, are very big questions and I would rather not deal with them this afternoon. I want to keep to the main point of the Motion—namely, the state of some of these inshore fishery harbours.
As the noble Viscount pointed out, the difficulty is that many of these harbours were originally built by private companies and, in many cases, the companies have ceased to exist or have no further interest in the harbours. In many cases, they are falling gradually into a state of disrepair. It is not really the responsibility of the Government to put these harbours back into repair, but in reasonable cases they will help towards the cost. I should like to give a short résumé of the situation to your Lordships and explain how far His Majesty's Government can help towards either a further extension of these harbours or the repair of broken sea walls or whatever else might be necessary.
As has already been mentioned this afternoon, the Fishery Harbours Act, 1915, puts the small harbours—those harbours which are principally concerned with small fishing boats—under the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and
1048
Fisheries. These particular harbours are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport. Under that same Act the Minister has power to appoint harbour authorities. The authorities may be appointed by order—by the Minister—subject to Parliamentary approval. The Minister cannot help in the matter of running costs but may make grants in respect of capital expenses. Further assistance may be given by the Treasury under the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, towards the cost of capital works. That is the position.
What I would like to suggest to the noble Viscount is that the fishermen, or whoever are interested in a case of this nature, should submit a scheme to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. That scheme will be carefully and sympathetically looked into. If it is a reasonable scheme, and is approved by the Treasury, it will probably be eligible for a grant. There is no prescribed level of grant; it would depend entirely on the scheme—its cost, and its probable use. If the schemes are sent to us we will certainly examine them and help in every way we can. The difficulty, as has been pointed out, is to persuade the people to originate their schemes. I do not see how we can do anything about that except to give publicity to the matter.
There is just one other question which I would like to mention. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, asked me whether a survey could be carried out. In fact a survey is now being undertaken in North Wales with the co-operation of the Fisheries Organisation Society. Finally, I should like to say that we do recognise the importance of these harbours, and we wish to be helpful. I hope noble Lords will realise, however, that this problem, of small, scattered harbours in very bad repair, sometimes owned by persons who are hard to find, is a difficult one. We realise that it is an important question and that it will have to be examined. In the meantime, we will give the matter all the sympathetic consideration that we can.
4.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether there is any contact in this matter between his Department and the Ministry of Food? I have listened to this debate with great

1049
interest, and I realise that the matter has been presented to the House largely from the standpoint of the loss of industry to inshore fishermen who are unable to make the optimum use of harbours as of yore. The noble Viscount who in a most interesting speech initiated this debate, emphasised, so far as I could gather, the cessation or reduction of the activities of the fishermen owing to the dilapidated condition of so many of the small harbours. What I am rather anxious to know arises from a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, and it is this: has any sort of assessment been made of the loss of fish as the result of the non-repair and neglect of these small harbours? I happen to live on the Estuary of the River Severn which is about one-and-a-half miles across, looking over the river from my home. For several miles down the river, I have seen various small fisheries which in my young days were extremely active, disappear one after another. We are faced with an extreme shortage of meat—or, to be scientifically precise, a shortage of protein food. The most important alternative to meat as a source of protein food is fish; and it would be interesting to know whether, in fact, by further attention to our fisheries, especially on the West Coast, in which also I am interested, we might not materially augment the output and availability of fish.
I have only lately returned from a small and unimportant mission in connection with canned fruit (and incidentally canned fish) supplied by South Africa to this country. I came to the conclusion (and a very strong conclusion, to which I gave utterance before I left South Africa) that instead of exporting large quantities of canned fruit every effort should be made to expand the export of canned fish—and not only canned fish but, so far as possible, fresh fish. I am certain that in that and other parts of the British Commonwealth there is great scope for the enlargement of the fishing industry, with a view to a larger amount of fish becoming available for this country as the chief alternative to meat as a source of protein food. I venture to hope that this matter is exercising the minds of those who control the Ministry of Food as well as those who, like my noble friends opposite, are
1050
interested in such parts of the fishing industry as fall under their jurisdiction.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, if by leave of the House I might speak again, I should like to say that there is the closest co-operation between the Ministry of Food and my own Department at all levels on this subject. We have considered the question of harbours but there is no evidence that the state of the harbours is affecting the supply of fish in the country. We are, of course, extremely interested in getting as much fish as we can, and one could argue whether all help should not be given to the better and bigger ships rather than a large amount to inshore fisheries. I do not, however, want to raise that issue to-day.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which I think has been, though a small one, perhaps not one of the least interesting. I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture, in their efforts to publicise the possibilities, will make sure that local authorities are properly circularised on these subjects and that the noble Earl's words will not be confined solely to Hansard. Having said that, and knowing that your Lordships are all wishing to go and hear what has happened to your income, or what is to be done with it, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.