Sitting of 26 March 1931

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Lord Ellenborough—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

BIRMINGHAM CANAL BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name for the suspension of Standing Order 143, the object being, of course, that this Bill should go down to another place before the Recess.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 143 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the said Bill, and that the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

WATFORD AND ST. ALBANS GAS ORDER, 1931.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD MARLEY): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name upon the Paper.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DUNDEE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931. EASTBOURNE ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1931. FOCHABERS ELECTRICITY (EXTEN SION) ORDER, 1931. SOUTH EAST LANCASHIRE ELEC TRICITY DISTRICT (AMENDMENT) ORDER, 1931.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name in regard to a number of Electricity Orders.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (WICK HARBOUR) CON FIRMATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GLOUCESTER SHIRE, WARWICKSHIRE AND WORCESTERSHIRE) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion of which Notice has been given—namely, that Standing Order XXXIX be considered and dispensed with in regard to this Bill.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(Lord Marley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Bill read 3a, and passed.

PHARMACY AND POISONS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Membership of Pharmaceutical Society.
(3) If a person, within one month after the date on which payment has been demanded by the Society in such manner as may be prescribed by the by-laws of the Society, fails to pay any retention fee payable by him, the Council of the Society (in this Act referred to as "the Council") may strike his name off the register, but if, either within the year in respect of which the fee is payable or within such longer period as the Council may allow, the person whose name has been so struck off pays to the Society the retention fee, together with such additional sum, if any, by way of penalty for the default as may be prescribed by the by-laws of the Society, his name shall be restored to the register, and, if the Council so direct, the restoration shall have effect as from the date on which his name was struck off.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "one month" and to insert "two months." The noble Lord said: This Amendment, and the rest of my Amendments to Clause 1, have been agreed upon with the Pharmaceutical Society. The phrase "struck off the register" was felt by them to suggest moral turpitude, and it is proposed, therefore, that the words "removed from the register" should be substituted. The other points raised are small ones which have been agreed upon with the society.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("strike his name off") and insert ("remove his name from")
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("so struck off") and insert ("removed from the register")
Page 2, line 21, leave out ("struck off") and insert ("removed from the register")
Page 2, line 34, at end insert:
("(7) Nothing in this section applies to Honorary or Corresponding Members of the Society.")—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to insert the following clause after Clause 1.—
Issue of certificates of registration, and penalties for abuse of certificates.
".—(1) It shall be the duty of the Council on the demand of a registered pharmacist to cause a certificate of registration to be issued to him without fee:
Provided that where a certificate of registration has already been issued to the pharmacist there shall be no obligation upon the Council to cause a further certificate to be issued to him unless the registrar is satisfied that the original certificate has been lost or destroyed and such fee, if any, as may be prescribed by the by-laws of the Society shall be payable on the issue of any such further certificate
(2) If, with intent to deceive, any person—

(a) forges, or uses, or lends to or allows to be used by any other person a certificate of registration or any other certificate issued under any of the Pharmacy Acts; or

(b) makes or has in his possession any document so closely resembling any such certificate as aforesaid as to be calculated to deceive;

he shall, in respect of each offence, he liable On summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds and, in the ease of a continuing offence to a further fine not exceeding five pounds for every day during which the offence continues.
(3)In the application of this section to England, the expression 'forges' has the same meaning as in the Forgery Act, 1913."
The noble Lord said: The clause which appears on the Paper in my name is an Amendment which has also been prepared by the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society. It gets over some of the difficulties in practice in the existing law, the nature of which, I think, is sufficiently clear from the words of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Duty of authorised sellers of poisons to register business premises.
3.—(1) Every person who owns a business comprising the retail sale of drugs shall, if he is an authorised seller of poisons, cause the premises where the business is being carried on to be registered under this section.
VISCOUNT BERNIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERNIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "seller of poisons" and insert "person." The noble Viscount said: I am afraid that I have what one may call almost an indecent number of Amendments on the Paper. Most of them are moved on behalf of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. When they are home-made I will draw your attention to the fact because they may be of less importance. With regard to this Amendment, which is moved on behalf of the Society, it proposes to substitute for the expression "seller of poisons" the expression "authorised person." Objection is taken to the expression "authorised seller of poisons" and it is proposed throughout the Bill to substitute "authorised person" because it is not considered very flattering after four years training, after passing statutory examinations and after registration to be called an "authorised seller of poisons." The pharmacists' functions cover more than the selling of poisons. It is a skilled profession and they prefer to be called "authorised persons."
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("seller of poisons") and insert ("person").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I appreciate the point which the noble Viscount has brought forward on behalf of the Society, but I would point out to him that there is no question of pharmacists being called "sellers of poison." It is only a designation which it has been thought fit to put into the Bill which deals exclusively with the sale of poisons. Therefore it is an appropriate definition in this Bill, but, of course, it does not involve their being called "sellers of poisons" in other respects. With regard to this Bill it is important that we should keep the definition quite clear and I am afraid that I cannot accept the definition which is proposed throughout the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The Amendments standing in my name really amount to nothing more than drafting Amendments, and all of them have been agreed with the Pharmaceutical Society. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("the first") and insert ("an")

515
Page 3, line 21, leave out ("a fee") and insert ("such further fee not exceeding three pounds as may be so prescribed")

Page 3, lines 22 and 23, leave out ("of the same amount")

Page 3, line 27, at end insert ("Different fees may be prescribed under this section in relation to different circumstances")

line 28, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two months")

Page 3, line 32, leave out ("strike the premises off") and insert ("remove the premises from")

Page 3, line 42, leave out ("struck off") and insert ("removed from the register")

Page 4, line 3, at end insert the following subsection:
("(6) A document purporting to be a certificate signed by the registrar stating that, on a specified date, specified premises were, or were not, registered under this section shall be admissible in any proceedings as evidence that those premises were, or were not, registered on that date.")—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to insert the following subsection:—
"(7) Upon demand made by the registrar in writing the occupier of any premises at which a business including the retail sale of drugs, medicines or poisons is carried on shall furnish to the registrar the name and address of the owner of the business and the name and address of the pharmacist by whom the business is bona fide conducted and any occupier who shall within one month of the receipt of the said letter wilfully fail to furnish the registrar with the required information or shall knowingly furnish false, incomplete or misleading information, shall be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to allow greater facility for administration. It requires the occupier of premises to furnish to the registrar the name and address of the real owner of the business and the real name and address of the pharmacist by whom the business is bona fide conducted. The object is really to make it possible to prevent frauds or impossible people coming forward, and to secure that the registrar shall have information as to who is the real owner of the premises.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I understand quite well the motive of
516
the noble Lord who moves this Amendment, but I do not think he quite appreciates how very far it would go were it inserted. It would apply to every shop at which any drugs, medicines or poisons are sold and give the registrar power to call for information whether or not a matter within the jurisdiction of the Pharmaceutical Society had arisen. In the second place it would hardly give the results which the noble Lord anticipates, because if there is difficulty in knowing who the owner of the business is there is also in many cases difficulty in knowing who the occupier is. It would he possible of course to send notices and letters addressed to the occupier, but if that person chose to ignore the letter the Pharmaceutical Society would be in difficulty in taking proceedings for non compliance because in the information they would have to specify a particular individual. Therefore, I think the Amendment goes far beyond what we can rightly insert in the Bill and I am afraid I cannot accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved to insert the following new clause:—
".—(1)It shall be unlawful for any person unless he is an authorised person within the meaning of this Act to keep open shop for the dispensing of medicines.
(2)An authorised person may keep open shop for the dispensing of medicines provided that such dispensing is performed by or under the supervision of a pharmacist.
(3)Any person who shall keep open shop for the dispersing of medicines or who shall dispense a medicine in an open shop otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence under Part II of this Act."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment upon which great stress is laid by the Pharmaceutical Society and a great many other people. I have received a great many resolutions about it. Its object is to prevent anyone who is not an authorised person under the Act from keeping an open shop for the dispensing of medicines and medical prescriptions, and requires an authorised person who keeps an open shop to see that the dispensing shall be done by or under the supervision of a pharmacist. This proposed Amendment does not interfere in the least with either the compounding of simple domestic medicines,

517
or with the doctors. The important thing is the prevention of persons who are irresponsible from carrying on this trade in selling poisons and other drugs.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Askwith.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I am informed that this must be taken in conjunction with Clause 24, dealing with the interpretation of the dispensing of medicines.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: This Amendment is a matter of considerable importance. If it were inserted it would very much enlarge the scope of the Bill in a way which I am afraid we should not be justified in doing. It would have very far reaching effects and in many cases, I think, it would involve great hardships. There are many parts of the country where there is no registered pharmacist within reach and the effect of the proposed clause in such places would be to prevent the population from getting quite simple remedies from a doctor's prescription. If a doctor writes a prescription for some simple made-up remedy which involves no compounding of ingredients or which is purchased already made up from the wholesaler—common articles such as cod liver oil or gargles and many proprietary medicines—not one of these could be obtained if the Amendment were adopted except at the shop of a registered pharmacist. Further, it would apply to the supply of animal medicines on the prescription of a veterinary surgeon as well as the prescription of medicines for human use.
The Amendment would also affect the position of dispensers holding certificates of the Society of Apothecaries and the whole ex-Service class of Army dispensers, none of whom could, if this Amendment were adopted, carry on the business for which they are quite well qualified. Such is the importance of this proposal that we have had full discussion of it with the representatives of the Royal College of Physicians, the General. Medical Council, the British Medical Association, and the Society of Apothecaries, who all came to the conference which, on the Second Reading of this Bill, I promised would be held before the Committee stage was reached.
518
That conference was held on the 20th of this month. It was felt that there were very great difficulties and very great objections, and the representatives of the medical profession who were present were very disinclined to allow such an Amendment to be made to the Bill until a very much fuller investigation of all the considerations involved had been made. In these circumstances I am afraid it is quite impossible for me to accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT HEREFORD: I am not sure that the noble Lord has quite caught the point of this Amendment. The main object of it is to ensure the same terms for the non-insured part of the population as the insured part gets. This proposal is based on the provisions of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924. It has also been recognised by Parliament in Section 30 of the Pharmacy (Ireland) Act, 1875. As I say, the real object of the proposal is to secure for the remainder of the population the safeguards provided for 15,000,000 insured persons by the National Health Insurance Act.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I quite appreciate the noble Lord's point, but there is a very wide difference between the conditions under which drugs and medicines are supplied to insured persons under the National Health insurance Act and the conditions under which they are obtained by the public in general. There is really no analogy between the two cases. Under the National Health Insurance Act pharmacists cannot charge what they like for the medicines they supply. Their prices are regulated by the drug tariff fixed by the Ministry of Health. Under the proposed Amendment, while they would be given a monopoly of dispensing, there would be no restriction at all placed on the prices they might charge. I do not think that the public would stand that.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Did I understand the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to say that the medical profession was in favour of the clause as drawn? Because the noble Lord, Lord Dawson of Penn, who unfortunately is not present to-day, distinctly took the contrary attitude on Second Reading. He said:—
" Among all the clauses in this Bill this has not been put right. It shows how completely foreign the subject is to the people

519
who have ventured to try to put the Bill together. Any medical man would have told them that this part of the law needs to be put right. We are behind in these matters. No medicine should be dispensed except by registered pharmacists or under the supervision of a doctor."
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I should be the last person in the world to ignore the opinion of such an authority as Lord Dawson of Penn, and I very much regret that he was unable to come to the conference at the Home Office on the 20th. But at that conference there were very eminent representatives of the medical profession, and they expressed the opinion that the Amendment as suggested by Lord Askwith would certainly not be advisable.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Has the noble Lord considered the open shops in Glasgow? I have here a sheaf of reports of prosecutions concerning cases of open shops in Glasgow. However, I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, that perhaps it would be better to withdraw the Amendment now, consider it again, and perhaps put it down on Report.
LORD ASKWITH: I should be quite ready to follow the advice of the noble Viscount if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would give me a little hope. I assure him that the question is very acute. Perfectly unqualified persons, particularly in Glasgow, open these shops and sell poison, and under this Bill it would be much easier for such persons to obtain poisons than it is at the present time. Instead of being a Bill to control the sale of poisons, it opens the doors so wide that it really almost enables any one to go and get a poison and get rid of the persons whom he does not wish to exist any longer. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether some clause is possible to prevent that sort of thing. This Amendment was an effort made by the Pharmaceutical Society and others to meet this case.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I hardly like to hold out any hope to the noble Lord, but if he desires to raise this question again on the Report stage would only say that I think he would have to add to his armoury of arguments considerably in order to weaken the position I have taken up.
LORD ASKWITH: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to insert the following new clause:—
Authorised sellers of poisons to furnish registrar with list of shops and pharmacists in charge.
".—(1) Every authorised seller of poisons shall in the month of January in each year send to the registrar a list of all the sets of premises where his business so far as it comprises the retail sale of drugs, is being carried on and the name of the registered pharmacist by whom the business is conducted on each set of premises
(2)An authorised seller of poisons who fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall be liable on summary conviction in respect of each offence to a fine not exceeding five pounds."
The noble Lord said: This clause has been drafted in consultation with the Pharmaceutical Society, and it will assist them in the administration of Part I of the Act and in enforcing the observance of their obligations by pharmacists.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 3, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end of subsection (1) to insert: "If he shall acquire any new premises subsequent to the month of January in any year he shall send the foregoing particulars to the registrar within one month of his acquiring such new premises." The noble Viscount said: It seems to me that if a person acquired new premises, say in February, it would be rather a long time before he was obliged to furnish the particulars which he has to do under this clause to the registrar.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Line 7, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I do not think that this Amendment is really necessary in view of Clause 3 of the Bill, which requires that a person opening new premises for the sale of poisons shall first register with the registrar of the Society, and that the application for registration shall be

521
made in such a manner as may be prescribed by the Society's by-laws. The registrar, therefore, will, under Clause 3, have full notice of the opening of any new premises during the course of the calendar year, and there is no need for this particular provision.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: There is Lord Bertie's Amendment to line 11. Does the noble Viscount move that?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Yes, I have already spoken to that Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
Line 11, at end insert ("for each day during which such failure continues")—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am sorry I cannot possibly accept this Amendment. I think the noble Viscount will see that it would be absurdly drastic. It would insist on a fine of £5 for each day during which the failure continues, which is quite contrary to the spirit of modern legislation. The utmost Parliament allows in a case of this sort is the penalty if failure continues after a conviction, but in this case, where it might be due to inadvertence, it would be far too drastic, and I could not accept it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I admit the penalty is rather heavy, but would not the noble Lord consider a lesser penalty? The offender can pay the fine, and then go on to the next year without any further penalty. He can more or less flout the intention of the clause.
LORD DANESFORT: May I ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, is not there something in the point which my noble friend Lord Bertie has mentioned, that a man can violate the clause? He commits an offence; he is fined £5; and nothing else happens for the rest of the year. That is hardly a deterrent against a man violating the provisions of the clause. Ought there not to be something more drastic in order to ensure his complying with the clause?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am advised that as it stands it is sufficiently clear. If, of course, a man was convicted that is another matter. I do not think you should continuo fining him £5 every day after.
LORD DANESFORT: But when he is convicted he is fined £5, and, as I understand the clause, he can go on for eleven months defying the provisions of the clause and nothing further happens. Might I suggest to the noble Lord that something ought to be introduced to prevent a man, at the cost of only £5, from defying the provisions of a very important clause like this for eleven months?
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: Has my noble friend read the words in respect of each offence? Does not that mean that every time he is convicted he has to pay £5?
LORD DANESFORT: The offence is only committed once.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort. I will consider this matter in case it should be necessary to make it more drastic.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: On those conditions I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5:
Restriction on use of certain titles, &c.
5.—(1) It shall not be lawful for any person unless he is registered as a pharmaceutical chemist to take or use the title of pharmaceutical chemist or pharmaceutist, or for any person unless lie is registered as a pharmacist to take or use the title of chemist and druggist, or of druggist or of pharmacist, or to take or use in connection with the sale of goods by retail the title of chemist.
(2) it shall not be lawful for any person to affix to or use in connection with the premises where he carries on any business any title or description reasonably calculated to suggest that he or anyone employed in the business carried on in the premises possesses any qualification with respect to the selling dispensing or compounding of drugs or poisons other than the qualification which he in fact possesses.
(4) A penalty recovered in proceedings instituted under this section by, or by the direction of, the Society shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any public or other Act, be paid to the Society.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (1), after the second "pharmacist" to insert "or of member of the Pharmaceutical Society." The noble Lord said: This is a small drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 16, after ("pharmacist") insert ("or of member of pharmaceutical Society").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT HEREFORD VISCOUNT HEREFORD moved, in subsection (1), after "retail," to insert, "or the dispensing of medicines." The noble Viscount said: This is a small verbal Amendment. It is designed to prevent the use of the title "chemist" by an unqualified dispenser in a hospital or in the laboratory of a manufacturing house. It does not prevent the use of the word "chemist" by persons practising analytical or some other branch of chemistry apart from the dispensing of medicines.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 17, after ("retail") insert ("or the dispensing of medicines").—(Viscount Hereford.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think the noble Viscount will see that so far as dispensing in shops is concerned the point is already covered by the preceding words, which prohibit the use of the title "chemist" in connection with the sale of goods by retail. If it is intended that the Amendment should cover the case of the so-called dispensing in hospitals the Amendment will apparently not have that effect, as an essential element of dispensing is supplying. If the noble Lord will turn to the definition which it is proposed to put in by a Government Amendment to Clause 24 he will see that the point is covered.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved a number of Amendments in subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This body of Amendments has been drafted in agreement with the Pharmaceutical Society. They will prevent the unlawful use of the title "member of the Pharmaceutical Society" or the arms of the
524
Society or the unlawful use of any title on letter paper and circulars, and it is made clear what is really implied, that persons not being registered pharmacists cannot describe their premises as a pharmacy. All these various points have been agreed with the Society.
Amendments moved—
Page 4, line 18, leave out ("affix to or")
Page 4, line 19, leave out from ("with") to the first ("any") in line 20.
Page 4, Page 4, line 20, after ("title") insert ("emblem")
Page 4, line 22, leave out ("carried on in the premises")
Page 4,line 25, after ("possesses,") insert ("For the purposes of this subsection the use of the description 'pharmacy' in connection with a business carried on on any premises shall be deemed to be reasonably calculated to suggest that the owner of the business and the person by whom the business is conducted on those premises, are registered pharmacists.")
Page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Constitution of Statutory Committee]:
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 2, leave out ("elected") and insert ("appointed").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to insert as new subsections:—
"(4) A member of the Statutory Committee shall hold office for a period of five years from the date of his appointment but may at any time resign his appointment and shall be eligible for reappointment at the expiration of that period.
(5) The provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act shall have effect with respect to the proceedings of the Statutory Committee."
The noble Lord said: The first two Amendments to this clause have been inserted on the suggestion of the Pharmaceutical Society. The last Amendment—the new subsection (5)—must be considered in connection with the new Schedule which is down in my name, and is designed to make provision for the procedure of the Statutory Committee. There was no suggested provision in the Bill as it was originally introduced, and it was felt that difficulties might arise and that it was better to make that point clear. As will be seen it was very

525
desirable to make perfectly clear whether the consent of the independent chairman—your Lordships will remember there is an independent chairman and four members of the Society on the Committee—was required in all cases before a pharmacist or a body corporate is disqualified. These Amendments meet that point.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, at end insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Removal of pharmacists from register.
7.—(1) The Statutory Committee may, alter making inquiry into the case in accordance with the by-laws of the Society, direct the registrar to remove from the register the name of any pharmacist who—

(a) has been convicted of an offence against the Pharmacy Acts; or

(b) has been convicted of any other criminal offence, or been guilty of any misconduct which, in the opinion of the Statutory Committee, renders him unfit to be on the register.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The Amendments I have put down to this clause are all drafting Amendments.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I notice that the Earl of Halsbury and Lord Askwith have put down an Amendment to this clause so perhaps I had better put the Question in a form that will save their Amendment.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think my Amendments cover the noble Earl's point. If the suggestion in his Amendment were adopted it would make the Bill rather cumbrous and I think the Government proposals meet the case.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: If I may say just one word it is that I do not consider the Amendment standing in my name a very important one, but if your Lordships will look at the Bill and the Amendment you will see the point at once. The Amendment which I intended to propose was to insert, after "Acts" in paragraph (a) of subsection (1), the words "which, in the opinion of the Statutory Committee, renders him unfit to be on the register." This Statutory Committee apparently ought to make an
526
inquiry when a person has been convicted of an offence under the Pharmacy Acts. That is provided for in paragraph (a), but according to paragraph (b) if he has been convicted of another offence there need only be an inquiry if, in their opinion, it renders him unfit to be on the register. All I am proposing to do is to add to subsection (a) what is already in subsection (b). The effect of the Amendment would be that if a man has been convicted under the Pharmacy Acts of some trifling offence, and in their opinion that does not make it necessary that the registrar should be directed to remove him from the register, they do not have to go to the cost and trouble of an inquiry. They may say that in their opinion the thing is so trumpery that they need not bother about it and need not direct the registrar to remove his name.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I quite appreciate the noble Earl's point, but the position is a little confusing because my Amendments come on both sides of his Amendment. He will see that by omitting paragraph (a) as I propose and by making the alterations I propose in paragraph (b) the clause will then read:—
"has been convicted of any such criminal offence or has been guilty of any such misconduct as in the opinion of the Statutory Committee renders him to be unfit to be on the register."
I think by that means the point raised by the noble Earl is covered.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: In those circumstances I will not move my Amendment.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 10, leave out from ("case"} to ("direct") in line 11.
Page 5, leave out lines 13 and 14.
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("other") and insert ("such")
Page 5, line 16, after ("any") insert ("such")
Page 5, leave out ("which") and insert ("as")—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Conditions to be fulfilled by body corporate in order to become authorised seller of poisons.
10.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a body corporate carrying on a business which comprises the retail sale of drugs shall be an authorised seller of poisons within the meaning of this Act if the following conditions are complied with—

(a) the business must, so far as it relates to the keeping, retailing, dispensing and compounding of poisons, be under the control and management of a superintendent in whose case the following requirements are fulfilled:

(i) he must be a registered pharmacist;

(ii) his name must have been forwarded to the registrar to be entered by hint in a register to be kept for that purpose;

(iii) he must not be acting at the time in a similar capacity for any other body corporate; and

(2)Notwithstanding anything in Section five of this Act a body corporate which is an authorised seller of poisons may, if the superintendent is a member of the board of directors or other governing body of the body corporate, use the description of chemist and druggist, or of chemist, or of druggist, or of dispensing chemist or dispensing druggist, and the premises on which the business is carried on may lie prescribed as a pharmacy.
(3)If—

(a) a body corporate which is an authorised seller of poisons has been convicted of an offence against the Pharmacy Acts; or

(b) any director or officer of or other person in the employment of that body—

(i) has been convicted of an offence against the Pharmacy Acts; or

(ii) has been convicted of any other criminal offence, or been guilty of any misconduct, which, in the opinion of the Statutory Committee, renders him, or would if he were a registered pharmacist render him, unfit to be on the register,

the Statutory Committee may inquire into the case in accordance with the by-laws of the Society and may, unless the body corporate satisfies them that the act or omission which was the ground of the conviction or which constituted the misconduct was not instigated or connived at by any of their directors or by their superintendent or any other of their officers, direct—

(i) that the body corporate shall cease to be an authorised seller of poisons and shall cease to be entitled to use any title or description which a body corporate being an authorised seller of poisons is entitled to use:

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE had given Notice to move several Amendments of which the first was to leave out sub-paragraph (ii) in subsection (1) and insert:—
"(ii) a statement in writing signed by him and on behalf of the body corporate and stating his name and specifying whether or not he is a member of the hoard of directors or other governing body of the body corporate must have been sent to the registrar."
The noble Lord said: The Amendments which I have put down to this clause have been suggested by the Society. As a special privilege is given by subsection (2) to a body corporate which has registered pharmacists on its board of directors, it is desirable that the registrar of the Society should be informed that this is the case. This is effected by the first Amendment and the subsequent Amendments on the Paper are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page (3, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (ii), and insert:
("(ii) a statement in writing signed by him and on behalf of the body corporate and stating his name and specifying whether or not he is a member of the board of directors or other governing body of the body corporate must have been sent to the registrar.")
Page 7, line 15, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of line 16, and insert ("description 'pharmacy' may be used in conection with the business")
Page 7, leave out lines 23 and 24.
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("other") and insert ("such")
Page 7, line 26, after ("any") insert ("such")
Page 7, line 27, leave out ("which") and insert ("as")
Page 7, line 31,leave out from ("case") to ("and") in line 32.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (i) of subsection (3), after "poisons," to insert "either generally or in respect of specified premises." The noble Viscount said: I suppose that the noble Lord opposite is going to accept this Amendment as he has one in exactly similar words following it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 39, after ("poisons") insert ("either generally or in respect of specified premises").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11:
Continuation of business of deceased pharmacist by his representative.
11.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if a registered pharmacist dies while carrying on a business which comprises the retail sale of drugs, any executor, administrator or trustee of his estate who carries on the business after his death in accordance with the conditions hereinafter mentioned shall, during the period mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, be an authorised seller of poisons within the meaning of this Act and be entitled to use in connection with the business such titles and descriptions as might have been used by the deceased pharmacist.
The said conditions are as follows, that is to say—

(a) in each set of premises where the business is carried on, the business must be bone fide conducted by a registered pharmacist; and

(b) the name and certificate of registration of the person by whom the business is so conducted in any premises must he conspicuously exhibited in those premises.

(2) The period during which an executor, administrator or trustee shall be entitled as aforesaid shall be a period not exceeding five years from the date of the death of deceased pharmacist or such longer period as on the application of the executor, administrator or trustee the Statutory Committee may, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, think fit to direct.
(3) It any such executor, administrator or trustee or any person in his employment—

(a) has been convicted of an offence against the Pharmacy Acts; or

(b) has been convicted of any other criminal offence, or been guilty of any misconduct which, in the opinion of the Statutory Committee, renders him, or would if he were a registered pharmacist render him, unfit to be on the register,

the Statutory Committee may inquire into the case in accordance with the by-laws of the Society, and may, unless in the case of an act or omission by a person in Isis employment the executor, administrator or trustee satisfies them that the act or omission which was the ground of the conviction or which constituted the misconduct was not connived at or instigated by him, direct that he shall cease to be an authorised seller of poisons and cease to be entitled to use in connection with the business the titles and descriptions which might have been used by the deceased pharmacist.
(4) The Statutory Committee shall cause notice of any direction given by them under this section to be sent to the executor, administrator or trustee by registered letter addressed to him at any one of the premises
530
where the business of the deceased pharmacist is being carried on.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBAREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBAREDE moved to leave out clause 11 and insert—
Continuation by a representative of business of pharmacist who has died, become of unsound mind or been adjudged bankrupt.
".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, if at any time after this section comes into force a registered pharmacist who is an authorised seller of poisons dies or becomes of unsound mind or is adjudged bankrupt, any representatives who thereafter carry on his business in accordance with the conditions hereinafter specified shall, for the purposes of that business and during the period specified in subsection (2) of tins section, be authorised sellers of poisons and be entitled to use in conjunction with the trade name of the pharmacist, such titles, emblems and descriptions as might have been used by the pharmacist.
The said conditions are as follows, that is to say:—

(a) in each set of premises where the business is carried on, the business must be bona fide conducted by a registered pharmacist; and

(b) the name and certificate of registration of the person by whom the business is so conducted in any premises must be conspicuously exhibited in those premises; and

(c) the names and addresses of the representatives, and any change in the representatives or in their names or addresses must be notified to the registrar.

(2) The period referred to in subsection (1) of this section shall be a period not exceeding, in the case of death, five years from the date of the death, and in the case of unsoundness of mind or bankruptcy, three years from the date when the pharmacist became of unsound mind or was adjudged bankrupt, or such longer period as on the application of the representatives the Statutory Committee may, having regard to all the circumstances of the ease, think fit to direct.
(3) If any such representative or any person employed in the business has been convicted of any such criminal offence, or been guilty of any such misconduct, as in the opinion of the Statutory Committee renders him, or would, if he were a registered pharmacist, render him, unfit to be on the register, the Statutory Committee may inquire into the case and may, unless in the case of an act or omission by a person employed in the business the representatives satisfy the Committee that the act or omission which was the ground of the conviction or which constituted the misconduct was not connived at or instigated by any of them, direct that they shall cease to be authorised sellers of poisons and cease to

531
be entitled to use the titles, emblems and descriptions which might have been used by the pharmacist.
(4) The Statutory Committee shall cause notice of any direction given by them under this section to be sent to each representative at his address as last notified to the registrar.
(5) In this section the expression "representative" means an executor, administrator, trustee, committee or person authorised under Section one of the Lunacy Act, 1908, to exercise in relation to a person of unsound mind not so found by inquisition, any of the powers of a committee.
(6) This section shall apply to the executors, administrators or trustees of the estate of any pharmacist who died before the date when this section comes into force as it applies to representatives of pharmacists dying after that date, subject to this modification, that for the period mentioned in subsection (2) of this section there shall be substituted a period not exceeding five years from the date when this section came into force or such longer period as on the application of the executors, administrators or trustees the Statutory Committee may, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, think fit to direct."
The noble Lord said: The new clause which we propose to substitute in the Bill has been agreed to by the Society, because they wanted to make provision in case a pharmacist became bankrupt or insane. These cases were not covered in the Bill and have been inserted in the new clause which has been slightly altered in form. Otherwise the clause is exactly the same as it was before. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 11 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME had given Notice to move as an Amendment to the Amendment, to insert at the end of subsection (1): "Any person who fails to comply with the provisions of this clause shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds." The noble Viscount said: I do not think any penalty is provided in this clause for contraventions. It seems useless unless some penalty is provided. I beg to move.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved—
At end of subsection (1) insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: No penalty is inserted because the new
532
clause does not create any offence. Therefore it is not necessary to insert a penalty.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If that is so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment withdrawn.
On Question, original Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Preparation of list of poisons for purposes of Act.
15.—(1) The Secretary of State shall as soon as may be after the passing of this Act cause the Poisons Board to prepare and submit to him for his approval a list of the substances which are to be treated as poisons for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The list to be prepared under this section shall be divided into two parts as follows:—

Part I of the list shall consist of those poisons which, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, are not to be sold except by persons who are authorised sellers of poisons, and

Part II of the list shall consist of those poisons which, subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, are not to be sold except by persons who are authorised sellers of poisons or by persons entitled by virtue of section eighteen of this Act to sell poisons included in the said Part II.

(3) The Secretary of State shall forthwith take into consideration the list submitted to him by the Poisons Board, and may by order confirm it with or without modifications, as he thinks proper.
(4) The Secretary of State may from time to time, after consultation with or on the recommendation of the Poisons Board, by order amend or vary the said list as he thinks proper.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "for his approval." The noble Viscount said: Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Dawson of Penn, cannot be here this afternoon and I ventured to put down a series of Amendments which he raised in his speech for the rejection of this Bill on Second Reading. He made a very strong point, if I may say so—namely, that this Bill as it stands reeks of bureaucracy. Let me read to your Lordships a few of the noble Lord's pungent and fully justified remarks on the matter, which

533
will be found in columns 311, 312 and 313 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The noble Lord said:—
"But what does this Bill propose to do? It proposes to take the administration of poisons—and this is one of the central pillars of the Bill—from this expert body, which has, as is proper, a very considerable discretion as to how it should act, and transfer it to the Secretary of State, who is to be advised by a so-called Advisory Committee. I will show your Lordships that the Advisory Committee is a sham. The Secretary of State has power to do almost anything. First he appoints the Chairman, then he can appoint four additional members, and he has power under another clause in the Bill to override advice and to act on his own terms. The real authority in regard to poisons will be transferred to permanent officials at the Home Office, for no Home Secretary can know anything about the technicality of poisons, and he will be subject to the advice of the officials of the Home Office, who know nothing about clinical medicine and whose point of view is really confined, and very ably confined, to people who are drug addicts or who have criminal intent."
A little further on he said:—
"It will be in the power of the Secretary of State to overrule them and to act entirely as he pleases. I put it to your Lordships that here is a body, on the one hand, which has been working for years most satisfactorily, under the control of the Privy Council, composed of expert pharmacists (and strengthened, I hope, in due course by expert doctors), people who spend their lives in association with the scientific aspects of drugs and the medicines that are mostly concerned with the use of poisons; and they are to be replaced by this extraordinary body, winch aims at centralising all power inside the Home Office. I submit to your Lordships that it is a downright bad provision and I venture to say that, if the Home Office had thought it necessary, if they had condescended even to have consulted the members of the medical profession"—
I believe they have done this now—
"before they issued this Bill, there might have been no difficulty in convincing them that the right people to manage technical affairs are people with technical knowledge."
Then there is a passage to which I should like to draw attention, if I am not wearying your Lordships, from the Justice of the Peace and Local Government Review:—
"In the place of that there is to be this new Poisons List compiled by the Poisons Board and by them to be submitted to the Home Secretary who may 'by order amend or vary the said list as he thinks proper' …. In other words the Poisons Board over which, as shown above, the Home Secretary has complete control by
534
virtue of the power reserved to him to swamp it by additional nominations is to be over-ruled even in its recommendations by the autocratic power of the Minister himself. The mischief of allowing such an amendment of the law is much more real than apparent. It means that from time to time pressure of commercial interests may be brought to bear by lobbying and otherwise to secure variations which may have the most unlooked-for results."
I entreat your Lordships not to be parties to this insidious attempt to add to the strength of the ever-increasing strangle-hold of Whitehall, and for the reasons I have mentioned I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 20, leave out ("for his approval").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am always very greatly impressed by the arguments of the noble Viscount, but I must confess that I am less impressed when he reads to me from the speech on Second Reading of a noble Lord to whom I listened with the greatest possible attention when he spoke here. Lord Dawson has been quoted for the second time in this debate on an extremely important point in this series of Amendments. May I say that great as the authority of the noble Lord is, his opinion was not reflected at all by the representatives of the medical profession who had a consultation regarding this Bill at the Home Office on March 20. In this connection I think the noble Viscount is making a very grave mistake. So far as I can gather from his Amendments he wants to make this Poisons Board the final authority.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Yes.
LORD PONSONBY OF SIBULBREDE: That is to say, a Board which is sheltered from any sort of public control, which cannot be reached by anybody, has no body responsible for it, should he the sole arbiter on a question of absolutely vital importance. The Government, and I am sure the majority of your Lordships would agree, have thought that it is very necessary that there should be the high authority of the Secretary of State of the day behind this with the Poisons Board to advise him, and that it should be on his authority and in his discretion that this part of the Bill should be administered. It would be quite impossible for us to insert a series of Amendments which deprives the Home

535
Secretary of an authority that we want preserved, and substitutes in his place a Board that has been constituted only as having an advisory capacity. I should not be able to accept that.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I was honoured, after the Second Reading, by a very long talk with the noble Lord, Lord Dawson of Penn, who most unfortunately is unable to be here to-day. I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that he mentioned at the time that he would not be able to come here to-day, and he implored the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to put the Committee stage down for a later day. I hope that, when we come to the Report stage, a date will be fixed on which Lord Dawson can be here. Since he is absent, I will do my best to make one or two suggestions to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill which, I feel certain, will meet with Lord Dawson's approval.
The first point is that, after Lord Dawson has given his opinion on this matter, the noble Lord gets up and says that he has talked to other doctors and they do not agree with that opinion. That may be perfectly true, but we must have a proper opportunity of considering the matter for ourselves. What does the approval of the Home Secretary mean in practice? Does it mean that he is going, on his own authority, to add something to the Poisons Schedule with which the experts do not agree? Does it mean that he is going to leave as an open danger to the public something that the Poisons Board have definitely told him ought not to be so left? What is the meaning of the Board's approval? Is the Minister going to take it upon himself, as Home Secretary of the day, after hearing the opinion of experts who really know what they are talking about and who tell him that a particular drug or substance is a danger to the public unless it is brought within the safeguard of the Bill—is he to be able to say to them: "I do not care about that the public can buy it in a grocer's shop, for all I care. I do not care a bit about the experts"?
Is he going to shelter himself behind the officials at Whitehall, as the present constitution of the Board permits? When he does not agree with some of their decisions he can say that he does
536
not care what the doctors or the chemists or the Pharmaceutical Society think, and that he will take the opinion of his own experts in preference to theirs and, on his own initiative, disagree with that expert opinion. I quite agree that this Amendment has not quite the same effect as that which stands in my name later on the Paper, but I do suggest to your Lordships that this Advisory Committee is a board of experts who really know their subject in a practical way, and that there ought to be no authority in an official in Whitehall, even if he be the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, to override the expert opinion of people who know best in matters of the safety, health and life of the people of this country.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: As I have put down an Amendment to the same effect as this at a later stage, I think it will be convenient to your Lordships if I express my view now. The clause, as it stands at present, makes the Poisons Board a purely advisory body. Science is playing an increasing part in the life of the country, and consequently in legislation, and I would ask your Lordships seriously to consider whether the time has not arrived to recognise that the ultimate wisdom does not necessarily reside in the departmental advisers of the Ministry. In all the cases where the Minister acts on advice, it becomes increasingly important that Parliament should lay down how that advice is to be obtained. I do not think there can be any better way than by setting up a Board of highly qualified experts, nominated by the recognised technical authorities and by the Government in the way that the Poisons Board is constituted under this Bill. By all means take every care to make its composition such that it can focus the best-informed opinion of all schools of thought on the matter.
But, having done that, surely we should not continue to allow the Secretary of State to ignore the views of such a Board and to act on the advice of someone else—presumably of his own particular Departmental experts. It really cannot be safely assumed that the wisdom of the Department is on a higher plane than the wisdom of a Board specially appointed by Parliament for that purpose. If Parliament is satisfied that the Board is so composed as to constitute the best advisers, the Minister can surely very

537
reasonably be bound to follow that advice unless he is able to convince Parliament that he is justified in disregarding it. It is perfectly true that legislation on technical subjects must be a great deal delegated to some one but, unless the Boards that are set up for this purpose are given very real authority, I do not think it will be possible to get the best men to serve upon them. If it is admitted that the ultimate responsibility must lie with the Minister responsible to Parliament, I submit that the Amendments which stand on the Paper in my name are not at all inconsistent with that position. If the Minister objects to the decision of the Board, the Board is required to consider the Minister's objection and, if the Minister fails to persuade the Board to alter its decision, he can make a Motion in Parliament that the decision be not confirmed. The ultimate making of the Order is left in the hands of the Secretary of State throughout. I beg to support this Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I should like to say just one word on this Amendment. It seems to me that this proposal is one which goes to a very great length. Your Lordships have on many occasions objected to what is colloquially called a "Henry VIII clause" allowing a Secretary of State or Minister to do things with only very inadequate control by Parliament. But whatever the Minister does is under the control of Parliament, because they can turn the Government out if the Minister does wrong. If the Home Secretary poisons somebody, or if somebody gets poisoned by his action, we might even get rid of noble Lords opposite—I do not mean by poisoning, but by constitutional methods. If you set up a Board, however expert or distinguished, from whom there is no appeal and over whom there is no Parliamentary control, it seems to me that you are carrying matters very far indeed.
On the Second Reading I venture to say the same kind of thing, and the noble and learned Earl behind me, Lord Halsbury, quoted the Electricity Board. I would just like to remind your Lordships that the Electricity Board is certainly by no means independent. The Act says this:—
"The Electricity Commissioners shall have such powers and duties as are con-
538
ferred on them by or under this Act, and, subject thereto, shall act under the general directions of the Board of Trade."
Practically the Electricity Board is in the same position as this duly constituted, or proposed to be duly constituted, Poisons Board. I think it is most essential that the control of Parliament over the actions of any Board or body which has legislative powers—as, of course, this body will have—should be maintained. I think that if Parliament were to abandon the control which is now exercised by the Secretary of State it would be committing a great error.
LORD DANESFORT: I feel very great objection, like some of my noble friends on this side, to making the Secretary of State a complete autocrat on such a very technical matter. What has he to do I He has to prepare the list of substances which are to be treated, for the purposes of this Act, as poisons. It is an exceedingly difficult task and one which involves, if it is wrongly done, most serious dangers to the public. By the clause as drawn the Secretary of State has power, no doubt after consulting the Poisons Board, to make any list lie likes. He can take the list submitted by the Poisons Board and alter it as he likes. He can add to it or subtract from it. I think that that is an exceedingly dangerous power to give to the Secretary of State. I would like to know who will advise him. Not the Poisons Board, because ex hypothesi, on my supposition, he is going to overrule them, and if all the competent authorities are already on the Poisons Board, as proposed by the Bill, who will he then have to consult with him? Will it be some incompetent or not fully competent person in his own Department, or will he act on his own judgment, uncontrolled by any one? Talk of Henry VIII, I think this is at least as dangerous as anything that that most excellent monarch did, and I therefore strongly support my noble friend in taking this uncontrolled power on a vital matter out of the hands of the Secretary of State.
My noble friend Lord Onslow says that you must have responsibility to Parliament. How would the Secretary of State be made responsible to Parliament? I suppose a question could be asked in the House of Commons, and he would give the usual answer on some technical

539
matter. My noble friend says you call turn him out. Are you going to have a vote of censure on the Government because the Secretary of State puts in something which he ought not to put in, and omits something which he ought to put in? How are you going to turn him out? How are you going to bring the Secretary of State to book for making a mistake, if you call it so, in this list 2 Then it is said: Why not trust the Poisons Board? I agree that there are objections to constituting as the final court of appeal in a matter of this sort an authority which is not responsible to Parliament, but I have read the Amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Cozens-Hardy, and I think that the Amendments if carried will go far to meet the case, and will give Parliament considerable control over what the Poisons Board has decided in this matter. As it stands it seems to me that the Bill is open to every objection, because it constitutes as a final court of appeal an authority which is necessarily incompetent, as it seems to me, to give the final decision.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: May I say one word more in answer to Lord Onslow? I cannot quite follow his argument, but it seems to me to be this, that you must have somebody responsible to Parliament and, therefore, if the Home Secretary, in spite of the advice of the Poisons Board, declines to put a dangerous substance on the list, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, happens to eat it, it will be some consolation to his executors that a question can be asked in the House of Commons as to how that substance came to be left out. I should have thought that that was not the way to look at the matter, and that the object of the Bill was to give the greatest security to the public. If so it should be the expert people, who know the subject, who ought to say what shall be in the schedule, and not the Secretary of State. May I point out this? Supposing a substance is put in the list which ought not to have been put there. Where is the real harm? It might be said that there would not be so much sale for it, but it can always be sold under medical prescription or supervision, and is it not better to run that risk, supposing it is a risk, than to incur the danger of some irresponsible person being able to take
540
a dangerous poison because it is not in the poison list and can be distributed at random?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I cannot help thinking that there is a certain amount of misconception with regard to this particular power vested in the Home Secretary. I think Lord Onslow put the case very clearly. In reply to Lord Halsbury, I would say that the object which he is aiming at, and the object which we are aiming at, is the same—namely, to see that every possible precaution is taken that this part of the Bill is properly administered; that poisons which ought to be on the list are put on the list; and that other poisons or substances that need not be on the list are taken off the list. Under the proposals of the noble Lord, and those who are acting with him, the Home Secretary will be able to go to the House of Commons, when some scandal arises with regard to a poison, and he will be able to say: "The responsibility is not with me. The Poisons Board direct these things, and I have no responsibility at all."
Under the Government proposal, if any scandal arises with regard to a poison, the Home Secretary, whether he has taken the advice of the Board or gone contrary to the Board, is responsible to Parliament. He is reachable. He is an authority that is open to criticism and attack, and obviously that is what is wanted in connection with such an important question as this. The suggestion of the noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the Amendment simply means that you are going to conceal this business and are going to put it in the hands of a body which cannot be made answerable to Parliament, and the Home Secretary will be perfectly justified, if he is ever questioned, in saying: "The responsibility does not rest with me. It is the Poisons Board which settles these questions, and they are able to do it in spite of anything which I can do." In reply to Lord Danesfort, that noble Lord said that the Poisons Board contained all the experts.
LORD DANESFORT: Most.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: No, not even most. The question might quite well arise in connection with poisons wanted for industrial purposes,

541
or for war purposes. One can conceive many cases, although they might be rather exceptional cases, that might arise where the Secretary of State might find it necessary to take other advice and, not getting a majority of the Poisons Board, he might think it necessary to over-ride them. In that case he would be answerable to Parliament, and it seems to me that we have got there an authority that can be reached. I can only repeat that, when a series of Amendments seeks to remove this responsibility from the Secretary of State—who, whatever Party he may belong to, will be most cautious in exercising his discretion in a matter of such importance as this—that authority must be left in the Bill, and the Poisons Board which is set up as an Advisory Committee cannot possibly be substituted for it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I suggest that the Secretary of State should be able to put poisons on the list, but not be able to take them off? If the noble Lord will consider that between now and Report, I am quite willing to put down another Amendment to that effect.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I do not think that the suggestion very much appeals to me.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: If the noble Lord will not compromise I am afraid I must go to a Division.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: I should like to make clear that those of your Lordships who have been a little reluctant to pass the Amendment as it stands by itself will, I think, be protected if they carry my Amendment to line 38, which really goes with it from my point of view. If that Amendment is carried the responsibility of the Secretary of
State will be restored and the control of Parliament will remain. But, instead of the Secretary of State being able to do what he likes with the list, leaving it to someone else to move an Address not to confirm the list, the Board will be the persons who will make the list, and it will be left to the Secretary of State to move that it be not approved.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I quite appreciate the noble Lord's point that he does mitigate the Amendment, as moved by the other noble Lords, but the procedure he advocates is so very cumbrous that I am afraid we could not possibly accede to it.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I feel very much that the noble Lord, Lord Cozens-Hardy, has put a suggestion which we ought to consider, and I should be perfectly prepared at this stage to withdraw my Amendment and go to a Division upon his, because I quite agree that the Amendment standing in my name is much more drastic than the one standing in the name of Lord Cozens-Hardy.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I associate myself with the noble Lord's remarks, and I shall be prepared to withdraw my series of Amendments in favour of that of Lord Cozens-Hardy.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: The only difficulty about that is that the withdrawal of the words "by approval" is necessary to make my Amendment effective.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I meant my subsequent Amendments.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 32; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Kirlkey, L.

Hailsham, V.

Manners, L.

Wellington, D.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Marks, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Grey. E.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Lichfield, E.

Amulree, L.

Passfield, L.

Lucan, E.

Annaly, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Midleton, E.

Clwyd, L.

Sempill, L.

Onslow, E.

Erskine, L.

Snell, L.

Stanhope, E.

Gainford, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.(L. Sheffield.)

Greenwood, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Templemore, L.

Elibank, V.

Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Hereford, V.

Danesfort, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Leverhulme, V.

Faringdon, L.

Strafford, E.

Monkswell, L.

Addington, L.

Phillimore, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Cozens-Hardy, L.

Strachie, L.

Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE had on the Paper an Amendment to move in subsection (2) in the reference to "Part I of the List," to leave out "who are authorised sellers of poisons" and insert "the Poisons Board with the approval of the Secretary of State shall not be precluded from placing substances in this part of the List by reason only of the fact that such substances may not be poisons in the accepted meaning of that term and." The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name will require to be slightly altered, owing to the previous decision, in regard to the words "who are authorised sellers of poisons," but the substantial part of the Amendment remains as it is before your Lordships and raises a point of very considerable importance. It is to some extent the same point as was raised by Lord Cozens-Hardy when he was talking about the advance of science and the increased influence of science on legislation, and the business of Parliament.
The fact of the matter is—and I do not think the medical profession disputes it—that various substances which are not technically poisons can be used to have an equally deleterious effect on the patient. In other words, if you want to get rid of anybody and you can induce them to take an overdose of insulin, or an overdose of thyroid extract, or an overdose of a great many other things, you may kill them just as effectively as if you put arsenic in their tea. I believe I shall be told by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that the Commission which sat on this subject did not have remitted to it the consideration of the question raised by this Amendment, but I submit to your Lordships that that is hardly a sufficient answer in view of the enormous time it takes to get through legislation of this character, and the enormous labour which is expended on legislation of this character not only in the Department and in the drafting but in your Lordships' House. If we are to
544
wait until fresh legislation is brought in to deal with what will be an increasing danger, the probabilities are that enormous harm will be done before that legislation is ever passed through Parliament. I do not wish to say very much on the subject, because I expect to hear from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that he does admit that there are such dangerous substances, and the sole question, I think, which falls to be argued is whether or not it is wise at this juncture to insert into this Bill words which would include such dangerous substances. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to help me. This is an Amendment to leave out the words "who are authorised sellers of poisons" with the object of inserting the other words. It does not seem to me English, and I presume that is an objection in an Act of Parliament. As the noble Lord said, it requires some slight alteration. Will he be good enough to let us know what it is?
LORD PHILLIMORE: Instead of leaving out the words "who are authorised sellers of poisons" to insert only the words "the Poisons Board, etc."
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 28, after ("and"), insert ("the Poisons Board with the approval of the Secretary of State shall not be precluded from placing substances in this put of the List by reason only of the fact that such substances may not be poisons in the accepted meaning of that term and").—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Apart from the fact that I doubt if this particular Amendment could be inserted exactly where the noble Lord suggests, it is the principle that is important. I quite understand that he lays a great deal of importance upon the substance of his Amendment. It would enable the Poisons Board to schedule as poisons substances which are in no sense poisonous, and which, therefore, ought not to be subject to control under this Bill. It would be quite possible to schedule

545
alcohol as a poison, but if any substance is of so potent a nature as to constitute a real danger to life, then the Poisons Boards would have full powers to schedule it as a poison. This is one of the questions which were gone into by the medical profession at the conference, and everybody appreciates the importance of the particular point which the noble Lord raises.
A noble Lord, Lord Askwith, I think it was, on the Second Reading, referred to such subjects as vaccines and thyroid extract, and said unless they were looked after they might grow stale and be poisonous. Under the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1925, there is express power given to prohibit the sale of such substances after the expiration of the prescribed period from the date of manufacture, but it may quite well be that there are therapeutic substances of so potent a character that they ought to be placed more or less on the same footing as poisons and under similar control. I think the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, also mentioned thyroid extract. I believe that is very popular just now, as it is used as a means for slimming, but it was agreed at the conference with the medical profession that if these substances can he shown to be dangerous to life when taken without due care they could he scheduled and placed on the Poisons List.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Under the present Bill?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Yes, under the present Bill.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: May I say one word about this? It does not seem to me to be quite satisfactory that the Bill should be construed merely by agreement with a body of medical gentlemen, however eminent. The Bill surely ought to say so if that is meant. I have an Amendment on a clause later which does give a definition to the word "poison" and substances of the kind the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has mentioned definitely to be included in the Poisons' Schedule. It would perhaps be a simpler way out if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would indicate whether he is likely to accept that Amendment which stands in my name. It is in Clause 24, and on page 25 of the Marshalled List of Amendments, and it gives the defini-
546
tion of the word "poison" If he is willing to accept that I think it would perhaps meet the point of my noble friend Lord Phillimore.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think if the noble Earl would allow me I should prefer not to deal with his Amendment before it is reached.
LORD ASKWITH: I must say that I agree with my noble friend Lord Phillimore in this matter. It seems a perfectly simple way of dealing with dangerous substances. You have a Poisons Board whose members are supposed to be experts and who would be just the people to say this, and in case they should be wrong—that has been suggested—you would have the approval of the Secretary of State. You would have the approval of the Secretary of State behind this expert Board and there would be no danger in those circumstances, I think, of even the most moderate Home Secretary attempting to put alcohol on the Poisons List. But as regards some of these other things, there is nothing in the title of the Bill to show why they should not be included. It is a Pharmacy and Poisons Bill and it gives opportunity for putting things upon the list and also facilities for taking off the list things which, if taken in excess at a particular time, do really constitute poisons in the case of a large number of people. There is thyroid extract, for instance, which I believe at the present time is sometimes used in a very dangerous way, but when perhaps something more is known it may be a very valuable thing for slimming or for other purposes connected with human beings. But here is an opportunity without another long Act of Parliament and without any more inquiry—heaps of inquiries have been made already—for taking advantage of the suggestion of Lord Phillimore to put these things in the Bill and get it done once for all.
LORD PHILLLMORE: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared to insert in the Bill in any form the words which he agreed with the medical profession at the conference the other day? I think he used the phrase "substances dangerous to life" or words of that kind. That would content me if that could be expressed in the Bill.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I understand the noble Lord's object. I think his point is really covered, but, as he wants to have it made quite clear, if there are words which will clear the matter up I will see that they are put in at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT LEVERHULME VISCOUNT LEVERHULME moved, in subsection (2), in the reference to "Part II of the List," to leave out "entitled" and insert "permitted" The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment and of consequential Amendments which follow is simply to substitute a word which more exactly defines the status of those persons who would be authorised by the local authority to sell Part II poisons. The change of words would make it clear that the power to sell Part II poisons rests solely on permission given by the local authority and does not in any sense belong by right to the trade they carry on.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 33, leave out ("entitled") and insert ("permitted").—(Viscount Leverhulme.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: What the Pharmaceutical Society thinks about this Amendment is that the word "entitled" seems to convey that the privilege is given by virtue of qualification or examination whereas there is no qualification but only permission from the local authority. For that reason I support the noble Viscount.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Although this is only a drafting Amendment, I admit, yet we cannot get away from the fact that the Bill does entitle these persons to sell poisons and I cannot quite understand why we should not say so. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT LEVERHULME: I do not wish to press the point and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "and shall he such of those substances to be used exclusively in agriculture or horticulture for the destruction of insects, fungi or bacteria, or as sheep dips or vermin killers or for industrial or sanitary pur-
548
poses (not being medical or surgical purposes) as the Poisons Board may from time to time determine." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to limit the poisons that can be placed in Part II of the Poisons List. Limiting words were, I believe, suggested by the Departmental Committee on page 18 of their Report. My object is to safeguard farmers and agriculturists and horticulturists, who should be able freely to get poisons in addition to being able to get them from chemists and to see that they have no restrictions put upon them. On the other hand it seems to me that the proposal of the Bill for granting free permission to sell Part II poisons makes it particularly necessary that these poisons should be limited. Otherwise, instead of limiting this power to procure poisons from people other than chemists to agriculturists and horticulturists, other people would be able to obtain the poisons from unqualified sellers for medical or surgical reasons.
Those for whom I act in this House and outside this House as regards agricultural and horticultural matters express approval of my Amendment because they think that while it is right that for agricultural and horticultural purposes there should be no restriction and there should be, so to say, free trade and no monopoly in this matter, on the other hand it is very desirable that in the interests of the general public there should be monopoly as regards selling poisons for medical or surgical use. That is quite a different matter. My object is to see that while there is no restriction in the sale to agriculturists and horticulturists, poisons should not be sold for medical or surgical purposes by people who are not authorised and who are not qualified chemists.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 35, after ("Part II") insert the said words.—(Lord Strachie.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord. This restriction which he wants to make is really repeating a mistake which was made in the Act of 1908. That Act embodies a similar restriction and it has given rise to numerous difficulties. It is commented on in the Report of the De-

549
partmental Committee. The Committee definitely recommended that the whole matter should be left to the control of the body of experts on the Poisons Board. The Departmental Committee, in paragraph 44 of their Report, remarked that the second part would embrace poisons and preparations used for sanitary, industrial, horticultural or agricultural purposes. Those were the things brought more prominently than others by witnesses before them. But they did not recommend that the discretion of the Poisons Board should be fettered by any hard and fast limitation. The Amendment would also, so far as agriculture is concerned, restrict the facilities to certain class of agricultural necessaries. The Ministry of Agriculture are strongly of opinion that there should be no limitation in terms such as are contained in the noble Lord's Amendment., because that would restrict the facilities for the purchase by farmers of agricultural necessaries. The word "exclusively" also occurs in the noble Lord's Amendment and is taken from the provisions of the Act of 1908 where it has given rise to very serious difficulties. I think, on the whole, if the noble Lord examines his Amendment very closely he will see that it is really not in the interests of agriculture about which I know he is greatly concerned. In any case I think the Government could not accept it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I understand that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill says that the Act of 1908 made a mistake in preventing these poisons being easily obtainable. I believe the answer to that is that at the present time a manufacturer is permitted to supply agricultural and horticultural poisons through the post or by rail, and that any farmer in any part of the country can get what he wants by writing for it. Therefore I support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Strachie.
LORD STRACHIE: Will the noble Lord in charge of the Bill kindly explain how my Amendment will restrict the sale of poisons required for agricultural or horticultural purposes? He made the statement that my Amendment would do that.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The noble Lord actually specifies that in his Amendment. He makes it exclusively
550
for agricultural and horticultural purposes and then he proceeds to designate actually the particular subjects which he wants to have included. By that means everything outside this particular—
LORD STRACHIE: Will the noble Lord say what would be left out that would matter to agriculturists?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am afraid I am not sufficiently versed in modern scientific agriculture to know.
LORD STRACHIE: Hear, hear.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: But I can imagine that there may be many things.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE moved to insert the following new subsections:—
"(3) The substances in Part I of the List shall be divided into two classes, that is to say:

Class A substances, the sale of which to the public shall be conditional upon the keeping of the records prescribed in this Act; and

Class B substances (including substances which need not be labelled with the word poison), the sale of which to the public need not be recorded but shall be conditional upon compliance with the prescribed requirements as to labelling and containers.

(4) The substances in Part II of the List shall be divided into two classes, that is to say—

(a) the substances to be used exclusively in agriculture or horticulture for the destruction of insects, fungi, or bacteria, or as sheep dips, or vermin killers;

(b) the substances to be used for industrial or sanitary purposes not being medical or surgical purposes."

The noble Lord said: This new subsection is designed, I hope, to clear up one or two doubtful matters and is possibly not at variance with the intention of the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. It is somewhat complicated, but at present the Schedule of Poisons is divided into two parts, and it is only for the poisons in one of those parts that restrictions regarding the keeping of records of sales apply. The Bill provides that the sale of Part I poisons shall be subject to the record-keeping provisions unless the Secretary of State relaxes the provision. The first part of this Amendment is designed to secure

551
the continuation of the present arrangement whereby it is made clear that the record-keeping requirements are to apply to a definite section of Part I poisons only excepting such as may be exempted. I am not clear whether the noble Lord has any objection to that definition. The second part of the Amendment provides for the division of the poisons in Part II of the List into two classes, one, generally speaking, agricultural and the other industrial and sanitary. That, I submit, makes the working of the Bill easier as well as the control of these un-pharmaceutical sellers of poisons. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I understand that the noble Lord moves the two subsections together?
LORD PHILLIMORE: Yes.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 35, at end insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Phillimore.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think the noble Lord is trying another way of reaching the point he was aiming at in the last series of Amendments. He wants a clear-cut division made in Part I of the Poisons List. If he considers it, I think on the whole he will see that it is best that a question of that sort should be left to the discretion of the Poisons Board on which the Pharmaceutical Society is strongly represented. In order to remove any possible doubt that the Poisons Board will have full discretion of discriminating between Poisons in Part I and imposing different conditions with regard to undoubted poisons and those that are less noxious, an Amendment to Clause 16, page 12, line 9, has been placed on the Paper in my name, which I think will clear up that point and satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD PHILLIMORE: On that assurance I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, in subsection (3), to leave out all words after "Board" and to insert "and if he shall make to the Poisons Board any recommendations for amendments or variation of the List, the Poisons Board shall forthwith consider such recommendations and after consulting with the Secretary of State shall confirm the List with or without modifications, as the Board think proper." The noble Lord said: I agree that the actual proposals here are cumbersome, but they have the precise object of meeting the objections which have been advanced that the responsibility of the Secretary of State would be taken away and that there would be no control by Parliament. My object is simply to secure that, unless the Secretary of State can convince Parliament that the advice of the Poisons Board is wrong, he must follow it and make an Order accordingly. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, who, I think, said that this Amendment had some mitigating points about it, would agree to consider before the Report stage some other and simpler wording which would achieve my object, I would withdraw the Amendment: if not, I should like to press it.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, leave out from ("Board") to the end of line 39, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I do not want to go over the discussion we had just now on a previous Amendment. Although I admit that there is some semblance of Parliamentary control kept in the proposals which the noble Lord is making in his Amendment, I am afraid it does not appeal to me any more. I think the authority of the Secretary of State as it exists in the Bill must be maintained intact.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS.

Sankey, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Hailsham, V.

Gainford, L.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Greenwood, L.

Grey, E.

Hanworth, L.

Lucan, E.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Amulree, L.

Stanhope, E.

Annaly, L.

Kirkley, L.

Clwyd, L.

Marks, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cushendun, L.

Marley, L. [Teller.]

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Erskine, L.

Northington, L. (L. Henley.)

Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Templemore, L.

Passfield, L.

Snell, L.

Wharton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Lauderdale, E.

Hereford, V.

Dynevor, L.

Lichfield, E.

Leverhulme, V.

Faringdon, L.

Strafford, E.

Newton, L.

Addington, L.

Phillimore, L. [Teller.]

Bertie of Thame, V.

Cozens-Hardy, L. [Teller.]

Strachie, L.

Elibank, V.

Danesfort, L.

Treowen, L.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Prohibitions and regulations with respect to sale of poisons.
16.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, it shall not be lawful—
(b) for any person to sell any poison included in Part II of the Poisons List, unless either—
(i) that person is an authorised seller of poisons and the sale is effected on premises duly registered under Part I of this Act; or
(c) for any person to sell any poison unless the container of the poison is labelled in the prescribed manner—
(iv) with the name and address of the seller of the poison.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a) it shall not he lawful to sell any poison included in Part I of the Poisons List to any person unless that person is either—
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply—
(b) to a medicine which is dispensed by an authorised seller of poisons on premises duly registered under Part I of this Act; or
(c) to a poison forming part of the ingredients of a medicine which is supplied by an authorised seller of poisons on premises duly registered under Part I of this Act:
if the following requirements are satisfied in relation thereto:—
(ii) The following particulars must be entered by the person supplying or dispensing the medicine in a book which is used regularly for the purpose of this provision but which need not be used exclusively for that purpose—

(a) the date on which the medicine was supplied or dispensed;

554

(b) the ingredients of the medicine;

(c) if the medicine was dispensed, the name or initials and, if it is known, the address of the person by whom, and the name and, if it is known, the address of the person to whom, and the date on which, the prescription was given:

(d) if the medicine was not dispensed, the name of the person to whom it was supplied; and

Provided that the foregoing requirement (ii) need not be satisfied in the case of a medicine which is supplied on and in accordance with a written prescription given by a duly qualified medical practitioner under and in accordance with the provisions of the Acts relating to national health insurance.
VISCOUNT HEREFORD VISCOUNT HEREFORD moved, at the end of sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) in subsection (1), after "Act," to insert "by or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to secure that when Part poisons are sold in chemists' shops they shall be sold under qualified supervision. This is not provided in the Bill as it stands.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 25, after ("Act") insert ("by, or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist").—(Viscount Hereford.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: This had the support of the noble Lord, Lord Dawson of Penn, on the Second Reading. I should like to read a short passage from his speech. He said:—
"It is part of the law that insured persons shall have their medicines prescribed by doctors and dispensed by registered pharmacists. That is a very proper provision but, by some curious anomaly, if you are a non-insured person no such protection is given, and if I write a prescription to-day I have no power to demand that it shall be dispensed by a registered pharmacist."
I understand that this Amendment will rectify that position and put non-insured persons on the same footing as those who

555
are insured. For that reason I beg to support my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am not quite sure that I understand the intention of the noble Viscount, Lord Hereford, in moving this Amendment. It applies to the sale of Part II poisons by a registered pharmacist. The provision that appears in paragraph (a) (ii) of the clause in respect of Part I poisons places an additional restriction on the pharmacist. Is this really the intention of the noble Viscount?
VISCOUNT HEREFORD: It refers only to Part II poisons, and the paragraph would then read:—
"(b) for any person to serve any poison included in Part II of the Poisons List, unless either—
(i) that person is an authorised seller of poisons and the sale is effected on premises duly registered under Part I of this Act by or under the supervision of a registered pharmacist; or"
and so on. It applies only to Part II poisons.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Before we vote, if we are asked to vote on this Amendment, I should like to ask what the Government have to say. I understood the noble Lord opposite to say that he was not sure what the intention of the mover was, but unless I have been guilty of a lapse of attention I have not heard what the intention of the Government is. I should like to know this, because I do not pretend to follow the difficulty very closely.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I hope that, when the noble Lord replies, he will say why insured persons should be treated differently from those who are not insured.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I thought this point had been covered before. I apologise, but I really was not quite certain what the noble Viscount's intentions were. I think that, if this Amendment applies only to Part II poisons, as I understand it does, there is no objection to these words being inserted.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (1) (c) (iv), to leave out "and address." The noble Lord said: This and the following Amendment
556
are really drafting Amendments that have been put down at the suggestion of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 6, leave out ("and address").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 7, after ("poison") insert ("and the address of the premises on which it was sold").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (2), after "Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act," to insert "and to any rules made under this Act dispensing with or relaxing any of the requirements of this subsection." The noble Lord said: This also is a point that was raised by the Society, and I referred to it recently on the Amendment of Lord Phillimore. Here a number of the poisons at present in Part II are to be put into Part I of the new Poisons List. The Society submitted that discrimination should be made and that was what was involved in the Amendment proposed by noble Lords. My Amendment in subsection (2) is intended to make it clear that there will be this power of discrimination.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 9, at end insert ("and to any rules made under this Act dispensing with or relaxing any of the requirements of this subsection").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD PHILLIMORE: Might I ask whether that is the sole provision that the noble Lord is making to meet the point which I raised, or whether at a later stage he will consider the amplification of that for the purpose of securing the point upon which he and I are agreed?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The Amendment which I have put down goes far to meet the noble Lord, but I think I have given him an assurance before that in order to make it perfectly clear I am ready to consider any further Amendment.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I thank the noble Lord.
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY moved, in subsection 3, after "if" immediately following paragraph (c), to insert "so far as relates to poisons supplied under paragraph (b) and (c) of this subsection." The noble Lord said: So far as I can understand this rather complicated clause its effect would be that a doctor who was prescribing for an uninsured person would have to make certain records and keep a book, which a doctor prescribing for the millions of insured persons would not have to do. It seems art unnecessary task. If it is essential at all it should surely apply to everyone, but as it now stands it says that
"nothing in this section shall apply to a medicine which is supplied by a duly qualified medical practitioner …. If the following requirements are satisfied in relation thereto."
and then follow stipulations about entering the address of the person by whom it is supplied or dispensed and the address of the person to whom the prescription is given, and other particulars, in a book. Then, if you turn over the page, you find that none of the foregoing requirements with regard to entering particulars apply to a prescription given for an insured person. If that is so, what is the reason for making doctors keep records of entries of prescriptions for non-insured persons?
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 10, after ("if") insert ("so far as relates to poisons supplied under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subsection")—(Lord Cozens-Hardy.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The effect of the Amendment would be to restrict the conditions in paragraph (1) subsection (2), as to the sales of pharmacies, and exempt doctors from their application altogether. This would be really going back on the present position, because the existing law, in the Pharmacy Act, 1869, already requires medicines supplied by a doctor to a patient to be distinctly labelled with the name and address of the doctor, and the ingredients to be entered, with the name of the person to whom they are supplied, in a book to be kept by the doctor for the purpose. That is the present law. This particular point was felt to be of some importance. It was discussed at the Home Office with representatives of the medical profession, and on the whole they considered that they would prefer not to have any alteration in the present
558
law. Of course the noble Lord's Amendment would make an alteration in the present law, and I think on the whole we would be well advised not to accept it.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: Will the noble Lord say whether the proviso in subsection (3) does not make an alteration in the present law? I understand that the present law requires all prescriptions, whether for insured or uninsured persons, to be entered.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: With regard to insured persons the national health insurance scheme has a system of records of its own, apart.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE The Amendments in my name are intended to make it clear that sub-paragraph (c) in paragraph (ii) of subsection (3) does not apply to medical practitioners: and in the second place to relax the conditions as to the recording of details in a book in cases where the medicine supplied is a repeat.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 22, after ("medicine") insert ("and the quantity thereof supplied")
page 13 line 23, after ("dispensed") insert ("by an authorised seller of poisons")
page 13 line 29, after ("not") insert ("so").
Page 14, line 1, after ("(ii)") insert ("(a)")
page 13, line 3, leave out ("written")
page 13, line 5, leave out ("the provisions of")
page 13, line 6, after ("insurance") insert ("; and
(b) shall, in the case of a medicine supplied on a prescription on which a medicine has been supplied by the seller on a previous occasion, be deemed to be complied with if the date on which the medicine is supplied and the quantity thereof supplied are entered in the book together with a sufficient reference to an entry in the book duly recording the dispensing of the medicine on the previous occasion.").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I have been asked by the Pharmaceutical Society to enquire whether these Amendments will make it unnecessary for a doctor who dispenses his own medicines to put his name and address on the label. If it does, I hope that on Report the noble Lord will put something in the Bill to bring them into line with pharmacists
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I am not quite sure on that point. If the noble Viscount will communicate with me I will see whether I can clear the matter up on Report.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Exemption with respect to sales wholesale and sales to certain persons.
17. Except as provided by rules under this Act, nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall extend to or interfere with—
(2) the sale of poisons to be exported to purchasers outside the United Kingdom; or
(4) the sale of an article to—
(a) a person who requires the article—
(i) for the purpose of his trade, business or profession; or
(c) a person or institution engaged in scientific education or research, if the article is required for the purposes of that education or research.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, after paragraph (2), to insert:—
"(3) the sale of an article to a duly qualified medical practitioner, registered dentist or registered veterinary surgeon for the purpose of his profession; or".
The noble Lord said: It was felt that as the Bill stood it was rather too widely drafted, and that it might open the door to some serious evasions of the system of control which was established by the Act. As the clause stood anyone could claim to supply poisons for the purpose of trade or business or to stock them for these purposes. Clause 17 was recommended by the Departmental Committee on the suggestion of the representatives of the Pharmaceutical Society. The first Amendment specially exempts sales to a doctor from the general requirements of the previous clause. The Council of the Society are anxious for this Amendment. The second Amendment deals with the sale of poisons for the use of trade and business, including, of course, agriculture and horticulture. Various poisons are used to a large extent in industry, and, as a matter of fact, sales of poisons for use in industrial processes—for dyes and matters of that sort—have been treated very
560
largely in the past as wholesale transactions. That was not, in fact, legal, but it was reasonable in the circumstances, and it is desirable to regularise it and make it subject to regulation. The second Amendment, therefore, proposes that sales by persons doing a substantial business in poisons, or persons doing a substantial business in supplying poisons for use in industry shall be exempt, subject always to rules made for the purpose with relation to use in trade or business. I think that would satisfy all the legitimate industrial requirements.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 17, after ("or") insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in paragraph (4), after "the sale of an article," to insert "by an authorised person or by a person having a substantial business in the sale of poisons by way of wholesale dealing." The noble Viscount said: This is designed to limit the number of people by whom the very wide exemption conferred by paragraph (4) (a) (i) may be enjoyed. It confines the exemption to those persons who now enjoy it—namely, persons who have a substantial business in the sale of poisons in the way of wholesale dealing. I see that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has an Amendment which goes a little further. If his Amendment is accepted the result will be that professional rat-catchers or sheep dippers will be able to buy strychnine or arsenic from any dealer, whether he is listed by the local authority or not. That is why I have not proposed to add the words which the noble Lord has at the end of his Amendment. I hope he will accept my Amendment instead of moving his own.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 22, after ("article") insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I did not realise that my Amendment was capable of that interpretation prefer it to the noble Viscount's, but if there is any doubt with regard to the two, and I find that his words are preferable, I will certainly consider it on Report.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: In those circumstances I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The next Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 22, after ("article") insert ("by a person carrying on a business, a substantial part of which consists of the sale of poisons either by way of wholesale dealing or for use by the buyers thereof in their trade or business")
lines 24 and 25, leave out ("business or profession") and insert ("or business").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved, in paragraph (4) (c), after "research," to insert "or in conducting examinations." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that duly authorised examining bodies such as the Institute of Chemistry should be able to procure poisons which they may need in conducting these examinations, though they cannot be regarded lethally as teaching institutions. If I can get an assurance from the noble Lord that the expression "engaged in scientific education" will cover this case I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 40, after ("research") insert the said words.—(Lord Henley.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Yes, I can assure the noble Lord that his case is covered by the words as they now stand.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18:
Certain persons other than authorised sellers of poisons to be entitled to sell poisons in Part II of Poisons List.
18.—(1) Every local authority shall keep for the purposes of this Part of this Act a list of persons who, not being entitled to sell poisons included in Part I of the Poisons List, are entitled to sell poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List, and shall, on payment of such fee as is hereinafter provided, enter in the list the name of any person who, having a place of business in the area of the authority, makes all application in writing to the local authority in the prescribed form to have his name entered in the list as a seller of such poisons.
(6) In this section—
The expression "relating to him personally" means, in relation to a person being a body corporate, relating to the personal characteristics of the directors, managers or other officers of, or the persons controlling, the body corporate.
(7) It shall not be lawful for any person whose name is entered in a list kept under this section to take or use, or affix to, or use in connection with his premises any title or description reasonably calculated to suggest that he is entitled to sell any poison other than a poison contained in Part II of the Poisons List, and if any person acts in contravention of this subsection he shall, in respect of each offence, be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding live pounds, and in the case of a continuing offence to a further penalty of one pound for each day during which the offence continues.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had on the Paper an Amendment to leave out all words after "Poisons List" down to the proviso and to insert the following new subsections:
"(2) The list shall be divided into two sections, namely:—

(i) persons permitted to sell substances in Part II of the Poisons List to be used exclusively in aviculture or horticulture for the destruction of insects, fungi or bacteria or as sheep-dips or vermin-killers;

(ii) persons permitted to sell substances in Part II of the Poisons List for industrial or sanitary purposes.

Subject to the provisions of this section, the name of a person may be entered in either or both sections of the List, but no name shall be entered in the first section unless the applicant satisfies the authority that he possesses a bona fide business in agricultural and horticultural accessories.
(3) The Secretary of State shall make rules governing the conditions under which the name of any person may be entered in either section of the List, and the rules so made shall contain in respect of persons applying to have their names entered in the first section of the List provisions to the following effect:—

(a) requiring an applicant to satisfy the local authority that he possesses a bona fide business in agricultural and horticultural accessories at the premises to which the application relates;

(b) requiring an applicant to give public notice of his intention to apply for his name to be placed in the first section of the List;

(c) requiring the local authority to take into consideration whether in the neighbourhood where the applicant for the licence carries on or intends to carry on business the reasonable requirements of

563
the public with respect to the purchase of the poisons in the first section of the List."

The noble Lord said: The first point has already been decided, and I do not propose to move the first subsection, but I will move subsection (3) for an explanation, at least, as to the limitations that should be placed on the sale of poisons. Under this Bill any person can get power to sell poisons if he is regarded in his personal capacity, and if his premises are regarded as suitable. Those are the only two restrictions. In the 1908 Act the county council might take into account whether a seller of poisons in that district was required. The words were:
"requiring the local authority to take into consideration whether in the neighbourhood Where the applicant for the licence carries on or intends to carry on business the reasonable requirements of the public with regard to the purchase of poisons"
are met. This Amendment, therefore, would restore the limitation given in the Act of 1908. As yet there has been no reason given as to why it was taken away.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 5, leave out from ("List") to the end of line 11, and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: This is a matter which, if the noble Lord will allow me, I will look into. I understand the particular point that he makes, and I am not prepared at the moment to say whether we can accept it, but if he would allow me time to consider it I think we might possibly meet him on the Report stage.
LORD ASKWITH: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Paragraph (c) is the important one. I beg leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "place of business" and to insert "premises." The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes it clear that a person can only be registered with a local authority in respect of premises within the area of that authority. It has been moved on the advice of the London County Council.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 7, leave out ("place of business") and insert ("premises").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The next Amendments are consequential or drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 10, leave out from ("a") to the end of line 11 and insert ("person entitled to sell such poisons on those premises").
Page 16, line 3, at end insert:

("(6) Every list kept under this section shall be open at all reasonable times to the inspection of any person without fee.")

line 7, leave out ("to the personal characteristics of") and insert ("personally to")

line 17, after ("title") insert ("emblem").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)

VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (7), to substitute "twenty pounds" for "five pounds." The noble Viscount said: This is designed to bring the penalties under this clause into line with the penalties under Clause 5. There appears to be no valid reason why they should be different.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 22, leave out ("five") and insert ("twenty").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: If the noble Lord is supporting the noble Viscount on this Amendment I am quite ready to accept it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: In those circumstances it does not seem to matter whether. I am supported or not if the noble Lord is prepared to accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 23, leave out ("one") and insert ("five").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19:
Power of Secretary of State to make rules.
19. (1) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with or on the recommendation of the Poisons Board, make rules with respect to any of the following matters or for any of the following purposes:
(b) the sale, whether wholesale or retail, or the supply of poisons, by or to any

565
persons or classes of persons (including persons entitled by virtue of Section eighteen of this Act to sell poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List) and in particular—
LORD COZENS-HARDY LORD COZENS-HARDY had down an Amendment in subsection (1) to leave out "after consultation with or on the recommendation" and to insert "subject to the approval." The noble Lord said: The remarks I made on a previous clause have considerable bearing on this, but here wider powers are taken by the Secretary of State. He takes powers to make rules after consultation on a very wide range of subjects, for instance, the compounding and dispensing of poisons required in manufacture and so on. The powers it seem to me are altogether ton wide. I will not take up your Lordships' time by enlarging on the subject, but I hope the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will give careful attention to the clause, and try to avoid giving such very wide powers as at present he seems to think necessary. I do not, however, move my Amendment.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY had down an Amendment in subsection (1), after "Board," to insert "and after consultation with the Council of the Society." The noble Earl said: This is rather a difficult Amendment for this reason. There are Amendments standing in my name and in the names of other noble Lords with regard to the constitution of the Poisons Board. It seems to me it might very likely be an Amendment that I should not desire to press, because it really bears on what the constitution of the Board eventually is decided to be. if in fact the Pharmaceutical Society has not sufficient representation on the Board it might be necessary to suggest to your Lordships that there ought to be further consultation with the Council of the Society. But until one knows what constitution is finally settled, it does not seem to me it is an Amendment I could properly move at this time, and accordingly I do not move.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to omit the words in parentheses in subsection (1). The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to make it clear that the Poisons Board can make regulations restricting the poisons which can be sold by persons registered under Clause 18. I think this will go a long way to meet the
566
views of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society who want to draw a distinction between different groups of poisons to be included in Part II. It is better that the matter should be left to the discretion of the Poisons Board than to fix the number beforehand in the Bill.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 35, leave out from the first ("persons") to ("and") in line 37.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The Pharmaceutical Society are not quite clear about one matter arising out of this. They want to know whether it is to be understood that this is intended to meet the Society's proposal that local authorities should have power to refuse to list sellers for some reason other than an objection to the man personally or his premises. It is, of course, only a power given to the Secretary of State, which he may or may not exercise at his discretion. I am doubtful, however, whether he could, under such a clause, restrict, for example, people having a bona fide business in agricultural and horticultural accessories from selling agricultural and horticultural poisons. The new wording refers to restricting the sale or supply of poisons, but not restricting the persons who may sell them. Will the noble Lord take that point into consideration, and perhaps put something further down on Report?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: Yes, it is a point new to me, and it is rather complex. If the noble Viscount will allow me I will think it over before Report stage.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (1) (b), before subparagraph (i), to insert:—
"but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions—
(i) for regulating or restricting the sale or supply of poisons by persons entitled by virtue of Section eighteen of this Act to sell poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List; and".
The noble Lord said: This is the same point.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 38, after ("particular") insert the said new words.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20:
Penalties.
20.—(1) Any person who acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any of the provisions of Part II of this Act (other than subsection (7) of Section eighteen of this Act), or any rules made under this Part of this Act shall, on summary conviction, he liable in respect of each offence to a penalty not exceeding fifty pounds.
(2) in the case of proceedings against any person under this section for or in connection with the sale or supply of a poison effected by an employee—

(a) it shall not he a defence that the employee acted without the authority or against the orders of the employer; and

(b) any material fact known to the employee shall be deemed to have been known to the employer.

(4) Any penalty recovered in proceedings instituted under this section by, or by the direction of, the Society shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any public or other Act, be paid to the Society.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert:
"Provided that no person shall on conviction for any offence of contravening or failing to comply with any provisions relating to the keeping of hooks or records be sentenced to a fine exceeding ten pounds, if the court dealing with the case is satisfied that the offence was committed through inadvertence."
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is really based on the words of older Acts—the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1920 as amended by the Drugs and Poisons Act, 1923—and the object of it is to make a lesser penalty for a person who has been guilty of an offence by inadvertence but not guilty of an offence deliberately committed. There is little to be said on the matter. I should think your Lordships are probably of opinion that a person who does make a mistake by inadvertence ought not to be so hardly punished as a person who has done it on purpose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 13, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Halsbury).
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I think when we are dealing with serious matters we cannot allow any laxity with regard to penalties. Under the present clause the maximum penalty is only £50, and there is no obligation on the Court to impose the maximum penalty. In a case where the Court was satisfied the offence was committed from inadvertence simply, and there were no aggravating
568
circumstances, they would in fact impose only a moderate penalty. The maximum penalty of £10, which the noble Earl suggests in the Amendment, might quite well be too low for an offence even of inadvertence; and it is quite possible to conceive a case where the inadvertence might have a very serious result. We are dealing with matters of life and death, and therefore, I think, we must adhere to the figure in the Bill.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I am not quite certain that I am prepared to agree with the noble Lord opposite, but I am bound to admit the argument put forward by him is a strong one and I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2) (a), to leave out "or against the orders." The noble Viscount said: Take the case of a dissatisfied employee, one who perhaps is under notice to leave, who out of spite sells poisons in order thereby to injure his employer who may be away on holiday or laid up at the time. It would be grossly unfair to the small man, who should be treated in the same way as a body corporate. I am surprised that a Socialist Government should penalise the small man and let the body corporate get away with it. If your Lordships refer to Clause 10 on page 7 of the Bill you will see that a body corporate gets quite different treatment. Does the noble Lord admit that? If your Lordships will look at page 13 of the Report of the Departmental Committee you will see that they say:—
"In our opinion, the reasons for control over individual pharmacists apply with equal force in the case of bodies corporate."
Therefore, they think that bodies corporate and small men should get the same treatment. For these reasons I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 5, leave out from ("authority") to ("of") in line 6.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I do not appreciate the point of this Amendment in the way that the noble Viscount supported it. The words "or against the orders" are the words he wants to omit from the clause. That is the important point?
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Yes.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: At first sight I felt rather inclined to admit that the noble Viscount has a good case because it seems rather unfair if it was done deliberately against the orders of the employer that the employer should be liable. But I am advised that there are cases where a certain amount of irregularity can be stopped by being very strict about these matters. I am advised that the omission of these words would open the door to cases which might lead to deplorable results. Although they seem rather strict it is very necessary, considering that one is dealing with something of such vital importance, that the responsibility of the employer should be held to be complete with regard to his employees even though they are acting against his orders. I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think the noble Lord should give us a little more explanation. The noble Lord says he has great sympathy with the Amendment and it does seem very unfair, if a man had given definite positive orders that an employee should not do a certain thing and then that employee does it, that the person who has done everything to stop him is held responsible. There may be reasons, and the noble Lord says there are, but he has not given those reasons and I think we are entitled before rejecting this Amendment to have a little more explanation as to the exact nature of the mischief which it would give rise to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I apologise for not being sufficiently explicit. The sort of instance I have in mind is of a notice being put up in a shop saying that nobody is authorised to sell poisons except the registered pharmacist and of an assistant, with the connivance of the employer, breaking that regulation which is printed and exhibited on the premises. I do not know if that is frequent, but it has been quoted to me as a possible case, and I understand that in those cases the assistant would be too frightened of losing his job to inform against his employer. I should think these cases are very rare, but they would be people of a low moral standard, and therefore the greatest stringency is necessary. I am
570
quite prepared to look into the matter again—
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: Hear, hear!
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: —because I have my own doubts on the subject.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: As these cases are very rare, on the admission of the noble Lord, I should be much obliged if he would put the Amendment in now and reconsider it on Report if necessary.
LORD COZENS-HARDY: May I suggest that the point would be met if the words "not necessarily" were put in? It would then read: "It shall not necessarily be a defence."
THE EARL OF HALISBURY: I do not quite understand the noble Lord's objection. As I read it, it is not to be a defence that the assistant acted against the employer's orders. If the employer connived at his act it would not come under this Amendment at all.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: That is precisely the remark I made when I heard this case quoted, but it would be very difficult to prove connivance because the assistant would never give his employer away.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: You are accusing a man of connivance and yet the employer may never have connived at the act.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE:
I cannot say more than that I will consider the matter again and put in the Amendment, if necessary, on Report.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I should prefer to have the principle incorporated in the Bill now.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE:
Very well, I am willing to do it that way.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 26, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: moved to insert:—
"(5) A document purporting to be a certificate signed by a public analyst or person appointed by the Secretary of State to make analyses for the purposes of this Act stating the result of an analysis made by him, shall be admissible in any proceedings under this Act as evidence of the matters stated therein but either party may require the person by whom the analysis was made to be called as a witness."
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment to meet a suggestion of the County Councils' Association to facilitate the administration of the Act.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 28, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21:
Inspection and enforcement of Act.
21.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Society, by means of inspection and otherwise, to take all reasonable steps to enforce the provisions of Part I or this Act and to secure compliance by registered pharmacists with the provisions of Part II of this Act, and of the rules made under this Part of this Act, and the Society shall for that purpose appoint such number of inspectors as the Privy Council may direct.
(4) An inspector appointed by the Society under this section shall, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of Part I of tins Act and for securing compliance by registered pharmacists with the provisions of Part II of this Act and of the rules made under this Part of this Act, have power at all reasonable times to enter any premises which are on the register of premises and shall, for the purpose of preventing the sale of poisons included in Part I of the Poisons List by persons other than authorised sellers of poisons, have power to enter any premises in which he has reasonable cause to suspect that a breach of the law has Been committed in respect of the sale of any such poisons, and in either case shall have power to make such examination and inquiry and to do such other things (including the taking, on payment therefor, of samples) as may be necessary for ascertaining whether the provisions aforesaid are being complied with.
(5) It shall be the duty of every local authority to make adequate arrangements for the inspection, either by persons appointed by the authority to act as inspectors for the purposes of this subsection or by persons who are inspectors appointed by the Society under this section, of the premises of persons entitled by virtue of Section eighteen of this Act to sell poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List,
572
and any inspector so appointed shall, for the purpose of enforcing compliance by such persons as aforesaid with the provisions of Part II of this Act and the rules made under this Part of this Act, have power at all reasonable times to enter any premises where any such person carries on business and to make such examination and inquiry and do such other things (including the taking, on payment therefor, of samples) as may be necessary for the purpose aforesaid.
(6) If any person wilfully delays or obstructs an inspector in the exercise of any powers under this section, or refuses to allow any sample to be taken in accordance with the provisions of this section, or fails to give any information which he is duly required under this section to give, he shall in respect of each offence be liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding five pounds.
LOUD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The first Amendment to this clause is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 32, after ("pharmacists") insert ("and authorised sellers of poisons").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I think that covers the Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Bertie.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I think it does.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 7, after ("pharmacists") insert ("and authorised sellers of poisons").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: That Amendment covers the noble Viscount's next Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Yes.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "preventing the sale of poisons included in Part I of the Poisons List by persons other than authorised sellers of poisons," and to insert "securing compliance by other persons with the provisions of the said Part II and of the said rules, so far as those provisions relate to poisons included in Part I of the Poisons List." The noble Lord said: These Amendments have been drafted to meet the

573
suggestions of the County Councils' Association and the London County Council. The original wording of subsection (5) was too narrow, and its limiting of the powers and duties of the local authority and its inspectors to persons registered as sellers of Part II poisons failed to cover the case of persons selling Part II poisons without being registered. At the same time there was no power given to the local authority's inspector to institute proceedings for the purpose of enforcing the Act. Both these points are now provided for in this Amendment.
Amendment proposed—
Page 19, line 11, leave out from the first ("of") to ("have") in line 13 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede,)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The noble Viscount, Lord Hereford, has an Amendment to this part of the clause.
VISCOUNT HEREFORD: I dealt with my Amendment to this part of the clause on Clause 3 and I think it was negatived.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The next is a drafting Amendment and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 15, leave out ("respect of the sale of") and insert ("relative to").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to leave out subsection (5) and insert:
"(5) It shall be the duty of every local authority by means of inspection and otherwise to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance by persons not being authorised sellers of poisons with the provisions of Part II of this Act and of the rules made under this Part of this Act so far as those provisions relate to poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List.
(6) The inspection required by the last preceding subsection may be carried out either by persons appointed by the authority to act as inspectors for the purposes of that subsection or by persons who are inspectors appointed by the Society under this section, and any such inspector whether appointed by the Society or by the local authority shall, for the purposes of the last preceding subsection, have power at all reasonable times to enter any premises on which any person entitled by virtue of Section eighteen of this Act to sell poisons included in Part II of the Poisons List
574
carries on business, and any premises on which the inspector has reasonable cause to suspect that a breach of the law has been committed in respect of any such poisons, and in either case shall have power to make such examination and inquiry and to do such other things (including the taking, on payment therefor, of samples) as may be necessary for the purposes of the inspection.
(7) An inspector appointed by a local authority in England for the purposes of subsection. (5) of this section shall have power with the consent of the local authority to institute proceedings under this Act before a court of summary jurisdiction in the name of the authority, and to conduct any proceedings so instituted by him notwithstanding that he is not of counsel or a solicitor."
The noble Lord said: These new subsections are covered by what I said with regard to the previous Amendment. They have been agreed with the County Councils' Association and the London County Council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 21, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (6), after "fails," to insert "without reasonable excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him)." The noble Lord said: As it stands the Bill imposes an absolute obligation on persons who are in premises which are being inspected to answer any inquiries made by the inspector for the purpose of his inspection. It may be thought that 'Ms is unnecessarily stringent, and it is proposed to give a person charged with refusing to give information an opportunity of convincing the magistrates that he had reasonable ground for the course which he took. Without this Amendment it would be necessary to insert other words, but I think the simplest way of dealing with the point is to put this Amendment into the clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 40, after ("fails") insert ("without reasonable excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him)").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved to insert:—
"(7) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, it shall be the duty of every person who appears to be

575
conducting in any premises any business which comprises the retail sale of drugs to state, OH being required so to do by an inspector appointed under this section, who the owner of the business is, and if any person tails without reasonable excuse (proof whereof shall lie upon him) to comply with the provisions of this subsection he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
(8) Nothing in this section shall authorise any inspector appointed thereunder to enter or inspect the premises, not being a shop, of a duly qualified medical practitioner, a registered dentist or a registered veterinary surgeon."
The noble Lord said: This is covered by what I said regarding the other new subsections to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 44, at end insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 and 23 agreed to.
Clause 24:
Interpretation
24. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say:—
"Authorised seller of poisons" means any of the persons declared by Section nine, Section 10 and Section eleven respectively of this Act to be authorised sellers of poisons within the meaning of this Act:
"Dispensing" means supplying a poison on and in accordance with a prescription duly given by a duly qualified medical practitioner, a registered dentist or a registered veterinary surgeon:
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to insert:—
"The word 'poison' shall be deemed to include any substance which, in the opinion of the Poisons Board, is dangerous if taken without medical supervision or prescription."
The noble Earl said: I consider the Amendment standing in my name one of the most important for the consideration of your Lordships. But, having regard to what the noble Lord opposite said in answer to Lord Phillimore on the question of such things as thyroid glands and insulin, which this Amendment was intended to include, and to the fact that the noble Lord said he would consider this question before the next stage of the Bill, I shall not press my Amendment if he does not particularly agree
576
with its wording. I understand that the principle which I have endeavoured to embody in the words is one with which he is in sympathy.
May I suggest, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord that, after considerable time and trouble, I find it extremely hard to get any definition of the word "poison" as such. If you eat enough of it bread is a poison, and if you confine yourself to the proper quantity arsenic is not. What is felt about it is that the word "poison" is rather loosely used but is quite well-known to the public, and that they might say, "Thyroid gland is not a poison in the ordinary accepted meaning of the word in the English language. "I ask the noble Lord opposite to consider the possibility of using a very usual expression that it shall be deemed to include things which are not strictly speaking poisons. I would leave it to him and shall not press it if he will undertake to consider it between now and the next stage.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 18, at end insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I shall be very much obliged to the noble Earl if he will leave it like that. It is a subject which has cropped up on several occasions in the course of the afternoon, and I certainly intend to have it gone into very carefully in order that we may meet the wishes of noble Lords opposite. At the same time I would point out that we have to steer a rather difficult course because we have the medical profession watching us upon this question very closely and we have to carry them with us as well. I do not want to hold out any hope that I can make any drastic alteration, but I will certainly take the matter into consideration if the noble Earl will leave it as it stands.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The next Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 23, at end insert ("'Certificate of registration' means such a certificate as is mentioned in Section thirteen of the Pharmacy Act, 1868").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The next two Amendments are drafting.
Amendments moved—
Page 20, line 24, after ("'Dispensing'") insert ("in relation to a medicine or a poison")
Page 20, line 24, after ("a") insert ("medicine or a").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT HEREFORD VISCOUNT HEREFORD had given Notice to move, in the definition of "Dispensing," to leave out "poison" and insert "medicine." The noble Viscount said: This is a similar Amendment to that to insert a new clause after Clause 3, and as the noble Lord opposite said that it should be postponed perhaps this had better be postponed also.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 2, at end insert ("'Public analyst' means a public analyst appointed under the Food and Drugs (Adulteration) Act, 1928.").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Application to Scotland]:
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, after paragraph (c), to insert:
"(d) For the purposes of Section eleven the expression 'representatives' means an executor, administrator, trustee, or curator bonis, and any reference to a person adjudged bankrupt shall be construed as a reference to a person of whose estate sequestration has been awarded, and the expression 'adjudged bankrupt' shall be construed accordingly."
The noble Lord said: This is merely a new definition which explains itself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 28, at end insert the said new paragraph (d).—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The next is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 34, leave out ("for the purposes of the said sections").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
First Schedule:

FIRST SCHEDULE.
Constitution of Poisons Hoard.
1. The Board shall consist of fourteen members:
Provided that the Secretary of State may from time to time if be thinks fit appoint additional members of the Board, not exceeding four in all.
2. The Board shall be composed of the following persons, namely:—
Two persons appointed by the Minister for Health;
Five persons appointed by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, of whom one shall be a person engaged in the manufacture for sale by way of wholesale dealing of pharmaceutical preparations;
One person appointed by the Royal College of Physicians of London;
The additional members, if any, appointed by the Secretary of State.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to omit paragraph 1. The noble Earl said: This raises a point of very considerable importance. It has become more important than ever because of the view your Lordships have taken with regard to the final powers of the Secretary of State. This Amendment and those in my name on the First Schedule which follow it, broadly speaking, challenge the constitution of the Board as drafted in the Bill. The effect that I have tried to get is to put a certain number of experts on the Poisons Board with a certain number of people appointed by the various Secretaries of State and heads of Departments, but to keep the whole balance such that the majority vote lies with the experts and does not lie with Whitehall officials. That is the object. I am in no way wedded to the particular form of my suggestion so long as the balance can be kept in favour of the experts and not of the Whitehall people.
Your Lordships have given complete and absolute control to the Secretary of State. Why not at least let us have a Board that is controlled by experts who really know? Take the point quoted, I

579
think, by Lord Dawson of Penn the other day. Whether he quoted or not, it is a well-established fact that there is a particular firm at present in Constantinople using nothing but research chemists in order to see whether they can get some veronal-medinal group, which we all know, is a very dangerous one. The Departmental Committee, having first of all said that they were not going to determine what a poison was because it was not within their scope, actually went out of their way to say something about the veronal-medinal group. These people have a very large number of research chemists who are watching for something that has the same effect as veronal. For lack of chemical advice it may be that whatever they find will not be on the Poisons List. Then there will be a long delay before the Poisons Board deal with it, and at the end these people will have something else up their sleeve which they can put on the market straight away; and so it goes on.
For that reason I urge that we ought to have on the Board somebody representing not only the Pharmaceutical Society, not only the medical profession but also the Chemical Society, who can advise as to whether this ill thing that has come on the market is something that, from a chemical point of view, can be considered as equivalent to the other, and at once put it on the Poisons Schedule. As I say, I am not in the least wedded to the particular suggestions that I have put down. I will sum them up. What they come to is—and I have put them down as a possible means of arriving at some agreement—that there should be somebody appointed by the Home Office, somebody from Scotland, one from the Ministry of Health and one from the Ministry of Agriculture. Those four would be from Whitehall, and the rest would consist of five representatives of the Pharmaceutical Society, five of the Royal College of Physicians, two of the General Medical Council and two of the Chemical Society. That is the gist of my Amendments. Without them one could almost say that the technical work will be left in the hands of Whitehall. After your Lordships have given the overriding and final word in these matters to the Secretary of State, you surely ought to give him a Board to advise him on
580
which the preponderance of advice comes from real experts.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, leave out lines 4 to 7.—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: In order to save further Amendments I will put it that the words "The Board shall consist of" stand part of the Schedule.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The point which the noble Earl has raised in regard to the constitution of the Committee is a very important one, but in the opposition which is offered to the home Secretary's discretion in these matters it almost seems to be suggested that the Home Secretary is going to act foolishly. Whatever political Party he may belong to, I think he may be trusted in these matters to act with the greatest care. He is going to be responsible for four additional representatives on this Board. It is not likely that any Home Secretary, considering the work that this Board has to execute, would appoint Tom, Dick or Harry to the Board. He would take the greatest care to see that the best possible experts were put there, for he has to bear full responsibility and meet any blame that may arise in consequence of trouble.
Apart from the four additional members appointed by the Home Secretary, the official members are already in a minority on the Board as the Bill now stands. Of course those four additional members will not be officials. There are two officials from the Ministry of Health, and they are there because this Bill touches the work of the Ministry in two respects: on the medical side and on the local authorities' side. With regard to the medical profession, the matter was discussed with them at the conference, held at the Home Office, and it was agreed that there should be an additional representative of the medical profession. An agreement has been reached giving the British Medical Association the right to nominate one member. I really think that the constitution of the Board as it now stands in the Bill is satisfactory and would meet what I am sure the noble Earl feels to be necessary.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: The noble Lord opposite has said that the Minister is always supposed to act unreasonably, but is not he expecting this

581
Board of experts to act unreasonably by the mere fact of giving the Minister the power that he is to have?
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I cannot see that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill has given any intimation whatever, why the four additional members are wanted, nor do I find anything in the Bill which says that they are to be experts. They may be Departmental people whom he wants to put in for reasons concerning the better working of the Department, thus giving the Board a majority of people who are not experts. There is nothing in the Bill to say that they must he experts. If it is desired that they should be, why does it not say so? I should have thought it obvious that the Secretary of State, as the Bill is now drawn, can swamp the experts by appointing four additional members.
If you are going to draft the Bill in that way, there is a very much simpler way of doing it—naraely, to have a short clause with two subsections, the first of which says that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs shall never be a fool, and the second that he may appoint such people to advise him as he thinks fit. We all know that one of the best forms of government is a benevolent dictatorship, but here you are going to allow the Secretary of State at his own sweet will to appoint any four people in the country to swamp the majority of experts on the Board. I cannot accept that. Further, I cannot accept the lack of due representation of chemistry on this Board, to make it a live Board in regard to the modern discoveries that are taking place. If the noble Lord opposite will say that he will give consideration to the points that I have put before the next stage, I will not press this Amendment at present, but if, on the other hand, he says that he will never consent to deviate from the present provisions, I am afraid I shall have to take your Lordships' opinion.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I do not really desire to be unreasonable about this. I think I have done my best on most points to meet noble Lords opposite, but I cannot help thinking that the noble Earl is rather unreasonable in this respect. If the Home Secretary has to set up a Board of this sort, to advise him on this very difficult, scientific, expert question of poisons, is it likely that he would ask opera singers and green-
582
grocers, and people not connected with the business, to help him? We must really give him credit for wanting to have the very best assistance, and I think it is unreasonable that we should question his discretion on a point of this sort. I cannot give the noble Earl any hope of changing.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I do not know whether the noble Lord is able to help me on one point. This is a matter which is thought strongly about by Lord Dawson of Penn. Can the noble Lord give any indication of when the next stage of the Bill is likely to be taken? If I felt that Lord Dawson of Penn would then be present to make his point—he Is now abroad—it would be more satisfactory to your Lordships and I should certainly not move to-night, if the Report stage were not to be taken too soon.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: There is no chance of the Report stage being taken until towards the end of next month.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I feel your Lordships would be very well advised to have Lord Dawson of Penn's opinion before there is any Division. Therefore, by the leave of the House, I will withdraw my Amendment. That also includes all the Amendments I have put down to the First Schedule.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in paragraph 1, to leave out "fourteen" and insert "fifteen" and to leave out "four" and insert. "three." The noble Lord said: This gives effect to an agreement come to with the Medical profession, that one representative shall be appointed by the British Medical Association.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 4, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("fifteen")
Page 23, line 7, leave out ("four") and insert ("three").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
Amendments moved—
Page 23, line 14, leave out ("for") and insert ("of")
Page 23, line 20, after ("the") insert ("Council of the").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved to insert: "One person appointed by the Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Ireland." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I would like to say that I fully concur in what Lord Halsbury has said, about it being suitable that there should be a representative of the Chemical society on the Poisons Board. I would also like to say that I am not in opposition to the Chemical Society in moving this Amendment, because I feel that the Institute of Chemistry is a body which should be represented on this Board. In the first place, it includes many highly competent chemists directly engaged in the control of the manufacture of pharmaceutical preparations containing poisons, and I would draw your Lordship's attention to the fact that the manufacturers of these substances have only one representative, who is to be appointed by the Pharmaceutical Society, on the Board. The second reason is that nearly all public analysts under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts are members of the Institute of Chemistry. About 90 per cent. of those in England and Wales, and I think 100 per cent. of those in Scotland, are members of Institute and upon them falls the duty of analysing drugs and poisons compounded by pharmacists, when any question arises about their composition. For these reasons I move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 28, at end insert ("One person appointed by the Institute of Chemistry of Great Britain and Ireland;").—(Lord Henley.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The point raised by the noble Lord is quite an important one, and there is no doubt that a highly qualified expert chemist will be needed, and perhaps more than one, on the Board. I would, however, draw his attention to the fact that the Government Chemist, or his deputy, will be on the Board, and that amongst the four additional members to be appointed by the Secretary of State, he would no doubt choose a distinguished member of the Institute of Chemistry; but the Government are of opinion that it is perhaps a mistake to single out any particular organisation for representation, and they would prefer that it should be left to the discretion of the Home Secretary in appointing the Board.
LORD HENLEY: I would like to point out to the noble Lord, who says the Government do not wish to single out institutions specially for representation, that the present Schedule mentions representatives appointed by the Royal College of Physicians, the General Medical Council, and other bodies. I do not see why we should stop at that.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE:
I think the point is a strong one, and I would like to take it into account before the Report stage.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I very much hope it will be seriously considered, because it seems to me it would be an excellent arrangement, and also give that balance of power which has been desired by noble Lords behind me. It would give a balance, of one, I think, to the non-official members. In view of the fact that we have the over-riding power of the Secretary of State, I think that would give the sense of impartiality for which many of your Lordships this afternoon have expressed a desire.
LORD HENLEY: I would like to press the Amendment, because. I think it is really important.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I would like to say one word in support of the Amendment. It seems to me that having allowed an additional representative of the medical profession you have left the balance a little unscientific, and the mere fact that you have admitted another representative of the medical profession makes it imperative that you should admit a representative of research chemistry who can take a thoroughly enlightened scientific view of the question.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: As I have heard the argument, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 28, at end insert ("One person appointed by the British Medical Association").—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after paragraph (4) to insert the following new subsection:—
"(5) In the case of the absence of the Chairman from any meeting, the Board

585
shall elect some other member to act as Chairman for the purposes of that meeting, and in the case of the absence of any other member of the Board from any meeting the person or body by whom such member was appointed may appoint a deputy for the purposes of that meeting."
The noble Viscount said: I think there is a similar provision for appointing a Chairman, in the absence of the real Chairman, in the Coal Mines Bill, and while on the subject, may I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that there is no means of getting rid of any members of the Board on the ground of inability or misconduct? Whenever I have moved Amendments to that effect, noble Lords in charge of Bills generally say I wish to insult members of Boards, which is, of course, the last thing I wish to do. Therefore I leave it to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill to put in some clause on the next stage, if he thinks fit so to do. It does seem to me that there should be power to dismiss a member of the Board for misconduct or inability.
Amendment move—
Page 23, at end, insert the said new subsection.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I will look into that point.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: But will the noble Lord accept this proposal?
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: No. I prefer not to accept the Amendment at this stage.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: Very well, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, after the First Schedule, to insert the following Schedule:—

SECOND SCHEDULE.
Proceedings of the statutory Committee.
1. The quorum of the Statutory Committee shall be three, of whom the Chairman shall be one, and the Committee shall, subject as hereinafter provided, have power to act by a majority of the members present:
Provided that no order directing—

(i) that the name of a pharmacist shall be removed from the register; or

(ii) that a body corporate shall cease to be an authorised seller of poisons or
586
shall cease to be entitled to use any title or description or that all or any of the premises of the body corporate shall be removed from the register of premises and be disqualified for any period from being registered therein; or

(iii) that the representatives of a pharmacist shall cease to be authorised sellers of poisons or cease to be entitled to use any title, emblem, or description.

shall be made except with the assent of the Chairman of the Committee.
In the case of an equality of votes, the Chairman of the Committee shall have a casting vote.
2. The Statutory Committee may make regulations as to the procedure to be followed by them in exercising the jurisdiction conferred on them by this Act, but no such regulation shall have effect until confirmed by the Privy Council and the Privy Council may confirm any such regulation either with or without modifications:
Provided that where the Privy Council propose to confirm the regulations with modifications the Privy Council shall inform the Committee of the proposed modifications and give to them a reasonable opportunity of making any observations with respect thereto, and shall, before finally confirming the regulations, take into consideration any observations so made.
3. Every regulation made and confirmed under this Schedule shall be laid before each House of Parliament for a period of thirty days during the Session of Parliament and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament before the expiration of that period praying that the regulation may he annulled it shall thenceforth he void but without, prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under or to the making of any new regulation."
The noble Lord said: This sets out the proceedings of the Statutory Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 11, after the First Schedule insert the said new Schedule.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD COZENS-HARDY: May I draw attention to the fact that if the member of the Statutory Committee appointed by the Privy Council happens to be ill the Board cannot sit? It cannot have a quorum unless the Chairman is present, and the Chairman is defined as the member appointed by the Privy Council.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.

THE HIGHWAY CODE.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I think my best procedure

587
will be to move formally the Motion on the Paper in my name, and then to reply at the end of the debate to noble Lords who wish to make any comments or criticisms.
Moved, That the Highway Code prepared by the Minister of Transport under subsection (1) of Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which was presented on Thursday last, be approved.—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, this Code has, I understand, been very carefully considered with a number of interests and a number of experts, and far be it from me to attempt to deal with the technical details contained in it. It is drafted in a most attractive way. It begins with an allocution as to what you ought to do—to be a careful and considerate driver, and to remember that all persons have a right to use the highway and an obligation to respect the rights of others. Then it says:—
"Good manners and consideration for others are as desirable and are as much appreciated on the road as elsewhere."
Admirable sentiments, and I trust that they will be deeply considered by those to whom they are addressed. I ought to point out, by the way, that under the Act the Highway Code has to be sold at a penny. I am told that on the copies on the Table the price is twopence. That is a matter which is, perhaps, worth considering.
But the point that I wanted to raise is on page 4, as follows:—
"Pedestrians.—Always walk on the footpath where one is provided; if there is no footpath it is generally better to walk on the right of the carriageway so as to face oncoming traffic."
I entirely sympathise with the suggestion to pedestrians that they should always walk on the path. I always do myself when there is one. But the difficulty is that in a very large proportion of the country roads, even the main country roads, there is no path at all That is a point I raised on the Committee stage of the Bill. I am informed—and I should like the noble Lord to look into this matter rather carefully, if he will—that in several parts of the country the roads are perpetually being extended widened, sometimes necessarily, sometimes unnecessarily, and that the way they widen them is to take in the green verges of the road, which, though they may not
588
perhaps be technically footpaths, do serve to some extent the purpose of footpaths. At any rate, they give a refuge to harassed pedestrians when there is a difficulty in consequence of the traffic.
I do think that something ought to be done to call the attention of the local authorities to the real necessity of providing footpaths where they can. I do not really think they are in the least alive to that. Indeed, as far as I can make out, until the Road Traffic Act was passed it was no part of their duty to provide footpaths. We only succeeded in getting a very anæmic provision, saying that they ought to do so where they think it necessary, but, in point of fact, they do very little indeed. I was told in the discussion of the Bill that in the administration of the Road Fund there was a great opportunity for the Ministry of Transport to insist upon footpaths being made, and they always did insist—so I understood the suggestion made by the Government—whenever they were called upon to contribute to repair or improvement of a road and agreed to do so. My experience does not conform with that. I do not think they do insist on the provision of footpaths, and I think that really an enormous deal has now been done in the last few years for making the passage of the roads marvellously suitable for wheeled traffic. They are probably, from that point of view, the best roads in the world. But nothing, or almost nothing, has been done to provide for the pedestrian traffic. I hope that the noble Lord, hearing in mind this advice that is officially given to the pedestrians to walk on the footpath, will see that that advice is capable of being fulfilled by using all the powers of the Ministry of Transport to see that footpaths are provided. It is a matter of real importance. I trust that the noble Lord will be able to give very close attention to it.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I should like, if I may, first of all to pay a tribute, which I am quite sure at any rate the motoring organisations would wish to pay, to the Minister of Transport for the way in which he has met them on the various points which they have placed before him during the unofficial discussions which have taken place on the subject of the Highway Code. I happen to be closely associated with one of the

589
motoring organisations; in fact, I am on the Committee of the Royal Automobile Club, and I know that our representatives were very much impressed by the way in which the Minister met all the points which the Royal Automobile Club ventured to place before him. I think it can be said that the Code generally is more or loss an agreed code, and there is not very much to be said about it, but I have one or two points of detail to which I intend to refer in a minute.
I would like to ask the Minister in charge of the Highway Code this: If both Houses of Parliament pass the Code what happens then? What steps, for instance, are the Government going to take in order to bring the Code effectually to the notice of everybody who is concerned? Is it the intention of the Government to bring it before the schools of the country; to ask, for instance, some of the classes in the schools to answer reasonable questions based upon the Code, or what other steps are going to be taken? At the moment the public Press is very helpful, and the Safety First Association has done, is doing, and will, I am sure, continue to do everything it can; but I think that more will be required, and I cannot help feeling that the Minister of Education could do a very great deal, through the medium of the schools, to get the Code really well known by at any rate the younger element of the population throughout the country. With regard to the motoring world, as I explained during the passage of the Road Traffic Bill through your Lordships' House, I would very much have preferred to see every applicant for a driving licence required to pass an examination on this Code. Two or three or six questions, taken at random from this Code, would have ensured that the people affected, in order to obtain their driving licences, would have committed this Code very much to heart. Whether they will actually do so in future I do not know, but I hope they will, and I hope it will have a good effect.
There are one or two detail questions which I would like to put to the noble Lord. On page 4 we have, under the side-heading "Vehicles," an exhortation "Keep to the Left." We also have this very important provision referred to on pages 6 and 8. There are few more prolific causes of accident, and few circum-
590
stances which cause greater difficulty on the high roads of the country to-day, than vehicles which do not keep to their proper side of the road. It is that which is responsible for a great deal of the dangerous driving, and indeed reckless driving, that takes place. I cannot help feeling that the Code might have been perhaps a bit more emphatic than it actually is upon the very important rule of keeping to the left.
Again, on the opposite page, we have a paragraph that relates to signals. It says when you intend to do all sorts of things—stop, slow down, change direction and so on—"signal clearly." I do not know whether it is sufficiently emphasised, but I am quite certain it is not sufficiently realised by a lot of people that the signals that are provided are signals of the intention of the driver, and no power is given to the driver necessarily to direct other vehicles, or other forms of traffic, on the road. There is an idea in the minds of some more experienced people that signals give them a definite right to order other traffic about.
On the next page we come to a most important paragraph headed, "Do not cut in." Cutting-in is a thing which has never really been defined. Most people have a rough idea of what it is, but there is a tendency on the part of many people to confuse the legitimate operation of one vehicle passing another for cutting-in. I cannot help feeling that it is a pity. I suppose there is no other expression which could be used, and that it has been impossible to define cutting-in, but if it could have been given in a more definite way I cannot help feeling that it would probably be a good thing.
A few sentences further down comes a paragraph relating to tramcars. It tells the motor driver to watch carefully to see if passengers are intending to board or alight. A new difficulty is arising on the roads of the country. A new form of tramcar is being put on some of the routes, and this tramcar is one which is all-enclosed. Samples of it may be seen on the Uxbridge Road. Any of your Lordships who motor in that direction will be able to see the vehicles which I mean. They are entirely new; they are entirely all-enclosed. The passengers do not alight from the rear end as formerly. The passengers themselves cannot see motor traffic overtaking the tramcar, and

591
the driver in a vehicle overtaking the tramcar cannot see any passengers intending to alight. I think it is a matter of some importance. I suppose the Minister has control over the type of vehicle which tramway companies are able to place upon the roads. I think it is of importance, if the Minister has control, that he should see to it that provision is made by tramway companies for the passengers in their vehicles to be able to see vehicles overtaking, and also for overtaking vehicles to see what is likely to be happening in the tramcar. The new vehicles have windows all round, and the passengers alight from the front end and not from the back. They are flush on the side, and you get no warning of the intention of anybody to alight.
On the opposite side of the page we have a paragraph relating to white lines, and the concluding sentence is to the effect that even when the road appears to be clear the indications given by white lines should be followed. There have been several prosecutions in different parts of the country of people driving dangerously, and the allegation has been that they have ignored the white lines. Take a cross-road where white lines define the centre of the road on either side of the cross-road. Occasionally drivers have gone across the intersection, and on the further side have gone over the white line as there was nothing coming in the opposite direction. This has been held in one or two places to constitute dangerous driving. I do not know what is really intended by the sentence to which I have referred—whether it is intended to cover this point, or whether it is not.
There is one other point I should have referred to when I was dealing with the question of tramcars. The paragraph relating to tramcars begins:—
"Subject to any local provisions to the contrary, tramcars may be overtaken on either side."
Many of your Lordships are probably aware that on the Continent it is absolutely forbidden to pass tramcars on the off-side, and to do so constitutes an offence. You are only allowed to pass them on the near side. I do not know that I necessarily agree with that. It is rather a wooden sort of administration which does not altogether facilitate the
592
circulation of traffic, but, on the other hand, it has the advantage that it is uniform in character and covers the entire Continent. In this country you are allowed, as it is stated, to pass on either side, except in one or two places. There are, it is true, one or two towns—I think Edinburgh is one, speaking from memory, and I fancy Glasgow is another, but I am not sure about Manchester—where it is forbidden to pass on the off-side. There is no way of knowing; unless you are a very close student of the Motor Press and the motor world you will never know; and it is quite possible for offences to be committed. Would it be possible for the Minister in future to get some uniformity in this matter? If there is a general rule covering the country, it would not much matter what it was; but it is a great difficulty to the careful driver if there is one rule in one place and another rule in another place.
There is a paragraph on the next page relating to lights. It does seem to me that this paragraph is not sufficiently comprehensive. It says: "Do not use your headlights unnecessarily." Nothing causes greater danger or more inconvenience to all road users, pedestrians and everybody else, than the driver who in a well-lighted urban area proceeds to switch on his headlights and drives with his headlights full on. Your Lordships must have seen it done in the London streets occasionally. I do wish it had been possible for the Minister to be a little more emphatic in regard to the use of headlights in localities where the street lighting is sufficient. I alluded to it during the passage of the Road Traffic Bill through the House, and the late Earl Russell stated that that point would be met in the regulations published by the Minister. I think it would be a very good thing indeed if it could really be made an offence against the law for drivers to do so. I know the difficulties, but I should have been glad if the regulations could have been more emphatic and have alluded to the danger. It would have been a good thing.
Nothing is said in the paragraph about reducing lights when you meet other traffic. On the Continent, it is an offence not to reduce lights if you meet any form of traffic—pedestrians, or cyclists or any other form of traffic. You have to reduce

593
your lights. I cannot help thinking that some provision might have been included in that paragraph to enforce the use of either dipping or dimming devices or whatever device may be fitted. It is stated that every oar, after a certain date, will have to be fitted with some such device, but it will be no use having those devices if drivers do not use them. I suggest that the Code might well invite them to make use of those devices. There is a paragraph about avoiding leaving a vehicle at night facing the wrong way unless the street is sufficiently well lighted to prevent other users being misled. I should have preferred a definite prohibition of Vehicles being left facing the wrong way. Nothing makes for congestion in urban areas more than vehicles trying to pull over facing the wrong way and nothing creates more danger in the country and on roads badly lighted than this practice.
The next point I would like to draw attention to is the paragraph relating to cyclists on page 13. There is a paragraph relating to pedal cyclists and it is headed "At night." It tells the cyclist "If you do not use a red rear lamp, remember to keep your red reflector clean and properly fixed." It must be the universal experience of everybody who uses the roads that the regulation which actually now exists is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Very few cyclists have adequate reflectors and very few reflectors, when fitted, are properly fixed to the machine, and it is a very great source of danger at night. Serious accidents have taken place as the result and many people have lost their lives. I do not know whether it is possible for the Minister to have the attention of Chief Constables again drawn to the point. I hope that before we go through another winter, the Minister will see to it, if he can, that the attention of Chief Constables throughout the country is drawn to this point. This particular paragraph fails to refer to the case of reflectors that get obscured. People ride bicycles with long coats that flap over the reflector and obscure the reflector. I think that point might have been mentioned in the Code.
The next page refers to pedestrians. It invites pedestrians to do various things. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has just referred to the advice given to
594
pedestrians about footpaths. I wish that the advice given to pedestrians could be a little more specific than it actually is. It must be the experience of your Lordships in all too many cases that even where footpaths are provided—and very good footpaths too, not footpaths uncomfortable to walk upon—they are, in many cases, avoided by the pedestrian. That, I suppose, cannot be helped. Then, too, there are refuges provided in London streets and in other cities. Everybody knows that there are many pedestrians who make no use of the refuges and subways provided. Then there is the question of crossing places. I would remind your Lordships that in foreign countries—in Paris, for instance—people are compelled to use certain crossing places. If they offend against the regulation, the fine is merely nominal but the inconvenience is considerable and the system works. In some towns—one that comes to my mind is Sydney, Australia—it is an offence to cross the road obliquely. You have to cross at right angles. I cannot help thinking that something might have been said about crossing the road obliquely in these regulations. The pedestrian gets a better view of the traffic from both directions if the street as crossed at right angles. Nothing is said about crossing the street at places where a roundabout system of traffic is in operation. It must be well-known to everybody—you can frequently see it in London streets—that very dangerous situations are brought about at places where the roundabout system is in operation by pedestrians launching themselves into the middle of the street, suddenly realising that the traffic is coming from all directions and then very often starting to run. That has often lead to serious results.
Then, on page 15, there is a reference to signals and there are illustrations of the signals given by the police. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to this matter and to ask what steps have been taken or are being taken to ensure that the signals given by the police throughout the country are uniform in character and are, in fact, the signals laid down in the Code. May we take it that in future the police throughout the country are going to adopt the signals in the Code? At present, going from one town to another, one sees policemen

595
on point duty making the most wonderful signals and acting as human semaphores, but the meaning of the signals is not always obvious. If we could get uniformity in the matter it would be a very good thing. The only other point in the Code to which I want to draw attention is that of the signals given on pages 20 and 21 from the point of view of the driver. It is suggested there in No. 7 that if the driver wants to turn to the left he has to bring his right arm across him. Well, my Lords, when a saloon car is being driven towards you the driver is not very visible. If he is driving straight towards you and tries to give an indication of his intention to the police officer on point duty, it is not very easy to see. I submit that where a driver is behind a windscreen in a saloon car with a dark background it is almost impossible for a policeman to distinguish his signals. I cannot help thinking it would have been much better if, in this particular case, the Minister had relied upon the signal laid down for the motor driver who desires to turn to the left—that is to say, in No. 3 on the previous page, page 19. It would be far more obvious to the police than the signal in No. 7.
Those are the main criticisms I would like to make upon the Highway Code. I hope most sincerely that this Code will do what it undoubedly is the intention of Parliament that it should do. I hope it will really do something to reduce the appalling roll of casualties on the roads of this country to-day. It must be a matter of grievous national concern, and increasingly so, that some 6,000 or 7,000 people should be killed annually and hundreds of thousands injured on the roads of the country. It is not the fault of any one particular form of traffic. I suppose that all are to blame in a minor way, but it must or should be the endeavour of everybody to try to do everything they can to disseminate this Code about the country. I do not know whether the Minister will bring in amendments to this Code from time to time, and I should like to ask him whether it is the intention to amend it in the light of experience gained and common sense in the future. I hope he will be able to answer the questions I have ventured to address to him.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of paying a tribute to anybody in connection with the Code, but to call attention to what I regard as a very regrettable omission respecting pedestrians, although it may not appear a very important matter. I observe that no fewer than 1,700 persons were killed in the streets of London last year, which rather bears out a statement made some years ago by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies that walking in the streets of London was even more dangerous than working in a coal mine. One of the most prolific reasons for the mortality amongst pedestrians arises from the fact that in this country we have, unfortunately, two rules of the road—a left-hand rule for vehicles and horses, and a right-hand rule for pedestrians. The main safeguard of the unfortunate pedestrian at the present time is that he should be able continually to face the traffic. That is exactly what he cannot do. Under the existing rule a person walking on the outside edge of the pavement, that is to say, the dangerous side, is liable at any moment to be run over by traffic proceeding from behind him should he step inadvertently into the road. I can only speak from my own experience, but I never go out for a walk without having a comparatively narrow escape from, perhaps, a fatal accident, and I am perfectly certain that if I am prematurely cut off my end will be due to this absurd and illogical rule.
I do not want to detain the House on this matter because I have often brought it forward before, but this question has been constantly enquired into by ail sorts of bodies, by Committees and Commissions. In fact, every kind of inquiry has taken place, and I believe I am correct in saying that in every single instance the report of the inquiry has been in favour of the change I am now recommending. It has been approved also by the Ministry of Transport and by various individual Ministers of Transport. There appears in the Press only to-day a letter from an ex-Minister of Transport, Lord Brentford, in which he expresses the sentiments that I am endeavouring to express this afternoon. This particular change has been constantly urged by the National Safety Association which has done more for the protection of pedestrians than any other body. It is perfectly true that most of the suggestions

597
made by this body have been accepted from time to time by the Ministry of Transport and many of them are given effect to in this Code. But the particular recommendation which has always been put forward by this Association as to changing the rule for pedestrians has been omitted altogether. All that I ask, all that the Association asks is that there should be interpolated in the section of the Code dealing with pedestrians on page 4 after the words "always walk on the footpath where one is provided" the words "and preferably on the left-hand side thereof."
This is not an enactment. It is merely advice. The Minister will probably reply to me that it is no good giving advice if it is not followed. Perhaps he thinks that the Ministry will put itself into a humiliating position by making a suggestion of this kind which is not likely to be paid attention to. I think it is a very great pity that they should not adopt this course. If the Ministry of Transport would insert that recommendation people would realise that the change is not advocated by, say, a person like myself who might be regarded as an irresponsible crank, but that it represents the reasoned view of responsible people. Unfortunately, I cannot move an Amendment to the Code. I believe the only course that can be adopted is to refer it back altogether. It would be absurd, of course, to expect that the whole thing should be rewritten in order to introduce the amendment I suggest, but I ask the noble Lord opposite to consider this question once more and to see whether he cannot do something to meet the views of the Association for which I speak. I do not know whether it is in his power to do so, but I have a strong belief that he is inclined to favour the proposal. I hope I may be right and, possibly, he may give me some hope that this course will be adopted. Meanwhile, if we deliberately neglect to take this very simple precaution we can only expect that the roll of passengers who are killed on the road—something like three or four a day I think it is in London—will continually increase and they only have themselves to thank if they do not take the trouble to get this trifling alteration made in the Jaw.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I can understand the motorist buy-
598
ing this Highway Code because it is issued in pursuance of Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act which deals with motorists only. But why should the driver of a horse-drawn vehicle or a pedestrian or a push bicyclist take the trouble to buy it? I would ask the noble Lord, therefore, how he would propose that the attention of pedestrians and drivers of horse-drawn traffic should be called to the Code. Would he distribute it free to such people?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, there is only one point that I would like to mention; that is on page 4 where it says with regard to led animals:—
"It is the usual practice when leading an animal to keep to the right so as to face oncoming traffic."
There are more observations about animals on page 9 and directions to persons in charge of animals. I should have thought it would have been desirable (of course, one knows) for the sake of absolute clearness to put into the Code directions to motor cars how to pass a led animal and to people leading animals how to pass a motor car. I think it would tend to clearness especially in regard to motors. Many people seeing a man riding a horse and leading another may possibly pass in the wrong manner. I venture to suggest that would be a useful addition.
LORD DICKINSON: My Lords, it seems to me that this Code is quite inadequate to result in any saving of the lives of pedestrians. It does not really solve how pedestrians are to walk safely in the roads. My noble friend Lord Cecil, I think struck the right note at the commencement. So far as the country is concerned and on most of the roads no means have yet been provided for pedestrians to walk in safety. On the Continent, especially in Holland, magnificent roads are provided for five different purposes—motor traffic, cart traffic, riding, bicycling and walking. And yet we have made these magnificent roads all over the country and we have never tried to adopt such a system. It seems to me that we must have a separate place for pedestrians and also for the riders of bicycles, and thus alone can we get safety.
There is another point to which I wish to draw attention. In the paragraphs with regard to pedestrians we are told that:—

599
"The use of subways, islands, or special crossing places (especially those marked 'Please cross here'), will help you to avoid danger and assist in the easy flow of traffic."
We have those very places in London, with notices that say that the pedestrian can cross, but I venture to say that it is in those very places that you cannot cross. There is such a place here at Westminster in which no pedestrian can safely get across. There is no policeman there, the traffic is going on continually and if, at the risk of his life, the pedestrian gets to safety in the middle, he cannot get away to the other side. I have recently been in Paris. Paris, having been the most dangerous place in the world for pedestrians, is now the safest, for the simple reason that they have taken the question from the point of view of giving the pedestrian safety. In the Paris streets you will now find places marked with studs, across which the pedestrian is urged to go and the motor car goes on sufferance. It is extraordinary to watch motorists crossing these places. They crawl past, paying the utmost deference to the pedestrian. You can step into the road and walk across, and you have the right to cross safely. It seems to me that in London and the large towns we want places where people would be able to cross safely and would know where they could do so. It is not a difficult thing to do, as it has been shown to be practicable in Paris.
I would make one other very small point, and that is with regard to signals. I see for the first time, on page 15 that:—
"Drivers should note that once they have been stopped the constable may lower his hand or use it for giving other signals. They should not move on until the constable signals to them to do so."
That is not the custom in London. The moment the constable's arm is down the whole traffic comes forward. With the automatic system, which has been seen a good deal on the Continent and elsewhere, there are three signals, red, green and yellow. One forbids you to go, the other lets you drive by, and the third is a short interregnum between the other two. The result is that the pedestrian, if he knows what he is doing and is sensible, waits until the red or green light, as the case may be, is showing, and then he is perfectly safe in crossing,
600
not only for that period but for a short period afterwards. That also seems to me to be one of the things that ought to be done for the safety of pedestrians. What I feel about this Code is that, if people think it is all that is going to be done for the pedestrian, the public will be very dissatisfied about it. I hope that the Ministry of Transport will, at any rate in practice, carry out some of the suggestions that I have made, and that occur to any one who knows the practice in some foreign cities, where they really have solved the problem much more effectively than we have.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am glad that this Highway Code has been received without any serious comment. I think the Minister of Transport set the right way to work in drawing it up. He first of all, after careful consultation, drafted a Code, which he issued broadcast through the country for comment. It was in all the newspapers and everybody commented on it. We had letters from individuals and associations and, after sifting them, we had a conference of forty or fifty different bodies, and every consideration was given to the points that they raised. The result is that this little booklet, I think, is one which commends itself to everybody who has examined it. I do not know about the style. Perhaps it is a little bit like the Litany.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: It is more like a parish magazine, I think.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: At any rate the tone is thoroughly high. I should like to deal with the various points that have been raised by noble Lords, and I will begin at the end with my noble friend Lord Dickinson. These comparisons of London with foreign towns are all very well, but London is the largest city in the world and the least well-adapted, because of the structure of its streets, to the exigencies of modern traffic, and that is the difficulty and the drawback. The beautiful mechanical devices that you see in the streets of New York, the long and magnificent boulevards and straight streets of Paris do not exist here, and the problem of Bond Street alone, which comes periodically before the Ministry, is in itself insoluble unless you rebuild London. I do not think, therefore, that

601
too much blame should be attached to the authorities in London. I think that the management of traffic by the police is something which, while we are asked to admire foreign countries, every foreigner who comes here is apt to refer to with the greatest praise.
The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil of Chelwood, has said a word about footpaths. I quite admit that there are narrow lanes that have had to be broadened where it has not been possible to make a footpath, but I have travelled about the country a good deal looking at roads and, without any exception, where a new road is constructed footpaths are constructed at the same time—always one, sometimes two. It is not always easy, in broadening a narrow country lane between banks, to construct a footpath, though I have seen footpaths on the banks or behind the hedges. Far from the Minister neglecting the point, he is always considering it, and when he is giving a grant to local authorities for road construction this question of footpaths is always coming to the front.
The pedestrian's case, of course, is one that we all want to take into account. Indeed, we are all pedestrians, and have been for many years. I would ask noble Lords, especially those who drive motor cars, to compare their state of mind while they are driving a car and when they are walking in the streets. It is very different. When you are driving a car you have to give your attention to the roads and to what you are doing, because it is absolutely fatal to let your attention wander for one quarter of a minute. But when a pedestrian is walking in the street he is thinking of everything and anything, and he does wander, as we must all admit. If I could give a word of advice to the noble Lord, Lord Newton, it would be, when he goes out, not to attempt to walk on the left of the pavement. I have tried it, and I have come home bruised. The important thing to do is to follow the Code's advice, which is, when stepping off the footpath, to look towards the on-coming traffic.
LORD NEWTON: You have not time to do it.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: The noble Lord must not be in such a hurry when in the streets, and, when
602
he is on the edge of the pavement, that is the time to pause and look towards the on-coming traffic; but I entirely agree with him that if we could persuade pedestrians to keep on the left of the pavement they would face the on-coming traffic much more often when attempting to cross the street. From the point of view of safety it would be very advisable, but we went into this very carefully indeed. The Pedestrians' Association were against it; the Safety First Association were in favour of it; and you cannot dragoon pedestrians, especially British pedestrians. You cannot regiment them even to cross where there is a refuge. They will not do it. Therefore we felt that any attempt to make people walk on the left-hand side of the pavement was bound to fail. Everybody knows that you do not want to walk near the kerb when it is raining, because you are likely to get splashed. Again, you want to walls on the shady side of the path in hot weather, and no regulations or white lines will make people do differently. When people want to look into shop windows, they will do it and I think that even recommendations such as Lord Newton suggested would have been of very little use in this Code. An attempt was made, I may remind Lord Newton, in 1922. The Safety First Council organised a special campaign and notices were exhibited at all conspicuous points, with whitewash marks on the pavements, and every other sort of thing. But it amounted to nothing. You cannot coach people that way, but you can din into their ears recommendations and instructions and injunctions as to how they should cross the street.
Lord Howe made a good many comments and, I am glad to say, none of them damaging. I was very glad to hear of his approval of the Code. I may note that the twopence was on the draft Code; the penny on the final Code. With regard to the circulation, it will be issued with all driving licences, and I quite agree that it would be a very good thing if it could be introduced into schools and be at the disposal of various associations. I am sure that the Safety First Association are likely to get a great many copies. It is very advisable that it should be circulated as much as possible, and I hope that the Press, which took so much

603
notice of the first draft, will again emphasise the chief points in the Code.
I found myself really in agreement with most of the noble Earl's points, but I think they were points more of emphasis and of definition. I think the word "cut-in" really is now recognised, and that everybody knows what it means. Perhaps a definition in more precise language might have been confusing. The whole question of trams was one requiring consideration, and we gave it. We saw representatives of the Scottish authorities which enforced the rule that no tram may be passed by a car on its near side, and we sought as to whether by some uniformity of regulation you could not put some more definite device in the Code. But we came to the conclusion that beyond the caution which is necessary in passing a tram which is unburdening itself of its passengers, it would not be advisable to prevent cars from passing on the near side or making them stop. With regard to uniform signals all over the country, that is so at present. I agree that when you see a provincial policeman he seems to gesticulate in a foreign language, but it is only because he has not got the perfect technique of the London Police. I wish they could see the London police who, without so much waving of the body and the arm, manage to control a larger volume of traffic. But there are no different signs in the provinces from those in London.
The Light problem caused us a very great deal of trouble, and we should have liked to put more about lighting, but we felt we might be going into refinements which would overload the Code. Also, we did not want to enforce any instructions which could not be universally accepted; but the question of reducing lights when meeting other traffic will be dealt with in regulations which the Minister has at the moment under consideration under the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, by which he is empowered to issue regulations on this particular point. I agree with the noble Earl that it is of the utmost importance, but at the same time there are certain occasions when the dipping of lights when passing other lights is likely to obscure cyclists who do not always observe the
604
rule of having their buttons at the back exposed. My noble friend Lord Dickinson said he would like to see roads with special paths for pedestrians and equestrians and cyclists and motorists. No doubt in the future we shall reach that point, but at present the cyclists would not thank him for making that proposition. They are not at all anxious to have any track to themselves. On the whole, I think that all the bodies that have helped us—and we are grateful to them for the help they gave us in framing this Highway Code—are satisfied with the result, and although the pedestrians necessarily under the stress of modern traffic may feel that they have some grievance—
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I should think they have.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: —I think the Pedestrians' Association, of which Lord Cecil is a prominent member, is doing very valuable work for them. On an old 17th Century road sign in Devonshire, the other day, I saw a motto carved which I think the Pedestrians' Association might appropriately take for their motto. It read:—
"Oh, hold thou up our goings in thy paths, that our footsteps slip not."
EARL HOWE: My Lords, the noble Lord has alluded to the question of cyclists and their reflectors. Could some words be added to the end of the paragraph on page 13, such as "properly fixed, and not obscured by a coat or anything of the kind"? I asked the noble Lord one other point, and that was about the amendment of the Code.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am sorry I omitted to deal with that. The Code, of course, cannot be amended now, but in future it is within the power of the Minister to re-issue the Code with such amendments as he thinks advisable. That point about the reflectors will be borne in mind, but it is an offence now to have an obscured reflector, and we did not want to put in more than was absolutely necessary, and to refer in the Code to general offences against the law.

MUI-TSAI IN HONG KONG.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been called to a statement made at a recent meeting held at Reading, presided over by the right hon. Member of Parliament for Spen Valley, to the effect that slavery is condoned in Hong Kong and that there are some 10,000 child slaves owned by the Chinese in the Colony, and, if so, whether the statement is true and what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take in the matter.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my attention was called to this matter by a pamphlet which I hold in my hand. It says that 4,000 of these girl slaves are registered in Hong Kong, and that the orders given by the British Government on August 22, 1929, that machinery should be set going forthwith to ensure their inspection, control, remuneration, and, when desired, their release, have not been carried out by the Hong Kong Government. It further states that in the White Paper, Cmd. 3735, December, 1930, the Governor of Hong Kong said:—
"I do not consider that any further measures are at present required to promote the policy expressed in the existing law."
It gives the translation of the actual deeds of sale, and it goes on to say that, during the year 1929, 1,851 dead bodies of children were found by the police in the streets and elsewhere in the Colony of Hong Kong. That is quoted from a letter from the Secretary of State for the Colonies on February 18, 1931. In the years 1925 to 1929 inclusive, it is stated, 6,708 dead bodies of children were picked up in the streets and elsewhere in the Colony of Hong Kong. That is from the report of the British Inspector-General of Police in Hong Kong for 1929. In view of these statements, and in view of what was said at Reading on the 16th of this month by Sir John and Lady Simon, I think that some inquiry is called for.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD PASSFIELD): My Lords, the statement reported to have been made at the meeting to which the noble Lord has referred, that slavery has existed in Hong Kong and has been condoned by the Government of Hong
606
Kong, is, of course, absolutely untrue, and I am surprised to learn that such a statement should have been made. I can only suppose that the allusion is to the Chinese system of adoption of young girls known as mui-tsai. The possible abuses of that system, though they are very far from amounting to slavery, attracted the attention of the late Government, and indeed of several Governments in succession. I can best give the facts by reading to your Lordships the Despatch which I addressed to the Governor of Hong Kong in August, 1929:—
"Sir,
I have had under my consideration the correspondence relating to the mui-tsai question in Hong Kong ending with your Despatch of the 16th of May.
2. The question is by no means a new one. It attracted the attention of my predecessors, Mr. Churchill and the Duke of Devonshire, and also of the House of Commons as far back as 1922. In reply to a Question in the House of Commons Mr. Churchill stated in a reply which was communicated to your predecessor in a telegram of 21st of March, 1922: 'I desire to make it clear that both the Governor and I are determined to effect the abolition of the system at the earliest practicable date, and I have indicated to the Governor that I expect the change to be carried out within a year.'
3. In pursuance of this policy an Ordinance was passed on the 15th of February, 1923, entitled 'The Female Domestic Service Ordinance, 1923.' The first part of this Ordinance negatived the idea that rights of property in a female child could be conferred on a third person by payment to the parent or guardian of such child. The second part, amongst other things, provided that no person should hereafter take into his employment any mui-tsai, and for bade the transference of an existing mui-tsai from one employer to another.
If effect were given to these provisions, it is clear that the mui-tsai, being only recruited from those brought into the Colony from outside, should steadily decrease in numbers.
4. Part III of the Ordinance provided for the registration, inspection, and control of mui-tsai, and forbade under penalty any person having in his employment an un-registered mui-tsai. Further, it was laid down that no person should have in his employment any female domestic servant under the age of ten years unless such servant was a registered mui-tsai, and that every mui-tsai over the age of ten years should be entitled to such wages for her services as shall be prescribed.
5. In view, however, of the representations of the Governor as to the opposition of the Chinese population to the enactment generally, and particularly to Part III, the Duke of Devonshire in his Despatch of the

607
2nd of May, 1923, wrote: 'I concur in your suggestion that the question of registration and of payment of wages may be left in abeyance for the present, and that Part III of the Ordinance should not be brought into operation unless and until it is shown to be necessary.'
6. It now appears, however, that after six years from the passing of the Ordinance the most that can be said (vide paragraph 6 of your Despatch of 22nd of February) is that there is no reason to believe that the number of mui-tsai in the Colony has increased.
7. After making all allowance for the difficulties in bringing the system to an end which are described at length in your Despatches, it is my duty to inform you that public opinion in this country and in the House of Commons will not accept such a result with equanimity, and that I feel my self quite unable to defend a policy of laisser faire in this serious matter.
8. I must, therefore, direct that the third part of the Domestic Service Ordinance should be brought into force forthwith, and special care must be taken to inform the population generally that it is in force, and that it will not be allowed to be a dead letter. You should also at once proceed to make Regulations under Section 12 of the Ordinance for the keeping of the Registers, for the remuneration of mui-tsai, and for their inspection and control. It will be doubtless necessary for you to appoint additional officers in the Department of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs to carry out the work of registration and inspection.
9. Further, I consider that Part II of the Ordinance should be amended so as to for bid the bringing into the Colony of any mui-tsai. There can be the less objection to 6uch provision inasmuch as I learn from your Despatch that the status of mui-tsai has been abolished by law in China.
10. I fully realise that time will be required to make the law effective, but I am not prepared to acquiesce in a merely nominal enforcement of the law. Any offence against the Ordinance which comes to light should be made the subject of prosecution without regard to the position of the offender, and a full report should be furnished every six months on the working of the Ordinance and of the proceedings taken under it.
11. Whilst feeling bound by the traditional policy of this country in regard to any institution that savours of slavery to take steps for the abolition of the mui-tsai system notwithstanding any opposition in the Colony, I need hardly remind you of the desirability of enlisting as far as possible Chinese opinion in favour of the change. This will be the less difficult since it is clear from your Despatch that the best opinion in China itself is opposed to the institution, as is evidenced by the law which has been passed abolishing it.
12. I also strongly approve of the proposals made in your telegram of the 3rd of March for the institution of a Society in
608
Hong Kong on the same lines as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in this country, and I should be glad to learn what progress has been made in this direction.
13. It is my intention to lay the correspondence on this subject before Parliament as soon as it reassembles."
I am glad to say that steps were taken accordingly, and the Governor has recently furnished a report on the working of the new regulations. The number of mui-tsai registered is 4,117, which is much less than the number formerly estimated to exist, but which is believed to approximate fairly accurately with the number now existing. Offences against the Ordinance have been prosecuted as occasion required, and there seems reason to believe that the system of adoption as now regulated provides adequately against abuses, and that, in a few years, as existing mui-tsai grow up and are married, the institution will disappear.
I want to say that with reference to the statement that a large number of dead bodies are found in the streets of Hong Kong each year, that ought not to be quoted in connection with this institution of mui-tsai. It is true that a large number of dead bodies—bodies of infants in the great majority of cases—are found in the streets of Hong Kong, the fact being that it is almost impossible to make the large population of 1,000,000 Chinese incur the very slight expense of the burial of their infant children. The infant mortality rate is very high, and the Government has been striving for years, even to the extent of providing for free burial, to prevent this practice. But I would remind your Lordships that the finding of the dead bodies of infants in the streets of a big city is not unknown elsewhere. The number so found in London is very considerable. I have forgotten the exact number. Every case is enquired into in Hong Kong by the coroner, and in hardly any case does he report that there is any reason to suppose that the death has not been due to natural causes.
I should like again to emphasise the fact that this has nothing to do with the mui-tsai. The statement has been made as if the finding of these dead infants had some connection with the custom of adopting girls which is known

609
as the mui-tsai. I can only say that I am sorry that any suggestion should have been made that anything like slavery prevails in Hong Kong, or that steps are not now taken for the registration, inspection, control, and gradual extinction of this system of adoption which is known as mui-tsai.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Lord for his very full reply.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD PASSFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do now adjourn until half-past eleven to-morrow, when there will be the formal business of the Consolidated Fund Bill and a Royal Commission at twelve o'clock.
House adjourned at half past seven o'clock.

TAMWORTH CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders have not been complied with in respect of the Petition for the following Bill:
London Electric, Metropolitan District, and Central London Railway Companies (Works).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

COVENTRY EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

GRAND UNION CANAL BILL. [H.L.]
The King's Consent signified, and Bill reported, with Amendments.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
EPSOM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
DAGENHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
ROMFORD URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
CORBY (NORTHANTS) AND DISTRICT WATER BILL. [H.L.]

FELIXSTOWE AND DISTRICT BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:—

L. St. John of Bletso,

L. Auckland,

L. Redesdale (Chairman),

L. Rathcreedan,

L. Carnock.

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Monday, the 27th of April next, at twelve o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE, STALY-BRIDGE AND DUKINFIELD (DISTRICT) WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
TROWBRIDGE, MELKSHAM AND DISTRICT WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
ROYSTON AND BRODSWORTH GAS BILL. [H.L.]

NEATH CANAL NAVIGATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:—

E. Munster,

L. Erskine,

L. Hardinge of Penshurst (Chairman),

L. Bayford,

L. Alvingham.

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Thursday, the 30th of April next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

EAST HULL GAS ORDER, 1931.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the East Hull Gas Company:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) and referred to the Special Orders Committee.