Sitting of 24 July 1934

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Public Works Facilities Scheme (Pemcuik Water) Bill.
Read the Third time, and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SCOTLAND.

    SALMON FISHERIES.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation in regard to the salmon fisheries of Scotland during the lifetime of the present Parliament?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): The question of legislation on the subject of salmon fisheries in Scotland has not yet been considered by the Government, and I am not therefore in a position to say when such legislation will be introduced.
    Lord SCONE: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that all the salmon fishing interests in Scotland are desirous of having legislation passed as soon as may be reasonably possible?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I can assure my Noble Friend that I am aware of the facts and that we are at present considering the subject.

    WATER SUPPLIES.
    Lord SCONEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present position in regard to water supplies in Scotland?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): As I stated during the Debate on the 18th instant steps have been taken in a few
    1628
    places in Scotland to conserve supplies by cutting off water during specified hours, by restricting the use of water for certain purposes, and by the issue of notices asking the public to avoid waste. No emergency is reported, however, and generally speaking the existing provision of water supply is functioning normally.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the Under-Secretary not think it a disgrace that there should be any clamour for water in Scotland which is known all over the world as the" land of the mountain and the flood"?
    Mr. SKELTON: Whether I think it a disgrace or not, there are provisions in Acts of Parliament passed this summer under which grants are to be made available for improving the supply.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is exactly a month ago to-day that I put a question regarding the shortage of water and I was then told that the only place where there was a shortage was Brig of Turk; and can he say whether any provision is being made to deal with that shortage?
    Mr. SKELTON: I should require notice of a question about Brig of Turk.
    Mr. GURNEY BRAITHWAITE: Is not this demand for water an entirely new development in Scotland?

    BONDED LIQUOR, PERTH (STORAGE FACILITIES).
    Lord SCONEasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that wine merchants in Perth complain of inadequate storage facilities for bonded liquor; and if he will inquire into the position?
    The FINANCIAL. SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am not aware that there is any general colt-plaint on the part of the wine merchants at Perth of inadequate storage facilities for bonded liquor at that place, although I am aware that certain traders would prefer to be allowed to store their goods in bonded warehouses of their own rather than in the ordinary public warehouses. Applications for extension of bonded accommodation are under consideration by the Customs and Excise authorities at the present time.

    HOUSE CONDITIONS (CERTIFICATION).
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that a certain town council in Scotland has refused to grant a certificate from their sanitary inspector as to the condition of a house, on the ground that this can only be done on production by the tenant of a notice from his landlord of an increase of rent under the Rent Restriction Acts; and whether he will take steps to draw the attention of the council to their duty in such a case?
    Mr. SKELTON: My right hon. Friend has been in communication with the local authority concerned, who appear to have been under a misapprehension as to the legal position. I am informed that they are now prepared to issue a certificate.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Seeing that a decision has been given in the court against one particular tenant, who was refused this certificate, may I ask what action the hon. Member intends to take to get that decision of the court reserved?
    Mr. SKELTON: I shall have to consider that point.

    NEWFOUNDLAND (COMMISSION).
    Mr. LUNNasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the commission now in Newfoundland have in any way recommended reorganisation of the financial or industrial concerns in the Dominion; what is the nature of such recommendations; and whether any report of their work is available for Members of this House?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part does not therefore arise. As regards the third part of the question, as stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) on 10th July, I have asked the Governor to furnish me at a convenient opportunity with a general report on the economic situation in the island, and I shall be glad to lay this report before the House.
    Mr. LUNN: As I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr.D. Grenfell), that he proposed laying the
    1630
    report shortly, I should like to know whether he has got such a report; and, as this matter is to be raised on the Adjournment Motion next Tuesday, can he give us some information before that time regarding the work of the commission?
    Mr. THOMAS: I do not know anything about the Debate on Tuesday next, but I want to assure my hon. Friend and the House that, as he heard from me last week, the Government have contributed a, large 'sum of money towards development, and my information at the moment is that it is bearing fruit. I have asked for an immediate report. If I get the report before Tuesday, I shall certainly circulate it, because this is an important question, and I want the House to have all the information which I get upon it. I would remind my hon. Friend, however, that I cannot answer any question upon it until I get the report from the commission.

    COAL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS).
    Sir WILLIAM JENKINSasked the Secretary for Mines (1) what is the total export trade of coal from all the South Wales ports for the years 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, and 1933, and the latest available figures for 1934; and will he give each port separately;
    (2) what number of boys between 14 and 16 years of age are working under-. ground in Great Britain; and what number in South Wales, giving separate figures for 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, and up to June, 1934;
    (3) what number of boys between the ages of 14 and 16 years were injured underground in Great Britain for 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, and the latest available date, giving separate figures for South Wales and Monmouthshire; and how many were fatally injured for the, same period?
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the. Secretary for Mines the amount of coal exported from this country to the Irish Free State, France, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Argentine for the six months ending 30th June of each year from 1928 to the present year, inclusive; and the exports from the Bristol Channel ports separately:
    The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the replies to these questions involve statistical tables, I will,

    (5)

    Port

    Quantity of Coal exported from Bristol Channel Ports in

    1929.

    1930.

    1931.

    1932.

    1933.

    1934 (January to June).

    Thousand tons.

    Bristol

    …

    …

    …

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Cardiff

    …

    …

    …

    14,789

    13,278

    10,267

    9,193

    8,786

    4,375

    Gloucester

    …

    …

    …

    39

    53

    18

    24

    18

    10

    Llanelly

    …

    …

    …

    376

    409

    438

    496

    471

    246

    Milford

    …

    …

    …

    9

    4

    2

    7

    8

    5

    Newport

    …

    …

    …

    4,161

    4,109

    3,125

    2,193

    1,964

    977

    Port Talbot

    …

    …

    …

    1,983

    2,199

    1,433

    1,717

    1,904

    960

    Swansea

    …

    …

    …

    3,359

    3,246

    2,721

    2,874

    2,913

    1,299

    TOTAL

    …

    …

    …

    24,716

    23,299

    18,004

    16,504

    16,064

    7,872

    (7)

    The information, so far as it is available, is as follows:

    Year

    Number of boys under 16 years of age killed and injured below ground at mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in Great Britain and South Wales and Monmouthshire.

    Great Britain.

    South Wales and Monmouthshire.

    Killed.

    Injured.

    Killed.

    Injured.

    1929

    …

    …

    …

    40

    7,122

    3

    1,444

    1930

    …

    …

    …

    24

    6,306

    3

    1,315

    1931

    …

    …

    …

    25

    4,617

    9

    1,015

    1932

    …

    …

    …

    17

    3,613

    7

    794

    1933

    …

    …

    …

    15

    3,253

    2

    783

    1934 (to 14th July)

    …

    5

    Not available

    —

    Not available

    with the hon. Members' permission, circulate them with the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the tables:

    (8)

    Destination.

    Quantity of coal exported during the first six months of

    1928.

    1929.

    1930.

    1931.

    1932.

    1933.

    1934.

    Thousand Tons.

    (a) From the United Kingdom.

    Irish Free State

    …

    1,177

    1,188

    1,189

    1,173

    1,147

    664

    520

    France

    …

    4,575

    5,950

    6,774

    5,518

    4,519

    4,408

    3,990

    Italy

    …

    3,404

    3,460

    3,728

    2,896

    2,675

    2,462

    2,254

    Germany

    …

    2,507

    2,430

    2,391

    1,822

    1,277

    1,027

    1,435

    Denmark

    …

    816

    969

    862

    711

    902

    1,248

    1,488

    Sweden

    …

    550

    814

    950

    425

    556

    741

    1,030

    Norway

    …

    585

    758

    667

    309

    449

    500

    742

    Argentina

    …

    1,370

    1,342

    1,255

    1,054

    957

    940

    948

    (b) From Bristol Channel Ports.

    Irish Free State

    …

    249

    257

    268

    236

    232

    113

    111

    France

    …

    2,579

    3,229

    3,764

    2,774

    2,576

    2,545

    2,425

    Italy

    …

    1,583

    1,506

    1,969

    1,487

    1,229

    1,106

    1,079

    Germany

    …

    39

    39

    15

    13

    8

    12

    22

    Denmark

    …

    21

    17

    32

    22

    20

    26

    19

    Sweden

    …

    41

    39

    63

    38

    25

    23

    33

    Norway

    …

    35

    40

    44

    28

    19

    24

    25

    Argentina

    …

    1,231

    1,188

    1,048

    894

    777

    777

    768

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    EXPORTS.
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he can furnish a statement showing the increase in volume and value of the exports of British goods to Denmark and the Argentine Republic, respectively, during the last 12 months; and whether he can estimate the increased number of persons in employment as a consequence;
    (2) whether he can furnish a statement showing the increase in volume and value of the exports of British goods to the Empire countries who were signatories of the Ottawa Agreement during the last 12 months as compared with tip 12 months ended 30th June, 1932?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I regret that the precise information desired is not available, as calculations of the volume of overseas trade are made only in respect of our aggregate trade with all countries and, for reasons which my hon. Friend will appreciate, it is not possible to apply the results so obtained to trade with any
    1634
    individual country or group of countries. Particulars of the aggregate value of our trade with individual countries are normally compiled in respect of calendar years and quarterly periods only, and those for the quarter ended June, 1934, are not yet available. I will, however, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the value of the exports of United Kingdom goods to the countries in question during the 12 months ended March, 1934, and during the corresponding earlier period. It is not possible to estimate with any degree of precision the increase in employment resulting from the increase shown in the value of our exports to Denmark and the Argentine.
    Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Has the right hon. Gentleman also the figures of imports in respect of the same countries for the same periods?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The table which I propose to give to my hon. Friend covers the domestic exports from the United Kingdom. If a question is asked in regard to imports. I can obtain the information.
    Following is the statement:

    TABLE showing the total declared value of the domestic exports of merchandise from the United Kingdom consigned to the undermentioned countries during the periods specified.

    —

    12 months ended 31st March.

    1932.

    1934.

    £

    £

    Domestic exports from the United Kingdom consigned to: Union of South Africa (excluding S.W. Africa Territory).

    20,498,652

    24,886,316

    Southern Rhodesia

    1,254,949

    1,462,961

    British India

    31,488,726

    33,421,474

    Australia

    14,668,404

    21,922,346

    New Zealand

    10,644,361

    9,607,204

    Canada

    19,987,374

    18,444,642

    Newfoundland and Coast of Labrador

    529,874

    673,173

    12 months ended 31st March

    1933.

    1934.

    £

    £

    Denmark (including Faröe Islands)

    10,425,078

    12,028,222

    Argentine Republic

    11,369,708

    13,021,465

    IMPORTS.
    Major HERBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, while 226 tons of typewriters were imported in the first six months of 1933, 397 tons were imported in the first six months of 1934, an increase of 171 tons or 75.7 per cent.; and the source from which these machines are being imported and the reason for the increase?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the increase in imports to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. 95 per cent. by weight of the imports in the last six months were derived from the United States. It may be that the increase is due in part to imports in anticipation of the increased duties which took effect on the 4th May.
    Major HERBERTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the number of clocks imported during the first six months of 1934 is larger by 377,374, or 32.7 per cent., and of clock movements by 207,783, or 49.6 per cent., than in the first six months of 1933; whether he will state the source from which these articles were imported; and whether any estimate has been formed of the effect upon the British industry?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the figures referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend. The main source of these imports is Germany, less important suppliers being France, Switzerland, Italy and the United States. With regard to the last part of the question I notice that one of the principal United Kingdom clock makers has recently announced that it has been necessary to increase plant to cope with the demand.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of typewriters in the six months ended 30th June, 1934, were seven and a-half times as great in quantity and five times as great in. value as in the corresponding period of 1932; and when he proposes to deal with dumping due to deliberate currency depreciation?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the increased imports of typewriters, on which increased duties were imposed as lately as the 4th May last. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer to the reply I gave on 10th July to the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. D. G. Somerville).
    Mr. WISE: May I ask if these typewriters are imported as parts of typewriters or as complete typewriters?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I must have notice of that question.
    Mr. PETHERICK (for Mrs. COPELAND)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in respect of hardware, tiles, and motor cars the volume of imports in the first half of this year is in each case more than double that in the first half of 1933; and whether he will make inquiries as to the effect of those imports on employment in the industries concerned?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the increased imports to which my hon. Friend refers. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer to the reply given yesterday to the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise).
    Mr. PETHERICK (for Mrs. COPELAND)asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of builders' woodwork have increased from £352,937 in the first six months of 1933 to £630,987 in the first six months of 1934, an increase of £278,050, or 78.8 per cent.; whether he will state what is the chief item in the increase in those imports and the source from which it comes; and whether he can ascertain the reason for this increase?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The main item in the increase to which my hon. Friend refers appears to be the increase in the imports of doors from the United States, Sweden and Canada. I presume that this in- crease is due to activity in the building trade.
    Mr. MITCHESONasked the President of the Board of Trade how the volume of retained imports of manufactured goods during the first six months of the present year compares with the same half of last year?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: Full information on this subject will be published in the Board of Trade Journal on Thursday next, in the usual quarterly article on "Volume and Value of Overseas Trade."

    CURRENCY FACILITIES, GERMANY (BRITISH HERRING).
    Mr. LOFTUSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that German importers are allowed to import and are provided with currency
    1638
    facilities to pay for unlimited quantities of Norwegian herring; that German merchants desiring to purchase British herring are not allowed currency to pay for them; and, in view of the fact that Germany purchased 267,000 barrels of British herring in 1933, will he consider making representations to the German Government with a view to securing equal treatment regarding currency facilities for German importers of British herring?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that Norway has concluded an exchange agreement with Germany containing provisions designed to facilitate the payment of debts due in respect of her exports to Germany of herring as well as other goods; and that there have been drastic curtailments of the foreign exchange allotments placed at the free disposal of German importers for payments in respect of herring and other goods purchased from all countries, including the United Kingdom. As regards the last part of the question, negotiations for an Anglo-German Exchange Agreement, similar to the agreements concluded between Germany and other countries are at present proceeding in Berlin.

    IRISH FREE STATE.
    Mr. LUNNasked the President of the Board of Trade the total amount of exports in coal and goods of all kinds from the United Kingdom to the Irish Free State during 1931, 1932, 1933 and the first six months of 1934?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The declared value of the aggregate exports of merchandise from the United Kingdom to the Irish Free State during each of the last three years is given in Tables XI and XII of the issue for January last of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom." The corresponding particulars for the first six months of 1934 will be published in the issue of these accounts for July. As regards coal, the desired information will be found in the issues for December, 1933, and June, 1934.
    Mr. LUNN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report up to the the end of June will be obtainable?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot say without notice, but I hope very shortly.

    IMPORT QUOTA RESTRICTIONS (JAPANESE GOODS).
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will cause inquiries to be made with a view to preventing quantities of Japanese goods being shipped via Manchukuo and Chinese ports in order to escape inclusion in the quota restrictions imposed by the Indo-Japanese trading agreement?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): My hon. Friend may rest assured that the Government of India are fully alive to the necessity of enforcing the quota restriction, but they will be sent a copy of his question. The Government of India have already prohibited the import of cotton piece goods manufactured in Japan, irrespective of port of origin, unless they are covered by the Japanese export certificate which brings them within the quota.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEY: While appreciating the attention that has been given to this important matter, may I ask my hon. Friend to see that specific attention is paid to this question of importation by way of Manchukuo, which is increasing?
    Mr. BUTLER: I have already assured my hon. Friend that this question has been sent to the Government of India.

    ADEN AND HONG KONG (COTTON IMPORTS).
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for India whether he will consider the possibility of instituting a through-ticket system for cotton piece-goods imported into Aden so that a quota can be given to that proportion of the imports intended for domestic consumption without interference with the entrepot trade?
    Mr. BUTLER: The Government of India will be asked to consider this suggestion.
    Mr. HAMMERSLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the possibility of instituting a through-ticket system for cotton piece-goods imported into Hong Kong so that a quota can be given to that proportion of the imports intended for domestic consumption without interference with the entrepot trade?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As my hon. Friend is aware, the trade of Hong Kong presents exceptional difficulties and the retained imports are relatively small; but I will ask the Governor for his considered opinion on this suggestion.

    UNITED STATES.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOTasked the President of the Board of Trade what steps, if any, he is taking or proposes to take to negotiate a trade agreement with the United States of America?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think that His Majesty's Government could, at the present time, usefully propose such negotiations.
    Sir PERCY HURD: In the event of proposals of this character being made to His Majesty's Government, may I ask that care shall be taken to keep in the closest touch with the Canadian Government?

  BRITISH ARMY.

    OFFICERS (FORAGE ALLOWANCE).
    Brigadier-General NATIONasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office how many officers of the Army are in receipt of a double forage allowance; how many of these are actually in possession of two horses used for military purposes; and what the total amount paid out for this double allowance was for the last 12 months?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): Approximately 900 officers draw forage allowance, or forage, in respect of two horses. All these officers are actually in possession of two horses used for military purposes. The total amount paid for the past 12 months was about £35,000.

    REMOUNTS.
    Mr. JOELasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what was the number and value of remounts purchased for the Army in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and the Irish Free State, respectively, during the first six months of 1934, and how such numbers and values compare with those for a similar period in 1932 and 1933, respectively?
    Mr. HACKING: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my

    —

    First Six Months of 1932

    First Six Months of 1933.

    First Six Months of 1934.

    No.

    Value.

    No.

    Value.

    No.

    Value.

    £

    £

    £

    Great Britain

    …

    …

    364

    27,701

    629

    37,464

    534

    31,297

    Northern Ireland

    …

    …

    315

    17,696

    389

    21,385

    543

    39,388

    Irish Free State

    …

    …

    259

    14,253

    109

    3,706*

    148

    7,437*

    * These figures do not include Customs Duty.

    5TH ROYAL IRISH LANCERS (MAJOR W. A. ADAM).
    Lieut.-Colonel APPLINasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the confidential report on Major W. A. Adam, late 5th Royal Irish Lancers, was communicated to him in accordance with the King's Regulations, Appendix XXIII, paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) and paragraphs 3 and 4; and, if this has not been done, will the Army Council carry out these regulations forthwith?
    Mr. HACKING: All the adverse reports on this officer were shown to him in accordance with the King's Regulations.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    BENEFIT (EXPLANATORY LEAFLETS).
    Mr. ALBERYasked the Minister of Labour whether it is proposed to issue any explanatory pamphlets concerning the changes which took place as from the 1st July in unemployment benefit for the information of unemployed persons?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Special posters have been exhibited in all Employment Exchanges giving the increased rates of benefit which came into force on 1st July. A leaflet (U.I.L.18) describing the conditions for the receipt of unemployment benefit as amended by the new Act is given to every claimant, while fuller particulars of the changes introduced by the new Act are included in a leaflet (U.I.L.8) which can be obtained on request at any Employment Exchange.
    hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the figures:
    I am sending copies of these leaflets to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. ALBERY: Are these leaflets in a sufficiently simple form for any ordinary working man to understand? If not, can something on those lines be done?
    Mr. HUDSON: I think that when the hon. Member has read the leaflets he will agree that the ordinary unemployed man can understand them.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly consider issuing these leaflets to Members of Parliament, who will be inundated by claimants who feel themselves aggrieved, and who will want to know what is contained in the leaflets?
    Mr. HUDSON: I will see if I can arrange for copies to be put in the Vote Office. I shall be glad to send them to any Member who writes to me.
    Mr. BATEY: Do these leaflets apply only to people receiving standard benefit, and do they state that men on standard benefit receive only 16s. instead of 17s.?
    Mr. HUDSON: I assume that the persons in Durham who are on transitional payments are aware of the scales in force now.
    Mr. BATEY: Are they in the leaflets?
    Mr. HUDSON: No, Sir.

    UNEMPLOYMENT FUND.
    Mr. RITCHESONasked the Minister of Labour the present debt of the Unemployment Fund; and what amount, if any, stands to the credit of the fund?
    Mr. HUDSON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) yesterday, of which I am sending him a copy.

    FRUIT PICKERS, HEREFORD.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any information to the House relative to the 45 women ranging in age from 49 years to 15 years who were sent from the Cardiff Employment Exchange on Monday afternoon to go fruit picking near Hereford; if he can state the rates of wages to be paid; whether the work was day work or at piece rates; the hours to be worked; what sleeping and sanitary accommodation was provided; and whether he has received a report from the manager of the Employment Exchange at Hereford in connection with the matter?
    Mr. HUDSON: I am making inquiries into the matter and will let the hon. Member know the result.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the hon. Gentleman find out whether the people in question were informed of the rates that they were to receive before they left the Employment Exchange?
    Mr. HUDSON: I do not think I had better go into the matter fully until I have all the information, because there is a considerable conflict of evidence about what happened.

    ROAD-STONE INDUSTRY.
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the large number of workers who are unemployed in the road-stone industry; and what steps the Government are taking to improve the position?
    Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. As the reply is somewhat long, I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    As the road-stone industry is not separately distinguished in the statistics of employment and unemployment derived from the working of the Unemployment Insurance Acts, the only figures I can
    1644
    quote are those for the stone mining and quarrying industry, in which the road-stone industry is included. On 24th July, 1933, the percentage of unemployed was 24.3; the figure rose in December last to 28.4, but on the 25th June last it fell to 19.5 (subject to revision). With regard to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, a condition is attached to all grants made to highway authorities from the Road Fund that all materials shall, so far as practicable, be of United Kingdom origin, and that all manufactured articles shall be of United Kingdom manufacture, subject to such exceptions as may be found to be necessary or desirable in any particular cases. Failing the purchase of the necessary supplies from the United Kingdom sources, products of the Overseas Empire must be used wherever possible. Highway authorities are fully aware of this condition, which appears on every grant form issued, and the Ministry has urged the adoption of the same principles as widely as possible in connection with all highway expenditure, whether grant-aided or not.

    EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN.
    Colonel CLIFTON BROWNasked the Minister of Health in what main occupations in England and Wales there has been an increase in the employment of women between 1921 and 1931; and in what occupations in England and Wales in which there has been an increase in the employment of women has there been a decrease in the employment of men?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My hon. and gallant Friend will find the full information asked for in Table G on pages 673-680 of the recently published 1931 Census Volume of "Occupation Tables."
    Colonel BROWN: Can we take it that women are ousting men from a great many occupations in this country?

    BRITISH UNION OF FASCISTS.
    Mr. GREENEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) the number of prosecutions of persons accused of creating disorder at meetings of the British Union of Fascists during the last 12 months; and if he will state their names;

    1645
    (2) the number of prosecutions of members of the British Union of Fascists accused of creating disorder at public meetings during the last 12 months?
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the Home Secretary the number of prosecutions and the names of members of the British Union of Fascists accused of creating disorder at public meetings during the last 12 months?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): My right hon. Friend regrets that the information asked for is not available for the country as a whole and it is only possible to give particulars in respect of the Metropolitan Police District. My right hon. Friend is informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that, during the last 12 months, 69 persons, of whom 16 are known to be members of the British Union of Fascists, have been prosecuted on charges of creating disorder at public meetings in the Metropolitan Police District. As rival meetings are often held in close proximity and as some of the persons prosecuted were prosecuted for creating disorder at their own meetings, it would give a misleading impression to classify the persons prosecuted in the manner suggested in the questions. My right hon. Friend does not think that any useful purpose would be served by publishing the names of the persons prosecuted.
    Mr. GREENE: Is it not a fact that 90 per cent. of those accused of attacking Fascists rejoice in such fine old British names such as Ziff, Kerstein and Minsky?
    Mr. MACQUISTEN: Were some of them called Feigenbaum, Goldstein and Rigotsky and other like good old Highland names?
    Mr. THORNEasked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from the chief constable of Luton in connection with the British Union of Fascists' meeting that was held on Wednesday evening at which a young man, 20 years of age, was picked up unconscious after the disturbance was over and- subsequently died; whether an inquest has been held and, if so, what was the verdict?
    Captain CROOKSHANK: Yes, Sir. I have received a report from the chief constable, and I understand that the inquest, which was opened on the 20th instant, has been adjourned until tomorrow.

    INDIA (ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, CALCUTTA).
    Mr. DORANasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to a case in the Calcutta High Court, E. A. King v. the King Emperor, and to the allegation of counsel in that case as to the terrorising and bullying of witnesses; and will he make representations to have a full inquiry made into the case in question?
    Mr. BUTLER: I have no information regarding the case referred to, but will inquire.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been directed to a charge, proved to be false, made by the Calcutta chief presidency magistrate against the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hales), a charge for which, on appeal being made to the Calcutta High Court, the magistrate was severely censured by the high court judges; and whether an inquiry will be made into the magistrate's conduct?
    Mr. HALL-CAINEasked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that many serious complaints have been made against the unfair decisions of the hon. S. K. Sinha, the chief presidency magistrate of Calcutta, such as the bullying of witnesses, and the unfair treatment of counsel, resulting in many applications for the transference of cases to another court; and will he make arrangements for a searching inquiry to be made with the least possible delay in the interests of British subjects residing within the jurisdiction of the chief presidency magistrate?
    Mr. BUTLER: I have seen a report in the Press that the findings of the chief presidency magistrate, Calcutta, in the case mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) were criticised by the Calcutta High Court. I have no information regarding the complaints

    1647
    referred to in the other question. The question whether there is a case for inquiry is a matter for the consideration of the Government of Bengal.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether magistrates are entitled to make serious charges against Members of this House with impunity, more particularly when those charges are proved to be entirely unfounded?
    Mr. BUTLER: I have only hitherto seen a Press report of this matter. If the right hon. and gallant Member so desires, I am ready to ask for a report from India on the facts. Naturally, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hales) on the result of his appeal.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman remember that it is the business of the Government, if I may say so, to defend the honour of this House?
    Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at the time when the strictures were made they caused considerable comment in India, and did a great deal of harm to this House in India, and will he give this matter his most careful consideration with a view to seeing whether anything can be done to defend the honour of this House?
    Mr. BUTLER: I have already informed the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who put the question that I am willing to ask for a report on the facts. The question of whether a further inquiry arises on the facts is a question for the Government of Bengal. In reply to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), I have already said that I am glad the hon. Member for Hanley won his appeal.

    AVIATION (" A" PILOTS' LICENCES).
    Mr. EVERARDasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of "A" licensed pilots who have failed to retain their licences in the last three years, respectively?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The numbers of "A" licences which for various reasons were not renewed during 1931,
    1648
    1932 and 1933 were 509, 553 and 763 respectively. I should perhaps add that during the same period the new licences exceeded the total of these figures by 903.
    Mr. EVERARD: In view of the present demand for pilots in the country, would it not be a good thing to see that these 700 licences remain in operation; and could not my right hon. Friend very carefully go into the matter and see what are the causes why licences are not taken up year by year?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I will consider that suggestion.

    STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PENSIONS (ECONOMY CUTS).
    Sir H. SAMUELasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the classes of persons in the service of the Crown or local authorities the amount of whose pensions will be diminished through the fact that their pensions are assessed on rates of salaries which will have been affected by the temporary cuts in salaries or grants made by Parliament in 1931?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As the answer to this question is a long one, I propose, with the right hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    The main classes in question are as follow:

    (1) Teachers retired after the 1st October, 1931.

    (2) Local Government Officers, in so far as they have been subjected to a similar economy cut and have not been permitted to contribute on and to be pensioned on their uncut salaries under the London Local Authorities Superannuation (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1932, and the Local Government and other Officers Superannuation (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1933.

    (3) Persons who entered a police force after 1st October, 1931, should they become entitled to a pension during the operation of the cut.

    I should add, as regards civil servants and others whose pay was subject to periodical variation by reference to the

    1649
    cost-of-living figure, that their pensions have been calculated as from 1st July, 1931, on the basis of a cost-of-living figure of 50 in accordance with the provisions of Treasury Minute dated 20th March, 1922 (House of Commons Paper 55 of 1922). The figure of 50 for calculation of pensions was fixed in June, 1931, not as part of the emergency measures in the autumn of 1931.

    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS).
    Mr. JOELasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which of the Government Departments are arranging at the present time for films to be made of their activities; and whether he can give any details?
    Mr. COOPER: As the answer is some- what long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the particulars:
    Excluding films made for scientific or research purposes, or for purely instructional use inside the Fighting Services, the following films are in course of pro- duction for the Departments named:
    Department and Subject.
    Ministry of Agriculture:
    Market Gardening.
    Post Office:
    Department of Scientific and Industrial Research:
    Radio Research* (five or six parts).
    * This film is being made without charge to the Department.
    It is the practice of the Service Departments to allow commercial film companies facilities, usually in return for a fee or royalty, for the production of films incorporating scenes of service life, etc. A few films of this kind are in course of production.

  PUBLIC HEALTH.

    FOOD POISONING, LINCOLNSHIRE.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Health whether he can give any in-
    1650
    formation to the House in connection with the 100 people living in Lincolnshire villages who are suffering from an illness caused by some kind of food poisoning; and whether he has received any information from the hospital authorities about the matter?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has received reports from the district and county medical officers of health, who state that about 30 persons in the Welton rural district were affected but that all have now recovered. The cause of the outbreak has not been established but some pickled meat is suspected.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the Minister pursue the inquiries to see what the real cause of the illness was?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We have, and we have only a suspicion of the cause.

    RURAL WATER GRANTS.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Minister of Health whether he will state the highest and lowest rates in rural areas for which a grant in respect of a water supply has been given, showing the amounts in both cases of the rates previous to a proposed scheme and the approximate increase due to a scheme, and the amounts granted by the county and the Ministry?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The highest rate is 22s. ld., and the estimated increase in rates needed to carry out the scheme without assistance approximately 3d. The proposal is a joint scheme for 33 parishes towards the whole of which a lump sum grant of £7,500 has been provisionally allocated on condition that the county council make an equivalent contribution. The lowest rate is 7s. 4d. and the estimated increase in rates needed to carry out the scheme without assistance approximately 3s. 8d. The scheme is a joint scheme for 18 parishes towards which the Ministry have provisionally allocated a lump sum grant of £3,000 and the county council an annual contribution of £487.
    Mr. LEVY: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what will happen if county councils refuse to make the grants suggested—whether in such circumstances no water supply schemes will be started in those rural areas?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As no county council has hitherto refused to make a contribution that is entirely a hypothetical question.
    Mr. WELLSasked the Minister of Health the total amount granted in respect of rural water supplies to date?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Grants to the total of £132,500 have been provisionally allocated in respect of schemes for 361 parishes estimated to cost £1,037,000.

    HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE, MANCHESTER).
    Captain FULLERasked the Minister of Health when the slum clearance order for the West Gorton division of Manchester will be confirmed?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend's decision will be given as soon as possible, but some time must necessarily be taken in the consideration of this scheme; it is exceptionally large and the local inquiry occupied more than five weeks.
    Captain FULLER: Is it likely to be confirmed before the House reassembles in the autumn?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I cannot promise that.
    Captain FULLER: I ask in view of the fact that it is a small scheme and not a large one as the hon. Gentleman stated?
    Mr. CHORLTON: Is not the hon. Gentleman referring to the Collyhurst scheme, and is that not to be decided first?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The scheme mentioned in the question will be dealt with as quickly as possible.

  AGRICULTURE.

    EGGS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. DREWEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the depression in the poultry industry, he will be prepared to make an order to ensure that all eggs imported in shell that have been cold-stored or subjected to other preserving process shall be marked with the apposite description?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I have no power to make an Order with the object indicated. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, however, reorganisation commissions are now engaged in examining the whole question of the future organisation of the egg and poultry industry in this country, and I understand that the commissions have received numerous representations on the subject of the marking of imported cold-stored eggs.
    Mr. DREWE: In view of the long delay over this report, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to take some interim action?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Things that require legislation can only be dealt with if I can get an Act passed before the House rises, and I cannot promise to do that.
    Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of prohibiting the import of all kinds of liquid eggs between now and the next General Election?
    Mr. DREWEasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that 54,876 long hundreds of eggs were imported from Turkey recently and sold at 3s. 10d. a long hundred, which is estimated to be one-third of the cost of production in this country: and whether he is prepared to protect the home producer against such competition?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am aware that quantities of eggs recently imported from Turkey were sold at very low prices, but I am advised that the circumstances of these importations were exceptional and further consignments of a similar character are unlikely. The question of the action to be taken by way of import control when the present arrangements expire on 14th September next is under consideration, but I am not in a position to make a statement.

    EDUCATION (TECHNICAL EDUCATION).
    Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. T. WILLIAMS)asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether any regulations have been issued to local educational authorities relating to technical education in elementary

    1653
    schools; if so, can he state the industries that are covered by such regulations; and will he make those regulations available for hon. Members?
    Sir WALTER WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My Noble Friend assumes that the hon. Member has in mind the various forms of practical instruction given in public elementary schools. Such instruction is of a general, and not of a vocational, character, and no special regulations have been made by the board for it. The hon. Member may find the information given in Table 17 on page 117 of the board's recently published report for 1933 of interest.

    ROYAL NAVY (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, GIBRALTAR).
    Mr. MACLEANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Mr. A. Mor, an employe in His Majesty's Dockyard at Gibraltar, was drowned in December, 1933, whilst engaged in discharging ammunition; and whether any and, if so, what compensation has been paid to his widow?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Mansell): The death of Mr. Mor was reported to the Admiralty at the time of its occurrence. His widow was granted a gratuity of £43 17s. 6d. under Section 3 of the Superannuation Act, 1914, but she was held to be not entitled to compensation under the terms of the Treasury Warrant framed under the Section 1 of the Superannuation Act, 1887, as there was no evidence that her husband's death was caused either in actual discharge of his duty, or from an injury specifically attributable to the nature of his duty.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Seeing that the total amount given as compensation in this case was £43, does not the First Lord consider it is time a revision of the law of compensation in the dockyard at Gibraltar was undertaken by him or by the Governor of that place?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: This question does not affect the Admiralty only in connection with the dockyard, but all people in Government employ.
    Mr. MACLEAN: I have already approached two Departments on this question. If I desire to have this compensation ordinance entirely changed, and proper terms of compensation given to injured people, or the relatives of those killed, must I approach the Prime Minister?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: I do not know whether the hon. Member has in mind a local ordinance. If so, it would not affect this question.
    Mr. MACLEAN: is it not the case that this particular employé came directly under Admiralty conditions, and that if he had been an employe sent out from Portsmouth or from Sheerness the amount paid to him in compensation—or to his widow—would have been considerably in excess of £43, and does not that call for reconsideration on the part of the Admiralty?
    Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: This is not a question affecting merely the Admiralty, but it concerns the whole Government in relation to all Departments.
    Mr. MACLEAN: In view of the fact that different sums in compensation are paid to different individuals working on the same ship, will the right hon. Gentleman, as First Lord of the Admiralty, approach the other Government Departments concerned to see whether some arrangement can be come to under which a better law of compensation, more just in its operation, can be brought into operation in Gibraltar dockyard?

    ARMAMENTS (PRIVATE MANUFACTURE).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that on page 46 of the progress report of the committee for the regulation of the trade in and the private and State manufacture of arms and implements of war, in the result of the second question of the questionnaire asking for information as to what undertakings were chiefly or largely engaged in the manufacture of arms, it is stated that whereas there are 20 entirely private enterprises in Belgium, 107 in France, 60 in the United States, 5 in Yugoslavia, 9 in Switzerland, 9 in Poland, 6 in Rumania, there are none in the United Kingdom;

    1655
    and whether he will take steps to more adequately describe the comparative situation in this country?
    The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): The table on page 46 of the report to which the hon. Member refers was drawn up by the Secretariat of the League of Nations upon the request of the chairman of the Sub-committee on the Manufacture of Arms in an endeavour to summarise the replies of the Governments to the questionnaire of the 28th October, 1932. Necessarily the table does riot take into account the detailed explanations given by the Governments in their replies, which are set out in full earlier in the report referred to. His Majesty's Government have never sought to maintain that no arms are manufactured by private firms in this country, and I do not think that there is any doubt as to the position in this country. In view, moreover, of the fact that this report is more than a year old, and that there have been recent new developments in the committee appointed to study the question of the manufacture of and trade in arms, I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served 'at this late date in moving for the alteration of the report in one particular or another.
    Mr. MANDER: In view of the fact that this table presents an entirely false picture of the position, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of making some statement which will bring the real facts more truly to the attention of the world?
    Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. I did not draw up the table. Our true position is perfectly well known everywhere.
    Mr. MANDER: Is it not a fact that the table is based upon information supplied by the British Government and have we not therefore a responsibility?
    Mr. EDEN: We are responsible for the information which was correct; we are not responsible for the drafting.

    INSURANCE DOCTORS AND CHEMISTS (REMUNERATION).
    Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLEasked the Minister of Health what arrangements have been made up to date to restore in
    1656
    part to doctors and chemists the losses suffered by them as a result of the economy measures in 1931?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a circular which was issued by my Department to insurance committees on the 20th June, setting out the arrangements for giving effect to the decision of the Government to restore, as from the 1st July, one-half of the deduction made from the remuneration of insurance practitioners and chemists, as a measure of economy, from the 1st October, 1931.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Sir H. SAMUEL: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what Votes of Supply will be taken on Thursday next?
The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): The Supply Votes to be discussed are the Department of Agriculture (Scotland), Public Education (Scotland) and the Ministry of Health.
Sir PERCY HARRIS: The Ministry of Health, England?
Mr. BALDWIN: I assume so.

CHRISTMAS (FACILITIES).
Mr. HORNBY: I beg to move,
" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the facilities for shopping during the Christmas season, and for ether purposes connected therewith."
The object of the Bill is to amend the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, the Shops Act, 1928, and the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in order to extend the peak shopping period of the year by increasing shopping facilities during the two weeks immediately preceding Christmas. It provides accordingly for the release of children from school during such period, for the suspension during such period of the provisions with regard to the general closing hours of shops and the restrictions on the hours during which drivers of road vehicles may remain continuously on duty, and that the dividing friendly societies shall share out their surplus funds before the period. This peak shopping period represents 12 shopping days immediately preceding Christmas day. The restrictions which are at present in

1657
operation interfere with the freedom of the country's trade at a time when traders hope to make good the deficiencies of the rest of the year. Sales of non-food merchandise during these 12 days represent substantially more than the average month's sale during the 11 months from January to November, and the sales are most intense during the five days before Christmas day. When this period comes about, serious congestion takes place. Some shops are overcrowded, and it is difficult for shopkeepers to cope with the enormous rush of buying. Passenger traffic facilities are overstrained, and the buying public are unable to move about with any degree of comfort. Goods traffic is also congested, preventing dealers from obtaining further supplies promptly to meet the rush of buying, and in many cases sales are lost.
The object of the Bill is to make this extra trade and employment possible, and so to confer on the country as a whole all the benefits which must arise from the very appreciable additions to its trade. There will always be people with a tendency to do Christmas shopping in the two or three days before Christmas, and no Bill can usefully attempt to deal with such a tendency, but there are other factors involved which to a great extent tend to increase the appalling rush of Christmas shopping on those days.
Mr. THORNE: On a point of Order. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is reading his speech. Is that not against the rules of the House?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has, I think, what is very usual, rather extensive notes.
Mr. HORNBY: One of the most important factors is the date for the commencement of the school Christmas holidays, which is only two or three days before Christmas. The Bill suggests that the date might, with advantage to all concerned, be altered to a fortnight before Christmas, not alone for the tremendous benefit it would be to the trade of the country but also for the educational value to the scholars, who could visit the shops and inspect the exhibited displays of British-made goods and materials of a scientific nature, for after-school occupations.
Mr. THORNE: These are very extensive notes.
Mr. HORNBY: The advantages to scholars and to the trade will be realised when it is known that there are about 6,000,000 scholars in the elementary and secondary schools. Another essential of Christmas shopping is money. The saving capacity of the British people has to be studied to be appreciated at its true magnitude. It is common knowledge that throughout the country dividing societies, tontines, savings clubs, and other organisations of a similar kind exist in many thousands, and their traditional method at present is to make their distributions within the last two or three trading days previous to Christmas Day. It is difficult to estimate the total amount so distributed in this period, but a conservative calculation puts the amount so made available for the special purpose of Christmas shopping at at least £5,000,000, and it very probably exceeds that figure.
Two other Clauses of the Bill are designed to provide a slightly larger degree of elasticity in the hours of employment of the staffs working in shops and of motor drivers concerned with the delivery of goods. It is intended that these Clauses should apply for the two weeks previous to Christmas Day, and their only effect is to remove statutory disqualifications for this short period. The Bill also provides for payment for the extra hours worked. There is no change in the date of the Christmas festival, and both of these conditions are part of the same organisation. It is not intended that the provisions of the Bill shall apply to Scotland, or to the North of Ireland. The Bill seeks to bring about important changes in many respects, and I hope that the House will agree to give it a First Reading, so that it may at least form the basis of a discussion as to whether it would help the country in the way which at present is of more importance than anything else, namely, by increasing trade and reducing unemployment.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Hornby) intervenes so seldom in our Debates that I am rather reluctant to oppose his Bill, but I am going to do so. Really his Measure, so far as shop life in this country is concerned, is very much more revolutionary than he supposes. It breaks through the

1659
whole of the early closing arrangements under the Shops Acts. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman assumes that, if you give a fortnight to the children in which to do their shopping before Christmas, you will thereby increase the trade. Nothing of the kind. As a matter of fact, if you gave them a month they would buy just the amount that is represented by the money they have available for spending, and, consequently, the Bill fails on that score. Let me point out something else to the hon. Gentleman. Every argument that he has employed this afternoon in favour of extending these provisions in the way that he has indicated would apply to Whitsuntide, to Easter, and to August Bank Holiday with almost more force than he has indicated in relation to Christmas.
There is one further argument that I want to put. To-day we have dealt with the last stage of a Bill to provide for restrictions on the employment of about 400,000 young persons in the distributive trades, and I can assure the House that, if we passed the hon. Gentleman's Bill this afternoon, it would practically destroy, for two weeks in the year, the work that we have completed within the last quarter of an hour on the Shops Bill. I feel sure that this Bill is on the wrong lines, and that, in common fairness to the shop assistants of this country—and there are 2,000,000 of them by the way, employed for wages in the distributive trades—it ought not to be allowed a. First Reading.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 101.

Division No. 346]

AYES

[3.35 p.m.

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

Hurst, Sir Gerald B.

Runge, Norah Cecil

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Boulton, W. W.

Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Knox, Sir Alfred

Savery, Samuel Servington

Brass, Captain Sir William

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Scone, Lord

Broadbent, Colonel John

Lees-Jones, John

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Leigh, Sir John

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

Levy. Thomas

Simmonds, Oliver Edwin

Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

Christie, James Archibald

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)

Clarke. Frank

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Smithers, Sir Waldron

Cooke, Douglas

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Somerset, Thomas

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Maitland, Adam

Soper, Richard

Drewe, Cedric

Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

Martin, Thomas B.

Stewart, J H. (Fife, E.)

Edmondson, Major Sir James

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Strauss, Edward A.

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Elmley, Viscount

Mitcheson, G. G.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Everard, W. Lindsay

Moss, Captain H. J.

Summersby, Charles H.

Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

Munro, Patrick

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Fox, Sir Gifford

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Thompson, Sir Luke

Goff, Sir Park

Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

Todd, Lt.-Col. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)

Graham. Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd. N.)

Oman, Sir Charles William C.

Train, John

Granville, Edgar

Palmer, Francis Noel

Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Patrick, Colin M.

Wells, Sydney Richard

Graves, Marjorie

Pearson, William G.

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.

Greene, William P. C.

Peat, Charles U.

Whyte, Jardine Bell

Grimston, R. V.

Perkins, Walter R. D.

Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)

Guest, Capt. At. Hon. F. E.

Petherick, M.

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Pete, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bllston)

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Hales, Harold K.

Pike, Cecil F.

Wise, Alfred R.

Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)

Pownall, Sir Assheton

Womersley, Sir Walter

Hammersley, Samuel S.

Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Hanley, Dennis A.

Rankin, Robert

Harbord, Arthur

Ray, Sir William

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Hartington, Marquess of

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Mr. Hornby and Sir Hugo Rutherford.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis

Bernays, Robert

Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

Dyke Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

Campbell. Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

Attlee, Clement Richard

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Cape, Thomas

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Browne, Captain A. C.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Buchanan, George

Castlereagh, Viscount

Batey, Joseph

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.)

Burnett, John George

Chamberlain, Rt.Hon.SirJ.A.(Birm.,W)

Conant, R. J. E.

Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)

North, Edward T.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Paling, Wilfred

Curry, A. C.

Harris, Sir Percy

Parkinson, John Allen

Dagger, George

Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

Peake, Osbert

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

Davies, Stephen Owen

Holdsworth, Herbert

Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

Dobble, William

Horsbrugh, Florence

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Duggan, Hubert John

Howard, Tom Forrest

Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)

Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Satter. Dr. Alfred

Edwards, Charles

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Kirkwood, David

Smith, Tom (Normanton)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Fuller, Captain A. G.

Lawson, John James

Thorne, William James

Ganzonl, Sir John

Leonard, William

Tree, Ronald

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Lunn, William

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)

McCorquodale, M. S.

West, F. R.

Glossop, C. W. H.

McKie, John Hamilton

Weymouth, Viscount

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton

White, Henry Graham

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Mainwaring, William Henry

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W.Riding)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Wilmot, John

Groves, Thomas E.

Mllner, Major James

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Grundy, Thomas W.

Moreing, Adrian C.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

Mr. Rhys Davies and Mr. Banfield.

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments and Lords consequential Amendments to the Bill considered accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hornby, Sir John Rutherford, Mr. Hartland, Major Procter, Mr. Chorlton, Major Colfox, Sir Assheton Pownall, Colonel Broadbent, Mr. Liddall, and Mr. Ross Taylor.

CHRISTMAS (FACILITIES) BILL,
"to extend the facilities for shopping during the Christmas season, and for other purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 179.]
MIDDLESEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,
National Maritime Museum Bill,
British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill,
Rotherham Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
London Passenger Transport Board Bill,
Manchester Corporation (General Powers) Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords],
Tynemouth Corporation Bill [Lords],
North Wales Electric Power Bill [Lords],
Tyne Improvement Bill [Lords],
Wantage Urban District Council Bill [Lords], without Amendment.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to consolidate certain enactments relating to County Courts."[County Courts Bill [Lords],
And also, a Bill, inituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Acts, 1899 and 1933, relating to Clyde Valley Electrical Power." [Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

COUNTY COURTS BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 180.]
CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION ORDER BILL [Lords].
Read the First time; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

SHOPS BILL [Lords].
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments to Commons Amendments and Lords consequential Amendments to the Bill be considered forthwith."
I apologise for the short notice which has been given, but that is due to our desire to get the Bill through and on to the Statute Book. The Amendments in question are only of a drafting character, and have had the attention and consideration of this House at an earlier stage.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CATTLE INDUSTRY (EMERGENC PROVISIONS) BILL.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Elliot.]
  3.44 p.m.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The object, of this Bill is to provide a free gift of £3,000,000 to the home producers of beef. The Labour party is definitely opposed to this method of dealing with agriculture. The Government is hoping to solve the agricultural problems of the country by manuring the fields with Treasury notes and fattening the bullocks with silver coins. This method of dealing with agriculture is one further indication of the confession by the Government of its failure to deal with the industry. It treats the farmer on all occasions just like the ignorant mother who hands a coin to the peevish child in order to get rid of it when she ought to take it to the dentist. The Bill, in our view, will do nothing for the provision of more beef. I have been a little astonished that the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to provide an incentive for the production of more beef by
  1672
  making a free gift of money to the farmers. I shall have something to say later as to the way the Government looks at the several industries of the land. Take the cotton industry of Lancashire. According to the right hon. Gentleman's arguments, the beef producers are in a bad way financially, but if a fair balance were held between the farming and other industries they ought to give the cotton industry not £3,000,000 but £30,000,000 and, if we turn to coal, they ought to give that industry about £300,000,000. The farmer is the darling of the Tory party and the right hon. Gentleman is the pet of the Farmers' Union. The Bill does nothing at all to deal with the fundamental issues connected with farming.
  We have a right to complain of the way in which the Tory party throughout the centuries has always fondled the farming interest. I was in the House when they relieved the farmers of practically all their rates. Then they went a step further. When this Government came into power, they did all they could to prevent agricultural produce coming into the country from abroad, and now they are making this free gift. We have reached a, stage when the present Ministry of Agriculture is synonymous with the Farmers' Union. The Farmers' Union ought indeed to shift its central office and put it in Whitehall. They are very nearly one and the same body at long last. I regard this £3,000,000 as nothing but a free gift, almost in the nature of bribery. I shall be very interested to see how the Bill works out in practice. I shall be interested for instance to see how the cattle dealer fills up the forms to claim this money. It will be a sight for the gods. He will get it, of course, but I imagine that it would have been cleaner and more honest to have handed over the £3,000,000 direct to the Farmers' Union, and to have said, "Here you are. Hand it out to your members as you think fit, and let us have finished with it." We on this side of the House are assumed not to know, much about agriculture, but I have reason to know more about agriculture than some hon. Members who sit on the opposite side of the House. I do not want to deal with personal affairs, but I am sure that I know more about working on the farm than the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I am prepared to take up the challenge of the hon. Gentleman. He is a great deal older than I am, but I am certain that I have worked longer on the farm than he has.
  Mr. DAVIES: The hon. Member may have worked longer, but he has not worked as hard. It is not the length of one's labour which counts but the intensity of it.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: I quite agree.
  Mr. DAVIES: I do not want to enter into a ploughing match with the hon. Gentleman. It would, as I stated, be much more honest if the £3,000,000 was handed over direct to the Farmers' Union. The negotiations which have been going on between the Farmers' Union and the right hon. Gentleman are such that it warrants me saying that much, at any rate, about this gift. We all know that the Government are preparing the way gently for the next General Election. it is a very nice way of doing things. They will not want motor cars, Union Jack's and election addresses. All they have to do is to plaster the hoardings of the countryside with posters with the words, "See what we have given you. £5,000,000 for this, £2,000,000 for that, and £3,000,000 for beef," and the rural votes, I suppose, will then roll in for the Tory party. What will happen when the Bill is passed 1 I suppose that the poultry producers will come next. I imagine that they will have a better claim for a subsidy even than the beef producers. There are lots of them in Lancashire in the Ribble Valley, who are complaining bitterly that they are not getting fair treatment from the Government.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with rather too many things which are not in the Bill.
  Mr. DAVIES: I just wanted to bring the chickens home to roost. There is a point which the Minister has forgotten about this beef business. I do not know whether he has seen the returns which have been supplied to-day of the consumption of beef in Manchester for the year 1933. I have been interested in comparing these figures, and, of course, what Manchester buys to-day the whole of England will buy to-morrow. I want the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to tell
  1674
  us how comes it about that this incentive of £3,000,000 is necessary at all for the beef producing people of this country. The Manchester Markets Committee control one of the largest markets in the country in which there is probably as much meat sold as there is in any public market in the land. I notice in the returns of the Manchester Markets Committee that the carcases of beef exposed for sale in 1933 were 11,000 more than in the year 1932. The point I want to make is that in providing an incentive for the production of beef we ought to understand exactly the habits of the people in this connection. We see huge advertisements all over the land which say, "Eat more fish," "Buy more fruit," and "Drink more beer," and if the people are to buy more fish and fruit and drink more beer, they will not want to eat much beef. The people are buying other commodities instead of beef and consequently, in my view, nothing in this £3,000,000 will warrant us saying that there will be an incentive for the production of more beef in this country.
  In the provisions of this Bill we are avoiding apparently practically all reference to foreign meat. The Government have got themselves into a tangle about foreign meat. As a matter of fact, the reason for the £3,000,000 is obvious. The Government have made a mess of things in the Ottawa and the Argentine Agreements, and it is because of this fact that we are now in this position. When the Government came into power the farmer in this country said, "Shut out the foreigner, and that will settle all our troubles." To-day there is a tendency to shut out the Dominions as well. They are competitors now, and all these agreements purporting to build up our great Empire trade are apparently going by the board. This Bill, therefore, is not even a slight contribution to the problem of agriculture and beef producing in this country. I will quote what some experts say about this problem. There is a gentleman by the name of Lord Essendon, who, at the 42nd Annual General Meeting of Furness Withy and Company, Limited, said:
  " Furthermore, the Argentine trade, in which we are largely interested, has been seriously affected by the actual and the prospective reductions in the importation of meat, and, roughly speaking, I estimate that the loss of freight to our associated companies in the South American trade will

  1675
  be in the neighbourhood of £130,000 per annum when the restrictions come into full effect, that being the loss of freight on the reduced quantities that will be shipped under our contracts."
  This Nation is now faced with two alternatives. The more we give the farmers towards this sort of thing in our own country the more we lose in our shipping trade between this country and foreign lands. Frankly, when I see what is happening at the Ports of Liverpool and Manchester I am perplexed as to whether the policy of the Government is really the right one for the community as a whole. I am positive that the more of these Bills we pass, the more the ports of this country will become derelict as a consequence of our action. The producers of mutton and lamb will also probably come along later, and perhaps the dog breeders will say later on still that they have a claim upon the Government because the dogs are not good enough to go on the race course to please the betting public. In the end Whitehall will practically become a farmyard. Everybody will be queuing up to try and get some money from the Government. If they press them hard enough they will get their millions. If I want a comparison as to the attitude of this Government all I need do is to refer to the Insurance Act of 1932. If the Government had found £100,000 then they would have saved tens of thousands of old folk their contributory old age pension at 65. When we pleaded for £100,000 for the old working folk of this land we were told that there was not a penny in the coffer, but when the Farmers' Union come along they can obtain £3,000,000 within a few months in connection with this beef subsidy. Therefore, we are entitled to protest against the way the Government are handing out money to one particular interest.
  There has been a great deal said in Debates on this Bill as to whether the distributor is not having more than his share out of the produce of the farmer. I heard an interruption by the right hon. Gentleman, though I did not catch it, but even in his mind there is an idea that the distributor is getting too much profit out of this business. I am not going to speak for the distributor, except to say that the community is demanding very much more service from the distri-
  1676
  butor than ever before. The beast of burden will walk two miles to the slaughter-house, and when it becomes a carcass my lady will order a joint over the telephone, and a piece of that same carcass is taken back by motor car. That increases the retail price.
  The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Of what beast of burden is the hon. Member thinking?
  Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will not try to trip me up and take an unfair advantage of me, because he refers, of course, to the horse, and he will know that horse-flesh is eaten in Belgium. I think I have now got my own back.
  I want to conclude my remarks in opposing this Bill by quoting something else about shipping, and I am sure hon. Members who represent divisions round our ports will agree with me that this sort of legislation is, indeed, affecting adversely the shipping of this country. It is an astonishing thing that £2,000,000 should be given for tramp shipping in order to get back the shiping trade, and that £3,000,000 should be given to the farmers to see that the same trade is destroyed. I think that that is putting it very fairly by way of condemnation of the policy of the Government. This is what was said by the same Noble Lord who seems to belong to several companies. He was speaking at the 35th ordinary general meeting of the Houlder Shipping Line, and he said:
  " If Biome production of meat is materially improved as a consequence of these restrictions, then we shipowners will feel that the sacrifices we are burdened with may be well worth while; as, obviously the shipping industry, important as it is, is of secondary importance compared with the national well-being. I must confess, however, to feeling considerable doubt, as to whether the restrictions on prime chilled beef, frozen beef, mutton and lamb from South America can to any appreciable extent assist our farming industry at home."
  When those gentlemen who are connected with the shipping industry are doubting the policy of the Government in giving doles to the farming interest, I am sure every man who loves his country and its well-being must be very much concerned about what our Government are doing.
  I want to add one word about the farm workers. Where do they come in under

  1677
  this £3,000,000 proposal? I am told on good authority that the wheat subsidy to the farmers in this country was equal to about 3s. per week in the wages of every servant they employ, and that this beef subsidy is equivalent to is. 9d. per week in the wages of every farm servant employed. The relief in rates which the farmers have received from time to time is equivalent to 12s. per farm servant per week. Therefore, I say that when this money is ladled out in this way to the farmers, some of it, at any rate, ought to percolate down to the farm labourers. The farm labourers deserve from Parliament as much consideration as the farmers themselves.
  I want to protest once again against the policy of giving money to the farmers in this country. Not only do I protest against the process of giving money away without any control over the industry which is getting the money, but I protest against the invidious comparison drawn by the Government between agriculture and cotton. If subsidies are good for the farming industry, why should not cotton in Lancashire get some money as well? Then, I suppose, if all the industries which are distressed get subsidies from the State, it will be just like taking in each other's washing, and all will be just in the same position in the end as at the beginning.
  Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Will the hon. Gentleman give us his authority for saying that the relief in rates to agriculture was at the rate of 12s. per week per labourer?
  Mr. DAVIES: I am informed that the relief of rates granted to the farmers— I will give my authority later on, but I am informed by a person capable of speaking on the matter—is equivalent to 12s. per week per farm servant employed.
  Sir J. LAMB: No.
  Mr, DAVIES: The farmer will never agree with a representative of labour, and we must leave it there; but, at any rate, the person who gave me the information is an official of the Farm Labourers' Union, and I must, take his word for it. If my hon. Friend does not mind my saying so, I will take his word as an authority as I would take the hon. Member's word of honour.
  4.7 p.m.
  Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys
  1678
  Davies) has made a very eloquent but somewhat discursive speech against the Bill, ranging, apparently, over the whole policy of the Government. What is the hon. Member's suggested remedy? I remember the Labour party had a booklet in one of the elections—" Farming must be made to pay." Well, farming cannot pay at the present prices. I dislike, as we all dislike, subsidies. This is a stop-gap subsidy, and, as an old Liberal, I dislike it very much indeed, but I do assure the hon. Member and his party that the need of the agricultural districts is very great. May I quote some official figures as to the price of beef? In 1925, the price of beef per live cwt. was 52s. 7d.; this June it was 35s. 2d. That is a 30 per cent. drop, and I ask my hon. Friend, and any other reasonable men on the other side, how can the farmers or the producers of beef go on paying their way, their outgoings and their labourers with a 30 per cent. drop in prices?
  Mr. JOHN WILMOT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the retail prices which have been charged to the consumer in the years he mentioned?
  Mr. LAMBERT: I am sorry that I have not got them but I know the argument. May I put it to the mining Members here that the miners extract coal, and it is sold, but the miners do not manage, shall I say, the consumption of coal which they extract. Similarly, if the farming community produce efficiently and economically, you cannot expect them to be salesmen and market-men as well. It cannot be done. I do appeal to reason in this matter. The coal miners extract coal which goes into an engine, if you like, to drive a cotton mill or any other machinery, but the coal miner cannot be responsible for that. The same with the farmer. If he produces efficiently and economically, that is all you can expect him to do. As I say, there has been a 30 per cent. drop in prices. I have heard hon. Members opposite ask for the cuts to be restored. The cuts have not been, and will not be, restored by this Bill to the agricultural community because—
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: In this case you cut out wages altogether.
  Mr. LAMBERT: I say that cuts in unemployment pay and other pay have

  1679
  been restored, but the cuts in the agricultural industry have not been anything like restored. Is not the drop of 30 per cent. in prices a cut? If any hon. Member were farming to-day as a smallholder, he would find that a drop of 30 per cent. was a very serious handicap to him.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman talks of the drop in prices. I think the drop is serious, but does he not bear in mind that the drop in the price of textile commodities is more serious?
  Mr. LAMBERT: My hon. Friend must face realities. You want employment elsewhere for your textile operatives and those in the mining industry. Where can you find that employment better than on the land? I study these questions fairly calmly and impartially, and with a certain amount of experience, and I do not see where the employment is coming for the great mass of unemployed, for whom our hearts rightly bleed, except from the land. My hon. Friend mentioned the cotton industry. It relies OR the export trade. That trade is throttled by every kind of restriction, tariff and quota, and, therefore, if your export trade is throttled by the action of other Governments there is only one method you can pursue, and that is to increase the productiveness of your own national resources.
  May I say to my hon. Friend that there has been a paralysis of employment in rural districts? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture yesterday gave some figures which are very illuminating. In 1921, there were 996,000 agricultural workers. In 1933, they had dropped to 827,000. There is a proof of the paralysis of employment in the agricultural industry. I am sure that any of my hon. Friends opposite will realise and agree that if the farmer could profitably employ labour, he would do it. Instead of that, agricultural labourers have been reduced in numbers in the last 13 years by something like 20 per cent. I say that that is a matter of serious concern to the country as a whole. I know the agricultural worker. I have been bred with him, and worked with him all my life, and a finer set of men does not exist in this country. They are deserving of
  1680
  every encouragement. They have had wages fixed. I am glad of it. I am glad that their wages are higher than they used to be, but their wages do not compare with other industries, although they are equally skilled men.
  I do ask the House as a whole, especially the Labour party, to think this out. You are destroying in the country districts the inherited skill of these men. They are going into the towns. They are now competing with your people. It is infinitely better for them to be healthy in the country, but unless you make it profitable to be in the country they will not live there. From what the Minister of Agriculture said yesterday, wages are low. In Devonshire they are 31s. a week. I am glad to say that in some cases they have been increased. In some counties in England they are low, but, if wages followed the course of agricultural prices, they would be to-day 23s. 5d. a week. You cannot pay wages unless the price of the product justifies them. We must have some kind of balance in our industries. We cannot rely entirely upon overseas supplies for our foodstuffs. During the War we had that lesson, and I had it burned into me. If you rely entirely upon overseas supplies that supply may fail you some day. What then? I assure hon. Members opposite that I am as much interested as they are in the welfare of the workers, but that welfare cannot be encompassed unless the employer is able to pay reasonable wages. As an old Liberal I probably dislike subsidies more than anybody else, but we have to face facts as they are. I came across an extract the other day from the July circular of the City Bank of New York. This is how it puts the problem as it is seen across the Atlantic:
  " It is generally known that the fall in the price of farm products and the loss of purchasing power to the farmers has been largely responsible for the general depression, but it is not generally recognised that the failure of other prices to decline in company with the prices of farm products has been the principal cause of unemployment."
  That is the real trouble. If we could go back to pre-war, the farmers would be perfectly happy. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are never happy."] If anyone is happy in industry, I suppose they are stagnant. I have heard it said that discontent is divine, because it inspires you

  1681
  to make further efforts. In this country we have an enormous debt burden. Could we go back to pre-war days in regard to debts, pay, Army and Navy pensions, and so on things would be different but it could not be done. We have to deal with the disequilibrium in agriculture, com- pared with other industries. This is purely a temporary Measure. My right hon. Friend proposes to have long-term policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] I hope so. I have given figures which show that the price of beef in June was 35s. 2d. This Bill will add 5s. to the price, making it 40s. In 192.5 the price was 52s. '7d., without subsidy. Therefore, it will be seen that this Bill is not going to make fortunes for the beef producers. Let no one make a mistake about that.
  We all know that my right hon. Friend is a real friend of the farmers and the agriculturists. In his position he is right so to be. We have a Minister who is a real driving power. I am not sure that he has not got off the rails once or twice, according to my ideas. I would ask him in his long-term policy to endeavour to recover as soon as he can our fiscal freedom. I am not much of a. believer in these agreements. The Ottawa Agreement was spoken of as a great triumph. It may have been a triumph for industry, but not for agriculture.
  Sir PERCY HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman voted for it.
  Mr. LAMBERT: Yes, I voted for the Government. When I come into the House of Commons I try to work with a team. I can go to my constituents and say that I have kept my pledges. Some hon. Members opposite would not have been in this House to-day but for the support of the National Government. Although I try to work with a team, that does not mean that I have no opinions of my own and that I am not going to ex- press them here. The agreements with the Dominions, with the Argentine and with Denmark have fettered our freedom. I should like these agreements to be terminated as soon as possible. In the Dominions, Australia, New Zealand and also in Denmark there has been depreciation of currency, 25 per cent. depreciation as compared with sterling. We have this currency depreciation to meet, and it is not fair to the agriculturists that they should have to bear the brunt of it. I am prepared to make sacrifices for Imperial trade but the
  1682
  sacrifice must not be all on one side. The home producer must have the first preference in his own market. I know that my right hon. Friend has great difficulties to face and I can assure him that the agriculturists will give him support if he recovers his freedom.
  There is one further point on which I would warn my right hon. Friend, and that is on the question of -the regulation of imports. I am very sceptical about it. There are foreign firms who control beef in Smithfield. Why we should allow foreign firms to control the meat supply at Smithfield and other places I cannot understand. I should like to know whether they pay their proper share of taxation. They do not pay Supertax. I should like my right hon. Friend to look into that question because, as I understand it, foreign meat importers are getting a closer and closer grip of Smithfield market. These firms have been in business all their lives and are always looking out for what is going to happen in the future. A Government Department, although it may be composed of very able men, may make mistakes. I would commend to my right hon. Friend a statement by one of the most experienced and one of the sanest commentators, Mr. J. A. Spender, who was at one time the Editor of the "Westminster Gazette." In his recent book, These Times," Mr. Spender says:
  " The errors of individuals are' relatively small which cancel each other out without great hurt to the community, but the errors of the public planner desolate a multitude."
  This regulation of imports is a very dangerous weapon. We want to keep the good-will of the urban population, but if we make any mistake and so raise the price of meat and the urban population rebel against it, we may have a difficult situation. These subsidies weaken the Exchequer. They will not add to the value of the farm. I would put to my right hon. Friend the fact that in 1933 we imported 30,000,000 cwt. of meat. An import duty of 10s. per cwt. on that meat would have brought in something like £15,000,000. I think that is the better policy to pursue.
  4.26 p.m.
  Sir P. HARRIS: I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's approval of this Bill, although it is qualified. At the end of his speech he said that a subsidy

  1683
  of this character must weaken the Exchequer. I am quite unrepentant, speaking as a town Member. The Minister yesterday was inclined to protest that I, a Member for an East London constituency, should dare to speak on a Bill of this kind. The right hon. Gentleman is liable to the same charge. He is an excellent Minister of Agriculture. 1 am quite sincere when I say that he has proved to agriculture and the country that they have had no more devoted head of the Department of Agriculture, but he is a town Member. I do not know that he has a larger rural area in his Glasgow constituency than I have in mine.
  Mr. McKIE: He has represented an agricultural constituency.
  Sir P. HARRIS: My hon. Friend says that he once sat for an agricultural constituency. So did I. I started my political career under the auspices of the right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), who came down with me and made eloquent speeches for Free Trade and in favour of the reform of our land system.
  Mr. LAMBERT: That was long before the War.
  Sir P. HARRIS: Yes, but principles do not change. Wars do not change economic facts. I do not object to the right hon. Gentleman stating his opinions or changing his opinions. He says that conditions have changed. My hon. Friend reminds me of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture once represented an agricultural constituency, and I have stated that I also represented an agricultural constituency. In those difficult years we had to tackle this very same problem of meat prices and the regulation of the meat industry. We have a common responsibility as Members of Parliament when public money is being distributed. The people who are to receive that money will, of course, accept it, but the House of Commons as a whole has a responsibility for the care of the public purse, and they must be satisfied that in the desire to meet all reasonable facts the in terests of the country as a whole are not sacrificed to the interests of a particular industry.
  1684
  I do not suggest that agriculture is not going through a bad time. Of course it is. There is not a country where agriculture is not depressed and feeling the pinch because of the general fall in world prices. If we go to the United States of America we find that they have had to exercise exceptional powers to restrict production and regulate supplies. If we look to the Dominions, we see that they have manipulated the exchange, not from any desire to indulge in bad finance but because of the acute depression which exists. There is hardly a country in the world which is not feeling the effects of world depression, which is due to the interference and clumsy experiments of politicians. The whole problem has arisen because of an indulgence throughout the world in what is called economic nationalism, and we are one of the chief culprits. We have, unfortunately, not been able to convert other countries in Europe to the principle of Free Trade, or countries in the new world, and this has had the result of dislocating the economic balance, with the result that there is a glut of supplies in various parts of the world while in the homes and houses of all working classes there is short commons, penury, want and general discontent. A significant and sinister fact is that at this moment, when we are indulging in a new policy of limitation of supplies and the imposition of tariffs and quotas, Germany finds herself short of potatoes and has to import them from other countries.
  I beg the Minister of Agriculture to realise that he has a larger responsibility than Minister of Agriculture. He must look at these problems from a larger point of view. The country, I am sure, is satisfied that you are not going to provide a permanent cure for the present condition by policies of this kind. Ottawa has failed from the point of view of this country. One of the immediate results of restricting the imports of beef was that the firm of Vestey and Company diverted a lot of their ships to the New Zealand trade. Before Ottawa it was not possible to import chilled beef, it came in the form of frozen beef, and as it fetched a low price it did not seriously interfere with the consumption of fresh beef. But the inevitable result of Ottawa is that for the first time there has been a large importation of chilled beef from New Zealand—
  Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure that the House will be interested to have the figures of this large importation.
  Sir P. HARRIS: The figures are in the Board of Trade Returns; I had them with me yesterday, but I have not got them at the moment. Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that for the last two years, and especially during the first six months of this year, there has been a considerable importation of chilled beef for the first time from New Zealand. Does he deny that? I do not know why he interrupts me at every stage and challenges my statements. I will give him the figures in a few moments if he will allow me to get them. But that is the in- evitable result. The fact is that the cause of the depression in meat prices throughout the world, and indeed the cause of the depression in all agricultural prices, is the reduced purchasing power of the bulk of the working classes due to unemployment, not only in this country but in America, where there are 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 unemployed. The decreasing purchasing power of such a number must increase the glut of supplies in that country. The same thing applies in the Dominions and in this country.
  During the last three years there has been a steady decline in the consumption of beef, particularly of fresh beef. It may be due partly to a change of habits and the result of medical education and the progress of science, but a very considerable factor is the manual labourer, the dock labourer, the miner, not the clerk, the middle classes or the black- coated worker, who does not want his beef steak, who is accustomed to lighter diet, but the heavy manual worker, who is not able to buy meat on the same scale as formerly, and who appreciates and demands fresh beef whenever he has money in his pocket. If the right hon. Gentleman has money to throw about, I am not sure that it would not have been better, instead of giving a subsidy direct to this branch of the industry, to have given every unemployed working man a fresh Sunday joint of English beef every week. I think he would have done more to help the agricultural industry in this way than by putting one section of the industry in a privileged position as is pro- posed by the Bill.
  1686
  I do not like any form of subsidy or dole, or charity. They are all bad, whether they go to farmers or working men. They are all palliatives and cannot be a substitute for a permanent restoration of industry and bringing men back into employment. The real cause of the depression in agriculture, as it is in almost every branch of industry, is the decreasing purchasing power of the bulk of the people due to prolonged periods of unemployment and depression. I know something about this matter because I have taken trouble to find out the facts. I am assured by people in touch with the market that nothing is more sensitive—I have just received the figures of the imports of chilled beef with which the right hon. Gentleman should have been familiar.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I think the hon. Member should give the figures to the House.
  Sir P. HARRIS: If the right hon. Gentleman will give me a moment I will do so.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I will give him the figures here and now. They come to less than 900 tons of chilled meat. Does the hon. Member think that that is such a large increase?
  Sir P. HARRIS: I did not say a large increase. The right hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth. I only said that the natural corollary of Ottawa was to make firms like Vestey and Company look for other markets and to stimulate for the first time the exports of chilled beef from other countries. I am sorry that I have not the figures to hand. I did not say there were large importations of chilled beef, but after all they contribute to the glut in the market. As to the Bill itself, a short Bill of five Clauses, I took exception yesterday to the fact that some £3,000,000 of public money was being given away without any safeguards for the public purse and with no details as to how the fund was to be administered. The Minister of Agriculture was very self-righteous and indignant and took shelter, as he has done before, behind a committee. He said that he had no responsibility, it was not his funeral, he had done all that he could, and that if I read the Bill I should find that the machinery was set up. The right hon. Gentleman has to appoint a

  1687
  committee. How is the committee to be composed? Is it to be composed of farmers and auctioneers? Is it to contain representatives of the public? And what kind of organisation is to be used?
  We are here setting up a new precedent in industry which can be applied to other spheres of industry as well as agriculture. It is a new departure to take money from the taxpayer and hand it to one privileged section of the community. It may be necessary, there may be an emergency, but before we part with this Bill, whatever may be the point of view from which we approach it, whether from the agricultural point of view or the taxpayers point of view, the urban, or the rural point of view, we are entitled to know how the money is to be distributed and what sort of an organisation is going to be set up. We are entitled to know whether it is to be a central organisation in London or whether it is to be worked in counties or through markets. If it is going to be worked through markets, are they going to be privileged, and are the small markets to have a chance? I know how vital it is to preserve the rights of small markets, and I think we should have full details as to the nature of this organisation, it should not be left to be worked out on the advice of a committee in two or three months time.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that he could not give details until next October. He has had 18 months to think out his policy, and, surely, having at his disposal a highly trained staff he has had time enough to think out his proposals. We have already had some experience of this kind of organisation; we have the Milk Board. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has no responsibility for the Milk Board, they are responsible to the farmers. Has he ever been into the premises of the Milk Board? It is a remarkable place, a marvellous organisation. It has given employment to hundreds of out-of-work clerks and typists, and I am grateful to the Minister for the many men who have found jobs there. But how is the machinery under this Bill to be worked out? And how is the money to be disbursed? Before we part with this Bill we should know these details, and what safeguards there are. We have a responsibility, we are the guardians of the public purse. The
  1688
  right hon. Gentle man says that we should avoid waste and complex machinery. One of the inspirations of the last General Election was to sweep away the bureaucracy set up under the Labour Government. Now we are setting up a new bureaucracy, equally expensive, and which will be equally difficult to get rid of once it is established.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. M. BEAUMONT: The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) delivered his customary long, and no doubt erudite lecture on economics, but he will forgive me for saying that it had little application to the Bill, except that four times he reiterated a question as to the machinery of the Bill which would have been more in place and would have had more chance of being answered yesterday when the Bill was in Committee. I prefer to turn to the arguments and the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). There was once a distinguished America business man who, if he was asked for a letter of introduction, invariably fulfilled the request by using this formula:
  " While I have not an extensive acquaintance with Mr. So-and-So, I admire his nerve."
  I listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech and I felt that that formula was extremely applicable; I could not agree with his arguments but I admired his nerve, He twitted my right hon. Friend the Minister with being a henchman of the National Farmers' Union. That was from a Member of the Government which ran away from a, crisis which had been created at the dictatorship of the Trade Union Congress, a Government which produced two Members who resigned from a Parliamentary position at the dictation of the Trade Union Congress. The Labour Party is a party which throughout history has been the henchman in this House, and sometimes has been proud to be the henchman, of the Trade Union Cqngress. Because my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, for the first time in history, does something for the only considerable union in this country which is not affiliated to the Trade Union Congress, the hon. Member for Westhoughton gets up and twits him with it. If my right ho n. Friend the Minister had done half as much for the

  1689
  National Farmers' Union as the Labour Government pledged itself to do for the Trade Union Congress, the party would be a much more prosperous business than it is to-day. The hon. Member for Westhoughton twitted those of us who support this Bill with looking towards the next election. He told us that at the next election we would say to the farmers, "See what we have given you." I sug- gest to him as a Member of the last Labour Government that that is a better cry than "See what we promised you."
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Would the hon. Member say what the Labour Government promised to do for the Trades Union Congress?
  Mr. BEAUMONT: I have not at my disposal all the volumes of Labour policy produced for the election of 1929, but if the hon. Member will read them through—I do not know that he ever did so, for he may have helped to compile them—he will see the pledges made at the dictation of the Trades Union Congress. But I want to turn from that argument. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are making derogatory noises. One hon. Member among them delivered a most savage attack on a colleague of mine the other day, and when I interrupted he told me that I must take my medicine. Let the hon. Member now take his medicine. Every word I say is accurate, and no one knows that better than the hon. Member, who was thrown out of his seat at the last election.
  Let me turn to the Bill. The attacks on the Bill have been based on entirely extraneous ideas. This is the situation with which the Government and the country were faced: It was necessary to do something for the farming industry or it was going out of business. The hon. Member for Westhoughton asked, "If the farming industry, why not the coal industry or the cotton industry?" Of the cotton industry I can say nothing, because know nothing; but I do know a little about the coal industry. I am the last person to say that it is not in very considerable difficulties, but you do not get in the coal industry what you get in the farming industry, practically the whole of the industry running at a loss. There are substantial concerns in the coal industry which are making a profit at the present time, but there is practically no
  1690
  substantial section of the meat-producing industry in agriculture which is running at anything but a loss. That is the reason for the Bill. It is not a question of who is most deserving of the subsidy, but the question is, do we want the farming industry to go on or not?
  The hon. Member for Central Southwark (Mr. Horobin) the other day in a speech on the Financial Resolution faced frankly the alternative when he said: "If this industry cannot make a showing without this help it ought to go out." That is a point of view. But we on the Government Benches hold, and I think that the Minister holds, that, quite apart from economic considerations, for social considerations, we cannot run this country unless we have a working and efficient agriculture. If hon. Members opposite disagree with me let them openly say so. That would be a point of view which would be understandable, if wrong. What I cannot understand is the attitude of hon. Members who condemn this proposal and do not advance any constructive alternative in its place. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green in his speech on the Financial Resolution put forward some vague suggestion about a different system of land tenure. That has been tried in other countries, and while I agree that the example of one country is not necessarily true of another, in every country where it has been tried since the War, Rumania and Czechoslovakia, for instance, that country is in a great deal worse state than we are. In no country irrespective of its system of land tenure is agriculture prospering at the present time.
  It is because we believe that British agriculture must have some help that we support this Bill. The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), whom I always regard as one who tries to take a very reasoned and unbiased view of these matters, interjected something to the effect that a way might be found for dealing with what are roughly known as middlemen's profits. I hope he is right. I held the same view at one time, but I am bound to confess that my researches have led me to believe that in effect there is no overcharge in the distributive services sufficient to do the industry any substantial good if that overcharge were dealt with. I may be wrong, but that was the result of my investigation. No alternative proposal to the Bill has in

  1691
  fact been presented by any of its opponents, and we are faced now with the fact that we have to vote for the Bill or if we vote against it we vote for another blow, and probably the final blow, at the agricultural industry.
  I agree with a great many of the criticisms that have been levelled against the Measure. The right hon. Member for South Melton (Mr. Lambert) put them very forcibly, and they have been put by various other speakers during the Debate. I recall what the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) said on the Financial Resolution, that we are paying the price for. among other things, the Argentine Trade Agreement, which some of us regard as the black pact, and for the conscience of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. But it is too late to argue whether the price paid is too high. At the time this House and the party agreed that these things were worth having, and it is no use haggling over the price now. A tribute that I wish to pay to my right hon. Friend the Minister is that he has faced up to the situation, and has not taken the attitude of countless Ministers of Agriculture by saying that because we cannot do a thing as we would like to do it we shall do nothing at all. That has been the history of too many Governments of all complexions. The right hon. Gentleman was faced with a situation and he knew that a subsidy would be unpopular in all quarters of the House. He knew that a subsidy for a short-term policy was the only thing that would save this trade, and he had the courage and the common sense to come down to the House and say so. If I may I would like to pay him and the Government the very highest tribute for producing unpopular legislation which in my submission was absolutely necessary.
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton said in effect, "What is the good? You give a subsidy to agriculture to stimulate your home trade, and a subsidy for shipping to stimulate your export and import trade, which you destroy by your agricultural policy." But it is our proportion of the world shipping which has declined. That decline we owe partly to foreign subsidies, and it is that which we are endeavouring to recover. When we
  1692
  have got back our share of the world shipping trade it will be worth while considering whether we want to stimulate any further exports and imports in order to get more. The fact remains that agriculture now is on the verge of destruction. Socialists and Liberals have talked much about land settlement schemes, allotment schemes, and smallholdings schemes as a cure for unemployment; but you cannot settle people on the land unless they can get a living out of it, and at present prices they cannot get a living out of the land.
  There is the old saying dating from the War, "If you know a better 'ole, go to to it." Can hon. Members opposite produce a better scheme than this? If so, I have enough faith in the Minister of Agriculture to be certain that he will be prepared to give it the most earnest consideration. But, open to objection as this scheme is, the answer is that there is no alternative scheme at all, and the proof of that is that no alternative scheme has been produced. If hon. Members vote against this Bill they vote for the elimination of agriculture as a working proposition in this country. If they believe, as we believe, that no country can be a healthy State without a prosperous and happy rural population, they must vote for the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton that it is important to see that the labourers get a share, and a pretty big share, of the benefit, because they have had the worst end of this depression in agriculture. The benefits that have already been given to agriculture have been insufficient to keep a sufficient population working on the land even at their already too low wages. With the Wages Board I do not think there is any serious danger that any benefit given to the industry under this Bill will not eventually reach the workers. Farmers want to employ more men, and the minute they get the necessary money they will do so. If hon. Members believe that a happy rural population is of value to the country, they must support the Government and vote for this Bill.
  4.49 p.m.
  Mr. WILMOT: I am sure the House has listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), but it is a pity that he does not inform himself upon the structure and functions of the

  1693
  trade unions of this country as thoroughly as he does about agricultural problems. If he did that, he would avoid the error of speaking of the Trade Union Congress as though it were a body with entirely different functions from those which it actually possesses. But that is not what we are here to discuss. When the hon. Member says that nobody has a right to vote against this Bill unless he can pro- duce a better scheme, he rather misunderstands the attitude from which we argue. We have not produced this scheme; it has been produced by the Minister. If you would take any industry and say of that industry, "It is depressed, the prices of its products have fallen, it is making no profits, its workers are being discharged," you would have an equally good case for asking the Government to grant a subsidy; and that could be said about nearly every industry in the country. If we followed and applied the hon. Member's argument, we should have a valid case for asking for a Government subsidy for almost every industry in the country.
  Farming, like every other trade, has its good and bad patches. Some people are still making fortunes out of farming. I read in the "Times" almost every day records of bequests made by farmers running into five and sometimes into six figures, and we all know that the price of farming land is not showing the curve one would expect it to show if farming were the bankrupt industry some hon. Members would ask us to believe. The hon. Member knows more of agriculture than I do, but in some parts of the country and in some departments of farming I think there are still good profits to be made. The fact remains, however, that this particular branch of agriculture is depressed, and, if it were possible to produce some sort of horn of plenty and bale subsidies out of that, the hon. Member would be quite right. He has made out a case for a share of it. Unfortunately, this money which is to be paid over to the breeders or the dealers in beef has to come out of the pockets of the taxpayers. It has to come in the first place, in this temporary Measure, out of the general taxation, which means that it is added to the very formidable list of subsidies to which this House has now agreed, and it is eating away any chance of a Budget surplus which in its turn will be reflected in the fact that the present crushing taxation of the working-
  1694
  class and the black-coated working-class will have to be continued in order to provide subsidies for agriculture and shipping and the rest of it.
  Apart from the injustice of these proceedings, they have a very serious economic effect. The hon. Member said: what are we to do about farming? In the long run the farming industry depends upon increasing its market, and its market is the home market. What is wrong with English agriculture is that English people are not buying enough agricultural produce. English people are not eating English beef and English apples and English produce generally, because they cannot afford to buy it. That is the crux of the whole question.
  Mr. BEAUMONT: I cannot agree with the hon. Member's argument. If he examines this question, he will see that, owing to the trend of science, even when they have the money—I am not talking about the wage-earning classes, but 'the better-off classes—people prefer not to buy English beef because the chilled beef is rendered by science so nearly akin to it that they do not mind.
  Mr. WILMOT: If it were true that English beef is now an inferior article, the whole case for the subsidy would go. I do not believe it is an inferior article. I believe that, generally speaking, English agricultural produce is for English people the best in the world; it has advantages and merits which cannot be equalled by imported articles. But the trouble is that the wealthy classes do not matter in this respect; they are so small a portion of the market. The great market for foodstuffs is found among working people, the workers by hand and brain. They provide the great market to which agriculture has to make its appeal, and it is obviously true that every penny that is taken from the workman or clerk in taxation is a penny less for him to spend on food and other things, and, if the hon. Member knows, as he may know, the sort of population that fills our great cities, the people who live in my constituency, for example, he will know that, when they have paid their rent and their travelling expenses and bought the clothes it is necessary for them to have, the overwhelming majority of them are at their wits end to make the balance of their income purchase the necessary food to maintain their families.

  1695
  It is a distressing and pitiable sight to see these people, purse in hand, flitting from one market barrow to another trying to get an article of foodstuff a halfpenny or a penny cheaper further up the road. That pathetic search for the cheapest possible foodstuff on which to rear a family goes on every Friday and Saturday night in every marketing street in every town and suburb of this country, and part of the reason why the margin is so small, why the women of these households are harassed and worried as they are, is that the working people and black-coated workers are paying a proportion of taxation out of all relation to the income which they earn. A large part of their taxation is being diverted in subsidies to one article or another. In the end we get back to the position, as was stated the other day, that every one of these subsidies is reducing the potential market; and, if this scheme continues and involves in the end a levy upon imported foodstuffs, it will be even more unjust, because it will tax the foodstuffs of the very poor, not the food of their choice but the food that they have to eat from necessity, the cheapest. By taxing it we shall make them buy less and all in order that you may attempt to bolster up the lack of markets created by the poverty of the purchaser.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the question of wholesale and retail prices. If I thought the only possible way of maintaining an agricultural industry in this country was by some sort of subsidy, I should support it, but I should only support it after the most searching inquiry into all the aspects of this industry. Surely it is proper to maintain that, when an industry is unable to pay its way, when it has to come to the taxpayer and ask for a dole out of public taxation, we, as the representatives of the taxpayer, should inquire into the circumstances in which that industry is asking for funds. It seems to me that one of the issues that we ought to inquire into in this case is this astonishing situation that the beef producer is getting only pre-War prices for his product, and sometimes I am told even less, whereas the beef consumer, my people in Fulham, are paying double the pre-War price. Nobody can justify a continuation of that
  1696
  state of affairs. Where is the difference going? I do not believe it is going into the shopkeeper's pocket. I do not believe the shopkeeper himself makes what must be a fortune out of the difference in prices. It certainly is not going in the wages of shop assistants, for, if there be one class of poorly paid people, it is the Shop assistants. Where is it going? That is a question I have addressed to the Minister three times in this House, and I have not induced him to take the slightest interest in it. Here is the situation which he does not deny. I have taken the trouble to check,up in London and outside, and I have inquired at many farms during the week-end what price they are receiving, and I believe it is roughly true that the consumer is paying double the pre-War price and the producer is getting less than the pre-War price. Until the Minister will deal with that question he has no right to ask the taxpayer for a dole.
  It is obvious that, somewhere between the shopkeeper and the farmer, there is an interest which has a grip on this industry and is sucking away the difference between profit and loss. We are not subsidising the producer. These subsidies which we are going to wring out of the taxpayers' pockets will not go to subsidise the farmer. They will go to maintain the unjustifiable profits of those who prey on this industry, the middlemen. I do not know who they are, whether they are the same sort of people who have a stranglehold on the imported meat of this country, but it is obvious that somewhere in this industry the cream of it is being sucked off by those who neither produce nor distribute. I do wish again to ask the Minister to look into this question and to realise that the taxpayers are not content to have their money spent in subsidising some trust which is getting a monopoly stranglehold somewhere on the meat industry of this country between the farmer and the shopkeeper. Unless he can demonstrate by inquiry that there is some reasonable explanation for this difference in price we have no right to vote a subsidy of this kind. I feel it is due to the hon. Member for Aylesbury that I should point out that those of us who are voting against this Bill are not voting against British agriculture and are not bankrupt of any alternative. We say that before you raise the price of the food of the poor,

  1697
  before you impose taxation on the poorest class of taxpayer, we have a right to see, and the Minister has a duty to see, that no wretched trust is battening on the industry and battening on the product on its way from producer to consumer.
  5.15 p.m.
  Major HILLS: The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) has delivered a speech of the sort which shows that he is making himself one of the best debaters in the House. It is no mere flattery to say that the great merit of his speeches is that he tries to meet the arguments of the other side, and is not content just to give his own views as against what is urged from the Government Benches. I want to deal with two or three points in his speech. He objects to the subsidy because it reduces the purchasing power of the people. As he put it, "each of your subsidies reduces your potential market." I put it to him that there are three ways of assisting a producer whether of coal, or meat, or any other commodity. Either you can give a subsidy, or you can tax the competing product, or you can restrict the competing product. Of these three ways, far the best way for the consumer is the subsidy. It diminishes the price in so far as it operates, whereas a tax may increase the price and restriction is bound to increase the price because it reduces the supply while the demand remains the same.
  I noticed that the hon. Member skated rather skilfully over that part of the argument. His argument, I suggest, would apply to a Bill to tax or to restrict foreign imports of beef, but it does not apply to the subsidy, because by a subsidy given out of the taxes the price is not raised to the consumer. As to who pays the price the exact incidence of taxation is always a very difficult question. The ablest economists differ upon it. But, on the whole, if you are to give a subvention to the producer the least onerous method on the poor is the method of a subvention from the taxes. It is so in operation, and I think it is so in principle. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said a few days ago, that if agriculture were in danger he would be prepared to vote for a subsidy. I put it to him that all the conditions of danger to agriculture exist now, and that if the hon. Member wishes to help agriculture the only way
  1698
  which would meet all the objections urged by himself and his friends is the method of a subsidy paid out of the taxes.
  The next point made by the hon. Member for East Fulham, and a very fair point too, was "what are the special dangers and the special claim of agriculture?" Is not the whole world, he asks, disordered and depressed? Certainly it is, but the Minister who has to deal with this question cannot be universal. He cannot spread his activities all over the world. Here he has to meet a special claim on the part of agriculture. It has a claim not only on general grounds but on special grounds. I believe that the particular branch of the industry with which we are concerned now, namely that of stock-raising, is capable of very large extension. I believe it is capable of supplying a much bigger part of home consumption than it supplies now, and I believe also that with good organisation, proper State protection and intelligence on the part of the producer, it could be made to do so without any increase in price to the consumer. I believe that we could do what now seems an impossibility, namely to give a bigger profit to the farmer without charging any higher price to the consumer of the produce. It would demand, of course, a great deal of organisation.
  I do not know where the difference between the retail price and the wholesale price goes. I have looked for that vanishing lady and have never even caught a glimpse of her skirt. Various commissions have sat and reported, various bodies have considered the question, economists have examined it, but apparently we cannot find out where that difference goes. It is no good fixing a standard price. We found during the War that that was not efficacious. All we can do is so to organise the producers, and so to deal with the "lag" between the price which the producer gets and the price which the retailer pays, as to diminish the great margin which now exists. The special claims of agriculture are first that in it we have an industry that can do its business, and secondly that it is a basic industry. One cannot conceive this country without it. It is rooted deeply in this England which we all know, the England which has existed for such a long time and which will

  1699
  continue to exist for a long time to come. Furthermore, I believe it is an industry which by Government action can be put into a fit condition without causing the consumer to pay any more for his food. Apart from these special claims of agriculture, there is the general consideration of the benefit of agriculture to the community. On all these grounds it has a strong claim to assistance.
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) appeared this evening in a new role as a bucolic supporter of agriculture. He suggested that the subsidy was a bribe and that it ought to be paid to the National Farmers Union. I do not think the hon. Member really holds that view. I do not think he can imagine that it is the object of the Government to put money into certain pockets without asking for any return. I think he knows that the subsidy -is a payment not for the benefit of individuals but for the restoration of an industry. Indeed the hon. Member's only real point was, that if we assisted agriculture then by so much we depressed shipping. There is a certain amount of truth in that statement. Of course, if we produce 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. more carcases in this country, fewer carcases are imported from abroad. That is the issue in the struggle which is going on between different schools of thought in the country and I believe in the Government also. But I put this point to the House —that our own people have the first claim. In the discussions at the Ottawa Conference it was recognised on all sides that the home producer should come first.
  I differ from some of my hon. Friends who take a more enthusiastic view of Dominion and Colonial development than I do. as regards the future of trade with foreign countries. Without appearing to be too optimistic, I believe that we are now on the eve of a big improvement in world conditions. The one real mark of progress which I see in the world is that any improvement in conditions now has to start from the bottom. The old civilisations which existed in the past were just as high as our present civilisation, and if any real improvement is to come it must start at the bottom. I do not see why the consumption of meat, of bread, milk, of butter, of cheese, should he regarded as a static figure. It is taken now to be a static figure. We
  1700
  are given certain percentages which we have now and certain percentages which we may obtain. I believe that we might have a very large increase of foreign produce, and yet at the same time a more prosperous British farming industry than we have at present. I believe that is going to happen. I have seen such extraordinary changes in my lifetime that that does not seem to me to be too much to expect.
  Following that line of thought, we must consider to whom is the advantage of this subsidy going. It is to go to the profit of the farmer and in passing may I express the hope that the hon. Member for East Fulham is wrong in saying that machinery will be necessary to see that the middleman does not get the advantage. I hope it will go to the farmer and the farm worker. I hope part of it will go in wages. On the question of wages, my withers are unwrung. Many years ago, before some of the Members of this House were born, I helped the late Sir Mark Sykes to bring in one of the earliest Measures which proposed the setting up of wages boards for agricultural workers. It was thrown out by the Liberal Government which was in power about 191!) or 1911 and it received very little support from the strong and rising Labour party which was then in the House, but things have moved since then. I may say that a certain element even in the Conservative party were not very enthusiastic about that Measure but I pass from that.
  I would ask, however, how do those who argue for better wages meet the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert)? He put his argument with his usual common sense and clarity when he said that you could not have good wages unless the industry was paying, and the more the industry was made to pay, the more chance there was of getting good wages. I hope and believe that wages will improve, but I am certain that the only chance of their improvement is to make the industry more profitable. I should like to be able to think that during my time in politics which now stretches over a good many years something had been accomplished, and that I was leaving the country rather better than I had found it. I think that is the only justification for a political life, whether one's activities are exercised in the distinction of the Front Bench or in the obscurity of the

  1701
  back benches. I believe if we are able to say that a profitable agricultural industry has been established without entailing undue cost on the urban population, we shall have had at least a part in a great work.
  5.30 p.m.
  Sir ROBERT SMITH: Representing as I do a constituency which is almost entirely dependent upon the fat stock industry for its livelihood, I want to congratulate the Government on this Measure. There is no doubt that stock-raising in my part of the country has been in very low water. There are certain Members on the other side who seem to deny that the industry is in low water. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason) stated that it had not been proved that the cattle industry was in a parlous condition and that it was necessary for something to be done. It was rather unfortunate that his colleague, the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland), had not spoken. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh might have believed him, for he says that the industry is in a serious condition. There is a great deal of lip service given by both parties on the other side to agriculture. They both say they want to see a profitable agriculture. Here we have a, Bill, which is admittedly an emergency Measure to put the industry on its feet, and they will not support even a Measure of this kind in order to keep the industry going until a long-term policy is worked out. It is unfair for hon. Members to take up such an attitude towards what is only a temporary Bill. Those who know anything of agriculture agree that the position of farmers is as serious as it possibly can be. Hon. Members opposite say that farmers have not given up their farms. It is because they are being carried by banks and marketing companies and other institutions, and, if the banks were to call in the money lent to the agricultural industry, the smash in the country would be so enormous that I believe every industry would be thoroughly upset for.a long time I congratulate the Government on the Bill, and I do it all the more wholeheartedly because I know that this proposal has brought hope to farmers in the north-east of Scotland and in my constituency.
  One of the arguments which is raised in opposition to this Bill is that we must
  1702
  not produce more in this country, because if we do we shall not be able to import from foreign countries, And our manufacturers will not be able to sell their goods abroad. I ask hon. Members who put forward that argument whether they have any thought for the agriculturist at all. Does it not matter to the agricultural worker and the farmer? Another argument is that this Bill will help to smash shipping, because there will be a reduction of imports. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) was in the House in 1931 when Dr. Addison introduced his first Agricultural Marketing Bill. The hon. Member would have been wise if he had gone to the Library and had got Volume No. 248 of the OFFICIAL REPORT and had carefully read the speech of Dr. Addison at that time. I would recommend it to other Members on that side of the House who were not in the House then, because it is very interesting. He said that the reason for the introduction of his Bill was that we grew about £203,000,000 worth of agriculported produce in this country and imported exactly the same amount from foreign countries. His argument was that we ought to be able to grow £100,000,000 worth more in this country. If that were so, shipping would surely have suffered. Why was it right for the hon. Member for Westhoughton to vote for that Bill and to support our producing more agricultural commodities in this country in order to help agriculture, when he now says that we must not do it, because, if we cut down the meat from the Argentine and other imports, shipping will suffer? Would it not have suffered in 1931?
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Surely there is a vast difference between voting for a subsidy and voting for the Agricultural Marketing Act?
  Sir R. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman's argument was that this Bill would hit shipping. Therefore, I am perfectly entitled to reply with the argument that in 1931 he voted for a Measure which, according to the then Minister of Agriculture, would have the same effect as the hon. Member says that this Bill will have. Why should he support such a Measure in 1931, and object now to a Bill with the same object, namely, to encourage the production of agriculture in this country rather than import produce from abroad? Hon. Gentlemen are

  1703
  not really consistent in their arguments, and they would be well advised to read some of the speeches made in 1931.
  5.37 p.m.
  Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: I intend to vote against the Bill. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), in an interjection during the speech of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), made an astounding statement. It was that the rich class to-day did not buy English beef, but preferred to buy chilled beef. I was astonished to hear such a statement from the hon. Member for Aylesbury, for he belongs to a party that has been preaching loyalty to the farmer for at least 200 years. Every time they open their mouths they say, "We want to be loyal to the British farmer, and the only way we can be loyal to him is by giving him this subsidy." Now the hon. Member for Aylesbury states that they are not loyal to the British farmer because they prefer chilled meat.
  Lieut.-Colonel ALFRED TODD: On a point of Order. I was sitting here when the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) was speaking, and I understood him to say that because the quality of chilled beef so nearly approaches—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): That is not a point of Order. If the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) chooses to give way, the hon. and gallant Member can interrupt.
  Lieut.-Colonel TODD: If an hon. Member misinterprets another hon. Member, is not that a point of Order?
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It is not a point of Order to rise and correct another hon. Member on his argument. If the hon. Member for Hemsworth chooses to give way, the hon. and gallant Member can make such a correction.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: I was stating that, irrespective of the quality, I should have thought that the loyalty of the Tory party to the British farmer was such that they would have preferred to buy English meat. Those of us who come from industrial constituencies will be loyal to the British farmer when we have the wages to buy his beef. I stated in the
  1704
  House last week that in my division the miners would sooner have one British beefsteak than two foreign beefsteaks. I have tasted both, and I believe that the quality of British beef far exceeds that of foreign beef, and, when I can get it, I have it. In my division this week-end I ran up against a few butchers. They are keenly interested in this Bill, and they have been reading what has been going on in the House so far as they can get hold of it. They state, "You as the Member for Hemsworth has put the correct point of view, namely, that, if the workers of the country had the wages, there is no doubt that we in the butchers' shops would be far busier than we are." It is all very well for the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon Major Hills) to talk about the agricultural labourer having his wages raised. I want to have his wages raised, but there are some hon. Members who speak as though the agricultural labourer took his wages home in a barrow at the week-end. The highest wage of an agricultural worker is 31s., and, if he has two or three youngsters, that will not go very far. I know that the wage of the town worker is low also. The fact that wages are low is the cause of the farming industry being hit as it is to-day. That is the kernel of the whole problem. If our wages had not been reduced during the past 10 years by £600,000,000, the farming industry would be far more prosperous than it is. The Bill states that the subsidy is to be 5s. per cwt. live weight, and Os. 4d. per cwt. deadweight. The latter amounts to one penny per lb. and you can look at it from any angle you like, but it will increase the price of beef in the shops.
  Mr. ELLIOT: How will a subsidy of ld. per lb increase the price of beef in the shops?
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: It will increase the price in the shops, because, as the Minister has stated, there is ultimately to be a levy, and when that levy goes on imported meat—
  Major HILLS: There is no levy in the Bill.
  Mr. GRIFFITHS: There is no levy in the Bill, but our point is that this is only just a start. The Minister stated yesterday that if it necessitated putting a levy on in order to collect the £3,000,000 subsidy, the Government would not squirm

  1705
  at it. Ultimately it will send up the price of beef, and people will not be able to pay for it.
  5.44 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel TODD: As one who represents an important beef-producing constituency, I would like to add my warm thanks and praise to the Minister for his persistence and courage in bringing forward this Bill. We all agree that the Bill is a makeshift. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) referred the other day to pledges given on this side of the House with reference to a meat duty. I claim that up to date the meat producer has been paying the cost of those pledges. When I stood as a National candidate I remember saying that I understood the national pledge was that we would consider any and every means of putting our industries on their feet. Unfortunately, a Minister was put in a key position at the Board of Trade whose presence there caused very grave alarm, certainly among many of my constituents. I hope that to-day the House realises that the taxpayer is under- taking to pay a cost which up to date has been met by the producers of this country.
  Mr. WILMOT: It is a Tory Government.
  Lieut.-Colonel TODD: It was not a Tory pledge. There are various ways out of the difficulty of finding help for the meat producer. The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) produced one scheme which I hope the Minister will consider very seriously. I believe the Food Council still exists—whether it is moribund or still functions I cannot say— but I am sure there is much food for thought in the remark of the hon. Member for East Fulham that some help could be found for the producer by reducing the wide margin between the price received by the producer of meat and the price paid by the consumer. Whether that can be done or not, it is clear that action must be taken against increasing imports. There is one point which I do not think has been dealt with which I should like to stress. The main imports of meat which come into competition with home-produced meat are not from the Dominions. There is a certain section of the community which always wants to put everything upon the Dominions, but the main competitor is chilled meat
  1706
  from foreign countries inside the American Continent.
  The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) tried to make out that enormous masses of chilled meat were coming from the Dominions. The truth is, I believe, that so far only experimental cargoes of chilled meat have come from the Dominions. Personally, I hope that the Dominions will find a way of bringing chilled meat here, because we would rather have chilled Dominion meat than chilled foreign meat. The problem today is that increasing supplies come from South America. We are tied up with the Argentine Agreement, but why do we go on importing increasing supplies of chilled meat from other South America countries which are not covered by trade agreements? I would like an answer to the question why, when we are having to find £3,000,000 from the taxpayers of this country, we are still importing increasing supplies of chilled meat from Uruguay and, I believe, from Brazil. I think perhaps one of those countries is covered by the rightly-abused most-favoured-nation clause, but I am certain that something could be done to check the very large imports of highly competitive meat from South American countries.
  The long-term scheme is postponed, and this is only a makeshift Bill; but that scheme has been postponed by the direct action of the present Government. We have tied ourselves up with foreign agreements, and because of our own action we cannot bring in the very much desired and long-looked for long-term scheme for British meat producers. I beg the Government to consider before entering into any more foreign agreements—
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that we are discussing the Third Reading of this Bill, and that on the Third Reading we can discuss only the matters which are in the Bill.
  Lieut.-Colonel TODD: I believe that in the action which the Government have taken financial interests have been the ruling factor. We have got to look after other industries. Surely, before further action is taken, I am in order in reminding the Government that there are far greater financial interests in British agri-

  1707
  culture than in our foreign trade. I urge that we should have no further agreements, that we should recognise that this Bill is a makeshift, and that in the future producers of meat in this country should be entitled to consideration as representing an enormous financial interest, agriculture being the biggest employer of labour in the country.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. PETHERICK: The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), who is not now in the House, made what I thought was the best speech I had heard from those benches during the consideration of this Bill. He summed up the case against it, which I think is an extraordinarily weak one. One point with which he made great play was organisation. He said the price the farmer obtains for his beef is lower than it was pre-War, and the price the consumer has to pay is double the pre-War price. That is perfectly true, and I think the reason for that discrepancy is well worth examination by the Government; but there are some reasons for that state of affairs which are obvious. One reason is that wages all along the line, from farm workers up to shop assistants, though admittedly low in many cases, are incomparably higher than they were before the War, and those wages are represented in the price charged to the consumer. Railway freights, largely owing to the cost of wages, are also very much higher than they were, although it cannot be said that the owners of railway shares are getting very much out of them. If the hon. Member for East Fulham is looking for bogeys, for some middleman who is making gigantic profits and who ought to be got at and struck down, he might ask his own co-operative association whether they are making too high profits. I think the answer would be that the profits they are making are by no means excessive. There is very fierce competition in distribution at the present time and that competition tends to keep down prices to a certain extent, but still I do think there is cause for inquiry into these matters, and possibly the Food Council might undertake it. A strong line of attack on this Bill by the Socialist party has been the absence of a means test for farmers. That has been mentioned time after time by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) by, I think,
  1708
  the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and others.
  Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think that has been said this afternoon on Third Reading, and I would call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he can only discuss what is in the Bill.
  Mr. PETHERICK: I bow to your ruling. I was under the impression that it had been mentioned this afternoon, but I will not proceed with that point. Another line of attack has been that a subsidy has been granted without there being any need for it. One hon. Member, I think the hon. Member for East Fulham, said this afternoon that the farmers were doing very well, that they were leaving large fortunes, as we could see if we read the newspapers, but anybody who has the slightest knowledge of the agricultural industry knows that that is not the case, and that those engaged in the industry are in a very had way. The Government are trying to treat the various branches of the industry by different methods and this Bill represents one method. The Liberal party have, of course, attacked this Bill tooth and nail, but never have they suggested what should be set in its place. I am not sure whether I am in order in mentioning what happened on a previous stage, but the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. D. Mason), when attacking this Bill, said hon. Members might urge that he had no right to do so unless he had something to suggest in place of it. I was waiting agog for him to come out with the great Liberal agricultural policy, but nothing happened. He spoke for 20 minutes, and the first 15 minutes were devoted to general lines of attack, and only in the last five minutes did he mention the cattle side of the industry.
  Mr. DAVID MASON: If the hon. Member had followed my remarks on that occasion he would have heard me say distinctly that I was in favour of a direct subsidy, if it could be shown, as the Minister had not shown, that the industry was bankrupt. I was in favour of a direct subsidy, but not one with a financial memorandum which implied that a levy was to follow.
  Mr. PETHERICK: I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member say that a direct subsidy is necessary, because it looks

  1709
  very much as though that is what this Bill is going to make it. Unless the money is available by March, 1935—by a levy or some other method—it looks very much as though this will become a direct subsidy, and then I am sure we can rely on the hon. Member's support for a Supplementary Estimate. I think he would be wiser to eschew cattle and keep to currency. As to the Bill, I welcome it very sincerely, because I believe it will have a very good effect not only on the agricultural community but on the towns as well. Hon. Members who have spoken for both sections of the Opposition have given the impression that everything is being done for the farmers and nothing for the townspeople. The value of agricultural produce in this country has been put at £200,000,000 a year. That £200,000,000 worth of agricultural produce is bought by the towns. If it is calculated that every £1,000,000 of manufactures employ 2,000 men, it needs only a very simple calculation to show that if the towns buy more than £200,000,000 worth of agricultural produce and give £200,000,000 worth of manufactured goods in return we are providing direct employment for 400,000 men. That is a calculation which it is not very easy to upset, and I think it is a reasonable calculation and does definitely show how important it is that we should do everything we can, by different remedies for different branches, to put the agricultural industry on its feet.
  There is a definite tendency in the House to-day to regard the various measures which are being put forward by the Government on their merits. There is much less tendency than there was for a Conservative Member of Parliament when he prays in the morning to ask Heaven to make him a good Tory, or for a Liberal Member to ask that he may be made a good Liberal. There is a very strong and proper tendency in the House as a whole, and certainly among supporters of the Government, to treat every subject that comes forward on its merits. We had a cry for a business Government during the War, which meant bringing in big business men from outside. That was not very successful. All these extraordinarily complicated problems have to be looked at from a strictly business point of view. I am very glad that the Minister has realised that it is essential to do something for the cattle
  1710
  industry now. We cannot wait for another six or seven months until the levy is brought in. Even though we find at the end of the financial year that the Minister has not been able to carry through the first stage of his long-term policy, he will be able at least to arrange some extension of the quantitative regulation. That is of enormous importance, and I am sure he will devote his extraordinary energy and his eloquence to persuading foreign countries and the Dominions that, if they cannot agree to a levy, they might agree to an increase in quantitative restrictions. For these reasons, I support the Government on this occasion, and I trust the Bill will go through with a very large majority.
  6.1 p.m.
  Captain CAZALET: Some of us have listened with great sympathy to the account presented by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) of the difficulties in which the poor housewife finds herself in making both ends meet. It is worth observing that in no other country in the world are the necessities as well as the luxuries of life so cheap as they are in this country. The hon. Member referred to the very difficult problem of who gets the margin which exists between the price paid to the producer and that paid by the consumer. The same point was referred to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills), who spoke of that margin as the "vanishing lady." The answer to the point is a matter of investigation. One-can explain it to a certain degree by the fact that rings are operating, and no doubt between the time when a farmer puts his animals on the road to take them to market, and the time when the animals come under the hammer, various deals have taken place which increase the cost of the animals, but the farmer gets very little of the benefit. Another answer to the question is that in former times a butcher was able to dispose of the cheaper parts of the animal in the poorer parts of the country, but from the poorest parts of the industrial cities to-day there is a demand for the best cuts. Consequently the retailer has to make his profit on a far smaller portion of the animal than in former times. I do not suggest that those points wholly answer the question, but that they go some way towards

  1711
  solving the almost inexplicable problem of the vanishing lady, which is the margin between the price which the producer gets and that which the consumer pays.
  The hon. Member who opened the Debate said that the Bill does not solve the agricultural problem. It does not attempt to do so. It sets out with a very definite purpose, and I believe that it achieves that purpose. He taunted those who support the National Government with bribery. It seems hardly apt for an hon. Member on the Opposition Benches, or perhaps for any hon. Member, to taunt another with political bribery. I should be going outside the limits of the Debate if I were to recapitulate some of the promises or bribes which hon. Members have held out at past elections. I represent an agricultural constituency, and I wish to say how deeply I and my constituents appreciate the efforts being made by the Minister. I sometimes think that he must be very clever to have got £3,000,000 out of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor represents part of a thriving and prosperous city, but he understands the position in the country as well as anybody. He knows that it is absolutely essential for the social health and welfare of this country that we should build up a. prosperous countryside and he is prepared to extend to the industry of agriculture the same protection which he has given to industries many of which are located in the city which he represents. I would have preferred a tariff on meat from the beginning, but I understand that that was politically impossible at the time. I would rather have a National Government and no tariff than have had a tariff which meant the break-up of the National Government.
  It is urged that you might put such a heavy duty upon meat coming in from the Empire as to ruin all possible chance of trade negotiations with the Dominions. A good many hard things have been said about the Ottawa Agreements. It is very easy to criticise them, but the returns of trade between this country and the Dominions and Colonies since the Ottawa Agreements were made leave no room for difference of opinion as to the advantage which those agreements have conferred upon the Dominions and upon this country. Without doubt the Dominions got
  1712
  the best of the bargain, and I think that was inevitable, but, as the years go by, this country will benefit increasingly as a result of the foundations that were laid at that conference. It is a matter for infinite regret that the Dominions have not yet seen their way to make some arrangement for the curtailment of the supplies of meat that they send to this country. I am certain that the Minister and the Secretary of State for the Dominions will be able to persuade them to take the steps which are necessary in their interests and in our awn. The Dominions will never find a Government in this country more willing to listen to their arguments or more sympathetic to their interests.
  What has been the opposition to this Bill? The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said that it was no good tinkering with this industry, and that the difficulties would never be solved except by nationalisation of the land. The greatest optimist in the Socialist party cannot imagine that in six months, six years, or in any time calculable by mathematics, nationalisation of the land would solve the problem of agriculture. The chances of an effective measure of nationalisation are so far off that the poor farmer who waited for it would starve and go bankrupt. There is a far better chance of solving the problem during the six months period of subsidy than there was of a solution of the coal question when a subsidy was given to that industry in 1925. I should like to hear the views of Members of the Socialist party if the present subsidy were being given on behalf of coal. Their views would be very different from those which they have exhibited to-day.
  Mr. BATEY: A Conservative Government would not do anything for coal.
  Captain CAZALET: Hon. Members are always accusing this Government of being a Conservative Government. It was a Conservative Government which gave a subsidy of £20,000,000 to coal, not one penny of which we got back. There is a far better chance—a very good chance—of the whole of this subsidy of £3,000,000 being got back by a levy. No one likes a. subsidy. I came across a quotation from Socrates the other day which seems relevant to this aspect of the Debate. In the translation which I shall give, it runs:

  1713
  " Get not your friends with barren sympathy and compliments, but by giving them sensible tokens of your love."
  That is very apposite in describing the agricultural policy of the Government, and in contrasting it with the policy of Members of the Socialist party. Their sympathy for the industry was a barren sympathy. Pretending friendship for the farmer has never solved the problem, and certainly will never make the farmers or the agricultural labourers believe that hon. Members are their friends.
  There is another side to the subject. Farmers have to realise that an efficient slaughtering system combined with the erection of a canning industry would help to solve the problem. There should be better quality of meat and better treatment and presentation of carcases, as well as better marketing arrangements. Organisation and co-operation along those lines is essential, and are an integral part of the Government's subsidy scheme. The subsidy, as the Minister has said, buys time while reorganization is in process. We have always contended that the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, was useless unless it were accompanied by security. That security has been given in the form of quotas, duties, or subsidies. Reorganisation will mean sacrifices from the farmer, and will upset many long-held and cherished ideas, but I am certain that farmers will be prepared to make those sacrifices and to reorganise along lines which the Minister may suggest at a later date.
  I represent a milk area. Although it is customary to talk about agriculture as one industry, it is a large number of separate industries with, in many cases, antagonistic interests. Hon. Members who represent milk areas have a very definite reason for being grateful to the Government. One of the main difficulties which have faced us in dealing with the milk situation is the sudden increase of production which has arisen from the fact that those who produced meat before, and who watched for a number of years their prices falling, transferred to milk production. I believe that a solution of the milk problem may help enormously to solve the meat problem. I support the Bill for the reasons which 1 have given, but also for the more general reason that it means £3,000,000 going into the countryside. I confess unashamedly that I would support almost
  1714
  any Measure and any subsidy—even an extravagant one—if it were to mean a restoration of prosperity to the countryside. We shall never see a prosperous countryside unless it is in some way artificially supported from outside. The processes of high taxation and Death Duties during the past 10 or 20 years have taken out that capital which was the life of the countryside. Under the administration of the Minister, the countryside is getting a little bit of its own back.
  Before the Government have finished their agricultural policy, they have to do two things—stop the drift from the countryside to the towns, and, at some later date, inaugurate and carry through a big land settlement scheme. Much good work has already been done by the Government in stopping the drift of people from the country to the towns. That is the preparation for the second scheme, namely, the scheme of land settlement; but, until it is possible to give to those who live on the land a reasonable assurance that, if they pursue their calling efficiently, they will be able to get a living out of it, it will never be possible to stop the young people--men and women—drifting away from the countryside into the towns and creating an unemployment problem there. The corollary, of course, is that, unless more money comes into the industry, there is less chance of profits and of wages being increased. As a consequence of what the Minister has done already, wages have been increased in seven or eight counties, and the security of the agricultural worker is far greater to-day than it ever was before. I would recommend to hon. Members on the Socialist benches, when they go to their constituencies, a pamphlet issued by our party which will tell them the numbers of men in those counties who have had their wages increased as a consequence of the action of the Minister of Agriculture. I feel sure that they will be very popular with their constituents if they will only tell them that. I believe that to oppose this Bill is nationally, economically and politically a folly of the first order. I believe the Bill to be a necessary and a temporary step, and I support it because I believe it will do something to restore the balance between town and country in this land.
  6.17 p.m.
  Lord SCONE: I propose to introduce a somewhat daring innovation into this Debate, that is to say, to start by discussing the actual provisions of the Bill and the effect that they will have upon the beef producing side of the agricultural industry. To begin with, I think we may take it as a truism that the subsidy which is provided by the Bill is in itself repugnant to everyone in the House; but we differ a little further on, because we on the Government benches believe that it is making the best of a bad job to have a temporary subsidy, while hon. Members of the Opposition are not prepared,.apparently, to support it at all, although some of them, both above and below the Gangway, have given indications that they might do so if things were a little different. The subsidy proposed is 5s. per cwt. on each living beast, and 9s. 4d. on each dead one. Owing to the fact that joints are continually becoming smaller, most animals are marketed at weights of something like 10 cwt. to 12 cwt., and; sometimes as low as about 8 cwt.; that is to say, the subsidy payable in respect of each animal may in a few cases be as low as £2, it will usually be from £2 10s. to £3, and in a very few cases may approach £4.
  Some figures have been published this week with regard to about 35 farms in Scotland, and those figures show that, taking the farms altogether, the apparent profit on each animal produced of late has been 18s. per head. But that was only an apparent profit. When other things, such as rent, were taken into consideration, that apparent profit was reduced to a very certain loss. This subsidy of from £2 to possibly £3 10s. or £4, although it is going to be of the very greatest advantage to the beef producing section of the industry, is certainly not going to do away with all loss in every case. It will be a great help, but it certainly will not make the fortunes of the farmers.
  I quite agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Sir R. Smith) about the abilities of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot). If the Socialist party are wise, they will put the hon. Member for East Fulham on their Front Bench at once, as he has as much debating capacity as the rest of them put together. But, having handed him that
  1716
  preliminary bouquet, I am afraid I must warn him to be prepared for a rapid fire of half-bricks. The hon. Member has tried to make out, as far as I can understand, both on previous occasions and to-day, that there is not really very much distress in the agricultural industry. All I can say is that, if his investigations have led him to that conclusion, they must have been confined to the agriculture within Fulham itself.
  Mr. WILMOT: I hope the Noble Lord will do me the justice of quoting me correctly. If he will consult his memory again, he will find that I said that in certain areas, and in certain departments of agriculture, a profit was made. That is true.
  Lord SCONE: Yes, but I think I am not being unfair to the hon. Member when I say that that way of putting it is not quite the way in which he put it before. It is perfectly true that profits are being made in certain departments of agriculture, and perhaps I may be allowed very briefly to say which departments those are. One is the fruit industry, thanks to the Government's tariffs. Another is the mutton producing section, thanks again to the Government's restrictions; and we hope that before long there will be a profit in the oat section, also thanks to the Government's intervention. There are, of course, other branches in which a few people are making a profit, but they are making a profit usually for exceptional reasons—perhaps because they are persons of such outstanding ability that they are able to make a profit no matter what happens, or because they are favoured with very good markets at their doors, or because of some other advantage which does not fall to the lot of most of their brethren. The hon. Member for East Fulham also alluded to the large sums left by various farmers, but it is surely a work of supererogation to point out to him and to the House that those fortunes were not made in the last few years, but were very probably the remnants of fortunes made during the War, increased by judicious investment. The number of men engaged in farming or beef producing who are able to make both ends meet at the present time is certainly very small indeed.
  As regards the effect which the subsidy will have, it will certainly prevent a large number of men from going

  1717
  bankrupt altogether, and here I would like to amplify a, little what my hon. Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen very rightly said. If there were at the present time a collapse in the livestock section of the agricultural industry, it would be impossible for anyone to determine now how far the effects of that collapse would reach. It would be like a stone thrown into a pool; ripples would go out a great deal further than anyone would anticipate. At the present time there are not many beef producers in the country who really own the animals on their farms. Those animals, usually, are really the property of auctioneers or bankers, and if in any district a considerable proportion of the beef producers went bankrupt, the result would be that the bankers and auctioneers would not merely call in their loans to these men as fast as they could, but, in order to recover their losses, they would be obliged to call in other loans which they had made to the rest of those who were producing beef in the area, and probably to the mixed farmers as well. That would mean a large number of bankruptcies, which would spread from area to area, and no one could possibly foretell what the ultimate effect would be. Certainly it would be felt among city workers, because of the tremendous reduction of purchasing power which would instantly be caused in the agricultural areas. It must be remembered that the country areas purchase enormous quantities of finished articles and a certain amount of raw materials from the towns, and for that reason alone agriculture must be kept prosperous, because the market that it affords to the towns is a very valuable one indeed.
  It is unfortunate that, although both of the Oppositions have attacked the Measure fiercely, they have not at any stage been able to produce any alternative. Of course, if they have one, it would not be in order to discuss it at this stage, but we are saved any such necessity because they have not an alternative. We have also had from the Socialist benches the very valuable admission that the panacea of nationalisation, which we have had drummed into us for so many years, is not a cure for the ills from which agriculture is at present suffering. That is something
  1718
  which we shall remember at the next election, when no doubt that same panacea will be trotted out by the same quack doctors. Before either Opposition attack the Government for what they have done, they ought to consider seriously what would be the effect of leaving the industry in its present state. The effect of doing that would be, as 1 have pointed out, a series of collapses, the extent of which no man can foretell. What, then, are the Opposition going to do? The hon. Member for East Fulham suggests making an investigation into the difference between the price received by the farmer and the price at which meat is sold in the shops. That is all very well. The hon. Member admits that he has made some investigations, and cannot find out the whereabouts of the "mysterious lady," as one hon. Member called it. In the meantime, while he and everyone else are making these investigations and not succeeding in finding out anything, is it likely that agriculture is going to be able to continue? Is it likely that those who are already on the verge of bankruptcy will be able to keep going for an indefinite period, not necessarily only seven months, but it may be even seven years, while the "mysterious lady" is being sought? In that period the beef producing section of agriculture would in all probability collapse, and would drag down with it many other branches of agriculture, thus doing irreparable harm to the manufacturing industries in the towns.
  Then there is the question of the agricultural workers' wages. We all know that these are very low in England, and not quite so bad in Scotland. The only way in which those wages can be maintained even at their present low level, not to mention raising them to the height at which we should all like to see them, is by agriculture being made reasonably prosperous again. We have had some very eloquent and, indeed, vehement speeches on behalf of the poor people in the towns and in the mining villages, who, we are told, are unable to afford British beef. With that we all agree, but it seems to be forgotten by mining Members that the miner who is at work—I am not referring to those who are partially employed—is receiving a very considerably larger sum in weekly wages than any agricultural worker, and if a hewer, a remuneration which is by

  1719
  no means to be despised. It is quite true that, unfortunately, many working people cannot afford to buy British meat, and, now that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) is again in his place, I would counsel him to read very carefully in the OFFICIAL REPORT what my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) really did say. The hon. Member for Hemsworth, if he does that, will find that there is not a shadow of justification for either of the charges that he brought against my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury.
  We have had no alternative scheme put before us, and we have had nothing to show that this Bill is going to do any harm to anyone. We are told that it is going to increase the price of meat to the working classes so that they will no longer be able to buy it, but there is no proof that that will happen, and experience during the last few years has shown that a tariff or levy by no means necessarily raises the cost to the consumer. Therefore, I and all other Members on the Government benches are going to support this.Bill, not merely in the House but outside; and before those who occupy the Opposition benches are entitled to carp at us for supporting the Government, or at the Government for introducing this Measure, they ought to be able to show, on the one hand, that the Measure is going to do definite harm to some section of the community, and at the same time to show that they have something to put in its place.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. McKIE: I am glad to have the opportunity of following my Noble Friend the Member for Perth (Lord Scone), who always puts forward such a sturdy and independent view on every subject on which he addresses the House. Before I pass to the general subject which we are now discussing, I would like to say something with regard to one remark that he made in the opening part of his speech, as to the debating skill possessed by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot). As a rule, my Noble Friend is not guilty of hyperbole, but I think he was in danger of erring in that direction when he said the hon. Member possessed more debating skill than all the Members of the Opposition put together. I think we
  1720
  all, in this quite exceptional Parliament, realise the heroic and gallant way in which the small Opposition has discharged its duties. I am very glad to be the third Scottish Member to take part in the Third Reading Debate on this highly important Measure and to reinforce what has been said by hon. Members opposite representing the north-east and central part of Scotland, and to back it up emphatically from the south-western corner. The Minister, when he introduced the Financial Resolution, alluded to the great part that livestock farming plays in agricultural economy in Scotland. He said it was 20 per cent. or thereabouts higher than in this country. It is evident for all to see the great interest and jubilation with which Ministerial pronouncements in this direction have been received in Scotland. Some hard things have been said about the National Government by Scottish agriculturists. I know that I am not being guilty of hyperbole when I say that, whatever unpleasant things may have been said about the Government as a whole, or individual Members of it, not one word of hostile criticism has ever descended upon the head of my right hon. Friend, as is indeed undoubtedly his due when we consider that he is a Scottish son of the soil. Whatever were to happen, even if his schemes were to fail—which they are not likely to do—the agricultural community of Scotland would stand solidly behind him. From Berwick through Liddesdale to the Mull of Galloway, from Ayrshire to the Lothians shore they stand behind him to a man.
  Everyone connected with livestock farming has received this emergency scheme, for such it professes to be, with very great pleasure and keen interest. Most of us connected with livestock raising believe that this great central problem of agriculture is the one with which the Government ought to have begun, but it is always unwise to go in for recriminations and resurrections, and we have to accept the position as it is. The good wine has been kept till now. The livestock branch of farming is the crux of the whole matter. Unless you have the livestock branch of the industry taking its rightful place, the whole agricultural industry will be placed in serious jeopardy. A great deal has been said, I am glad to say, about the position of the agricultural workers. I do not think there has been a Debate on agricultural

  1721
  topics in this Parliament which has brought forward more discussion of the position of the workers than this. The agricultural worker is a very important factor in the well-being of the industry. After all, he is the descendant of those small farmers who were pushed out a century or two centuries ago by the application of enclosures. He is to-day landless, and has to rely for a living on the way in which he is able to sell his labour to the best advantage. This Measure is designed at first hand to promote the better being of those agricultural workers, to whom the Minister once referred as the bone and muscle of the land. There exists in the agricultural body politic to-day a better feeling and a more harmonious spirit than has ever existed before. All sections of that society, owner, occupier and worker, realise that their cause is one. I should like to enter a caveat to these employers of labour not for a moment to disturb those good relations. We are just now on the verge of expectancy. We are waiting for great things to happen, and we know they are coming. I very much hope that employers of labour will in every way hearten and encourage those whom they employ by keeping their remunerations at the present level and raising them as soon as ever it can economically be done.
  There has been a good deal of criticism of this subsidy. It has mostly come, of course, from the two wings of the Opposition. They object to this pouring out of public money. They object to what they consider an inefficient industry being buttressed in the way the Bill seeks to do. But I do not think that snore than one Member has sounded the warning note that the subsidy may not be enough, and that it may be counteracted by a sudden fall during the autumn glut from a price of 35s. to 30s. or even less. I am not suggesting a larger subsidy. I do not like subsidies, but this is an emergency scheme and you are bound to have it. The right hon. Gentleman has power now, hand in hand with the authority which this Bill will give him, to use the loopholes in the Ottawa Agreements to curtail very drastically indeed if necessary—and I think it is necessary—the imports that are coming in from Dominion sources. More than one speaker has discussed the Ottawa and Argentine Agreements. I am not going to stand here as an agricultural
  1722
  Member and pretend for a moment that the Ottawa Agreements have been beneficial to agriculture. They have been prejudicial. They have not worked out to the benefit of our home agriculturists in the way we should have wished. What was wrong with the bargains entered into at Ottawa was not the spirit of those agreements but the way in which they have been applied. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert), when he was asked if he had supported the Ottawa Agreements, said he had, because he believed in team work. I believe that, if he had developed his answer a little more, he would have said also that he had believed the Ottawa Agreements would have worked out very differently from the way they have. Of course, nearly all agricultural Members supported the Ottawa Bill in all its stages, but certainly not with the intention of jeopardising the interests of those whom they were sent here to serve. With regard to the Argentine Agreement, no opportunity was given of dividing the House, and we do not therefore know how many would have had the temerity to go into the Division Lobby against it. I have said that the spirit of Ottawa is right, and so I think it is. It is not the idea of Empire Free Trade so often enunciated by Lord Beaverbrook—
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is getting rather away from the Bill.
  Mr. McKIE: I was only going to say that what the agriculturist here wants is not a scheme of Empire Free Trade but a place where he will get the first share of the home market, granting Imperial Preference to all other parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations. That has been enunciated over and over again as the policy of the Government. I remember the Under-Secretary for the Dominions being heckled about it in the Ottawa Debates and he said that was where the Government stood, and I have no reason to suppose that they have departed from that standpoint.
  We have heard the usual talk about the taxation of the food of the people from the Opposition above the Gangway and from hon. Members behind me, who are so skilfully pursuing the policy of co-operation with them, no doubt thinking that, when they are entrusted with office, they will have to summon some of them to fill up the empty places. When

  1723
  we were discussing the question of what to do for meat in February, 1932, in Committee on the Import Duties Bill an Amendment was put down which would have had the effect of removing meat from the free list of imports, and some 44 of us had the audacity to go into the Lobby against the Government, and I would do it again. I made one of the small band, not because I wished to overthrow the Government and, certainly not because I was in love with the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty. Far from it. I simply cast that vote, in common with nearly every hon. Member who went into the Lobby, as an indication that we wished the Government to be up and doing. I do not wish to be self-congratulatory, but, after some two and a half years, we have the Government at last coming to the point of view that it is vitally necessary, late in the day though it is, to assist the meat producers both by a long-term policy which, of course, will involve delays, as the details have to be most carefully worked out, and by a, short-term emergency policy which is passing through its last stage here this afternoon.
  I listened to the hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) with the interest which I always show to him when 'he addresses this House on any subject. The hon. Gentleman prefaced his remarks by apologising to the House that he, a mere Member for South-West Bethnal Green, an urban constituency, should venture to address this House on agriculture, and I think that he suggested that some of us rather resented that fact. We do nothing of the kind. This Parliament is a jury, and we welcome the hon. Baronet as much as anybody else to these Debates. At the same time, he showed in his speech how bankrupt of thought his party is as to what to do with regard to saving agriculture from the desperate plight in which it unfortunately finds itself to-day. As I listened to him, I pondered deeply how it was that for many years in the reign of the late Queen Victoria, so many agricultural constituencies entrusted their political suffrages to the party on whose behalf the hon. Baronet spoke this afternoon. It seems to me that in the present Parliament the Liberal party, by their continual very difficult middle course which they try to steer with regard to Protection generally and agriculture in
  1724
  particular, realise that they are like Samson, deprived, not by the same means, of their strength. They have been led away by many Delilahs. I do not know who these sirens are, but they realise, as did Samson, that they are deprived of their strength with regard to redeeming their position in the country as a, whole and in the rural constituencies in particular. They are praying now just for one more chance to bow themselves with all their weight and bring down the pillars of the Protectionist temple. The answer to that prayer is a long time coming. I think that my hon. Friends below the Gangway are addressing their petitions to Baal. The speeches of my hon. Friends here, and also of hon. Members above the Gangway, serve to throw into stronger relief the clear thinking and direct action which the Government, largely due to the guiding hand of the Minister of Agriculture, are pursuing. This is a time for clear thinking, and I was very glad to hear that the Lord President of the Council, when in Ayrshire the other day, addressing a most enthusiastic mass meeting at Culzean Castle, spoke about Conservatives and he warned us as Conservatives not to be hide-bound in any way regarding the way that we approach the problems of to-day. He said that we were not sacrificing any principles for the new policies, the new recipes and the new prescriptions to treat the drastic ills from which the whole country, and particularly agriculture, is suffering at the present time. I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity of saying how much I welcome this Measure. I very much regret that an old engagement. prevented me from voting for the Second Reading of the Bill. It will serve as an additional pleasure for me when I go into the Lobby to-night to support the Third Reading and thereby enable this Measure to go, unamended, to another place.
  6.51 p.m.
  Mr. GARDNER: My hon. Friend who opened this Debate deplored the absence of any kind of proposal to organise home production in the cattle industry, and I support his ground of opposition. I have no agricultural knowledge whatever. I was brought away from the country at the age of three, and I have not lived there since, but I sit at the feet of hon. and right hon. Members opposite and learn. The week before last we discussed

  1725
  the Hops Marketing Scheme, and I learned that the scheme confined hop-growing to a limited number of special and favoured people. I also learned that it was a scheme to set up a monopoly and to control and organise the growing of hops. I have learned from the first report of the Wheat Fund Commission under the Wheat Act that registered growers are entitled to a deficiency payment. A standard price is fixed and payments are made on anticipated supplies, shares in which are allotted to registered growers. Wheat in excess of anticipated supply is not subsidised, but again there is control and organisation. Under this Bill there is a loan and a subsidy, but nothing else. There is to be no attempt at organising the industry and no restriction on the number of beasts that may be subsidised or upon the hundredweights of meat that may qualify for subsidy. Agriculturists may laugh and say, "This is only a Bill for a short period covering seven months or thereabouts." But it must be remembered that it is the beginning of a policy. I may also be told that cattle do not grow in a night, I would add that a lot of public money may be spent in a very short time.
  One of the remarkable conditions of this Bill is that cattle may be naturalised. After 13 weeks' residence, as the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) said yesterday, alien beasts become British, and some hon. Members may consider this to be something of an outrage. I should like further information on this point. I learn from the Trade and Navigation Report which has just been issued that in December, 1933, there was a 50 per cent. cut in fat cattle imports from the Irish Free State. The Trade and Navigation figures show that in the first six months of 1934 there were 204,000 beasts imported from Ireland, and that in the corresponding six months of 1932 the number was 314,000. That shows that that action has been very effective. I wish to find out from the Minister whether Irish beasts kept out by the present quota may ultimately suffer the indignity of becoming British beef. May they come in to this country to be naturalised and qualify for the subsidy? The imports of Canadian cattle have grown since 1932. At the moment the figure is not at its highest, but imports are increasing. Perhaps the Minister can say how many cattle are likely to be
  1726
  rushed across, before the St. Lawrence closes this year, and ultimately be allowed to qualify for the subsidy? No power is taken in the Bill to limit cattle imports. The 13 weeks' provision for foreign cattle, that is, the naturalisation provision, seems to be intended to encourage imports. If it is intended to encourage imports, then the Government must intend to subsidise imports.
  Hon. Members opposite nearly become apoplectic about the imports of foreign typewriters, but do they consider what is to be done about a thing like this? I may be told that farming will benefit and that farm labourers may benefit, but what about the effect of the subsidy on trade? We all know that the beet sugar subsidy was put on at the time of the world glut in sugar. That subsidy has failed entirely to provide an economic price in this country, while the world glut of sugar continues. This Bill really repeats the beet sugar procedure. We have low meat prices, which indicate that there are large available supplies. The Government are subsidising a glut of meat. They are encouraging the production of still larger supplies, and the inevitable consequence will be the stabilisation of low prices. When once this policy has begun with regard to beef production, it will mean the establishment of a permanent subsidy for beef. It was said yesterday that this Bill is piebald Socialism. I do not recognise it as Socialism at all; it is simply capitalism all round.
  6.59 p.m.
  Colonel R0PNER: After the congratulatory speech made by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) in such eloquent terms, I feel that any congratulations offered to the Minister by me will be almost superfluous. But, on behalf of a, large and important agricultural constituency, I want to say how glad 1 am that this Measure is to receive its Third Reading this evening. Before dealing briefly with the Bill before the House, I wish to touch upon a matter which has been raised on more than one occasion this afternoon, and that is the apparent conflict of interests between agriculture and shipping. I am sure that I can assure the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the whole shipping industry that we do not take any sectional view of a question of this sort, but are quite

  1727
  prepared, if there is any conflict of interest, to make our contribution towards the restoration of prosperity in the agricultural industry. If shipping is an imporrtant industry, as I believe it to be, I think that every shipowner would admit that perhaps the most important industry in this country is agriculture. We hope that the Minister of Agriculture may tell the President of the Board of Trade what method he employs in extracting so generous a subsidy from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps I might suggest that if there is to be any reshuffling of Government appointments during the forthcoming autumn, the Minister of Agriculture might favourably consider any request which he receives to go to the Board of Trade. We feel that perhaps the lot of the shipowner might be a little easier if he employed his persuasive powers on the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I have listened to most of the Debates on this Bill, and there are one or two facts which seem to have emerged as being entirely beyond dispute. No one has questioned the vital necessity from the point of view of the welfare of this country of maintaining a prosperous agriculture, and no one has disputed that the production of livestock is an important branch of the agricultural industry, nor that that branch is in an extremely depressed condition to-day. In those circumstances, it was essential that the Government should do something. During the whole of these Debates I have beard no alternative from any Member in any quarter of the House, including the Opposition, to the short-term policy of a subsidy. I do not believe that there is an alternative policy, and I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture on having adopted what may be an unpopular course and on bringing real help and new hope to the agricultural industry.
  7.3 p.m.
  Mr. ELLIOT: The Debate to which we have just listened has been not without interest, and has been of interest particularly for several speeches of close application to the subject which have been delivered from hon. Gentlemen opposite. One of the encouraging features of the present agricultural situation is the interest taken by the Labour party in the plight of agriculture, and
  1728
  the determination which they show in their speeches not to down idly and see agriculture decay, but to take steps—and vigorous steps, if necessary—to put the position right. We quarrel, of course, with many of their remedies, but with their approach we all agree; and those of us who hope for continuity of policy in the future look on this as one of the best auguries for bringing it about. We had a speech from the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), who answered, in anticipation, a good deal of the speech of the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot), in which he devoted considerable attention to the great gap between what the producer claimed and what the consumer had to pay. But he omitted, perhaps, fully to appreciate the speech of the hon. Member for Westhoughton, who stood up manfully for the distributor, and pointed out the numerous new services which were demanded of the distributor, and I leave the hon. Member for East Fulham to commune with the hon. Member for Westhoughton before he demands the inquiry which was his main contribution to the solution of the problem which is now confronting not only the House but the country.
  Mr. WILMOT: I think that it would be only fair to the Minister and to my hon. Friend to point out that I expressly stated that I did not believe that these abnormal profits were going into the retail trade, but somewhere between the retail trade and the producer.
  Mr. ELLIOT: But the hon. Gentleman did not deal with the hon. Member for Westhoughton, who pointed out that there were abnormal demands being made on the retailer for which abnormal payments had to be made. It is true that he hinted at the existence of some mysterious cabal of middlemen, which finds no confirmation whatever in the experience of the co-operative societies or of any of the large organisations which handle the distribution of meat, but which he believes to be sucking the lifeblood out of the industry. The hon. Member for East Fulham was careful to say that it could not be the shop assistants, because they are constituents of his, nor could it be the butchers. It is someone in between who is succeeding in wringing all the profits out of the industry, although he was unable to give us any indication as to who that some-

  1729
  one is. It is true that there is a lag all the way along in the measure which each successive stage receives of what the consumer has paid for the meat. The price of beef retail is not double the pre-War price. It is 132. The price of meat wholesale is 110. The price of fat, cattle is 95 and the price of store cattle 88. These are familiar signs of a declining market where the lag spreads all the way through. As wholesale prices begin to rise, they will put cattle up without any large demands on the consumer, which answers yet another point in the argument of the hon. Member for East Fulham as to whether we could raise wholesale prices without causing such a demand on the consumer as to defeat our own purpose by bringing down consumption. It has been possible in the case of sheep, where wholesale prices were brought up by 34 per cent., but retail prices only 5 per cent.
  I think it is true that the difficulties of the distribution of home-killed meat do not bear at all the signs of some highly organised trust which is wringing the profits out of the industry. They rather show the faults of small businesses. and there is inevitably some waste. I think that it is true to say that the Linlithgow Committee found that the cost of distribution had 'been increased by the popular demand for the smaller joints, and secondly, by an increase in number and a reduction in turnover of the butchers. If the hon. Member for East Fulham demands that the whole of the remedy shall be found in merely squeezing the industry, then a considerable proportion will fall on his constituents and on supporters of the hon. Member for Westhoughton.
  Mr. WILMOT: So far from there being an increase in the number of retailers in the last year there have been three company flotations for the purpose of trustifying retail butchers' shops.
  Mr. ELLIOT: I am not suggesting that there have not been flotations for the purpose of trustifying butchers' shops, but the hon. Gentleman asked me to quote any inquiries that have been made, and I was quoting one of the most careful inquiries that have been made, that of the Linlithgow Committee, who referred to the increase in number and diminution in turnover of butchers and to
  1730
  that attributed a certain proportion of the increase in the gap between the distributor and the producer. The shipping argument of the hon. Member for Westhoughton seemed to me to prove a little too much. He said that we should not attempt to produce in this country because it diminishes the amount which our ships would carry. Will he apply that to coal? Will he apply it to cotton? Why should agriculture alone have the privilege of maintaining all this trade that comes in from overseas? Let cotton say," We are willing to give away one-half of our markets so that freights may be brought in from Japan." Let the coal industry say that coal from Poland should be brought in to fortify the position of the shipping industry. I can well imagine the indignation which would burst forth from, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) in those circumstances. He inveighs against agriculture because we seek to reserve a certain amount of the home market by this Measure, which is a waiver of the admitted rights which the Government possess to reduce imports by quota to a point where no such Measure is necessary. If we enjoyed a tariff such as is enjoyed by the product of the hon. Member for Hemsworth, if we could look forward to a tariff of 60 per cent. on competing products, as in the case of the duty on fuel oil, or of 230 per cent. as on motor spirit, we should be very pleased. But the hon. Member for Hemsworth carries his argument too far.
  The hon. Member for East Fulham drew a picture of the housewife hunting up and down for the cheapest joint. It could be equalled by a picture of the housewife hunting up and down for the cheapest fuel. Would hon. Members opposite on that account abandon the coal legislation, the coal quotas, and allow cut-throat competition to drive down the price of coal to a much lower level? Not for a moment. Therefore, that argument, too, falls to the ground. The argument for regulation which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen press on this House, for a rigid restriction of supply in this country and for increasing tariffs on imported fuel oils, weakens and abolishes the argument which they bring forward that mere cheapness in price is the only think to secure in fundamental commodities such as fuel and food.

  1731
  The difficulties in which we find ourselves are fundamental to our position. We are for the moment feeling the impact of competing imports, and we desire to negotiate upon these matters and to secure the maximum of good will when the measures for the relief of agriculture are put into operation. For that reason alone we come before the House with a Measure to give us time, not on behalf of agriculture only but on behalf of the trade and industry of the country as a whole. This subsidy is not a subsidy to agriculture. We could, if we wished to apply the legislation which is upon the Statute Book, restrict the imports of beef which undoubtedly are having a great deal to do with the lowering of the level of the price of beef to a point which is not remunerative to those engaged in the industry. Specifically and obviously, for the purpose of working in with overseas suppliers from foreign countries, such as South America, and from Empire countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, we do not apply those measures, but we seek for time to negotiate, and we ask not one section of the House but all sections to support the Government in that object, and in the steps which we are taking to achieve it. It is not true that anything in this Bill in any way whatever will raise the price of beef to the consumer. The hon. Member for Hemsworth admitted that there is nothing whatever in the Bill to justify anyone voting against it, as such. It is true, as was said by one of my hon. Friends below the Gangway that he who votes against this Bill, votes against agriculture and against a Measure which will do nothing whatever to raise the price of one pound of meat to one single housewife in this country. Those who vote against the Bill take a heavy responsibility, because it is not as if they brought forward an alternative.
  Mr. KIRKWOOD: We are here to take responsibilities.
  Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member is here to take responsibilities, and he will take
  a great responsibility if he refuses to his fellow workers in agriculture the same assistance which he has demanded for his own constituents in shipping. It is not an easy thing to deal with the present situation, and when the Government bring forward a Measure which can deal with it as a temporary measure, without bringing an additional burden to a single consumer, we have the right to ask that it should be considered with an open mind and not merely voted against because of previous prejudice by hon. Members in different parts of the House.
  Points were raised as to the administration of the Measure. I dealt with those matters As far as I was able to do on the Committee stage, and it would be undesirable to go over them again, although it is fair to say to the hon. Member for Upton (Mr. Gardner) that the feeding of cattle in this country will mean that if Irish fat cattle are being brought in as fat, they will not receive the subsidy, but if they are brought in as store beef and fattened, they will after three months become eligible. Another point was raised 'as to whether there is power to limit cattle imports. There is no power in this Bill, but there is power in the Act of 1933, and therefore the rush of cattle imports, which the hon. Member very properly desires to be avoided, will be avoided and no damage will arise.
  I commend the Bill for Third Reading. It is a temporary Measure, admittedly a temporary Measure. It deals with an emergency which all of us recognise. If we had made no attempt to deal with the emergency, we should have been rightly blamed not by one section but by all sections of the House. It is an emergency Measure and it is an experiment. We ask the House to face the emergency and to make the experiment. We do not believe that they will regret it now, and we are certain that they will not regret it in the future.
  Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
  The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 53.

  Division No. 347.]

  AYES

  [7.21 p.m.

  Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel

  Aske, Sir Robert William

  Banks, Sir Reginald

  Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)

  Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick

  Mitchell Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

  Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

  Wolfe Astor, Mal. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)

  Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)

  Albery, Irving James

  Antholl Duchess of

  Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C)

  Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

  Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley

  Bllndell, James

  Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.

  Balfour, George (Hampstead)

  Boulton, W. W.

  Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

  Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)

  Pownall, Sir Assheton

  Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)

  Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

  Radford, E. A.

  Broadbent, Colonel John

  Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

  Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)

  Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)

  Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)

  Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

  Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)

  Brown. Ernest (Leith)

  Hornby, Frank

  Ramsbotham, Herwald

  Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks.,Newb'y)

  Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S

  Ramsden, Sir Eugene

  Browne, Captain A. C.

  Horsbrugh, Florence

  Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

  Burgin. Dr. Edward Leslie

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)

  Reid, David D. (County Down)

  Burnett, John George

  Hunter. Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)

  Robinson, John Roland

  Burton, Colonel Henry Walter

  Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

  Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.

  Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

  Caporn, Arthur Cecil

  James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.

  Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.

  Carver, Major William H.

  Jamieson, Douglas

  Runge, Norah Cecil

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Jennings, Roland

  Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

  Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

  lesson, Major Thomas E.

  Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)

  Caralet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)

  Joel, Dudley J. Barnato

  Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

  Clarke, Frank

  Ker, J. Campbell

  Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)

  Clayton, Sir Christopher

  Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

  Salt, Edward W.

  Conant, R. J. E.

  Lamb. Sir Joseph Quinton

  Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

  Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

  Lambert. Rt. Hon. George

  Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Leckie, A.

  Scone, Lord

  Crooke, J. Smedley

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Salley, Harry R.

  Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

  Lees-Jones, John

  Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

  Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)

  Leighton, Major B. E. P.

  Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)

  Cross, R. H.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

  Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

  Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.

  Levy, Thomas

  Shepperson. Sir Ernest W.

  Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)

  Lewis, Oswald

  Shute, Colonel J. J.

  Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)

  Lindsay. Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

  Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)

  Denman, Hon. R, D.

  Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunllffe-

  Smith, Louis W, (Sheffield, Hallam)

  Dickle, John P.

  Liewellln, Major John J.

  Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)

  Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert

  Loder, Captain J. de Vera

  Smithers, Sir Waldron

  Doran, Edward

  Loftus, Pierce C.

  Somerset, Thomas

  Drewe, Cedric

  Mabane, William

  Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

  Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.

  MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)

  Somerville. D. G. (Willesden, East)

  Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel

  McConnell. Sir Joseph

  Soper, Richard

  Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N

  McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

  Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

  Eales, John Frederick

  McKie, John Hamilton

  Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

  Eden, Rt. Hon. Anthony

  McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

  Spencer, Captain Richard A.

  Edmondson, Major Sir James

  Macmillan. Maurice Harold

  Spens, William Patrick

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

  Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

  Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)

  Elmley, Viscount

  Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.

  Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.

  Stones, James

  Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

  Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)

  Strauss, Edward A.

  Everard, W. Lindsay

  Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

  Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-

  Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

  Ford, Sir Patrick J.

  Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)

  Summersby, Charles H.

  Fox, Sir Gifford

  Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

  Sutcliffe, Harold

  Fuller, Captain A. G.

  Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale

  Templeton, William P.

  Ganzonl, Sir John

  Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

  Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

  Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Morris. John Patrick (Salford, N.)

  Thompson, Sir Luke

  Glossop, C. W. H.

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)

  Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles

  Gluckstein, Louis Halle

  Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)

  Titchfieid, Major the Marquess of

  Goff, Sir Park

  Morrison, William Shephard

  Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)

  Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

  Moss, Captain H. J.

  Train, John

  Gower, Sir Robert

  Munro, Patrick

  Tree, Ronald

  Grattan Doyle, Sir Nicholas

  Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

  Turton, Robert Hugh

  Greene, William P. C.

  Nicholson. Godfrey (Morpeth)

  Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)

  Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)

  Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)

  Wallace, John (Dunfermline)

  Grimston, R. V.

  Nunn, William

  Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E

  O'Donovan, Dr. William James

  Whyte, Jardine Bell

  Guinness. Thomas L. E. B.

  O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

  Gunston, Captain D. W.

  Orr Ewing, I. L.

  Wills, Wilfrid D.

  Guy, J. C. Morrison

  Palmer, Francis Noel

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

  Hacking. Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

  Patrick. Colin M.

  Withers, Sir John James

  Hales, Harold K.

  Pearson, William G.

  Womersley, Sir Walter

  Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)

  Peat, Charles U.

  Worthington, Dr. John V.

  Hammersley, Samuel S.

  Penny, Sir George

  Hanley, Dennis A.

  Perkins, Walter R. D.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Harbord, Arthur

  Petherick, M.

  Sir Victor Warrender and Lieut.-

  Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

  Pete, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

  Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.

  Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

  Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)

  NOES.

  Attlee, Clement Richard

  Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)

  Banfield, John William

  Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

  Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W. Riding)

  Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)

  Davies, Stephen Owen

  Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)

  Buchanan, George

  Dabble, William

  Grundy, Thomas W.

  Cape, Thomas

  Edwards, Charles

  Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvll)

  Cocks, Frederick Seymour

  Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

  Harris. Sir Percy

  Cripps, Sir Stafford

  Gardner, Benjamin Walter

  Holdsworth, Herbert

  Curry, A. C.

  Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur

  Jenkins, Sir William

  Daggar, George

  Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

  Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

  1734

  1735

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Maxton, Jams.

  West, F. R.

  Kirkwood, David

  Milner, Major James

  White, Henry Graham

  Leonard, William

  Paling, Wilfred

  Williams, David (Swansea, East)

  Logan, David Gilbert

  Parkinson, John Allen

  Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

  Lunn, William

  Rea, Walter Russell

  Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

  McEntee, Valentine L.

  Salter, Dr. Alfred

  Wilmot, John

  Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

  Mainwaring, William Henry

  Smith, Tom (Normanton)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Mander, Geoffrey le M.

  Tinker, John Joseph

  Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G. Macdonald.

  Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah

  Question put, and agreed to.

  WHALING INDUSTRY (REGULATION) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  WHALING INDUSTRY (REGULATION) BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 1.—(Description of whales to which the Act applies.)
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 1, line 6, to leave out from "Act," to the end of the Clause, and to add:
    " apply only in relation to whales known as whalebone whales or baleen whales:
    Provided that if, for the purpose of enabling effect to be given to any convention relating to other whales which is signed on behalf of His Majesty after the commencement of this Act, it appears to His Majesty to be necessary so to do, His Majesty may by Order-in-Council direct that, subject to such exceptions, adaptations, and modifications (if any) as may he specified in the Order, the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to those other whales or to such descriptions thereof as may be so specified."
    This is the first of a series of drafting Amendments to this Bill, and it restores the Clause to the form in which it was originally drafted. In fact, it arises out of an Amendment made in another place. It was thought that by excluding whales known as toothed whales the matter would be simplified, and the other place made an Amendment to that effect. But first thoughts are not always wrong, and when we had further consulted scientific people it was thought that while the term "whalebone whales or baleen whales" was perfectly well understood by every.body—it may be a strange thing to say—there is considerable doubt as to whether the term toothed whales includes all kinds of whales except whalebone whales or baleen whales. Outside that class there are whales with teeth and whales without teeth, and some creatures about which there is doubt as to whether they ought to be properly classed as whales or as grampuses. The second part of the Amendment gives power by Order-in-
    1736
    Council to include other kinds of whales if a convention in relation to them is made, so that we can do it without having to pass an Act which has been found to lead to delay in putting the convention into force. I do not think there is any danger in that, because a similar provision has been in force with regard to the Sea Fisheries Convention for over 50 years. In case the Committee should feel any dubiety about this matter I have taken the precaution to provide myself with a little text book on the subject, in which there are pictures of various kinds of whales and definitions. There is one which is known as the Elliot Dolphin, although it is not so famous or so grand as another whale which is known as "Sulphur Bottom" which is 95 feet in length with a girth of 39 feet. I do not wish to go into this fascinating subject at length, and I ask the Committee to accept the Amendment. I understand that there are one or two points of substance which the Opposition wish to raise.
    Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: May I ask whether all the descriptions of whales in the Schedule are included in the Amendment? I am not clear that it does cover all the descriptions in the Schedule, because the Schedule is not being altered.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am advised that the Schedule will cover all the descriptions brought in here.
    7.33 p.m.
    Lord SCONE: I should like to ask whether it is possible either by an alteration in the Schedule or by a covering note to insert the scientific names. This Measure is not of interest merely to whalers and the commercial world; it is of considerable interest to naturalists, and it does not need to be stressed that naturalists throughout the world will not know the meaning of sperm whale or sulphur bottom. They have their own names for these whales, and the only way in which they will know which whales are being alluded to is if they are given their proper scientific Latin name. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find it possible.

    1737
    to make this alteration or insert some addenda in the Bill.
    7.34 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am a little unwilling to make any further alteration to the Bill at the moment, but I will take further advice and see whether on Report stage it is desirable to make any such alteration.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Protection for certain classes of whales.)
    Amendments made:
    In page 2, line 29, leave out "II," and insert "I."
    In line 32, leave out "III," and insert "II."
    In line 35, leave out "IV," and insert "III."—[Mr. Elliot.]

    CLAUSE 5.—(Grant of licences.)
    Mr. ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 3, line 17, after "Britain," to insert:
    " and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed."
    This is a privilege Amendment, and I do not think it is necessary to delay the Committee by any explanatory statement.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Ought not this Amendment to be on the Order Paper in the same way as a similar Amendment by the Government dealing with expenses and application of fees and fines?
    The CHAIRMAN: That Amendment, as the hon. and learned Member says, is similar to, but it is not identical with, the present Amendment. The Minister of Agriculture is now moving into the Clause exactly the words which are underlined in the Bill: in the case of the new Clause he proposes to move, the words are not quite the same as the underlined Clause in the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 22, at the end, insert:
    "(2) The fee prescribed in respect of the grant of a licence under this section shall not exceed—

    (a) two hundred pounds in the case of a licence authorising the use of a ship or factory for treating whales; or

    (b) one hundred pounds in the case of a licence authorising the use of a ship for taking whales."—(Mr. Elliot.)

    CLAUSE 6.—(Conditions attached to licences.)
    Amendments made: In page 3, line 42. leave out "so."
    In line 43, after "taken," insert "and in such manner."—[Mr. Elliot.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    7.43 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: There are two questions I desire to raise on this Clause. The first one deals with Sub-section (1) which says:
    " There shall be attached to every licence under this Act authorising the use of a ship for taking whales a condition that the remuneration of the gunners and crew of the ship must, so far as it is calculated by reference to the results of their work, be so calculated by reference to the size, species, oil-yield and value of the whales taken as to exclude remuneration in respect of any whale which is of less than such length as may be prescribed for the purposes of this section, or the taking of which is prohibited by this Act."
    I want to ask what sort of protection there is for crews who are compelled to work under circumstances of payment of this sort and who may make some mistake in calculating whether a whale is 60 feet in length or 59 feet 11 inches. It is rather difficult to judge the length of a whale when it is swimming in the water, but when they have done their work, and it is ascertained to be 59 feet 11 inches in length, it thereupon becomes illegal to pay them any money in respect of that whale. What protection is there for a crew under such circumstances? I understand the object of the Clause, that it is undesirable to encourage gunners to kill whales which are too small, but there must be many cases where they have to obey the orders of the officers in charge and may quite un-

    1739
    wittingly kill a whale which is just of the wrong size. A fine no doubt is then imposed on the master of the ship for killing that whale, but that does not seem to be a good reason for taking away the entire wages of the entire crew of the ship so far as that particular kill is concerned. I suggest that some protection should be put into the Bill, that if they do so contrary to instructions or without the knowledge of the master, or something of that sort. Primarily the responsibility for whales which are killed is not upon the crew, it may to some extent fall upon the gunner but it cannot be the responsibility of the crew, and I suggest that these regulations are extremely hard on the crew and may mean that in certain circumstances they might be done out of their wages without any justification at all. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into that matter and see if some words cannot be inserted to give some protection to the crew.
    The second point arises in Sub-section (4) which says:
    " There may be attached to any licence under this Act such conditions (if any), in addition to the conditions required by the foregoing provisions of this section, as appear to the licensing authority to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of preventing, so far as practicable,—

    (a) any wastage of whales or whale products; or

    (b) the taking of whales during certain seasons; "

    I understand that one of the main reasons for this convention is the slaughter of immature whales in the Antarctic and the wastage of large portions of these whales which are thrown overboard and allowed to rot in the sea. There has been a voluntary restriction amongst some whale catchers not to operate in the areas around. the Falkland Islands before the 1st December, but certain firms have not come into this voluntary restriction. As a result there is a tremendous wastage going on. Apparently, it is between the middle of October and the middle of December that the whale puts on the greatest amount of fat, feeding on the shrimps in the Antarctic waters, that between these months on an average a whale puts on four tons of oil. That oil will increase progressively up to March. A number of the firms concerned with catching whales, particularly the Norwegians, have con-
    1740
    sidered the matter, and the Norwegians have passed. legislation to prohibit the taking of whales in these waters before 1st December. There is a good deal of anxiety in the industry as to whether the Government intend, under this Clause, to make that prohibition effective this year, so that there shall not be that tremendous wastage which is going on now, with very considerable danger of killing off altogether the whales in the Antarctic.
    As regards the wastage of whales and whale products, a certain number of people, I understand, are riot making any use at all of the whale meat. They are throwing it overboard, while the more up-to-date factories turn it into pig and cattle food. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to make it compulsory, in connection with these licences, that this whale meat should be utilised, again in order to avoid the great wastage which is taking place. Seeing that the Norwegians have acted in both these matters by legislation which will be operative this year, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he proposes also to operate it by attaching conditions to his licences this year, immediately the licences are issued, so that the regulations can become effective at the same time as the Norwegian regulations, and so bring all the fishers into line on these two matters?
    7.47 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: As regards the hon. and learned Member's first point, on the question of remuneration, he will agree that my difficulty in inserting any words is that the words in the Bill are the words of the Convention. It is a little difficult to vary a Convention which has been drawn up on behalf of so many States. The wording of the Clause has the additional advantage that in practice it has been found by Norway actually to work. This wording has been decided upon as the most convenient way of dealing with what we all desire to see, namely, that everyone on the boat should feel that he has a responsibility for seeing that immature whales are not killed. I can well understand my hon. and learned Friend's contention that it must be very difficult, when a great whale is swimming in the sea, to determine whether it is 59 feet 6 inches or 60 feet long. All one can say is that

    1741
    no doubt those who are administering these matters will administer them reasonably. I think we must trust to their common sense not to demand that some one should go out with a tape measure to measure a rorqual or right whale before proceeding to harpoon it. This might bring great hardship on the crew, because the crew might be deprived of all their remuneration. I am advised that in every case, except that of the gunner who has a direct responsibility here, there is a basic wage paid apart from the payment that is based on the catch. For these three reasons I do not think it will be possible now to insert further words. This is, of course, admittedly experimental in character, and no doubt further legislation can be brought forward and will have to be brought forward. We are trying this out for the first time. If it works unsatisfactorily I shall be ready to consider the point that has been brought forward. The Convention has been a long time in the pigeon-holes of the Government here, and I would much prefer to put it into force as it was drafted by the various nations.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that he will watch this matter, particularly from the point of view of the men, and see how it operates?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I will very readily give that undertaking. The next point of the hon. and learned Member was one of great substance. He asked, "When is this Act to operate?" It is true that there are discussions going on at the present time between the various companies which operate from Great Britain, and that several of these companies are perfectly willing that the Act should be brought into full force by a date this autumn, the date of 1st December. I am unwilling to give an undertaking now as to what regulations will finally be made. Conversations have gone on for some time and a long discussion went on to-day with a deputation, when the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir N. Sandeman) was present. Although that discussion ended in a seeming deadlock, I am hopeful that the deadlock may not be so complete as it would appear, and that a modus vivendi may be found. I attach great importance to bringing the Act into operation at an early date, but
    1742
    I should not like it to operate unfairly or harshly if a genuine grievance is shown to exist.
    7.52 p.m.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDE MAN: This subject does not interest my constituents in the very least, and if I did not know something about the whaling industry I would not intervene in the Debate. What the Minister says is perfectly true. We had a long discussion at the Board of Fisheries this morning, and I think I am safe in saying that all the British companies, with the exception of perhaps one, and another which is sailing from South Africa, were in entire agreement and were ready to fix the dates either from 1st December to the end of March, or from 15th November to the middle of March. The South African company was not prepared to bind itself; the one company which we know not to be the most economical of the whale-oil producers held out, and I understand that their reason is that they have entered into contracts with tankers, with seamen and with stores. But, as was pointed out by someone who has been often on these expeditions to the Antarctic, so far as the seamen are concerned their wages begin when the sailing starts, and if the sailing is put off for a fortnight they do not get wages. So far as the stores are concerned I am informed that any decent company which is doing a large trade with store suppliers can always get some sort of arrangement by which stores are cancelled and taken on next year; and that the only vital point seemed to be the tanker, which was not really of very great importance—it amounted to several hundred pounds probably, perhaps £1,000, but I do not believe it was any more than that. That, of course, is a mere fleabite, so far as the expenses of a whaling expedition are concerned.
    All the companies assembled there agreed that regulations must be brought in to curtail the time of the whaling season. What will happen if we do not make the regulations this year will be that a great many of these immature whales will be killed in October and the first half of November. I am informed that there is a difference of 30 to 40 per cent. in the number of barrels taken out of a whale at the beginning of October com-

    1743
    pared with the middle of November and the end of November, and in January the figure goes up. We must preserve the lives of these whales if we are to keep the industry going at all. By killing the whales a little later we shall get the same amount of oil from considerably fewer whales. I am also afraid that if we do not agree to put on these restrictions the Norwegians will take off the restrictions curtailing the whaling. In that case, of course, there will be a wholesale slaughter of whales again. I am certain that if the Minister will only put his mind to it there need be no possible doubt. It may be a little hardship to one firm. In past years that one firm gained great advantages by getting a great many whales and getting the best part of the whales to boil down. I have no pity for it if in one year it may suffer a little.
    The argument is raised that this matter is being sprung on us suddenly. We know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer often says that he cannot tell what is going to happen in his next Budget. But this subject has been discussed for several years and it is not sprung on us at a moment's notice. We have known that this legislation was to be brought in. It was agreed three years ago, at the League of Nations, that this Convention would be brought in. It is of paramount importance to the whaling industry and the conserving of the whales that the Minister should now issue orders that these regulations are to begin, so that there will be some sort of chance that the whales will not be slaughtered too quickly. In the past few years the Norwegians and most British ships by agreement have had a quota. One firm which is now hanging up everything has gone out to whale and would not come to any agreement. We could not help that. But now one of the Norwegian firms is also going out to whale without restrictions and that is the reason why the Norwegians have brought in this regulation. Of course, if we are not going to agree we are all going out to whale.
    7.58 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not think the Minister has dealt very satisfactorily with this question. Surely he is not going to allow a single firm to hold up the operation of this international agreement? The Norwegians have acted. I
    1744
    have no doubt that the hon. Member for Middleton (Sir N. Stewart Sandeman) is quite accurate in what he has said, that the bulk of the English firms are prepared to operate on exactly the same terms as the Norwegians. Apparently, there is one recalcitrant firm which is standing out, I suppose for its own purposes. I do not know its name, but I hope that the Minister is not going to allow that firm to spoil the operation of this Convention and agreement. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us, when the Report stage comes. that he is prepared definitely to see that the dates are fixed this year, whether at the middle of November or the beginning of December, and that the English fishers must conform to those dates.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I am not surprised that my hon. and learned Friend should desire to see that no single firm holds up the operation of the Act and, secondly. that we should keep faith with the Norwegian Government. I think the conversations are proceeding not unsatisfactorily but, of course, this legislation does not apply to every country as yet, and it would be possible, if we declared arbitrarily that such-and-such a date was to be enforced without persuasion being tried, for a firm to transfer its flag to the Dominion of New Zealand, and we should have no further control over it. In this matter, as in other matters, I think that argument, persuasion and discussion will bring us more quickly to our goal. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press me more on this occasion, and that it will be possible to proceed with the other stages to-night, because at this point of the Session it is important to get the Bill, without which there would be no power to impose any regulations at all.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Powers of whale fishery inspectors.)
    8.3 p.m.
    The CHAIRMAN: Before calling this Clause, I think I should point out to the Committee that it imposes a charge which

    1745
    is not covered by a Ways and Means Resolution. It is provided that:
    " Any whale fishery inspector specially authorised in writing in that behalf by the Board of Trade may go on board any British ship to which this Act applies which is used for treating whales, and shall, during such period as may be specified in his authority, be entitled to remain on board the ship, to be provided with subsistence and accommodation therein and to be present at all operations in connection with the treating of whales on board the ship."
    I brought the matter to the notice of the Government, through the Board of Trade, and I was informed that it was intended that this billeting, if I may use the term, should be paid for, but there is no provision to that effect in the Clause or elsewhere in the Bill at the present time, and therefore the Clause as set down is not in order. It will be observed that there is on the Order Paper an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture which would put it right, by bringing the Clause within the Resolution, and there are precedents for amending such a Clause in Committee so as to bring it within the terms of a Resolution. I propose, therefore, to call the Clause in order that it may be so amended, but I must point out that unless it is so amended, I shall be unable to put the Question that the Clause stand part.
    8.5 p.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND.(Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, in page 7, line 5, at the end, to insert:
    " A whale fishery inspector shall, in respect of each day during which he is provided in pursuance of this Sub-section with subsistence and accommodation on board a ship, pay to the master of the ship such sum as may be prescribed by regulations made by the licensing authority with the approval of the Treasury."
    As you, Sir Dennis, have pointed out, the Amendment is necessary to make the Clause in order. Its object is to ensure that in the case of inspectors who by the Bill will be placed on ships and, in your own words, have to be billeted by the master of the ship, there shall be remuneration for the billeting. It will, in fact, be paid to the inspectors by the licensing authority or by the Department by whom they are employed. On the question of Order, I do not think I need say anything more on behalf of the Government than that it will make in
    1746
    order a, Clause which, without it, would not be in order.
    8.6 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: It would be very unbusinesslike to object to this because it has to be done in order to get the Bill through. The only thing it seems to me to show is that the Parliamentary draftsmen's office is being overworked, and a little strengthening of it might be worth considering.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clauses 9 (Forgery of documents) and 10 (Legal proceedings), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 11.—(Application to non-British ships registered in colonies, etc.)
    Amendment made: In page 8, line 26, leave out "and," and insert "or licensed."—[Mr. Elliot.]
    Clauses 12 (Exemption of whaling operations carried on in coastal waters of certain British possessions, etc.), 13 (Extension to British possessions, etc.) and 14 (Exercise of Board of Trade's powers by other persons), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 15.—(Powers of certain Dominions and India to legislate extra-territorially as respects their ships.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    8.12 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: This deals with the question of certain Dominions, and I want to ask what is being done in regard to getting Dominions to legislate to cover this situation. The right hon. Gentleman has already mentioned the question of the factories or ships being registered in the Dominions for purposes of evasion, and I understand that the particular company to which I suppose he was referring, already has one factory ship registered in New Zealand. Will he tell us whether any steps are being taken to ask the Dominion of New Zealand to legislate in time to deal with the situation so that the ship or company may be brought into line with the others?
    8.13 p.m.
    Mr. ELLIOT: It is true, of course, that the Dominions are an integral part of any scheme which may eventually be adopted, but we thought it desirable first of all to get our own legislation through here, and we have had only the most informal consultation with the Dominions. As soon as it is through we shall get into touch with them, and I hope they will be able to adopt this legislation which will clear the way for subsequent discussions with British companies and with Norway. We do not anticipate that we shall be able to carry through this discussion with the Dominions in time for the present season.
    Sir N. STEWART SANDEMAN: The ships that sail from South Africa or New Zealand will not be sailing for another three or four weeks.
    Mr. ELLIOT: As soon as the Bill is on the Statute Book we shall approach the Dominions, but we must give them time and it is reasonable that they should have an opportunity of considering the matter.

    CLAUSE 17.—(Interpretation, and saving for certain enactments.)
    8.14 p.m.
    Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 10, line 35, at the end, to insert, "'factory' does not include a ship."
    This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear, if it is not clear already, that a, factory is not a ship for the purposes of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 18 (Incidental provision as to regulations and orders), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    CLAUSE 19.—(Short title and commencement.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    8.15 p.m.
    Sir S. CRIPPS: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes to make the order to bring the Act into operation. I presume that it will be as soon as the Bill is passed.
    Mr. ELLIOT: That is so—as soon as the Bill is passed.

    NEW CLAUSE 16.—(Expenses and application of fees and fines.)
    The expenses incurred for the purposes of this Act by the licensing authority or by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Fishery Board for Scotland or any other person acting under the authority of the Board of Trade (including sums required to pay the remuneration and expenses of whale fishery inspectors) shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament; and all fees received under this Act by the licensing authority or by any such other authority or person as is mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this section, and (subject to the provisions of section five of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, and of any corresponding enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland) all fines recovered by virtue of this Act, shall he paid into the Exchequer of the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Elliot.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause is the same as the original Clause 16 in the Bill, except that the wording in lines 7 to 9 is altered to ensure that it does not over-ride the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914. It would be a source of grave uneasiness to me if I thought I had done any such a thing in face of hon. and learned Members. We are now bringing the Clause into conformity with the majestic structure of British justice.
    Clause added to the Bill.

  SCHEDULE.—(Descriptions of whales.)
  Amendments made: in page 12, line 2, leave out "Descriptions," and insert "Names."
  In line 3, leave out lines 3 to 6.
  In line 7, leave out "II.," and insert "I."
  Leave out line 8, and insert "Right Whales."
  In line 16, leave out "III.," and insert "II."
  Leave out line 17, and insert "Blue Whales."
  In line 20, leave out "IV.," and insert "III."
  Leave out line 21, and insert "Fin Whales."—[Mr. Elliot.]
  Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1932.
  Resolutions reported,
  I. Whereas it appears by the Navy Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1933, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for

  SCHEDULE.

  No. Of Vote.

  Navy Services, 1932, Votes.

  Deficits.

  Surpluses.

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Wages, etc., of Officers, Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet
  Services.

  10,800

  15

  2

  —

  —

  1,723

  5

  11

  2

  Victualling and Clothing

  —

  52,467

  11

  11

  145,836

  5

  10

  —

  3

  Medical Establishments and Services.

  —

  951

  11

  6

  20,422

  19

  2

  —

  4

  Fleet Air Arm

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Educational Services

  —

  —

  8,187

  10

  8

  2,770

  3

  9

  6

  Scientific Services

  —

  7,179

  4

  5

  27,830

  13

  9

  —

  7

  Royal Naval Reserves

  —

  225

  8

  7

  3,673

  15

  6

  —

  8

  Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.

  Sec. 1. Personnel

  —

  —

  56,935

  18

  2

  5,332

  15

  0

  Sec. 2. Matériel

  —

  165,881

  9

  6

  439,846

  9

  2

  —

  Sec. 3. Contract Work

  232,028

  17

  2

  3,819

  14

  10

  —

  —

  9

  Naval Armaments

  —

  60,476

  13

  8

  229,791

  2

  2

  —

  10

  Works, Buildings, and Repairs

  62,998

  10

  0

  65,451

  11

  5

  —

  —

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services.

  —

  —

  67,936

  17

  11

  11,284

  0

  3

  12

  Admiralty Office

  —

  —

  17,866

  3

  9

  252

  5

  2

  13

  Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers.

  35,734

  2

  9

  —

  —

  3,814

  17

  11

  14

  Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men.

  19,811

  10

  8

  —

  —

  5,757

  11

  1

  15

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities.

  17,093

  6

  5

  40

  4

  7

  —

  —

  —

  Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.

  2,455

  4

  11

  —

  —

  —

  380,922

  7

  1

  356,493

  10

  5

  1,018,327

  16

  1

  30,934

  19

  1

  Total Deficits

  £737,415

  17

  6

  Total Surpluses

  £1,049,262

  15

  2

  Net Surplus … £311,846 17 8

  II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1933, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army
  those Services, and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net Expenditure is £311,846 17s. 8d., namely:

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  1,049,262

  15

  2

  Total Deficits

  …

  737,415

  17

  6

  Net Surplus

  …

  £311,846

  17

  8

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.
  1. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."
  Services over the net Expendiure is £509,761 3s. 2d., namely:

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surpluses

  …

  873,231

  8

  0

  Total Deficits

  …

  363,470

  4

  10

  Net Surplus

  …

  £509,761

  3

  2

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good

  SCHEDULE.

  No. of Vote.

  Army Services, 1932, Votes.

  Deficits.

  Surpluses.

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay, etc., of the Army

  2,672

  5

  9

  —

  —

  33,222

  13

  9

  2

  Territorial Army and Reserve Forces.

  —

  6,337

  4

  4

  55,429

  7

  3

  —

  3

  Medical Services

  —

  3,170

  3

  1

  21,296

  3

  1

  —

  4

  Educational Establishments

  22,380

  5

  1

  11,066

  19

  5

  —

  —

  5

  Quartering and Movements

  —

  —

  28,153

  18

  9

  55,810

  4

  3

  6

  Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts.

  —

  33,935

  11

  3

  241,926

  19

  9

  —

  7

  Clothing

  —

  43,011

  16

  4

  61,265

  8

  5

  —

  8

  General Stores

  —

  39,886

  8

  7

  132,806

  12

  5

  —

  9

  Warlike Stores

  —

  152,008

  18

  11

  49,478

  19

  0

  —

  10

  Works, Buildings, and Lands

  23,079

  15

  0

  —

  —

  1,086

  10

  9

  11

  Miscellaneous Effective Services.

  2,004

  3

  0

  4,971

  18

  5

  —

  —

  12

  War Office

  —

  —

  10,991

  5

  4

  763

  7

  2

  13

  Half-Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers.

  —

  9,153

  6

  5

  51,930

  3

  5

  —

  14

  Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, Men, and others.

  —

  —

  60,914

  7

  10

  68,061

  15

  11

  15

  Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities.

  7,254

  2

  2

  —

  —

  93

  10

  11

  —

  Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.

  2,537

  7

  1

  —

  —

  —

  59,927

  18

  1

  303,542

  6

  9

  714,193

  5

  3

  159,038

  2

  9

  Total Deficits

  £363,170

  4

  10

  Total Surpluses

  £873,231

  8

  0

  Net Surplus … £509,761 3 2

  III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st clay of March, 1933, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Air Services over the net Expenditure is £342,629 1s. 8d., namely:
  the said total deficts on other Grants for Army Services.
  2. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned."

  £

  s.

  d.

  Total Surplueses

  …

  409,070

  19

  0

  Total Deficits

  …

  66,441

  41

  4

  Net Surplus

  …

  £342,629

  1

  8

  And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.
  3. "That the application of such sums be sanctioned.

  SCHEDULE.

  No. of Vote.

  Army Services, 1932, Votes.

  Deficits.

  Surpluses.

  Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.

  Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditure.

  Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  £

  s.

  d.

  1

  Pay. etc., of the Royal Air Force.

  —

  6,974

  6

  5

  70,117

  8

  4

  —

  2

  Quartering Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport.

  —

  15,207

  9

  9

  134,420

  10

  9

  —

  3

  Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services).

  —

  16,741

  2

  6

  14,737

  17

  11

  —

  4

  Works. Buildings, and Lauds

  —

  4,718

  15

  5

  131,183

  12

  9

  —

  5

  Medical Services

  —

  —

  6,140

  0

  2

  2,661

  15

  9

  6

  Technical Training and Educational Services.

  —

  171

  3

  9

  4,650

  4

  0

  —

  7

  Auxiliary and Reserve Forces

  5,930

  9

  3

  31

  2

  9

  —

  —

  8

  Civil Aviation

  6,313

  9

  1

  —

  —

  17,008

  5

  11

  9

  Meteorological Services

  —

  528

  17

  0

  8,526

  19

  4

  —

  Miscellaneous Effective Services

  —

  —

  10,466

  10

  3

  413

  4

  8

  10

  Air Ministry

  —

  —

  6,421

  10

  4

  1,022

  1

  4

  11

  Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-effective Services.

  9,555

  9

  0

  —

  —

  1,300

  17

  6

  —

  Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.

  249

  12

  5

  —

  —

  —

  22,068

  19

  9

  44,372

  17

  7

  386,664

  13

  10

  22,406

  5

  2

  Total Deficits

  £66,441

  17

  4

  Total Surpluses

  £409,070

  19

  0

  Net Surplus £342,629 1 8

  IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 20 Order, 1934, dated the fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved."—[Dr. Burgin.]
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I thought the Minister would have given some explanation of this extraordinary proposal by the Government. This is a proposal to put a duty on artificial teeth. The Government, having been two or three years in power, are at long last beginning to get their teeth into things. But before we pass this Order I wish to know who made the demand to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for this duty? Further, I should like to know what is
  1754
  the total value of the trade, how many of these teeth are manufactured in this country and how many are imported from abroad. I am sure the House also wishes to know where they come from. It would be a terrible thing if all the Ministers on the Front Bench who have artificial teeth were found to be wearing teeth of foreign manufacture. I should like to know whether the dentists have applied for this duty or whether the application has come from the manufacturers of teeth. I imagine the trade in these teeth is very large. I should also like to know whether the dental council in connection with National Health Insurance benefit has had anything to say as to this duty. I understand that the duty will amount to about 1½d. per tooth. I think that teeth are bought by the gross from abroad, and are 4d. each. The hon. Gentleman will probably say that, as the duty will not be more than 1½d. per tooth, that is the amount which will be added to the price of these dentures but one has heard long ago in connection with these matters that an

  1755
  increase of 1d. on the price of an article at the source generally means an increase of perhaps 1s. or 2s. in the price of the article as sold at the counter. I think we are entitled to some information from the hon. Gentleman on the points I have raised before we allow this Motion to pass.
  8.23 p.m.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): There are some 30,000,000 artificial teeth per year used in this country, and of these 10,000,000 are manufactured at home and 20,000,000 are imported. The British industry is in a position to meet the whole of the requirements of modern dentistry and to supply all United Kingdom users with teeth of home manufacture. These teeth are not separately enumerated in the official trade returns. They come from the United States, Palestine, Germany, France and recently from Japan. The hon. Gentleman's inquiries were couched in rather general terms. He did not distinguish between "pin" teeth and of "diatoric" teeth and consequently he must expect my answers to be equally general. The highest duty payable on a single tooth is just under 1¼d. Under the National Health Insurance Dental Benefit Regulations the lowest price for an operation which involves the supply of a single tooth. is 5s., and I have the best grounds for thinking that the duty which could not in any circumstances amount to more than 1¼d. per tooth, will not increase the cost to the user by a single fraction. The home industry was
  1756
  penalised by the War because during the War the foreign industry in these articles was able to expand while we were busy making other fireclay products. The industry has therefore made this application, and I hope that the House will agree to it.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: When the Parliamentary Secretary says that the cost of teeth will not be increased, has he an agreement with the dentists to that effect?
  Dr. BURGIN: We are not discussing the dentists on this Order. The Committee which has looked into this matter and studied the figures state that in their opinion the increased duties will not affect the price paid by the public.
  Resolved,
  "That the Additional Import Duties (No. 25) Order, 1934, dated the fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said fifth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, be approved."
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  Resolved, "That this House do now Adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Seven Minutes after Eight o'Clock.

  HIS MAJESTY'S ACCESSION (25TH ANNIVERSARY).
  HIS MAJESTY'S ACCESSION (25TH ANNIVERSARY).
  KOREA (YALU RIVER BRIDGE).
  KOREA (YALU RIVER BRIDGE).
SCOTLAND.
  BRACKEN (INVESTIGATIONS).
  BRACKEN (INVESTIGATIONS).
  MILITARY PAGEANT.
  MILITARY PAGEANT.
NATIONAL FINANCE.
  BREWERS' LICENCE DUTY.
  BREWERS' LICENCE DUTY.
  LEGACY DUTY (CHARITABLE BEQUESTS).
  LEGACY DUTY (CHARITABLE BEQUESTS).
  CLUB DUTY.
  CLUB DUTY.
  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  BLANK CINEMATOGRAPH FILM (IMPORT).
  BLANK CINEMATOGRAPH FILM (IMPORT).
  OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS (IMPORT).
  OPTICAL INSTRUMENTS (IMPORT).
  WIRELESS EXCHANGES.
  WIRELESS EXCHANGES.
  IRISH FREE STATE.
  IRISH FREE STATE.
UNEMPLOYMENT.
  GILLINGHAM AND CHATHAM.
  GILLINGHAM AND CHATHAM.
  NAVAL DOCKYARD EMPLOYES, CHATHAM.
  NAVAL DOCKYARD EMPLOYES, CHATHAM.
  JUTE INDUSTRY.
  JUTE INDUSTRY.
  WOMEN PRISONERS.
  WOMEN PRISONERS.
  CAPTIVE WILD ANIMALS.
  CAPTIVE WILD ANIMALS.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION SUTTON ROAD BRIDGE) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES SCHEME (PENICUIK WATER) CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and (pursuant to the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

SHERIFFDOM OF PERTH AND ANGUS ORDER, 1934.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order reported on the 28th of June last be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Select Committee on the 28th of June last, be approved.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CLYDE VALLEY ELECTRICAL POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL, [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (CLACTON-ON-SEA AND SAINT MAWES) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Bill reported without amendment.
ROTHERHAM CORPORATION (TROL- LEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
NATIONAL MARITIME MUSEUM BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

GAME BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, the objects of the present Bill are sufficiently defined in the title—"an Act to consolidate and amend the enactments relating to game." These Game Laws have been enacted piecemeal until to-day they are to be found in Statutes some of which arts over one hundred and most of which over seventy years old, and some of them under headings so various as Customs and Inland Revenue Act, Wild Birds Protection Act, and the Protection of Animals Act. To-day, if you wish to discover the law relating to game, you have to turn backwards and forwards from section to section of a number of different Acts, and when this fails you must look at the Law Reports in which certain cases decided that the Acts meant something that they certainly do not say.
To give you one example of the doubts and difficulties with which the subject is fraught, I am informed on legal authority that it was not until the latest edition of Halsbury's Laws of England,
966
which is actually to be published in the present year, that it was discovered by the lawyers themselves that an Act passed as long ago as 1848—namely, the Hares Act—did not make the shooting of game by night illegal, while it took thirty years for the Courts to decide that the Ground Game Act of 1880, although it said that no person could shoot hares or rabbits by night, meant that although a non-occupying shooting tenant could shoot them by night he could not do so if he happened to live on the land over which he possessed the shooting rights. Accordingly the present Bill, which is the result of the deliberations of a committee of legal and sporting experts, containing several members of this House, who have been at work on the subject for more than two years, represents an attempt to produce order from chaos and to state in a readily accessible form what the law relating to game in this country really is.
This brings me to the second object referred to in the short title—namely, "to amend." It requires no elaboration to make it easily understood that when the law is derived from so many and such different Statutes discrepancies have crept in and obsolete measures have been perpetuated. I want to give a few examples of some of the absurdities which are the result of historical accidents. For instance, because the offence of night poaching was dealt with by an Act of 1828 and the offence of day poaching by an Act of 1831, a gamekeeper appointed by a non-occupying shooting tenant cannot arrest a poacher by night, though he can do so by day. It is thus possible to have the spectacle of a gamekeeper anxiously awaiting the hour before sunrise so that he may arrest a poacher who is stealing his master's game. If he does so he gains another advantage, for a day poacher upon conviction forfeits his licence to kill game or carry a gun, whereas a night poacher, although a more serious offender, does not. Rights are given to gamekeepers by an Act of 1831 and to policemen by an Act of 1862. The gamekeepers can arrest but cannot search day poachers when they are on private land, while policemen cannot arrest but can search day poachers when they are on the highway. The gamekeeper can ask for the poacher's name and address while the policeman cannot.
Other absurdities have arisen owing to the growth of progress. Thus, when the

967
Game Act of 1831 was passed there were stage-coaches, but there was no cold storage. Accordingly, although there are elaborate provisions to ensure that guards and drivers of stage-coaches shall not be entitled to become game dealers, no provision exists for the legalisation of keeping birds in cold storage for consumption in the close season. Take another point: If one were asked to define the word "game" to-day one would be at a complete loss. Snipe and woodcock are game for the purposes of the Poaching Prevention Act and for the purposes of the Revenue law, but not game for the purposes of the Game Act. Rabbits are game only for the purposes of the Poaching Prevention Act and under the name of conies for the Revenue law.
From that muddle as to the definition of game there arise a great many anomalies. Suppose an intruder comes on to land to shoot snipe or woodcock, he cannot be arrested or given into custody by the owner or occupier of the land or his servant. He probably cannot even be turned off the land by the non-occupying shooting tenant or by his gamekeeper; but if, after poaching for snipe or woodcock, he ventures on to the highway a policeman, but no one else, may search him but may not arrest him, may confiscate his poached birds and his gun but may not demand his name and address. Take, again, rabbits. Gamekeepers can arrest poachers whilst stealing rabbits but cannot confiscate the rabbits. Policemen, when the poacher comes on to the highway, can confiscate the rabbits but cannot arrest the poacher. If the poacher is arrested by the gamekeeper the fine is £2 and if he is summoned by the policeman the fine is £5. Finally, take the case of the contentious policeman who sees a poacher actually poaching game within a yard of the highway. He can do one of two things; either he can go and find the owner of the shooting rights and get his permission to enter the land and arrest the poacher, by which time the poacher would probably have got away, or he can wait patiently until the poacher comes on to the highway, in which case the poacher is likely to take another way home.
These examples are probably sufficient to show the urgent need for some measure of amendment, though it is important
968
to bear in mind that not only are important rights of property affected, but also the incidence of fines and imprisonment depend upon technical absurdities of this kind. There is another strong reason for revision. In the days when the Game Laws were passed the game was, as a rule, shot by the great landlords upon their own land. The syndicate sportsman was practically unknown. To-day shooting has become a much more democratic sport. The country solicitor, the estate agent and the small business man from the town, have taken the place of the great landlords and they join syndicates for shooting other people's land, bringing a new source of income from the towns to the countryside. Rough shoots over farms are taken by all kinds and descriptions of people. I am informed that they are taken by unemployed miners in Wales and by clerks in City offices. Each of these adds something to the farmer's income, while the tremendous growth of the practice of shooting driven birds has caused the expenditure by shooting men and the receipt by a variety of members of the rural population of considerable sums for beaters' pay.
Just as the Game Laws failed to protect the new sportsmen they may also fail to punish the new poacher. Of recent years there has arisen a very real menace to the game population of the country. I suppose there is a certain amount of secret sympathy from a good many people for the bona fide poacher, the poor man who, in order to give his family supper, kills a few rabbits, but no one will sympathise at all with the man who can afford an expensive motor car and gun, and who goes out from the town to fill his bag at someone else's expense. The ordinary old-fashioned poacher may have been a naturalist and a sportsman—I dare say he very often was—but his modern counterpart is really a mean and rather despicable thief. This is a form of offence which is increasing at an alarming rate and under the present law the difficulties of catching offenders who work in gangs large enough to overcome the local keepers are well nigh insuperable.
Before embarking on an account of what the Bill is intended to do I should like to make clear what it is not intended to do. In the first place, there is nothing in the Bill which will affect the revenue

969
from gaming licences and so on. As a consequence of its passing into law not a single penny less will be taken by the revenue, nor will the procedure as to gaining licences be changed in any way. In the second place there are various provisions as to game which have been considered to be framed more for the purpose of protecting the farmer than for the benefit of the sportsman. The Ground Game Acts are left unaltered by this Bill altogether. A noble Lord, a. member of this House, who says he is interested in the Bill, has sent me various conundrums. I will only give one of them. It is: Whose property is a hare caught in a lawn tennis net on tae village recreation ground? This Bill does not intend to deal with questions like that. The Bill does not apply to Scotland or to Northern Ireland. The Parliament of Northern Ireland has been more enterprising than the Parliament in England and has already brought its Game Laws up to date. As your Lordships will see, the present Bill has made use of the experience of Northern Ireland and there have been inserted in it one or two provisions which are now law in that country. In Scotland, on the other hand, the Game Laws are different from those in England and it is impossible to incorporate provisions for both countries in the same Act. Accordingly, the question of the Scottish Game Laws has been considered outside the scope of this Bill and will require a special Bill of its own. Certainly I should not be responsible for introducing any such Bill myself.
So much for what the Bill does not do. Now, as to what it does. In the main this can be most conveniently dealt with by passing quickly through the various parts of the Bill itself, but it may be useful to start with an explanation of the chief amendments which are affected. The first purpose of the Bill is to provide a uniform definition of "game" which, under the Bill, will include hares, pheasants, partridges, grouse, black game (which are already treated as game in all present enactments) and ptarmigan, capercailzie, woodcock, snipe and wild duck, of which woodcock and snipe are already game for the purposes of revenue licences and the Poaching Prevention Act, while the others mentioned are not at present game at all. The second pur-
970
pose of the Bill, which is a corollary of the first, is to remove woodcock, snipe and wild duck from the scope of the Wild Birds Protection Acts and to bring them under the uniform protection of the Game Laws. The protection afforded to these birds under the present Bill is in no way less than that which they at present enjoy, but such protection is more uniform. At present under the Wild Birds Protection Act each county council makes its own close time for killing these birds. Thus, it is possible to shoot woodcock in West Suffolk in the month of February while, if the same bird crosses the boundary into Norfolk, to kill it then becomes a crime.
To give one more example of the same sort of anomaly, there is a landowner who has land that falls within no less than four adjacent county divisions—namely, Lincolnshire, Huntingdonshire, Northamptonshire and the Soke of Peterborough. If he shoots wild duck on March 1 it is illegal in Lincolnshire but nowhere else. If he shoots it on March 2 it is illegal in Lincolnshire, Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire but legal in the Soke of Peterborough. If he shoots it on August 15 it is illegal everywhere but in Northamptonshire, while on August 16 it becomes legal in Lincolnshire as well. Not until September 1 is it legal on the whole of his property. Surely that must show the absurdity of the present state of things.
I want to say a special word about wild duck being brought within the protection of the Game Laws. At the present day wildfowling on the tidal flats and estuaries is the livelihood of many wild-fowlers, and there and elsewhere it is the sport of a very large number of poor men. To shoot wild duck no game licence is at present needed and care has been taken throughout the present Bill to enact no measure which will restrict or add to the cost of the poor man's sport. For this reason, at the instance of the Wild-fowlers' Association, who have cooperated in the making of this Bill and approve of its provisions, wild duck, although given the protection of the Bill, are not subject to a close time on Sundays, nor is there any necessity in the Bill for obtaining a game licence for shooting these birds.
The third main amendment is to produce uniformity of the law relating to

971
poaching To-day the historical anomalies as to right of arrest, which were always accidental rather than intentional, have taken on a new seriousness when faced with the menace of a poaching gang with a high-powered car. At present these anomalies exist both as to the powers of arrest of gamekeepers, which I have already mentioned, and the powers of arrest of police constables, who at present, if they find a poacher actually at work in the day time, cannot safely enter upon the land and apprehend him but must go and obtain permission from the shooting tenant, or must wait until the poacher returns to a public highway, which the poacher probably takes very good care not to do.
The fourth main amendment is to apply to England a provision which has been already successfully applied in Northern Ireland—namely, to require dealers in game to keep a register of their purchases. This measure, which has caused no difficulty to retailers in Ireland, where it is in fact a much more onerous measure since they are there required to keep a register also of sales—this will not be required by the present Bill—has been found necessary owing to the growth of the offence of poaching by motor car. Ninety-nine per cent. of the game dealers of this country are scrupulously honest men and it is believed that there will be no opposition from that quarter. But it is the odd one per cent, which has made possible the wholesale slaughter of game by organised gangs of motor poachers, and this weakness in the present law it is one of the objects of this Bill to cure.
As to the provisions of the Bill itself, the Bill repeals the Acts of Parliament set out in the Second Schedule. Part I deals with close days and seasons and the chief effect of this Part of the Bill is to take snipe, woodcock and wild duck out of the scope of the Wild Birds Protection Act, under which Act the close season for these birds varies from county to county, and to place them all under the protection of the Game Laws with the close seasons that are set out in the First Schedule to the Bill which also makes an alteration as to the close times for game. The close times are lessened in the case of grouse, because experience has shown that it would be to the advantage of the grouse stock for keepers to have this additional time in order to kill off cock grouse. In other cases the
972
close season has been extended where any alteration has been made, so that these birds will enjoy a longer time of preservation under this Bill than they do under the present laws. The eggs of the birds I have mentioned also cease to be protected by the Wild Birds Protection Act, but receive instead the protection granted under the poaching section of this Bill. The second Amendment contained in this Part of the Bill is to impose a penalty on unsuccessful poachers and persons attempting to kill game during the close season. Under the present law a person cannot be proceeded against for killing game in the close season unless he can be proved actually to have killed. It is no offence to shoot at a bird and miss it.
Part II of the Bill deals with the right to kill game. The present law is reproduced with an alteration in the order of the sections but with no other alteration; the right to kill game being dependent on the possession of sporting rights and of a game licence, which, however, is not required for the birds which have been added to the definition of game by the present Bill, so that wild-fowlers and others will not suffer in this respect. Part III deals with gamekeepers and reproduces the present law in its entirety. Part IV deals with game dealers and reproduces the whole of the present law. It contains, however, one major and one minor amendment. The major amendment is a provision for the keeping by a dealer in game of a register of all his purchases, which shall be open to inspection by the police. This measure has been taken from the Game Preservation Act of Northern Ireland where it has been found to work successfully and to be of use in the prevention of poaching. Unlike the Irish measure, however, this Bill does not make it necessary for a game dealer to keep a register of sales. The minor amendment provides that birds kept in cold storage and killed during the lawful season may be sold during the close season.
Part V deals with poaching. This Part of the Bill is designed to produce uniformity in the law relating to the prevention of poaching and kindred offences. As has been already mentioned, woodcock, snipe and wild duck have been added to the number of birds enjoying

973
the protection of the Game Laws, inducting that portion of them which deals with poaching;, but this is not a very serious alteration as it is already possible for a police constable to stop and arrest a person who is in unlawful possession of snipe or woodcock, and for such person to be convicted. Thus, under the present state of the law a policeman can, while a gamekeeper cannot, arrest a poacher for poaching woodcock or snipe. Under the Bill this anomaly will be done away with. The stealing of game eggs, which at present for no logical reason is subject only to a special minor penalty under a section of its own, is, under this Bill, grouped with ordinary poaching of game and is subject to the same penalties. At present the position is that a person stealing game eggs, although guilty of an offence, cannot be arrested by a gamekeeper, but if he returns to the highway, after stealing the eggs, he may be searched by a police constable.
The right of arrest of night poachers has now been extended to the servants or gamekeepers of shooting tenants. This is an important and necessary amendment, to the need for which many country benches have drawn attention. The right of search of suspected poachers granted to police constables in the Northern Ireland Game Preservation Act is now extended to this country, where it replaces the corresponding provisions in the Poaching Prevention Act, 1862. When the Act was framed the man to be protected was the lord of the manor and the great landowner. Nowadays it is the new type of syndicate shooter who is mainly affected by the Game Laws. The object of these alterations is to correct the anomalies and absurdities to which I have already alluded.
Finally, the Bill brings some uniformity into the fines inflicted, providing that in all cases the fine upon second and subsequent offences shall be greater than the fine upon the first offence. It further provides that upon a second conviction the court shall be entitled to disqualify the offender from holding a game licence for five years. In no case does the Bill increase the penalty for a first offence. With regard to hares, no alteration has been made in the present law. With regard to legal proceedings, which are dealt with in Part VII, the only altera-
974
tion made in this Part of the Bill is that the period during which proceedings must be commenced has been reduced in all cases to four months for the sake of uniformity. Then there is Part VIII, which is headed "Miscellaneous." This Part of the Bill clears up various minor points. It provides for the new definition of game to include ptarmigan, capercailzie, woodcock, snipe and wild duck, but provides that no alteration shall be made as to the requirement of a licence to kill game or a licence to deal in game in connection with any of these new classes of birds so added.
Those are the main provisions of the Bill. As your Lordships will see, it is on a fairly ambitious scale, but I think I may claim that it endeavours to carry out a reform which is very badly needed. I am not sanguine enough to think that a Bill so long and of such magnitude as this is likely to pass into law during the present Session, but I venture to ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading to-day, chiefly in order that it may arouse comment from those who are interested in the subject in various parts of the country, and that, although it will not be possible to pass it into law this Session, in another Session, either here or in another place, it may be possible to introduce fresh legislation dealing with the most urgent parts of the subject, with good hope that the common sense of the country will insist on its being passed into law.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Bayford.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene in this debate, but really so many points which are hopelessly obsolete are still included in Bills of this sort that I think it worth while making a very brief protest. The obsolete methods of dealing with trespassers, people who are suspected of having poached game, and so on, are something like three centuries out of date. It is really absurd to include in a consolidating measure of this character penalties and a point of view of that type. We are still, in country districts—and I have in mind certain definite cases—getting people found guilty of poaching as a first offence and sending them to prison for four or five or six weeks. That sort of thing is quite intolerable. It arises from the fact that certain magis-

975
trates think that the preservation of game is more important than the preservation of human rights. Therefore I feel that it is necessary to enter a protest against the continuance in Acts of this sort of that point of view with regard to the importance of game.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: My Lords, we have listened with great attention to the observations—I can hardly call it a speech—which have been read to us by the noble Lord, Lord Bayford. I can assure him that it is extremely difficult to follow them. His Bill is certainly a very complicated Bill. May I suggest that when he introduces it in a future Session he should preface it with an explanatory Memorandum, which would help us very much? His chances of passing a Bill of this kind are, I am afraid, not very bright. If he had confined himself to the consolidation of the law, I think there would not have been very much difficulty about it, but when he introduces fresh law with relation to game and the offences of poaching and so on, he raises a great number of very contentious questions which may occupy the time of your Lordships and another place for a very long period. At any rate, in order to enable members of this House and the other House, and the public, to understand what the contents of the Bill are, I hope that he will see his way to give us a brief but clear statement of the main changes which are included in his Bill.
THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM: My Lords, I wish to express to the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill my regret that it has been impossible in the time available for the Department which I represent to give to the Bill the attention which it requires and deserves. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, copies of the Bill became available only on Friday last, and the Bill, which contains fifty-five clauses, covers so wide a field that detailed examination and consideration of its provisions have proved impossible in the time. I would submit to your Lordships that the Bill before your Lordships' House contains objectionable features, inasmuch as it is not only a consolidating Bill but is also an amending Bill. It will, I think, be agreed that it is at the moment extremely difficult for this House properly to discuss a Bill of this length in which new provisions are
976
intermingled with provisions which merely consolidate the existing law.
No doubt the noble Lord who has introduced this Bill is aware that the subject of wild birds protection has received great attention, and the Home Office, in dealing with this question, is assisted by the Wild Birds Advisory Committee, a Committee over which Viscount Grey of Fallodon presided for many years. Certain proposals in the Bill are, so far as the Home Office knows, novel proposals, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, before coming to any conclusion on the proposals made in the Bill, thinks it only right that this Committee should be given an opportunity of considering this matter. In view of these considerations, and in view also of the assurance which the noble Lord who introduced the Bill has given me that he will not take the Bill to a further stage without giving the Home Office ample opportunity and sufficient time to consider its important amendments of the law, your Lordships will appreciate that it would be improper and in fact unnecessary for me to make a long or more substantial statement at this stage.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

COUNTY COURTS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, in moving that the Amendments proposed by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills be made, I need only detain you for a minute or two. I would explain that the object of this Bill is merely to consolidate a number of Acts that apply to County Courts. The Bill has already received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House, and has been before the Consolidation Committee, and the Consolid

977
tion Committee have recommended a number of Amendments, the first of which is in Clause 37. In addition to that the Bill has received very careful scrutiny I think from Lord Bertie, who has found two printing mistakes, which will as such be put right, but it might save your Lordships' time if I simply moved that the Amendments proposed to be made by the Joint Select Committee be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills be made.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the Amendments made accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, that Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with, in order that this Bill, which is a purely formal Bill, may be passed through its remaining stages to-day. It will then be received in another place, and we shall be able to get this Consolidation Bill before we rise at the end of the present month. It is very important that that should be done, because at the present moment the County Court jurisdiction is contained in about twenty different Acts. It is desirable that it should all be consolidated, and the County Court jurisdiction be contained in one Act. There is no new legislation here, but we are simply taking the various clauses out of various Acts and putting them into one Act. The last County Court Act was in 1888, and since then a number of different Acts have been passed amending it in various ways, and the time has come when County Court jurisdiction ought to be put into one Act. We are anxious that this should be done at once, because it affects a very large number of our fellow-countrymen. Your Lordships may be interested to know that the number of County Court cases last year was over 33,000. It is important that the matter should be put right so that people may be able to find out what is the law.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of the Bill.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Amendments reported.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read 3a.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THIS EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as I was unable to be present on the Second Reading I hope your Lordships will excuse a very brief intervention. We law reformers welcome very heartily this consolidation of the law in relation to County Courts, on account of the advantages which it brings to the litigants and to the lawyers, and we are in favour of the codification and tightening up of the English law. Of course we do not expect complete reform at once, but at the same time a Consolidation Bill is a milestone on the road towards legal reform, and it measures the distance that has been traversed as well as the distance that yet lies ahead of us before we reach our goal. I would like especially to congratulate the Government on two important reforms which the Bill contains—namely, the extension of the jurisdiction of the registrar from £5 to £10, and the abolition of certain appeals which will make the cost of litigation much less than it used to be. At the same time we hope that, the law having been codified on this subject, the way will now be open for a more far-reaching reform, and in particular for a gradual extension of the jurisdiction of the County Courts. We would humbly suggest that this process, if gradual, would not be one that would be either costly to the country or injurious to English law. The jurisdiction might possibly be raised to the small sum of £300 without either dislocating the other business in our County Courts or making the extra cost which the State has to bear quite exorbitant. We make this suggestion in all humility because we hope that the Government, having gone as far as it has gone, will now be able to consider the extremely important problem of raising the present limits which are attached to the jurisdiction of the County Courts.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for what he has said. I think the House is indebted to him and to the

979
other members who sat on the Consolidation Committee. There is only one small point. The Bill, as I have said, does not make any change at all in the law, but it consolidates two Acts recently passed which do make a change—namely, that which raises the jurisdiction of the registrar from £5 to £10, and also the Act which deals with certain rights of appeal. This Bill does not make any change itself, but it does include those two Acts.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

DINDINGS AGREEMENT (APPROVAL) BILL, [H.L.]
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
BRITISH SUGAR (SUBSIDY) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

MILK BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 8:
Provisions as to revocation of schemes.
"(2) Where a administered by sums have become, or are to be deemed to have become, payable under the foregoing provisions of this Act is revoked by order of the Minister under paragraph 2 of Part II of the First Schedule to the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, then, for the purpose of the winding up of the board, the amount of the said sums (less the amount of any sums which, immediately before the revocation takes effect, have been, or are to be deemed to have been, paid under the said provisions by the board to the Minister) shall be deemed to be a debt due from the board to the Crown and provable by the Minister; and if, within one month from the date on which the revocation takes effect, the Minister publishes in the Gazette a notice stating that, by reason that proceedings are pending or for any other reason, the amount of the sums payable under the foregoing provisions of this Act to the board has not been ascertained, no distribution of the assets of the board shall be made in the winding up until the said amount has been ascertained."
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EAEL DE LA WARR)THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EAEL DE LA WARR) moved, in subsection (2), after "revoked," to insert "before the beginning of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really quite a small Amendment, introduced in response to a point that has been raised. At present it is quite clear under the Bill that, unless the cheese price of milk rises above sixpence in the summer or sevenpence in the winter, there is no liability on the Milk Board to repay the advance. That is perfectly clear, providing the Milk Board continue in existence. But what appears on a further examination of the Bill is that if, say in 1940 or later, the Milk Marketing Scheme were to be revoked and the Milk Board to wind up its affairs, then there might lie on them a liability for repaying this advance—a liability which would not rest with them if they were continuing. That was not the intention of the Government in putting this Bill before Parliament, and this Amendment will clear the matter up.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 23, afer ("revoked") insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 1:
General speed limit of thirty miles per hour in built-up areas.
1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any person to drive a motor vehicle on a road in a built-up area at a speed exceeding thirty miles per hour.
For the purposes of this section a length of road shall be deemed to be a road in a built-up area—

(a) if a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than two hundred yards apart is provided thereon, unless a direction that it shall be deemed not to be a road in a built-up area is in force under this section; or

(b) if a direction that it shall be deemed to be a road in a built-up area is in force under this section;

and not otherwise.
(2) If any person acts in contravention of the foregoing subsection he shall be deemed

981
to be guilty of an offence under Section ten of the Road Traffic Act, 1930 (in this Act referred to as the principal Act).
(7) It shall be the duty of the local authority—
(a) to erect and maintain the prescribed traffic signs in such positions as may be requisite in order to give effect to general or other directions given by the Minister for the purpose of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to the places where a length of road begins, and ceases, to be a road in a built-up area, or as to a direction being in force as respects a length of road that it shall be deemed to be, or not to be, a road in a built-up area; and
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, the first Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("section") and insert ("Act").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved to insert in subsection (1):
"Provided that a road laid out as a bypass road for the purpose of enabling through traffic to avoid a town or village and constructed with the aid of a grant from the Road Fund shall not be deemed to be a road in a built-up area."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was put down for the Committee stage, and, in response to the request of Lord Howe, the noble Earl promised to see if he could give us further information at a later stage about ribbon development of the roads. In consideration of that promise I withdrew my Amendment, which would have made it necessary for the Minister definitely to schedule every by-pass road as being a limited area, and not to have it in the Schedule if he did not want it to be a limited area. Personally I am still of opinion that where roads have been built expressly for the purpose of clearing traffic out of populated areas and getting it away quickly, it is most important that the traffic should be encouraged to use those roads, and not discouraged. It must be remembered that in almost every case the by-pass road is definitely the longer way round, in some cases very much the longer way round; and if there is going to be no advantage in point of
982
time people certainly are not going to pay the additional cost of wear and tear on tyres and the consumption of petrol and oil in going round, when they can go straight across and save that money. If we do not have some necessity for the local authorities to produce reasons why that road should be made a speed-limited area, the danger is that they will not produce equal reasons why it should not, and that what are really essentially motorists' roads will be taken away from the use of motorists, simply because no provision has been made to ensure that they are kept open if it is possible to do so.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 24, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Sandhurst.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, as I imagined, this Amendment has been put down as the result of something I said during the Committee stage as to whether I might be in a position to furnish some further information with regard to this matter of ribbon development. I must first refer to the other aspect of the noble Lord's Amendment, and that is the administrative aspect pure and simple, divorced entirely from the question of the disadvantages of ribbon development. From the administrative point of view I think the Amendment is not really a practicable one. Unfortunately, there are already a number of by-pass roads that have, in respect of certain parts of them at any rate, been built up, and therefore I do not think it is possible at this stage to give a definite direction to the effect that all by-pass roads should not be deemed roads in a built-up area.
In regard to the policy of the Government towards ribbon development, I need hardly repeat what I said during the Committee stage, that the Government are in entire sympathy with the motives which have led various noble Lords to refer to this matter. Quite a short time ago The Times gave prominence to an article on ribbon building from the pen of the Wardens of New College, Oxford, and Magdalene College, Cambridge. There is one point that ought not to be lost sight of altogether, and that is that we are happily not in these days reproducing the grave peril to child life of the cottage with the doorway opening directly on to the carriageway; but

983
ribbon development, in so far as it tends to reduce available road space, because private cars and tradesmen's vans stand on the highway outside the ribbon buildings, has a bearing on the general question of safety on the roads. The objection to ribbon development on grounds of amenity is one which is brought home to every lover of the beauty of the countryside, as well as to every user of the roads; and the question is as much, if not more, a question of town and country planning as a highway question. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Transport fully recognise the importance of action, and of joint action, in this matter, and are in close consultation in considering this question from its practicable aspects and in searching for a remedy which may be effective: but I am afraid I am not in a position at this stage to forecast the nature of the conclusion they may reach, and still less to give any indication of possible proposals for legislation which may ensue. The House may be assured that the matter is one the importance of which is fully appreciated by His Majesty's Government, and that they are as desirous as the movers of the Amendment to take all practicable steps which may be possible to preserve the amenities of the highways of this country, but I am afraid I am not able to accept the Amendment as it stands.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, this point is one which I referred to on the former stages of the Bill. If as a result of the passing of this Bill most of these new arterial roads become limited roads for the purposes of the Bill you are certainly going very largely to detract from the usefulness of these roads. Enormous sums of money, running into many millions of pounds, have been spent on them. That has been justified in the past by the Government by the fact that we must do everything in these times of different sorts of traffic to try to get it away from crowded areas. If you have limits on many of these roads, I cannot think how you are going to get traffic along them. As it is, some of the newer arterial roads are hopelessly crowded at certain times, and many of the arterial roads have been built with very insufficient breadth, that is to say, they are only thirty-foot roads and will only take at the most three lines of traffic. That produces a danger of its own, because it means that the overtaking
984
traffic in both directions is liable to meet, and the result is a danger of head-on collisions. It may be said by your Lordships that that is perhaps all the more reason for having these roads as a speed-limit area. There are many who foresee that as years go on, unless the development of arterial roads keeps pace with the necessities of the travelling public, the traffic congestion is going to be far worse than ever before. I submit that a study of the traffic returns and road casualties will show that the congested areas are amongst the most dangerous.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No.
EARL HOWE: Yes. I have here a map published by the Safety First Council, which gives the distribution of traffic casualties, and it can be seen from it that the chief traffic casualties are where there is most congestion. The Safety First Council have paid great attention to this matter. I have the map here, and it is actually coloured and is capable of being seen from a distance, although I do not know whether your Lordships are able to see it clearly as I hold it in my hand. This is London, here is Birmingham, and here is Manchester. The map indicates where traffic is at its worst and where the most danger comes. I submit that this matter of ribbon development and the matter of the development of arterial roads are of first-class importance. I hope that the Government will go into the question of limits on these main arterial roads and also on the by-pass roads, because if we do not we are largely in danger of stultifying the enormous amount of money which has been laid out on them.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DE CLIFFORD LORD DE CLIFFORD moved to insert in subsection (2):
"Provided that a person shall not be deemed to have acted during the hours of darkness in contravention of the foregoing subsection if he proves that the lamps by which a system of street lighting is furnished wore not alight at the time when the offence is alleged to have been committed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment which I have put on the Paper has arisen since your Lordships put into the Bill a provision that the speed limit shall be in force throughout the twenty-four hours. The thirty miles an hour speed limit in built-up areas is to be indicated by a system of street light-

985
ing furnished by means of lamps. There are many towns in the country where it is customary at certain times of the year never to light the lamps at all. There are other towns in the North where, during the summer months, the lamps are removed from the posts. There are many towns, and big towns too, where every night at midnight lamps are extinguished. Since the noble Earl resisted the Amendment as to the direction that lights showing where the thirty miles an hour limit came into force should be mandatory on the Minister, I think this Amendment is definitely necessary. We know the spirit in which the House passes certain legislation, but, when it comes down to technicalities and the consideration of these Acts by learned Judges and magistrates, it might be possible for a man who is convicted of exceeding the speed limit in daylight hours to go back to that place in the dark and find the lamps have not been lit and to argue that he cannot be guilty of an offence because the system of lighting does not exist and therefore the thirty miles an hour limit, cannot be in existence at this place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, at end insert the said new proviso.—(Lord de Clifford.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this Amendment, in effect, says that where the lamps by which the system of street lighting is furnished are not alight at the time then that road ceases to be in a built-up area, and motors travelling along it cease to be subject to the speed limit. I agree with the noble Lord who has moved the Amendment that there are quite a number of places all over the country but, as he says, mainly in the North of England, where street lamps are put out at eleven o'clock, midnight, or one o'clock in the morning, and I might mention parenthetically that this was in fact one of the considerations which weighed with the Minister of Transport when he accepted in another place the Amendment which would have lifted the restriction during the period from midnight to 5 a.m. Another consideration in. the mind of the Minister was that at that stage of the Bill he contemplated that the lighted lamps themselves might be the only signs of warning to the driver; but the Bill has since been amended so as to secure the general provision of adequate illuminated signs for
986
the guidance of drivers in all restricted areas whether there are lamp posts or not. During the Committee stage your Lordships' House decided to require that the speed limit should be in operation for the whole of the twenty-four hours, and therefore to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord who sits behind me would be completely at variance with that decision so recently taken by your Lordships.
At the same time I want to say I fully appreciate the difficulty which the noble Lord has in mind, and the Government are grateful to the noble Lord for drawing attention to the necessity of ensuring that the decision of this House shall not run the risk of being rendered inoperative by any doubt as to whether there is a system of street lighting within the meaning of the Act when these lamps are not actually lit. The Government will take an early opportunity of drawing the attention of the local authorities to the point which the noble Lord has raised, and will point out that in cases when lamps are at times left unlit during hours of darkness they should consider the question of adopting the procedure of "direction" under subsection (4) of this clause to cover those periods during which it may be held that a system of street lighting is not provided. In view of what I have said I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next is a consequential Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("section") to end of line 10.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EAEL OF PLYMOUTH: The next two Amendments are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 3, line 10, after ("or") insert ("ought not")
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("an order giving a direction") and insert ("a direction given by an order").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (7) (a), to leave out "or" ["or as to a direction"] and insert "and by means

987
of such traffic signs placed not more than two hundred yards apart." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down because the discussion on the Committee stage was somewhat nebulous and not quite clear. On the Committee stage the noble Earl replying for the Government said the effect of this Amendment would be to require thirty-miles-an-hour signs to be placed every 200 yards along such streets as the Strand, High Street, Hammersmith, and any other street you like to mention, and at a later stage he said:
"There are cases in which it would be of practical assistance to the motorist that such road signals should be erected, and this question is now under discussion with the motoring organisations concerned."
He appealed to me not to press my Amendment, to which I agreed, but I asked whether it would be possible for him to tell your Lordships anything more on this particular point at a later stage of the Bill. The noble Earl then replied:
"I am afraid I cannot say as to that, but I will make inquiries and find out."
There is going to be a real difficulty for the motorist who desires to observe the law under this Bill in some places. Unless you can ensure that there will be a sufficient number of road signs it really will be an absolute impossibility under certain conditions for drivers to know when they are in a limited area and when they are not.
Some areas that have lamp-posts look like limited areas, but will be derestricted, and it is important that the derestricted areas should be known. It is also important that the restricted areas should be known. I would also remind your Lordships of the fact that this Bill brings within its ambit men who are earning their livelihood, and of the very serious results to them of offences committed under this Bill. Therefore, I do hope that the noble Earl will be able to-day to give us some sort of assurance on this point. We are not asking for a very great expenditure of money necessarily, but are merely asking for a declaration on the part of the Government with regard to repeat signs. It may be that the lamp-posts in the area will be painted with a red band on them or in whatever other way that the Minister of Transport may like to distinguish them, or it may be that signs of a more
988
permanent character will be erected in other areas. Whichever way it is, I feel that we ought to give the driver of a motor vehicle a real chance to know whether or not he is in a limited area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, leave out ("or") and insert ("and by means of such traffic signs placed not more than two hundred yards apart").—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I think the noble Earl knows that the Minister has already indicated to the representative organisations concerned that it is his intention, when a road is restricted or derestricted under the provisions of subsection (4) of this clause, that drivers shall be adequately informed of the fact, and the direction of subsection (7) (a) clearly requires the Minister to take the necessary steps for this purpose. I want to emphasise one aspect of the situation as far as this point is concerned. It is that it is the intention of the Minister to bring into full consultation the motoring associations who are so closely concerned with this point and naturally the local authority associations as well. As a matter of fact, he has already had some preliminary consultations with these associations, and he will undoubtedly consult further with them before giving the general directions contemplated by subsection (7) (a) of this clause.
But I do suggest to the House that it is highly undesirable to provide in the Bill itself for the exact intervals at which signs should be erected. To take one objection to the noble Earl's suggestion, in some cases it would be necessary under his proposals to erect signs at intervals of a few yards—that is in a case which might quite often occur of an important side road entering the restricted road at a point which was just over 200 yards from a speed-limit sign. Therefore I do suggest that it is undesirable to lay down specific regulations with regard to this matter. I would like to emphasise again that in so far as this point is concerned, as in many other respects in connection with the Bill, the Government confidently look to the co-operation of the motoring associations in framing the details of the scheme in a reasonable and practicable manner, and with that assurance I very much hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.
EARL HOWE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, leave out from ("illumination") to ("of") in line 6.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4:
Penalty for reckless or dangerous driving.
4. Two years shall be substituted for six months as the maximum term of imprisonment to which a person shall be liable on conviction on indictment for an offence under Section eleven of the principal Act (which relates to reckless or dangerous driving).
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved to add to the clause "or for an offence under Section 15 of the principal Act (which relates to driving motor vehicles when under influence of drink or drugs)." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, surely, it is a very serious offence for a person to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of drink or drugs. The penalty at present on summary conviction is, I think, four months and, on a second conviction, six months. I think it might well be made two years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 12, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the penalty for dangerous driving was increased by an Amendment inserted by your Lordships in Committee, and the point of that is that Clause 33 links together the charges of manslaughter and dangerous driving and allows a verdict of dangerous driving to be returned on an indictment for manslaughter. I cannot see that there really is any analogy between the two cases, that which the noble Viscount has raised on this Amendment and that which was dealt with in Committee, and I do not think that he has made out a case for increasing the penalty in this case where the element of dangerous driving does not occur. I would like to inform the noble Viscount, as he probably knows perfectly well, that drunkenness is no defence to a charge of dangerous driving. I hope he will not press his Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:
".A person who is convicted of an offence under subsection (4) of Section seven of the principal Act (which relates to driving a motor vehicle whilst disqualified for so doing) shall in addition to or in substitution for the penalties therein provided be liable to such further period of disqualification as the court shall order."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the purpose of a penalty in an act of Parliament is that it shall act as a deterrent, and I do not think a person who drives a motor car whilst he is disqualified from so doing can be liable to a greater deterrent than a further period of disqualification. I noticed that some time ago at the Faringdon Petty Sessions a man was charged and found guilty of driving a motor vehicle while disqualified, and the Chairman said:
"We take a serious view of the offence and we are very sorry we cannot make your disqualification extend over a period of years. Such people as you are a danger to the public using the highway."
It is true that the people who drive while they are disqualified are liable to a term of imprisonment, but your Lordships know that magistrates are very loath to inflict imprisonment on anybody. I hope after what I have said, that my noble friend in charge of the Bill will see his way to accept this Amendment, which I consider a very reasonable one.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount must have put this Amendment down under a misapprehension. I am advised that it is perfectly within the powers of magistrates now in a case such as he cited to disqualify from driving for a further period. I am informed that under Section 6 (1) (a) of the principal Act, on a conviction under Section 74, the court has already the power to disqualify the offender for such period as the court thinks fit. Therefore the Amendment appears to be quite unnecessary, and I hope the noble Viscount will not press it.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I certainly shall not press the Amendment at the present time, but I should like to have the opportunity of

991
checking what the noble Viscount has said, although I do not disbelieve him.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5:
Exceeding speed limits and careless driving (endorsement of licence and disqualification).
5.—(1) The court before which a person is convicted of driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under any enactment, or of an offence under Section twelve of the principal Act (which relates to careless driving), shall order particulars of the conviction to be endorsed on any licence to drive a motor vehicle granted under Part I of the principal Act held by the person convicted.
(3) The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (5) of Section eight of the principal Act:—
"(5) Where an order has been made in respect of a person under this Part of this Act, or the corresponding provisions of any Act repealed by this Act, requiring the endorsement of any licence held by him, he shall be entitled, either on applying for the grant of a licence under this Part of this Act or subject to a payment of a fee of five shillings and subject to surrender of any subsisting licence on application at any time, to have issued to him a new licence free from endorsements—
(a) if he has, during a continuous period of three years or upwards since the order was made, had no such order made against him, or no such order other than an order made more than one year before the date of his application, and by reason only of a conviction for the offence of driving a motor vehicle at a speed exceeding a speed limit; or
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE moved, in subsection (1), after "shall," to insert "unless for any special reason the court thinks fit to order otherwise." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment raises the question which I brought forward in Committee of the possible hardship to the driver if his licence is endorsed on account of a mere technical offence in exceeding the speed limit. I am very grateful to the noble Earl in charge of the Bill for having reconsidered this matter and communicated with me. I hope that this method of making a mitigation in that severity may meet with the approval of the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, after ("shall") insert ("unless for any special reason the court
992
thinks fit to order otherwise.")—(Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.)
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I feel that I must say one word in addition to what has been said, because I think that possibly the Minister when framing this Bill did not quite realise some of the offences covered by the expression "careless driving." When the offence of careless driving was included in the original Act it was actually said by one speaker that careless driving was meant to cover bad manners. I saw an almost perfect example of that to-day. I was driving, and being hailed by a policeman I stopped some twenty yards from the end of the road to enable traffic to go round the corner. It was raining hard at the time. I pulled well into my side of the road. A small car came up and instead of pulling up on the white line went past it. The policeman rightly left his point and lectured the driver of the small car severely. He did not take his name or number, realising that it was an inadvertent mistake and a piece of pure carelessness or bad manners.
I suggest that if the policeman had been a younger man he might have said to that driver: "Just let me look at your licence." If he had looked at the licence and possibly found an endorsement for careless driving, he would have said: "Oh, you have been had before, we will have you again." That is an attitude we have to take into account and it would be a very bad thing if a paid driver, a chauffeur or van-driver, was summoned for some purely technical offence and had his licence endorsed possibly a second time for a very minor offence. The same situation might arise in the case of the speed limit. A man might be driving quite reasonably along some road where a speed far in excess of thirty miles an hour would be quite safe with two or three cars in no hurry going along at about twenty-four or twenty-five miles an hour. If he pulled out at thirty miles an hour he would be within the law, but for quite a period he might be creating a dangerous position on the road because there was no room for more than three lines of traffic and he would be occupying the second line. If he passed those cars nicely and quickly the danger period would be over before any chance of danger arose, but a police car behind him might run him in for doing thirty-

993
five miles an hour when actually by doing that he would be less dangerous than it he stuck to the letter of the law. If a man's licence is to be endorsed in such circumstances I submit there would be great hardship
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will take account of what has been, said in support of this Amendment. It is purely a matter of administration of the law, which ought to have as its aim the promotion of good conduct. In cases where there has been a technical offence there must be a prosecution because the law must be kept in force, but it would be a great pity if, when a man came up for some technical offence which in itself was harmless, his licence should have to be endorsed of necessity. In the case of a man dependent for his livelihood on driving it might be a great hardship on him if his licence was found to be endorsed when he came up again. I hope the noble Earl will see his way to attend to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and will accept the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I support the Amendment which has been moved although I have one on the Paper which is slightly different in character. I should like to say that I think my noble friend Lord Sandhurst was not quite correct in a statement he made just now when he related an incident which happened today. He suggested that the police officer would have been able to inspect the driver's licence and see an endorsement. I think I am correct in saying that that would not be the case either under this Bill or under the original Act. A policeman has no power to inspect a licence. It must be shown to him, but he is not allowed to handle it or to turn over the pages to find out whether there are endorsements.
The point I want no make is that there will undoubtedly be a large number of charges if the provisions of this Bill are enforced, as no doubt they will be, and a great number of convictions will be registered against drivers who do not want in the least to break the law. I want to impress that on your Lordships. Not everybody who breaks the law is necessarily a man who goes out in the spirit of intending to break the law. A
994
large number of people will be convicted who have no intention of breaking the law. Very often the offences with which they are charged will be cases of pure inadvertence. It will be difficult for drivers to know at all times whether they are in a restricted area or not, and so quite inadvertently a man might commit an offence. Therefore I hope that the Government will consider this matter sympathetically. I am not going to press my Amendment, although I prefer it because it puts the question the other way round. If the Government are prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment I shall certainly support it, and I hope the Government will be able to accept it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I confess to a great deal of doubt about this Amendment, and that doubt is mainly caused by the speeches which have been made in its favour. I totally disagree with the arguments put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. The object of this Bill is to improve the safety of the roads. When it is said that there is some terrific hardship because a man may be convicted who was not quite sure whether he was in a restricted area or not, that seems to me an illustration of the perverted view of certain motorists. If the motorist is in doubt he must keep within thirty miles an hour. If there is any conceivable doubt he must do that. The idea that there is something terrible in having driven at thirty miles an hour when you might have driven at forty or fifty miles an hour leaves me, I confess, quite cold.
My noble friend Lord Merrivale put an entirely different case, and I quite agree that there is something in it, but even there what I am afraid of is that if this possibility of not endorsing the licence is given, in a great many cases the licence will not be endorsed. That is the fear which I have. I think that if we are to stamp out this evil we must have a much stricter and more vigorous administration of the law than we have at present. Even guarded as it is by the Amendment, I am a little afraid of giving to courts an opportunity not to take a strict view of these matters. After all, in a normal case, apart from exceptional circumstances, it ought to be regarded as a very serious offence indeed for a motorist to go at a greater speed than thirty miles

995
an hour in a restricted area. If there is any sense in enacting it at all, it is enacted in order to create safety on the roads, and anyone who infringes that provision, even if he does not cause danger himself, by his example encourages dangerous driving in others.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am sure my noble friend will observe that the justices must enforce the law as it now is useless there is special reason why there should not be an endorsement. My own view about the matter is that if justices are slack about it there may be an appeal. There must be a special reason; that is my view about it.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I admit that if there can be an appeal on the ground that there was no special reason for doing it, that is a very powerful argument. I do not know whether that is so, but if my noble friend says so it almost certainly is so. But I should be very glad to hear from the Government whether they are quite satisfied, and I hope they will not yield to this Amendment unless they are quite satisfied, that it will not materially weaken the provisions of their Bill in this respect.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, I hope the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment, which is of a very limited character, especially after the observations which have been made by my noble friend Lord Merrivale. The Amendment does not in any way interfere with the necessity for a conviction. All that this provision will do, if it is amended as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is to give the magistrate a discretion if there is a special reason, but he will have no discretion unless there is a special reason. I would myself have preferred the Amendment to have been even a little wider in its terms, because I can see a difficulty for the magistrate. He will have to have some special fact before him upon which he can exercise his judgment. On the Amendment as it stands, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Cecil need not be under any misapprehension that the law will not be enforced or that magistrates will be unduly lenient.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Almost all of them are motor drivers.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: They must all find special facts upon which
996
they can exercise this judgment. I cannot think that the Government would be giving anything away by making the law just a little less rigid in this respect than it would be under the Bill.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I remind your Lordships that a magistrate has power, if he thinks that for any special circumstance a man who has been convicted of driving a motor car while under the influence of drink or drugs should not have his licence suspended for twelve months, not to suspend the licence?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, this matter has been fully debated not only in another place but in your Lordships' House. During the Committee stage I gave an undertaking that the Government would reconsider this question, and naturally I have been into the whole question again very carefully. It is therefore incumbent upon me to restate the position of the Government in regard to this matter. Perhaps the Government approach it from a slightly different point of view from anyone else who has spoken in regard to it. The Government feel that if Parliament decides to impose speed limits, the court, before passing sentence on a person found guilty of such a charge, ought to know whether it was a first offence or one indicating habitual disregard of the law. Unless endorsement of the licence be required, the court will often have no knowledge of previous convictions, however recent they may be. I ought to remark at this stage that, under the provisions of subsection (3) of Clause 5, endorsements for exceeding a speed limit may be cleared after the lapse of the short period of one year. It has been contended by some that you can even now establish the records of people in this matter by applications to courts and so on, but I do not think that that argument really holds water in connection with a man who drives all over the country; and it very often is the long-distance drivers who offend in respect of this particular matter. It is clearly quite impossible to circulate all these convictions to all courts throughout the country.
The Government, as I should like to emphasise, do not overlook the plea that endorsement of a licence may prove a great handicap to an individual seeking employment, but I feel that on the other

997
hand it might quite well be argued that in fairness alike to an employer and to applicants for employment, an applicant with a clean licence ought to be given the preference, especially in view of the risk that a conviction for a speed limit offence may affect the employer as well as the driver. The question resolves itself into this: Ought consideration of possible hardship to the individual to permit the will of Parliament to be held in light regard? Parliament has decided that after a year's probation the previous record of speed offences may be expunged, and speaking for myself I cannot see that it is too much to ask that in order to secure proper respect for the law, the magistrates should have before them a complete record of previous cases in which a convicted person has disregarded the law within so short a space of time as twelve months. I have tried to show that in spite of what has been said the Government are still strongly in favour of retaining the clause as it stands at present. I would add that if your Lordships see fit to make any change or any modification in the clause, I agree that the method suggested by the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite would probably be the best way of doing it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in subsection (1), after "conviction," to insert "including, in the case of speed limit offences, the speed alleged." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a very simple one, designed to make sure that a man who has his licence endorsed for a trivial excess of speed shall, when he commits a similar offence, have a record in his licence that the excess of speed was in fact trivial. It is certainly very important that a magistrate should not be misled by an endorsement which merely reads: "Convicted of exceeding the speed limit." He may have been doing eighty miles an hour, or he may have been doing thirty-two miles an hour. I think it is important that magistrates should have that information before them. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 18, after ("conviction") insert ("including, in the case of speed limit offences, the speed alleged.")—(Lord Sandhurst.)
VTSCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: May I suggest to my noble friend that I think
998
a more appropriate word than "alleged" would be "proved"?
LORD SANDHURST: I would certainly agree to that.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Lord realises that in a prosecution for exceeding a speed limit the record of conviction does not include the court's finding as to the actual speed but merely records the fact that the speed was in excess of the stipulated limit. The Amendment as it stands asks for the speed alleged to be endorsed upon the licence, and this would often mean the endorsement of an allegation of speed which the court itself did not accept as true. In fact, I am informed that the Road Transport side of the National Joint Conciliation Board has represented to the Minister that the speeds alleged in prosecutions are at times speeds of which the vehicles are incapable, and these are among the allegations which the noble Lord's Amendment would require to be endorsed upon the licence. A case very often arises where you may have two witnesses on an occasion of this kind, and one says the motorist is doing forty miles an hour and the other possibly forty-five miles an hour. As things are at present the only endorsement on the licence, or the only record in the conviction, is to the effect that the person charged was exceeding the speed limit of thirty miles an hour, or whatever it may be. I feel that in view of the fact that it might result in the highest speed being recorded in these convictions, it would not be any help to the driver himself to have the actual speed recorded. I hope that in the circumstances the Amendment will not be pressed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in subsection (2), in paragraph (a) of the substituted subsection (5) of Section 8 of the principal Act, after "limit", to insert "or of a conviction for an offence under Section twelve of the principal Act (which relates to careless driving)." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this relates to a point which really has not been debated in either House of Parliament, although the Amendment was placed on the Paper on the Report stage in the House of Commons and in the Committee stage in this House. Unfortunately, I was not

999
able to be here to move it during the Committee stage, and it was put off till Report. It relates to conviction for an offence under Section 12 of the principal Act, which relates to careless driving.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 12, after ("limit") insert ("or of a conviction for an offence under Section twelve of the principal Act (which relates to careless driving)").—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment would be to make it possible for an endorsement of a conviction for careless driving to be expunged after the lapse of twelve months, just as an endorsement of a conviction for exceeding the speed limit can be dealt with in that way. The Government, I am afraid, cannot accept the Amendment. After all, the offence of careless driving is by general consent upon a different plane from that of exceeding a speed limit, and it is generally accepted, I think, that in many cases the courts record a conviction of careless driving in circumstances where it may fairly be represented that in fact a substantial element of danger to the public was involved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6:
Tests of competence to drive of new applicants for licences and of offenders ordered to be tested.
(5) The Minister may make regulations with respect to the nature of tests of competence to drive for the purposes of this section, to the qualifications, selection and appointment of persons by whom they may be conducted and to the revocation of any appointment, to evidence of the results thereof and generally with respect thereto, and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, regulations made under this section may provide—

(a) for requiring a person submitting himself for a test to provide a vehicle for the purposes thereof;

(b) for requiring a person submitting himself for a test to pay to the person conducting the test such fee, not exceeding ten shillings, as may be specified in the regulations;

(c) for ensuring that a person submitting himself for a test and failing to pass that test shall not be eligible to submit himself to another test by the same or any other person before the expiration of a prescribed period;

and different regulations may be made with respect to tests of competence to
1000
drive different classes or descriptions of vehicles.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to add to paragraph (c) in subsection (5), the words "except under an order made by a court of summary jurisdiction under the power conferred by the next succeeding subsection" and to insert a new subsection (6). The noble Earl said: My Lords, I would like to be allowed to take these Amendments together. I would like to say in regard to this matter that the Government are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising the important question with which the Amendment deals on the Committee stage of the Bill. I pointed out on that stage that there were certain practical difficulties in accepting an Amendment in the form proposed by the noble Earl, but I agreed that useful publicity would be given if a case arose in which the authorised examiner refused to pass a candidate for a reason other than that of driving incompetency.
The Government have already invited the co-operation of the important motor organisations, including that over which the noble Earl presides, not merely in the determination of the nature of the driving tests, but also in the selection of the persons to be employed in the conduct of those tests. The House may be assured that every endeavour will be made to secure the appointment of persons, not merely of known ability, but also of unimpeachable integrity, but there is unhappily the possibility of human frailty in any large body of men; and it is admittedly desirable that there should be adequate opportunity for investigating any charge of lack of fair play in a driving test examination. The Amendments now proposed by the Government will give a practical opportunity of calling attention to such a case; and it may be not inappropriate to remind the House that, also at the instance of the noble Earl, provision is now made in the Bill for the revocation of the appointment of an examiner, if the need should arise. I hope that in the circumstances your Lordships will accept these Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 9, line 27, at end insert ("except under an order made by a court of summary jurisdiction under the power conferred by the next succeeding subsection")
Page 9, line 30, at end insert:

1001
("(6) A court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessional division in which a person who has submitted himself for a test of competence to drive resides shall have power on the application of that person to determine whether the test was properly conducted in accordance with the regulations, and, if it appears to the court that the test was not so conducted, the court may order that the applicant shall be eligible to submit himself to another test before the expiration of the period (prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection, and may order that any fee payable by the applicant in respect of the test shall not be paid or, if it has been paid, shall be repaid.")—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am very glad to hear what the noble Earl has said, and of course, as I have an Amendment immediately bearing on the same point, I am delighted to see what has been put down by the Government. There is, however, one point to which I should like to direct the noble Earl's attention, and that is that this procedure laid down here will add special importance to the composition of the courts before whom these cases will come. My whole idea is that driving tests should be real tests and not make-believe, and in cases where appeals are brought under the procedure now laid down it will be very important for the court to have considerable expert knowledge. I have an Amendment on the Paper, which I propose to move at a later stage, to deal with that point, but no doubt the Government will bear it in mind. If appeals are to come before a court of summary jurisdiction it is extremely important that there should be someone on the bench who will have expert knowledge and experience to deal with these very difficult questions, and in the event of nobody of expert knowledge being a magistrate on the bench, that someone should be there to assist them. I will move that at a later stage, but meanwhile I welcome the Government Amendments and thank the noble Earl for what he has said.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
Prohibition of sale of vehicles in, or alteration thereof to, a condition not complying with regulations as to construction etc.
".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section it shall not be lawful to sell, or to supply, or to offer to Sell or supply, a motor
1002
vehicle or trailer for delivery in such a condition that the use thereof on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of the provisions of Section three of the principal Act.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section it shall not be lawful to alter a motor vehicle or trailer so as to render its condition such that the use thereof on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of the provisions of the said Section three.
(3) If a motor vehicle or trailer is sold, supplied, offered, or altered, in contravention of the provisions of this section, any person who so sells, supplies, offers, or alters it, or causes or permits it to be so sold, supplied, offered, or altered, shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) A person shall not be convicted for an offence under this section in respect of the sale, supply, offer, or alteration of a motor vehicle or trailer if ho proves that it was sold, supplied, offered, or altered, as the case may be, for export from Great Britain, or that he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle or trailer would not be used on a road in Great Britain, or would not be so used until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, although this Amendment appears very formidable it is really in the nature of a drafting Amendment. This clause embodies the subject matter of Clauses 37 and 38 which were moved into the Bill in Committee stage on Thursday last. We are advised that their more appropriate place is in Part I rather than in Part V. It has been found necessary to provide for the common practice of "part exchange" under which a person may hand over to a dealer, in part consideration for a new vehicle, one which is admittedly in a defective condition, but will not be used on the road until reconditioned; and the provisions with regard to export have been applied alike to the sold and to the altered vehicle. Subject to this, the House may be assured that the new clause embodies the whole of the substance of Clauses 37 and 38.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, since this point was raised in your Lordships' House last week representations of a most urgent character have been made by certain sections of the motor trade, and I think they should be in your Lordships' minds when considering this Amendment. For instance, motor vehi-

1003
cles, it has been represented to me, often come into the stocks of various firms in part exchange for new or better vehicles, and have to be re-sold by those firms often on the understanding that the purchaser requires the old vehicle in its indifferent state, knowing he will have to spend a considerable amount of money in repairs upon it before he puts it into use. There is also the case of a purchaser with engineering skill who purchases a second-hand vehicle in order to execute the necessary work upon it with his own hands. The various sections of the motor trade that are affected view the whole of this matter with the greatest possible apprehension. They do not know exactly how far it is going to lead them.
The question of noisy motor vehicles is one of extreme difficulty. I have every sympathy with those who say that the exhausts of many cars are too noisy, but the question of excessive noise is very much a matter of personal opinion. I myself have had actually to argue this point before a court of summary jurisdiction in the London area, and, while the police alleged that a certain vehicle was making too much noise, I was able to prove that the vehicle was not making too much noise, though I do not in the least blame the constable for bringing the case before the court. It is entirely a matter of opinion, and obviously a very difficult one to decide. I feel that the Amendment may in certain circumstances work very unfairly in the case of some motor agents, and I certainly think that the public welfare is quite sufficiently covered by existing legislation, which can be extraordinarily strict, and can do a great deal to reduce noise.
The wording of the existing Act is rather difficult. It says, I believe, that the motor car must not be driven in such a fashion as to cause noise. That is to say, an engine may be "revved up" at very high revolutions and make a tremendous lot of noise, or a car may be old and in urgent need of repair to some of its gears, and that may be held to constitute too much noise. The motor trader in most cases is certainly not aiding or abetting a breach of the law. I do not think there are many cars which, as they are sold, make too much noise; the fault is nearly always the fault of the user. He either uses his car in such a way as to give legitimate grounds of complaint, or he makes some alteration to
1004
it. I think it is the user who should be "dropped on," not the motor trader.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11:
Avoidance of restrictions on scope of policies covering third-party risks.
11. Where a certificate of insurance has been delivered under subsection (5) of Section thirty-six of the principal Act to the person by whom a policy has been effected, so much of the policy as purports to restrict the insurance of the persons insured thereby by reference to any of the following matters:—
(c) the number of persons that the vehicle carries; or
LORD SANDHURST LORD SANDHURST moved, in paragraph (c), after "vehicle," to insert "not being a motor cycle." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment should be taken in conjunction with the next Amendment, also standing in my name, for the insertion of a new clause ("Provisions with respect to licences for motor cycles"). The difficulty with which I am faced is this. I find on reading the Bill—what I had not realised on the Committee stage—that any ordinary motor cycle that is not insured for carrying passengers will in future have to be insured for carrying passengers. It is the insurance companies which have got to pay. Your Lordships may not quite realise what a difference that is going to make to motor cyclists. I have here a copy of the Motor Cycle, in which they say that in certain cases it will make a difference of £4 13s. 9d. a year to the motor insurance, and will, in fact, bring the cost of the policy up to £14 1s. 8d., which may be as much as one-third of the cost of the motor bicycle when new—which means that when it is two years old you pay more for your insurance than you paid for the bicycle.
That, I submit, is a very grave hardship, and I should be very glad to hear from the Government whether, before they introduced this clause, they made inquiries of the insurance companies as to what its effect was going to be. My information is that two insurance companies, the Eagle Star and British Dominion and the Ocean Accident, have already notified their motor cycle policy holders that if they want to take out a policy for a solo machine in the future they will have to pay the premium for

1005
carrying a passenger. We have something like 580,000 motor cycles in this country, and approximately half the owners of those motor cycles insure to carry passengers. I very much doubt whether the number of the others who are absolutely determined law-breakers is so large that every motor cycle should be insured to carry passengers. It is quite a simple matter to ensure that every motor cycle is licensed to carry a passenger, or not to carry a passenger, for when that licence is being obtained they have to produce their insurance certificate, showing whether they are licensed to carry a passenger or not. It is very simple for a policeman to see, because under the existing law you may not carry a passenger unless there is an attachment to the cycle specifically for the purpose. Anybody standing on the side of the road can see whether there is such an attachment on the motor cycle, If there is such an attachment, all the policeman has to do is to look and see whether the motor cycle is, in fact, licensed to carry a passenger. If it is not, what is the attachment there for? That man will then find himself very quickly getting into trouble.
I maintain that the average motor cyclist is a law-abiding creature. He is not out to break the law deliberately. He is out to give other people a square deal, and among those other people he includes his insurance company. I do not think it is fair to penalise the man who rides a, very cheap, light motor cycle for the sake of economy in getting to his work, by causing him to pay for carrying a passenger when he does not want to carry one and has no intention of carrying one.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 34, after ("vehicle") insert ("not being a motor cycle").—(Lord Sandhurst.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hope the Government will be able to give a sympathetic reply with regard to this particular question. Your Lordships will no doubt have noticed the very large number of working men who travel on motor cycles in order to get to and from their place of employment. The numbers of motor cycles in this country have just been given by the noble Lord who moved this Amendment, and I feel that it is a matter of very great importance. It is quite possible that the attitude of the
1006
insurance companies with regard to motor cycles may even be extended to the car population of this country. For instance, you may get a motor car constructed to carry four people and perhaps carrying six in it. It is stated in the insurance policy that it is only constructed to carry four, and perhaps six or eight passengers are being carried. No harm whatever can possibly result to the public, no danger can be alleged to anybody, but just because the policy does not cover this particular point it may conceivably be said that motor insurance policies will have to be increased because the motor insurance companies will have to cover this risk under the Bill.
I do hope we shall be able to do something to deal sympathetically with the motor cycling interests. The motor cyclist is, after all, a small man. He is a fellow who cannot go in for an expensive vehicle like some of those which will leap to your Lordships' minds. Therefore if the Government can accept this Amendment, not perhaps in this precise form but at least in some form like it, it would go a long way to remove a deep-seated grievance. The 50 per cent, increase all round in motor cycle premiums with which we are faced is a very serious matter, and I am quite sure the Government do not intend that anything like that should happen.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I rather wanted to support this Amendment. I am not quite sure if I am right, in my understanding of it, but I had occasion to have a case on the bench the other day of an accident to a motor cyclist carrying a pillion passenger, and in his insurance policy there was some small print at the bottom which stated that the whole insurance became void if he was carrying a pillion passenger and therefore third-party risks on the road were not protected. That is a very serious danger. I support this Amendment because I think it will secure that motor cyclists will be covered as regards third-party risks. If I am right in this I hope the noble Earl will accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I think the noble Lord who has just spoken misunderstands the situation. This Amendment divides motor cycles into two classes: those who carry pillion

1007
passengers and those who do not, and the premium on third-party insurance risks naturally differ in these cases. But this will not prevent—that is my point—people who are not insured against such risks from carrying pillion passengers. That is the real difficulty. I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment, and I should like to explain the position as we see it. These two Amendments are designed to enable a motor cyclist to obtain insurance against third-party risks which shall cover the use of the cycle only so long as it is used without a pillion passenger. As a matter of fact the object of Clause 11 of the Bill is to eliminate, as far as practicable, the grounds on which an insurer may repudiate liability in the event of injury being caused to a third party by an insured driver. Cases of accidents have occurred in which liability has been lawfully repudiated by an insurer on the ground that the assured motor cyclist had taken out a policy which did not cover the use of the cycle if a pillion passenger were carried. That is the very instance to which the noble Lord opposite was referring.
I am informed that to-day only about half of the insured motor cycle drivers have policies which cover the use of the cycle with a pillion passenger. It can only be a matter of conjecture how many of the remaining motor cyclists do in fact, either habitually or on occasion, carry a pillion passenger and so invalidate their insurance cover. I quite admit that the motor cyclist who would never at any time or in any circumstances carry a pillion passenger may suffer some measure of hardship under this clause, but against this must be set the removal of a far greater hardship in the case of the third party who might be deprived of compensation if injured by the negligent driving of a motor cyclist who, by carrying a pillion passenger, had invalidated his insurance policy.
I must confess I am somewhat surprised by the figure quoted by the noble Lord who moved this Amendment as to the effect on motor cycle premiums which would result if this provision came into operation, and I say, of course, speaking without having been able to go into the matter very carefully, that in my opinion an increase of that description would not be actuarially justified. But
1008
apart from that, there is this point. I admit that this Amendment might share the burden of insurance premium more fairly between the different classes of motor cyclists, but it would not in any way help the Case of the insured person himself. As I said, it would be possible for a man to take out an insurance policy as the owner of a motor cycle, of a cycle that was not so built as to carry a pillion passenger, but there is nothing to prevent his doing so if he wishes, and although the noble Lord behind me said it would be easy to discover him I venture to differ from him on that particular point. Even if some additional charge were to be imposed on the motor cyclist, I have little doubt your Lordships will think it is really of greater moment that the injured third party should be protected from the risk of the avoidance of the policy and consequent loss of any compensation. For these reasons I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, we are always hearing it said there are many cases where the policy is voided and so no compensation is payable. I should like to know if the noble Earl or his Department has any figures to show how many of these cases there are. I am asking this as a matter of interest because I have never heard any figures, and I thought perhaps his Department might have some information on the point.
THE EARL or PLYMOUTH: I am afraid I am not in a position to give exact figures, but we do know that a considerable number of these cases arise.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 15 [Payments and insurance in respect of emergency treatment of injuries arising from the use of motor vehicles on roads]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 38, after ("is") insert ("first")—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the next Amendment is also really in effect drafting, because it is quite obvious a hospital cannot travel to the scene of

1009
an accident, and therefore this provision does not apply.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 43, after ("shall") insert (", so far as applicable,").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Provisions as to claims for, and supplementary provisions as to, payments for emergency treatment]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the two Amendments to this clause are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 37, after the second ("was") insert ("first").
Page 16, line 39, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of line 40.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 17:
Foot-passenger crossings.
(2) The Minister may make regulations with respect to the precedence of vehicles and foot-passengers respectively, and generally with respect to the movement of traffic (including foot-passengers) at and in the vicinity of a crossing (including regulations prohibiting foot-passenger traffic on the carriage-way within one 'hundred yards of a crossing), and with respect to the indication of the limits of a crossing by marks on the roadway or otherwise, and to the erection of traffic signs in connection therewith.
(10) This section shall not apply to the London Traffic Area constituted under the London Traffic Act, 1924.
EARL EATHURST EARL EATHURST moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "(including regulations prohibiting foot passenger traffic on the carriage-way within one hundred yards of a crossing)." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am going to ask you to omit these few words in subsection (2). I contend in the first place that these words are unnecessary because there is already power taken just a sentence before in the same subsection for the Minister to make regulations with respect to the precedence of vehicles and foot passengers respectively, and generally with respect to the movement of traffic (including foot passengers) at and in the vicinity of a crossing. That is the first reason why I ask you to strike out those words. There is a second reason and it is this. I contend that the conditions of this subsection confer a
1010
most arbitrary power and put an entirely new aspect on rights of way and on the rights of passengers to walk on the streets. I submit that this is an infringement of the rights of those people.
Every man, woman and child has the right to walk down the road or across the road, it is true at their own risk in these days with the danger that there is from fast driving motorists; still the right exists and this clause will curtail that right. I should like to know what some judicial opinion on this question would be. And there are other reasons. There are occasions when the roads are almost empty. Take a Sunday morning or a Sunday night in some places. If this clause is allowed to go through un-amended I should like to know whether people are obliged solemnly to walk one hundred yards to a crossing before they can cross the road when there is no danger in their doing so. Take the case of people who live in houses about a hundred yards from a crossing. They may have business on the other side of the road. There may be a Post Office or even a post box on the other side of the road. Are those people to be obliged to walk the hundred yards down the road to the regulation crossing, then walk another hundred yards back on the other side of the road in order to post a letter? Or there, may be a public-house on the other side of the road and they may want a drink. Are they to go through the task of walking a hundred yards down one side of the road and a hundred yards back on the other side? This subsection would put a strain on public patience and I am quite sure it would be most unpopular.
I have mentioned people who want to cross the road a hundred yards from a crossing. The answer to that is that instead of walking the hundred yards to the crossing and back again, they might walk ten or twenty yards in the opposite direction so as to get out of the area, of the hundred yards crossing. Then they could walk across the road, but at their own risk, and the conditions will be just as bad as if they were allowed to cross twenty, thirty or fifty yards from the crossing near their home. There is no safety, but only inconvenience, in this regulation. I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will see the object of my Amendment and will, if possible, agree to it. I think if the Bill is allowed to

1011
go through as it is this provision will be found a most intolerable nuisance. Your Lordships are rightly reputed to have a sense of justice for the people in the street, and I ask you to support me in moving that these few words be left out of the clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 27, leave out from ("crossing') to ("and") in line 29.—(Earl Bathurst.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, how can any member of your Lordships' House, with the appalling return of road accidents before us, possibly move such an Amendment and try to justify it on the ground that it is merely a slight annoyance to the pedestrian to go a few yards further on to find a crossing? The whole justification for this Bill is surely the question of public safety. We should never have had this Bill before us if it had not been for the question of public safety. Scores of thousands of people are being injured, and thousands are losing their lives. All too many of them are pedestrians, and all too many of these accidents are occurring at crossing places. The figures are before us and I need not recite them, but we are reinforced in this matter by opinions from road authorities up and down the country.
I have quotations from utterances made by Chief Constables. There is, for instance, the Chief Constable of Salford, who says that nine out of twelve deaths result from the carelessness or stupidity of pedestrians. The Chief Constable of Manchester says very much the same thing, and he adds that a motorist is compelled to obey regulations whereas the pedestrian can please himself. Again, we have the general manager of the Glasgow Corporation who said the same thing. I will not weary your Lordships with a number of quotations, but I do appeal to you in the interests of public safety not to accept this Amendment. I am perfectly certain that it could not be justified by the figures before us. The one thing that is absolutely essential to my mind is that these crossing places should be used, and I am delighted to see the efforts made by the general mass of the population to use them. I think it is a very remarkable tribute to the success so far obtained by the experiment that the crossings are being used to the extent that they are.
1012
There are considerable difficulties about them. Both the drivers of vehicles and pedestrians themselves have been none too sure what the regulations with regard to these crossing places are, but any one of your Lordships who goes about London now must have noticed that the pedestrians are using them, and that they are going to become the same great factor of safety that they have been in all other countries. After all, we are not making an untried experiment. In every country that you go to abroad you will find these crossing places and you will find stricter regulations there than have ever been contemplated in this country. People have been brought up in Paris, Berlin and many other cities elsewhere for ignoring the crossing places. The result is that those crossing places are now used and they contribute to public safety. I hope that we shall at any rate strike one blow for public safety by rejecting this Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I would like to support heartily what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just said. I feel most strongly that this Amendment may well destroy the most beneficial part of the whole Bill. After all, 2,500 people were killed last year through crossing the road, and I believe that at least 50 per cent, of those lives could be saved this year if you laid down enough footway crossings. As the noble Viscount on the Cross Benches (Viscount Cecil of Chelwood) said on another occasion, it is no reason for not passing a clause because you will only save ninety lives. Surely, then, if you do not save over 1,000 lives by this clause it is worth while saving 500. Therefore I urge your Lordships, with all the sincerity that I can as a motor driver, not to accept this Amendment. We only have to go across to the Square outside your Lordships' House to see that pedestrians will not observe these crossings. At the crossing leading into Great George Street I have over and over again had to stop in order to avoid pedestrians who refuse to go with other pedestrians across the white lines and insist on the right to cross the road five yards away. It is all very well to talk about rights, but people ought to realise that if they insist on the right to cross the road where they like they may be also insisting on the right to go to that bourne from which even a pedestrian never returns.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment. Clearly if pedestrian crossings are to achieve their greatest possible usefulness pedestrians must use them. In the interests of public safety the pedestrian is to be given priority at certain points, and it is reasonable to require at the same time that vehicular traffic should not be impeded by the presence of pedestrians on the carriageway in the vicinity of a crossing. After all, this is not much of a sacrifice to ask of pedestrians. It is only at the most a question of one hundred yards. The noble Earl behind me says that from time immemorial pedestrians have had the right to cross the road at any point, and he added, advisedly, at their own risk nowadays. I dare say that may be so, but we feel that the time has come when pedestrians will have to be protected against risks from which they will not protect themselves. I really do feel that pedestrians, in common with all other users of the road, must make their contribution towards the solving of this terrible problem and towards lessening the danger of accidents upon the roads. Unless every user of the road combines to that end I am afraid the result which will be achieved will never be as satisfactory as we should like.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I think the noble Earl has entirely misunderstood the object of my Amendment. I am the last person in the world to want to increase the number of deaths or accidents caused by motor cars. I said so on the Committee stage. This Bill has been brought in to try to decrease the lamentable number of deaths, but I am afraid that the noble Earl, who has been one of the leaders of those who put down Amendments on behalf of the motorist, is one who has overcome that feeling about accidents and deaths. The whole object of those noble Lords who support him is to increase the pace of motor cars. Take the case of the Amendment dealing with by-pass roads. It was simply designed to enable cars to go a little faster. I suppose the noble Earl has seen the Report of the Ministry of Transport which clearly states that speed is the main cause of accidents and that pedestrians are killed, not so much through carelessness or lack of education, but simply through physical in-
1014
ability to escape. Yet noble Lords want to enable motorists to go faster.
If a pedestrian wishes to cross the road and is not very far from one of these crossings he will naturally go to the crossing. I have myself enjoyed the privilege of going across at these points safely. But you will never get a motor car driver to obey all these rules and regulations until you have prosecuted and convicted in a great number of cases, and, if I may, I would add that you will never decrease the number of deaths and accidents until you teach the motor driver what I call manners—that is, consideration for others, consideration of the strong for the weak, consideration for the old and infirm, consideration for the ordinary man. When they see a person crossing the road they like to go as near as possible to him; they like to see him skip the last two or three yards of the road. Those are, the people who accuse me of introducing this Amendment because I wish to give the traffic more chance of running over people.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 6, leave out ("on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to leave out subsection (10) and insert:
"(10) This section, in its application to the London Traffic Area constituted under the London Traffic Act, 1924, shall have effect subject to such adaptations as may be specified in an order made by the Minister.
Any order made for the purposes of this subsection may be varied by a subsequent order and shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and shall not have effect until it has lain upon the Table of each House of Parliament for a period of not less than twenty-eight days during which the House has sat, and if ether House during that period presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the order may be annulled, the order shall not come into force, but without prejudice to the making of a new order."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is largely complementary to the Amendment already accepted by this House in subsection (4) of this clause

1015
which in certain circumstances gives the Minister power to require a local authority to submit a scheme. This Amendment will enable the Minister, if necessary, to exercise a like power in the case of authorities within the London Traffic Area. I can assure the House that no action in this respect would be taken without consultation with the London Traffic Advisory Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 22, leave out subsection (10) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Provisions as to reflectors on bicycles, etc.]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the Amendment to this clause standing on the Paper in my name is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, leave out ("of such dimensions and in such position as may be specified in") and insert ("in accordance with").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF POWIS THE EARL OF POWIS moved to insert after Clause 21:
"In the case of the provision of any new main road or the widening of any existing main road for the purpose of facilitating motor traffic, regard shall be had to the desirability of providing where possible separate bridle paths or adequate grass verges for the use of persons riding or leading horses."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I moved this Amendment in Committee and I am afraid I did not give the noble Earl much time in which to consider it. He was good enough to say that if I put it down on the Report stage he might be able to give me a definite answer. Since then he has been good enough to write me fully on the subject and I understand that the Minister of Transport has considerable sympathy with my Amendment but he refers me to Section 58 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. That section says:
"It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation … of; ridden horses and driven live stock adequate grass or other margins by the side of the roads under their control."
If the county councils would only obey the law as it stands in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and make these verges or
1016
bridle paths suitable for people riding horses or driving cattle, there would be no need for me to move this Amendment, but I think nearly all noble Lords must know that many county councils, far from making road verges suitable for riding, take away all the verge that there is, and not satisfied with taking away the verge, they take away the bank as well.
Therefore I venture to ask the noble Earl whether it would not be possible to tighten up the law in some way so that county councils would be obliged to carry out the law as it now is? I think it really is in the interests of motorists as well as in the interests of riders that there should be a suitable verge for riding upon. I am sure any noble Lord will agree with me that a shying horse on a slippery road is a source of danger, not only to the rider, but also to motorists. Therefore it is in the interests of motorists quite as much as in the interests of riders that these verges should be made. Where it is absolutely impossible to make a verge—for instance, in a built-up area—I suggest that it ought to be the duty of the highway authority to provide a few feet of rough roadway so that horses could be led or ridden along it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 21, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Powis.)
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, personally I have very great sympathy with this Amendment and I entirely agree with what fell from my noble friend in the latter part of his speech, when he regretted that so little attention has been paid by local authorities, at any rate in some parts of the country, to the clear indication of the desire of Parliament expressed in Section 58 of the Act of 1930. But I should rather like to ask my noble friend whether he is quite satisfied that his Amendment would really improve matters in any way? I am rather afraid that it would not, but that it would still leave absolutely uncontrolled the discretion of the local authority. After our experience of the last four years I think we ought to have some means of coercing local authorities when they do not do their duty, and I have proposed three Amendments later in the Bill which, if the Government can see their way to

1017
accept them or at any rate two of them, I hope will be effective to put some amount of pressure upon local authorities in that direction.
In connection with this particular clause I would suggest to my noble friend that really the words which make the existing section of the 1930 Act so feeble are the words "wherever they shall deem it necessary." It leaves it absolutely to the local authority to say "We do not deem it necessary," and there is an end of it. If it read: "wherever it is necessary," then in a proper case you could take whatever proceedings were open to you to compel the local authority to do their duty, if you could prove that it really was necessary or desirable that such a thing should be done. I quite agree that even then your difficulties would be very considerable, but you would be in a rather better position. If my noble friend's Amendment were adopted I am afraid it would leave things exactly where they are. It would only say once again that in particular cases the principle which was laid down in 1930 ought to be considered. Well, that will not help you; they will say: "We have considered it and we do not think that it applies to this particular case." I hope my noble friend will wait and support me when we come to a later part of the Bill.
LORD GAINFORD: My Lords, I am prepared to support this Amendment in its present form, but at the same time I entirely agree with the noble Viscount who has just addressed the House, and I hope that it may be strengthened so as to make it more compulsory on local authorities. I have witnessed many serious accidents in which not only have horses lost their lives by falling upon slippery roads but men riding horses on roads where there has been no verge have been injured. It is perfectly true that after a time horses do get more accustomed to these roads, but at the same time there are periods when the roads, owing to a little rain having fallen, or occasionally owing to a certain amount of mud being on their surface, are so dangerous that it is almost impossible for either horses or cattle to remain upon their legs, and danger arises not only to the animals and to the people who are
1018
riding horses but also to the motorists who may be passing at the same time.
I have noticed that in the development of these roads three things very often occur in the vicinity: golf courses, swimming pools and riding schools are established. I know one or two of these main roads running out of London where there are several riding schools, and where children have to ride their ponies into those riding schools in order to be taught how to ride, and there are no proper verges for the horses or ponies to pass along. I believe that it is in the interests of the general public that there should be these verges where possible, and I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the object of the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I am very much impressed by what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said, but I do not think that his Amendment will really meet the purpose of the noble Earl who moved the Amendment at present under discussion. He speaks only of footpaths.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I think so.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Not the one to which I have referred. It is rather inconvenient for us to discuss that Amendment before we come to it, but it is intended to apply both to footpaths and to grass verges.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Does the noble Viscount mean the Amendment at the bottom of page 11 of the Marshalled List of Amendments?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Yes, the Amendment which seeks to strike out of Section 58 of the 1930 Act the words "they shall deem it."
LORD RANKEILLOUR: Does a riding verge come into that?
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: I have no right to speak, I know, and I can only do it by leave of your Lordships, but as my noble friend has asked me the question, perhaps I may be allowed to answer it. Section 58 of the Act of 1930 reads as follows:
"It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever

1019
they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot pasesngers"
and so on. Then the section says later on:
" … and to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable …"
It may be necessary to strike out those words too. That is all. You will have to strike them out twice instead of once as I proposed.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: I am satisfied now.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I think I made it quite clear during the Committee stage that the Government were certainly sympathetic to this Amendment. I think, however, that there is some misunderstanding with regard to it, as it has been said by several speakers this evening that if the wording of this clause is left as it stands at present, it still leaves complete discretion to the highway authority as to whether any action is to be taken or not. That really is not the case, and I intend to deal with that point a little later. As the noble Earl asked me to make further inquiries into this matter between the Committee stage and Report stage I have naturally done so, and I should like to answer him somewhat fully.
I have already communicated with the noble Earl and have sent him an extract from the "Notes on the Lay-out and Construction of Roads" issued by the Ministry to all highway authorities, which runs as follows:
"The Minister specially desires that every care shall be taken not merely to safeguard existing amenities but to add to them.… Verges, as well as the slopes of cuttings and embankments (where this is practicable) should be soiled and seeded, or in appropriate cases, turfed or planted with shrubs. The grass verges should be kept clear and grips avoided, in order that they may serve as a track for horsemen."
In a circular on "Public Safety" issued to all highway authorities in February of this year, to which a very wide publicity has since been given, special attention is drawn to the fact that:
"It is the duty of a highway authority, as declared by Parliament in Section 58 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to provide, wherever they deem it necessary or desirable to do so, for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers, proper and sufficient footpaths by the side of roads under their control, and in similar circumstances
1020
adequate grass or other margins for ridden horses and driven livestock.…
In resurfacing the carriage-ways of narrow country roads, there is a tendency to encroach little by little upon the grass verge or footway, until no refuge is left for the pedestrian. Highway authorities are asked to avoid this undesirable practice, which assumes that the increasing demands of vehicular traffic must be met by jeopardising the safety of other road, users. Operations of this character cannot be regarded as eligible for Road Fund grant, unless adequate alternative provision is made, e.g., by the formation of a footpath on the other side of the hedge."
The Minister's staff of road engineers in different parts of the country are in constant touch with all the highway authorities; and great importance is attached to their advice in considering whether or not any highway work shall be allowed to rank for a grant from the Road Fund. Whenever any work is proposed by way of construction of a new main road or of widening an existing one, this question of verges is bound to arise, especially in view of the stress laid in the last quoted circular upon the ineligibility for Road Fund grant of work which does not comply with the Minister's requirements. When we are dealing with closely built industrial areas, it is unfortunately often impossible to require any grass verge; and the noble Earl moving the Amendment has recognised this by inserting the words "where possible" in his draft clause. The Minister is whole-heartedly in sympathy with the spirit of the Amendment, and he hopes that the attention which has been drawn by this House to the question will help towards fostering a sound public opinion in this important matter.
There is one other aspect of the position which I would like to deal with and which has been stressed this evening. At present complete discretion rests with the local authorities and your Lordships have indicated that you thought that that might be dealt with by removing certain words in this particular clause. Naturally, there are many of your Lordships in this House who are intimately connected with local affairs and who are members of county councils and can speak with greater knowledge on this particular point, but I must say that I am somewhat surprised to see a tendency to take the control of the highways out of the hands of the highway authorities and con-

1021
centrate it in the hands of the Ministry. There is in fact close co-operation on all sides and through the whole country between the Minister's officials and the officials of the highway authorities, and as I have said the advice of the Minister's divisional road engineers has very great weight indeed in the final settlement of any road scheme which has to be approved for grant out of the Road Fund. In the last resort the power of the purse is naturally an important factor in this matter, but in the past, at any rate, any suggestion for a dictatorship or for the formation of a despotism of this kind has not found favour in your Lordships' House. I do not think the effect of this Amendment, if passed, would be material, and I hope in the circumstances, and after the explanation I have given, the noble Earl will not press it.
THE EARL OF POWIS: I am very much obliged to the noble Earl for the explanation he has given. I think it must be very satisfactory to your Lordships to realise that the Minister is putting pressure on the county councils, which I think is very necessary in some cases. There is no pressure like pecuniary pressure, because if the grant towards a road is not made I do not think there is much fear of the county council breaking the spirit of the Act. I should like to say that in moving this Amendment I had no wish whatever to take the control of the roads out of the hands of the local authorities and put it entirely in the hands of the Minister, nor do I think that any noble Lord who has spoken intended that. All we wanted was what the noble Earl has said the Minister has undertaken to do—namely, to bring pressure to bear upon the county councils to obey the law. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 [Power of county councils to light roads]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, there are drafting Amendments to this clause.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, line 2, after ("of") insert ("non county boroughs and")
Page 21, line 21, after ("of") insert ("non county boroughs and").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 25:
Arrangements between members of societies for carriage in motor vehicles.
25. Where, under a transaction effected by or on behalf of a member of a society on the one hand and the society or another member thereof on the other hand, a person is carried as a passenger in a motor vehicle in such circumstances that he would be deemed to be carried for hire or reward if the transaction were effected otherwise than as aforesaid, then, notwithstanding any rule of law, he shall for the purposes of the principal Act and of this Act be deemed to be carried for hire or reward.
In this section the expression "society" means any association of persons whether incorporated or not.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to insert the following proviso:
"Provided that this section shall not apply to any society or club composed exclusively of workpeople employed by the same employer which has been in existence for a period of not less than two years prior to the passing of this Act."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the reason for this Amendment is that I know of certain factories the workers employed in which have formed themselves into a club for the purpose of providing themselves with transport to and from their work. It takes them about an hour each way in the transport with which they have provided themselves. They write in these terms:
"We are concerned with the hardship which the passage into law of this clause would inevitably inflict on a body of some 600 workmen who have for some years been running their own transport without censure or criticism from the responsible road transport authorities.
We feel very strongly indeed that steps should be taken to exempt from the operation of this clause workmen's clubs which have already been in operation for a period of two years. We think there should be an amendment exempting such workmen's clubs as have been in existence for two years."
This point was raised in Standing Committee C of the Commons. Reference was then made to clubs formed in Yorkshire, providing transport in the mining districts, and it was said that the Traffic Commissioner for the area had definitely ruled that the vehicles run by these clubs need not have a road service licence. A different view seems to have been taken by the South Eastern Traffic Commissioner of a scheme of transport for the men of the Kentish coalfields. Therefore there is a case for the Government

1023
to answer with reference to this particular point. Naturally, one does not want to provide loopholes which might start a serious leak in other Acts of Parliament, and one does not want to provide wholesale means whereby people may evade the law, but it seemed to me that where boná fide workmen's clubs have been in existence for two years, and they have provided themselves with transport without censure or criticism from the Transport authorities, in such case they might be exempt from the operation of this clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 2, at end, insert the said proviso.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I do not quite realise the object that the noble Earl has in view. Clause 25 is designed to prevent the continued use on the road of passenger-carrying vehicles which cannot obtain the certificate of fitness required under the 1930 Act. The company to which the noble Earl referred has written officially to the Minister explaining that the vehicles they use for this purpose could not, without very heavy expense, be brought up to that standard. The standards required for the certificate of fitness were determined in close cooperation with national associations representative of the manufacturers, the operating companies and labour; and they embody what is generally agreed to represent reasonable minimum requirements from the safety standpoint. The Minister does not feel that he is able to ask this House to take the responsibility of sanctioning exceptionally a departure from the safety standard, merely on the ground that the passengers carried in the vehicles are all in the Same employment.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl noted that I pointed out the difference in rulings between the Traffic Commissioners in various districts. The effect of the noble Earl's reply may, of course, be somewhat serious for the workpeople employed. It is simply the case of a club, and these vehicles are run more or less as private vehicles.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 28:
Interpretation of certain provisions of s. 90 of the principal Act.
28. For removing doubts it is hereby declared that the powers conferred on a local
1024
authority by subsections (2) and (3) of Section ninety of the principal Act (which relate to the appointment of a parking place as a station for public service vehicles and confer amongst other powers a power to make certain charges) are in addition to and not in substitution for the powers conferred on a local authority by Section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1925 (which relates to the provision of parking places and confers amongst other powers a power to make regulations as to certain charges) and that the local authority shall have power to make reasonable charges for the use of a parking place, not being part of a street, as a station for public service vehicles in addition to the charges for accommodation referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of Section ninety of the principal Act.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to leave out all words after "charges", where that word secondly occurs, and insert:
"(2) A local authority shall have power to make charges for the use of a parking place, not being part of a street, as a station for public service vehicles.
The charger to be made under this subsection as respects any vehicles shall be such reasonable charges as may be fixed by the local authority, so, however, that if the public service vehicle licence holder in respect of any vehicles using the parking place as a station considers that the charges fixed are unreasonable, then, in default of agreement between the licence holder and the local authority for a reduction thereof, the charges in respect of those vehicles shall be such as may be determined by the Minister."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the House will recall that at the Committee stage three Amendments to this clause stood on the Order Paper. Two dealt with the distinction between parking places on, or off, the street; and, with the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who had moved the clause, words were inserted by your Lordships to meet this point. A third Amendment, to leave out part of the clause, stood in the name of Lord Mount Temple, but the noble Lord did not press it; and I fear that, from the brief statement which he made, I did not fully apprehend what was in the minds of those on whose behalf he spoke. Fortunately, I need not trouble your Lordships at this stage of the Bill with details of the possible interpretations which, but for this clause, might in certain quarters have been placed upon a number of inter-related statutory provisions. Since Thursday last there have been consultations between the Minister and representatives both of the local

1025
authorities and of the operators of public service vehicles, the result of which consultations is the Amendment which I now move. The provision which it makes for appeal to the Minister in the event of a dispute arising will, I am assured, go very far towards meeting the wishes of those on whose behalf the noble Lord, Lord Mount Temple, has interested himself in this matter, and I do not think that the local authorities will demur to such a provision.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 4, leave out from ("charges") to the end of line 10 and insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 34:
As to evidence of exceeding a speed limit.
".A person charged with exceeding the maximum speed permitted by Section one of this Act or by the First Schedule to this Act or by an Order made in pursuance of Section forty-six of the principal Act shall not be convicted on the evidence of the driver of a vehicle as to the rate of speed observed by means of a speedometer unless such evidence is corroborated by the evidence of some other person."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the point in this new clause is that there ought not to be a conviction for exceeding the speed limit on the sole evidence of a police constable who is attempting to watch a speedometer while driving behind the vehicle alleged to be exceeding the speed limit. I am sure those of your Lordships who drive motor cars will agree that it is quite impossible for a policeman to drive his car properly and with due regard to public safety, as he must, and at the same time record and look at the moving hand of the speedometer on his dashboard. The present law on the subject is contained in Section 10 (3) of the Act of 1930, which provides that there shall be no conviction solely on the evidence of one witness that in his opinion the person charged was driving at a greater speed than the maximum allowed. We want to make quite, certain that convictions obtained under this Bill are fair and just, and I feel therefore that the practice of the Act of 1930 should be continued in the present Bill.
It has been held that corroboration of the opinion of a witness may be furnished
1026
by a speedometer reading. This would be a very dangerous practice if the policeman attempted to drive in pursuit and to keep his eye on the speedometer at the same time. It would, in fact, be absolutely impossible to do so. This point was raised in another place and the Minister then promised to consider the matter. He remarked:
"I am not wholly happy on the point, and I am certainly not quite happy as to the position under any speed limit which is imposed under Section 46 of the 1930 Act."
This clause will also cure a defect in the present law relating to a local speed limit imposed under Section 46 of the Act of 1930. The provision of Section 10 (3), which I have referred to, does not apply in the case of a prosecution for exceeding a speed limit fixed by order under Section 46, and I contend that the magistrates can if they think fit under such an order convict on the opinion of a single constable without any corroboration.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I think there must be some slight misunderstanding about this. I am informed that on the Report stage in another place the honourable Member for Clitheroe asked
"if the Minister could undertake that two people should be there; although one was driving the other could be watching the speedometer."
Mr. Stanley replied:
"I cannot give the honourable and gallant Member an undertaking, but I will look into the point."
He referred to an assurance which he had received from the Secretary of State that it would not be common for police prosecution to be based on a detection in which only one officer was driving behind the alleged offender. Since that date a further assurance has been given that the Metropolitan Police do not contemplate any departure from the normal practice under which the mobile police work in pairs on this class of duty. At the same time it cannot be guaranteed that this will be possible in absolutely every case throughout the country. The Amendment which the noble Earl has moved on this occasion differs somewhat from a similar Amendment that he

1027
moved during the Committee stage, the difference being that this Amendment only refers to offences alleged to have occurred in built-up areas, whereas the Amendment put down during the Committee stage referred to offences occurring on all the roads of the country. Therefore, clearly this Amendment does not any longer deal with the case of a solo motor cyclist policeman following a motor coach or commercial vehicle over a stretch of ten miles in the open country.
This House has, however, already accepted provisions which secure a desirable uniformity of treatment, as regards evidence, liability to endorsement of licence, and penalties, in the case of all offences against a speed limit, whether the limit is a general one imposed by the First Schedule or is the limit under Clause 1 of the Bill, or a local limit imposed under a special order such as the Oxford Order. I really think it would be inconsistent at this stage to go back on this very necessary work of coordination and make different requirements as to offences in different classes of cases. In effect, the noble Earl's Amendment says that if a case of this kind occurs in the open country corroboration of a second person is not necessary, but where an offence occurs in a built-up area corroboration is necessary from a second person in the vehicle which is following the offender's vehicle. I honestly cannot believe that the difficulties are as great as the noble Earl suggests in a matter of this kind, and I cannot believe that occasions do not occur, and occur fairly frequently, where it would be absolutely safe for a single solo motor cyclist policeman to follow a car which was exceeding the speed limit in a built-up area, without in any way endangering the public safety. After all, the real importance lies in the fact that everything should be done to make these provisions enforcible as easily as possible. Emphasis has been laid by speakers throughout the whole course of these debates on the vital necessity of enforcing the provisions of the Bill, and I therefore maintain that any unnecessary difficulties which are put in the way of making it possible for the police to bring offenders to justice should be avoided. I have given an assurance to the noble Earl that, generally speaking, it would be the common practice, as it has been in the past, for the police to
1028
depend upon the evidence of two men together, but at the same time I am not prepared to accept this Amendment which would make it impossible for any offender to be convicted in any circumstances on the evidence of a single policeman.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I cannot help being astounded at the reply we have just heard. I do not know whether the noble Earl drives his own motor car or whether he has ever ridden a motor cycle, but I say quite definitely and positively that to drive a motor car or a motor cycle behind a vehicle at exactly the same speed as that vehicle so that you are able to say the speed which it is doing cannot be done unless your eyes are kept on the speedometer. It is most difficult to keep up exactly the same speed as another vehicle, whether it is doing thirty miles an hour or thirty-five miles an hour. If you have to go on looking at your speedometer and asking yourself: "What am I doing now?" you are going to be absolutely unable to swear, as you will have to swear in a court of law, that that vehicle was doing a certain speed. It demands positively that one man shall watch the speedometer and another man judge the distance and keep immediately behind the other vehicle. During last week-end out of sheer amusement, after reading this provision, I had a little bit of fun trying to do this, and I came to the conclusion that I was not only unable to do it but that I was a positive danger. If we were going anything up to twenty miles an hour then the chances of my bumping the vehicle in front in the event of a sudden stop were such that I could not take my eyes off the vehicle to observe anything else, and if we were going faster than that I was too busy looking where I was going to have any time to spare to look at my speedometer.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I am sorry indeed to hear the reply of the Minister to this Amendment. I can assure the noble Earl that I speak with a certain amount of personal experience, and I endorse every word that has fallen from the noble Lord who has just spoken. It is a practical impossibility accurately to observe the movement of a handless speedometer and watch the road at the same time. The driver of a police motor cycle or the driver of a police car is just as much amenable to the law of the land,

1029
luckily, as anyone else. Police drivers have not shown themselves too expert in the handling of their vehicles on the road. There have been many complaints of the handling of police cars, and a considerable number of accidents have unfortunately occurred in connection with their use. I am glad to bear that no change is contemplated in the practice of the Metropolitan Police, and if we were only concerned with the Metropolitan Police probably all would be well; but we are not. This Bill is going to operate all over the country, and I feel we are dealing here with a matter of considerable substance.
I do not in any way desire to see the measure weakened; not in the least. I want to see convictions properly obtained, and I want to see convictions that mean something. The penalties imposed under this Bill are very stringent indeed, and I am perfectly certain your Lordships do not want to see people's livelihood taken away by evidence upon which any
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, after Clause 34, to insert the following new clause:
Assessors on the hearing of prosecutions for motor vehicle offences.
".Where in any case a person is charged with an offence of driving a motor vehicle in contravention of the provisions of the principal Act or this Act the court shall, if application for the purpose is duly made by or on behalf of the defendant, try the case with the assistance of two assessors having special knowledge and experience of the driving of motor vehicles to be appointed out of a list of persons for the time being approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State for Home Affairs."
doubt can arise. I do not believe you will get convictions before the courts in any serious case if you are going to rely on the evidence of one man alone. To get any court to convict in a serious case—and it is the serious cases we want to deal with—you will have to have the evidence of two men at least. I am very sorry to hear the Minister's reply, and I regret I shall have to ask the House to divide.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, under the Amendment, as proposed, supposing evidence was given of this kind by a police officer: "I was following the car. I looked at my speedometer. I found it registered seventy miles an hour, and I ask for a conviction"—under this Amendment it would not be possible to convict.
On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 6; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS.

Howe, E. [Teller.]

de Clifford, L.

Marley, L.

Fairfax a Cameron, L.

Redesdale, L.

Sandhurst, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Jessel, L.

Knutsford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Albemarle, E.

Tredegar, V.

Middleton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Feversham, E.

Bayford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Brancepeth, L. (V. Boyne.)

Rockley, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Clwyd, L.

Sanderson, L.

Onslow, E.

Denman, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Plymouth, E.

Dickinson, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Powis, E.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Templemore, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this new clause is, I think, obvious. It is intended to provide for cases where the courts have nobody who really knows much about motor vehicles or who can be described as a motor expert on the bench. In such cases I think that, having regard to the very serious charges which may be brought under the Bill, it is desirable that the bench should have assistance from people who are competent to assist. In other countries they have special courts. Your Lordships are well aware of the practice existing, I believe, in America and many other countries. There are special traffic courts

1031
there to consider offences against their motor laws, and I am personally of opinion that something of the sort would be very desirable here. At the same time it would probably involve a very considerable change in our legal procedure, and that is obviously a thing which a layman like myself would have to be very careful about before doing anything about it.
With regard to providing assessors for the assistance of courts of summary jurisdiction, however, there is, I think, a certain analogy to be found perhaps in the Mercantile Marine Acts. I do not pretend to be very closely acquainted with those Acts, though I have actually studied the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in this connection. At the same time I think it is very essential that we should have people of expert knowledge on the tribunal. There is one other point which I have already referred to this afternoon, and that is with regard to the appeal in the case where a man is tested for a licence and the licence is refused. In that case, also, I think it is very desirable that the court should have expert assistance at its command in order to decide the case before it. With those few words I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 34, insert the said new clause.—(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I should have been interested to hear any noble and learned Lord express an opinion upon this matter. This clause in effect proposes to set up special tribunals for hearing motor cases—that is really what it means. I know the idea of special tribunals has been discussed both here and, I think, in another place, but I venture to say that to introduce a proposal which involves a fundamental principle and which, as well, goes contrary to our legal procedure, on the Report stage in the Second House is perhaps rather a drastic action to take. But I will attempt to deal with what the noble Lord has said as briefly as I can.
The noble Earl himself, both during the debate on the Second Reading and during the consideration of Lord Merrivale's new clause in Committee, said that some form of special court should be set up to deal with all motoring cases, and that they should be constituted on the lines of the
1032
Admiralty Court dealing with accidents at sea. I do not quite know what the noble Earl has in mind, whether he intends that the assessors should take part in the adjudication in this case, or whether they should merely act as expert advisers to the court. I think that the first alternative—namely, that they should take part in the adjudication—would be very undesirable indeed from many points of view. As a matter of fact the clause provides that they must be appointed on the application of the defendant, and therefore the defendant might be able to regulate the constitution of the court, but no doubt the noble Earl probably has the second alternative in mind.
EARL HOWE: I meant the second alternative.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I thought that would probably be the case. Even then that would introduce an altogether new principle in the hearing of our criminal cases, and I can see no valid reason why this should be introduced in motor cases in particular. The appointment of independent experts to assist the court in civil cases—that is, nautical assessors in the case of collisions at sea—affords no precedent for this. There the court is called upon to assess the relative liability of the parties, and in doing so may have to weigh highly technical considerations in a field of which the court has no expert knowledge. Even so, the decision both of fact and law is that of the Judge alone, who is not bound to follow the opinion of the assessors, but must exercise his own judgment. If it were alleged that, arising out of a collision at sea, a criminal offence such as that of manslaughter had been committed within the jurisdiction, the trial of that offence would be before a criminal court just as in the case of any other criminal offence, and there would be no question of the appointment of assessors. The functions of a criminal court—whether a court of summary jurisdiction or a superior court—are wholly different from those of a civil court. The criminal court has not to assess relative liability, but to decide, "yes" or "no," whether an offence has been proved. The decision may sometimes involve the consideration of expert evidence in an unfamiliar field, for instance, medical evidence, but it has

1033
never been suggested that a medical assessor should be appointed to assist the court.
In the case of motoring offences the field in which the proposed assessors are to help is not unfamiliar. There may sometimes be a court composed of justices who are not themselves motorists, and they may not be well informed on the finer points of driving. But that is no reason for adopting a fundamental change in criminal procedure, nor for compelling every court, if a defendant so decides, to appoint persons "having special knowledge and experience of driving" to assist in their deliberations. For these reasons I regret that I am not able to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 35 [Light signals presumption of compliance with statutory requirements]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, there is a drafting Amendment to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 32, leave out ("in accordance with the provisions of Section forty-eight of the principal Act")—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 37 [Provisions respecting sale, of certain motor vehicles or trailers]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to leave out Clause 37. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is really consequential on previous Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 37.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Provisions respecting alteration of certain motor vehicles or trailers]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to leave out Clause 38. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this also is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 38.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Application to Scotland]:
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH moved to insert:
1034
"Subsections (5) and (6) of Section six shall have effect as if for the words 'a court of summary jurisdiction' and the words 'the court' wherever they occur, there were substituted the words 'the Sheriff,' and as if for the words 'acting for the petty sessional division in which' there were substituted the words 'within whose jurisdiction.'"
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 29, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, there is also a drafting Amendment to be made to this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 6, at end insert ("and the expression 'manslaughter' shall mean culpable homicide").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule:

THIRD SCHEDULE.
Consequential and Minor Amendments.
Enactment to be amended.—Amendment.
The principal Act.
Section fifty-seven—
In subsection (2), after the words "foot passengers" there shall be inserted the words "and the erection, maintenance, alteration, and removal of traffic signs".
In subsection (3), after the word "erection" there shall be inserted the words "provision, maintenance, or operation."
In subsection (5), for the words "and (4)", there shall be substituted the words "(4) and (4a)".
Section one hundred and twenty-one—
In subsection (2), after the words "while being driven as aforesaid", there shall be inserted the words "or in relation to motor vehicles used for salvage purposes pursuant to Part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894"; and the reference to the provisions of the First Schedule to the principal Act shall be construed as if it included a reference to the provisions of subsection (1) of Section one of this Act.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords the first Amendment standing in my name is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 6, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of line 10.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in the references to Section 57 of the principal Act, after "subsection (2)", to insert "after the words 'removal of' there shall be inserted the words 'footpaths or grass verges by the side of the road and' and." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am afraid this Amendment seems a little complicated, but if your Lordships have before you the Road Traffic Act of 1930 you will find it is comparatively simple. I think I can explain it without going too much into technicalities if I read the subsection of the Act of 1930 which I propose to amend. Subsection (2) of Section 57 of the Act of 1930 reads as follows:
"The expression 'improvement of roads' in the said Part II shall include the following works, that is to say, the erection, lighting, maintenance, alteration and removal of places of refuge in roads, and the construction, lighting, maintenance, alteration, and removal of subways under roads for the use of foot passengers, and advances may he made out of the Road Fund towards the costs incurred by the council of an urban district in connection with the execution of any such works in a county road."
It may be that in my Amendment I have not gone far enough, but my object is to enable the Ministry to subscribe to the cost of footpaths and grass verges.
I desire to alter the form of the Amendment as it appears on the Paper by including the words "or grass verges." At present the Ministry have power to subscribe out of the Road Fund to a great many things, but as far as I can make out they have no power to subscribe to the cost of footpaths or grass verges. That seems to me to be quite wrong. This Amendment deals with part of the footpath grievance, and it really is a serious grievance, as I think the noble Earl will probably agree, in many parts of the country. A local authority goes to great expense in improving a road. In a particular case which came under my personal observation they spent thousands of pounds upon the road. The result often is to extend the carriage-way to the very edge of what used to be the whole width of the road and there is no space left for the use of pedestrians or horses. That is really a very serious grievance. In the
1036
particular case to which I refer I wrote to the local authority and asked them to change their plans, but they said the cost would be too much, or something of that kind.
Of course, the cost of leaving some kind of footpath either adjoining the road or on the other side of the hedge would be quite inconsiderable compared with the total cost of the work. I think that that ought to be insisted upon. I do not want to say anything offensive about the officials of local authorities, who are admirable people, but they see the traffic question entirely from the point of view of motor drivers. They go about in motor cars—they must do so, or they could not do their work—and they do not see the point of view of foot passengers. In this particular case to which I refer the main road goes from a little hamlet two miles to the larger village where the schools are situated. Therefore the schoolchildren have to go along this road twice a day. I think that is a terrible danger and it must cause great anxiety to the parents and guardians of the children. If a child suffers the slightest absence of mind or at any moment steps a little to the right, that child may be in very serious danger. I beg my noble friend to consider this very carefully. It may be that I have not got the Amendment drafted quite right, but I do urge that power should be given to subscribe from the Road Fund for the construction of footpaths.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 12, after ("(2)") insert ("after the words 'removal of' there shall be inserted the words 'footpaths or grass verges by the side of the road and' and").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I have very great sympathy with the object of the Amendment but I am afraid I am not very sanguine with regard to the object he has in mind. I have seen adequate and proper footpaths provided and I have seen them absolutely ignored by pedestrians. If footpaths are provided I think the Minister ought to do something to ensure that they are used by pedestrians. There is another point which was not touched on by the noble Viscount, and that is the question of the surfacing of footpaths. In many places where there are footpaths the surface leaves a great deal to be desired,

1037
and you really cannot blame the pedestrian if he fails to use the paths under those conditions. Either they have large puddles in them when it is wet or they are very rough and generally unsuitable for foot passenger traffic. If this Amendment is accepted and it leads to an extension of the construction of footpaths, I hope that the Ministry will be able to bring pressure to bear upon local authorities with regard to the kind of footpath provided.
May I put another point? I have very great sympathy with the Amendment which was moved earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Powis, in the interests of horse traffic. I quite agree with what he said. I do not think that half enough attention has been paid by highway authorities to the extraordinarily slippery surfaces of our highways. They affect all forms of traffic. The cyclist, the horse user and the motor car user are all affected. I feel that very much might be done, could be done, and should be done by local authorities to improve the surfaces which they put down on our roads. I have said that I consider that the surfaces are often little better than buttered slides, and it is perfectly true. I am perfectly certain that in many cases accidents occur because of these road surfaces; and we are all interested in the saving of life. While we are on the subject of what might be done with the edges of the roads, what about special tracks for cyclists? You find them in other countries. In fact I do not know how the traffic would go on without them in some countries like Holland, where half the population, or the entire population, seems to live on bicycles. I really do feel that this Amendment is one which should receive our support in the interests of public safety, and that is the reason why I desire to support the noble Viscount.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I am advised that this Amendment is absolutely unnecessary, and that the Minister already has the powers which the noble Viscount desires him to possess. Section 57 (2) of the 1930 Act, which the noble Viscount quoted, has as its object to resolve any doubts that may exist as to whether some types of work come under the general term "improvement of roads." I am advised that no one has ever cast any doubt upon the
1038
idea that the provision of footpaths comes within "improvement of roads," and for that reason it is perfectly clear that the Minister now has powers to make grants for the improvement of roads which, amongst other things, includes the provision of footpaths and grass verges as well.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: May I ask my noble friend if he can tell me whether, apart from some big works to a road, the Ministry have ever been asked by a local authority to subscribe from the Road Fund in order to assist in the construction of a footpath by an existing road? That is the real point. It was thought necessary to set out in Section 57 of the 1930 Act a whole lot of works as to which special words had to be inserted in order to give the Minister power to subscribe to them—things like subways; a whole list of them is set out. What struck me in reading the section was: Why was it necessary to do that, and not necessary to insert special words to enable the Minister to subscribe to footpaths? I do not know whether my noble friend could help me about that; but I think that something ought to be done.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I am afraid I am not in a position to give my noble friend an answer specifically to the question he has asked, whether application has been made for a grant from the Road Fund for the making of a footpath alone irrespective of the improvement of a road generally, but as I am advised, it is perfectly within the powers of the Minister to make grants for footpaths just as for those other purposes enumerated in Section 57 (2) of the main Act.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will consider this a little further. As a matter of construction I should myself have very great doubt whether "improvement of roads necessarily included the provision of footpaths, and my noble and learned friend Lord Cecil will share that doubt. I cannot help thinking that anybody with any practical experience of the administration of the law would agree that such a doubt exists. Now what the noble Earl has told the House is that the intention of the Legislature is that the provision of footpaths shall be included. If that is so, all that will be done by accepting the noble Viscount's Amendment is to add words

1039
which upon some view as to the construction of the existing law would be redundant. It is a risk that is very well worth running to my mind, and I hope that the noble Viscount will press his Amendment.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill what he will lose by accepting this Amendment. If he is right in his construction it will do no harm; if he is wrong a deficiency in the law will be supplied. From the merely Parliamentary point of view, this Bill has to go to another place, so far as Amendments inserted in your Lordships' House are concerned. So far as a legal question is involved, the noble Earl can turn up the matter between now and the consideration of our Amendments in another place. In the circumstances, rather than leave the House and the public in the doubt which has been expressed, surely he can make the position clear, and if he finds on further consideration and legal advice that this is unnecessary the matter can be put right at the last stage of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL HOWE EARL HOWE moved, in the reference to subsection (3) of Section 57 of the principal Act, to leave out "maintenance or operation" and insert "or maintenance." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and the one following it, to insert a proviso as to the cost of operating weighbridges, are moved in the interests of commercial motor and road haulage concerns. The Act of 1930 authorised a grant for the erection of weighbridges, but by this Bill it is proposed to go further. It is proposed that Road Fund money shall be devoted to the maintenance and operation of weighbridges. The interests affected consider that it is absolutely unnecessary. It is, I believe, usual to charge a fee of about a shilling for the use of a weighbridge, and most of the weighbridges, at any rate the ones which are in the more extensively used areas, pay for their own maintenance and upkeep. It is considered to be quite unnecessary that Road Fund money should be expended for this purpose. It is thought, at any rate, by those for whom I speak, that if extra money is required it should be provided, as suggested in my Amendment, by the local authorities. In most cases these weighbridges are self-
1040
supporting, and therefore those for whom I speak have taken the view they have.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 19, leave out ("maintenance or operation") and insert ("or maintenance").—(Earl Howe.)
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I think this proposal will meet with the most strenuous opposition from the local authorities. It is not true to say that in every case the weighbridge pays its own way.
EARL HOWE: I said in most cases.
LORD BAYFORD: It does not always, and to throw the expense upon the local authorities would be very much resented by those authorities.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, perhaps I might explain the matter a little further. Section 57 of the principal Act, as amended by the Third Schedule, will read:
"Advances may be made out of the Road Fund towards the expenses incurred by any highway authority in the erection, provision, maintenance or operation of weighbridges or other machines for weighing vehicles …."
The noble Earl proposes to omit the word "operation", and in his second Amendment proposes that "as far as practicable" the cost of operating the weighbridges shall be met out of charges made for their use. It is important to remember that the section of the principal Act is an enabling provision only. It empowers, but does not require, the Minister to make grants for weighbridges. Weighbridges to-day are of two kinds—fixed and portable. With regard to fixed weighbridges, the Minister has, in the past, under the powers granted by the principal Act, made grants out of the Road Fund towards the initial provision of fixed weighbridges. Local authorities have been responsible for their upkeep, towards which they presumably have applied the sums paid by persons wishing to have their goods weighed. These public weighbridges have been largely used for purposes not connected in any way with the detection of offences.
The portable weighbridge is a modern development and is capable of being carried in a light car or indeed in the sidecar of a motor cycle. It is used primarily for the purpose of securing enforcement of regulations, and fines imposed on con-

1041
viction inure ultimately to the Road Fund. The highway authorities appear, therefore, to be justified in asking for some contribution from the Road Fund towards the maintenance and operation of these weighbridges. I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in the references to Section 57 of the principal Act, to insert:
"after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections:
'(6) No grant shall be made from the Road Fund in respect of the construction, repair or alteration of any road, or any part thereof, unless provision is made by the authority responsible therefor for a footpath by the side of or near such road, or by the side of or near such part thereof for the use of foot passengers unless the Minister gives a certificate that he is satisfied that in the interests of the safety of the public such a footpath is unnecessary.
(7) All such certificates shall be laid before Parliament."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships have been good enough to accept the suggestion that the Road Fund shall be able to subscribe to the cost of footpaths and verges. I suggest to your Lordships that we ought to go one step further, and that we ought to say that before assisting any repairs to roads from the Road Fund there should be an inquiry by the Ministry as to whether it is desirable that there should be a footpath provided as part of this improvement. I raised this point four years ago, and the representative of the Government then, the late Earl Russell, certainly gave me to understand—but I must have misunderstood him, because I cannot find anything in the OFFICIAL REPORT to justify my understanding—that in practice the Ministry were in the habit of insisting on footpaths wherever they subscribed to any considerable change in the roads.
That certainly does not appear to be the case in the particular instance to which I have already referred. They certainly did not do it in that case, and if they do it at all they do it very spasmodically. It is true that within five miles from that particular road there is another road, on which there is much less traffic, where considerable alterations have been made, and a footpath, four feet wide, provided on each side of the
1042
road for about a quarter of a mile, leading from nowhere to nowhere. Beyond that there is no footpath at either end. Of course that by itself is perfectly useless, but I am suggesting that with the powers which I am proposing it would have been possible for the Ministry to have made a bargain and said: "We will assist you in those costly changes"—as they must have been—"but you must provide, not a footpath on either side, but a good serviceable footpath which shall go right through to the next footpath, which would make a very valuable addition and be of service to the public."
I suggest that before making any grant from the Road Fund the Ministry shall enquire as a matter of routine whether it is necessary to have a footpath, and unless they are satisfied it is not necessary, in the interest of public safety, that a footpath should be made, then they shall say that they cannot provide financial assistance until this point is met. This idea is approved even by the representatives of the Ministry of Transport, because I think I cited on the Second Reading a speech made by an engineer of the Ministry, in which he said in so many words that nothing was more necessary than the provision of footpaths, and that it was the greatest nonsense to say that footpaths were not used. On the contrary, when footpaths are provided experience in urban and semi-urban districts shows that the public soon begin to use them. I am satisfied from observation that many of the public do use the footpaths, and particularly children who have been instructed by their parents to use them. I hope my noble friend will accept this and the next Amendment, which would make an important and valuable change in the law as it is at the present moment.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 34, at end, insert the said new subsections (6) and (7).—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, surely this is carrying a good idea a great deal too far. The words are:
"No grant shall be made from the Road Fund in respect of the construction, repair, or alteration of any road or any part thereof, unless provision is made … for a footpath,"
and the Minister is to make an inquiry in every case. Where is he going to find

1043
the staff to make the tens of thousands of inquiries he would have to make all over the country? There are not a quarter of the roads in my part of the country which have footpaths, and every one of those roads, except the very minor roads, are eligible for grants. The county council has to repair all those roads every year. Before it puts its estimate through for the repair of each one of these roads, is a separate inquiry to be held by the Ministry of Transport in order to say whether it is necessary to have a footpath there or not? Surely the idea is absurd. I do not even want to argue the case whether more footpaths are desirable or necessary or not. From personal observation I know that there is great difficulty in getting people to use the footpaths when they are there. That may not be so in the highly sophisticated district in which my noble friend lives, but in our more remote portions of the West Country he must take my word that it is true. And, really, to give all this trouble and expense to the Ministry to hold these thousands of inquiries that would be necessary seems to me to be an absolutely impracticable proposition.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, I feel a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Cecil in his desire to increase the number of footpaths because, like others of your Lordships, my experience is that when a footpath is there it is used. I was living down in Devonshire during the winter, and there was a road past my house, with a footpath along it. I do not think I ever saw people walking off the footpath. They always used the footpath, and very wisely so, because the place was infested with motor cars. May I ask my noble friend Lord Cecil whether his proposal is not this? The road authority goes to the Minister and asks for assistance from the Road Fund. The Minister then says: "Are you sure you do not want a footpath? Ought you not to have a footpath?" The road authority says, "No." The Minister says, "I will come and look at it," and afterwards he says he thinks there ought to be a footpath in order to safeguard the public. The local authority says: "No, we will not construct a footpath." Then the Minister says: "Very well then, you must pay for the road yourself." I think that is all there is in
1044
my noble friend's proposal, and I think it is a very reasonable proposal. I do not see why there should be so many inquiries. It seems to me that the Minister who knows his roads will say that a footpath ought to be there, and it is not probable that the local authority would say he does not know his business.
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, I hope the Ministry will accept this Amendment. The idea of having countless inquiries is clearly absurd, because in no cases are grants made without an inquiry to-day by the Minister. Therefore there is no question of any expense in the inquiry. We hear of little lengths of footpaths, 200 or 300 yards long, ending in nothing and beginning in nothing. How can people in the country be taught to use the footpaths when either the footpaths are not there to use, or they only proceed for a few hundred yards and then stop, so that people have to go into the road again? Of course, they are not learning to use the footpaths. The object of the Amendment is to secure that there shall be footpaths in all these country roads, and I hope the Minister will accept it.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the Lord Chairman was not quite right in his description of what occurs. It is perfectly true that, when a highway authority wants a grant from the Road Fund for improvements, the divisional road engineer must decide as the result of his experience whether it is an improvement which can be recognised as grant-earning or not. It is perfectly true he would go to the place and might say that it was a place where they ought to have a footpath, and the local authority might say: "No, we do not think so." Then the Minister would say: "Very well, we will give you nothing from the Road Fund." But that is not all that the noble Viscount's Amendment does. It goes somewhat further than that. It says that on every occasion when a grant is made, without a footpath being included in the improvement, a certificate would have to be given by the Minister to the effect that this was not an instance where it was necessary or desirable to have a footpath, and that all these certificates should be laid upon the Tables of the two Houses of Parliament. This is a matter which is entirely within the discretion of the Minister at the present

1045
moment. He can now refuse to make a grant out of the Road Fund in any instance where a highway authority refuses to make a footpath and he thinks it ought to be made; and he does do that. The only effect of this Amendment is to require these certificates to be laid on the Tables of the two Houses.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: No.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I think that is so, and I cannot conceive that that is really necessary.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: My Lords, I very much hope the Government will reconsider their attitude. I really think my Amendment is more reasonable than they suggest. The point is this. Hero is this tremendous slaughter on the roads. Unquestionably if you could get the pedestrian to use footpaths in the country districts you would diminish that slaughter very greatly. There is not any doubt, I believe, in the mind of any member of the House as to this. The question is what can we do as a branch of the Legislature to forward that idea. One thing we can do is to call the attention of the Ministry of Transport to this matter and to ask them to consider carefully, not any question of expense or anything of that kind, but solely this question: Is a footpath necessary for the safety of the public? That is the one question they ought to consider under my Amendment. Everything else would be left to their discretion, as it is now, but they must be satisfied that a footpath is not necessary in the public interest and for public safety before they make their grant. I really do not think that is a very unreasonable request to make. The noble
Lord, Lord Bayford, who on these subjects speaks with great authority, says there will be endless difficulties: you would have to have elaborate inquiries in every part of the country. I really think that is not so. As the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, has pointed out the divisional engineer has to report, and one of his standing instructions would be to see whether it was not necessary in the interest of public safety to have a footpath. It would not add very greatly to the complication of the present proceedings. I feel that I must press my Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I do not like the drafting of my noble friend Lord Cecil; on the other hand, as far as the object of the Amendment is concerned I cannot help thinking that many people in many parts of the country know that what is proposed is very much in the interest of the most helpless people in the country, and it is very desirable that there should be footpaths. Footpaths have been wiped out to a great extent in the course of the last forty or fifty years. It is astonishing to go round the countryside which one knew years ago and to see how footpaths have been obliterated. What the noble Viscount says in his Amendment is: "Let the responsible person consider, if you are going to spend money upon road-making, whether a footpath is necessary as part of that work you are going to do." So far as the drafting is concerned, it can be dealt with in another place, but the principle, I feel sure, is a most wholesome principle.
On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS.

Onslow, E.

Clwyd, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Powis, E.

Dickinson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Rhayader, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V. [Teller.]

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sanderson, L.

Marley, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Knutsford, V.

Merrivale, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Tredegar, V.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Howe, E.

Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Albemarle, E.

Mar and kellie, E.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

De La Warr, E.

Plymouth, E.

Hailsham, V.

Feversham, E.

Stanhope, E.

Bayford, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Stonehaven, L.

Cobham, L.

Jessel, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

de Clifford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rockley, L.

Templemore, L.

Wakehurst, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in the references to the principal Act, to insert "Section fifty-eight, leave out 'they shall deem it.'" The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I quite conceive is of less importance than the one which we have just decided. The object of it is to leave out the words "they shall deem it" where they occur in Section 58 of the principal Act. At present the clause runs thus:
"It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers …"
And then again—
"… wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of ridden horses and driven livestock …"
I venture to suggest that what we ought to have are the words "wherever it is necessary," not "wherever they shall deem it necessary." The effect would be that if they did not do it it would be possible to proceed to the courts and ask the courts, in any particular case where there was great dereliction of duty, to review the matter, as, of course, you can review it in many cases of local government where the local authorities fail to carry out their duties. That is the suggestion I have to make. It is not one that brooks any considerable argument. I do not know whether the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, but I trust they will be able to do that little thing for us if they will not do more.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 34, at end insert "section fifty-eight, leave out 'they shall deem it'").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment. I dealt with this particular question somewhat fully on the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Powys, and I pointed out that it is the local authority, the county council, which is the highway authority and which is in the end responsible in these cases.
As a matter of fact, in my view, the Minister has the powers already which my noble friend wishes him to have, and the effect of this Amendment would, I venture to say, be nil. At the same time you would be relieving the highway authorities of responsibilities which are properly theirs and placing those responsibilities on the shoulders of the Minister. That, in effect, is what the Amendment would do. Instead of leaving it to the highway authorities to decide whether it is necessary or not, it would place the onus of deciding on the shoulders of the Minister.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: Surely my noble friend is wrong, if he will allow me to say so. If you say, "You will have to do something if you think it is necessary," it is a complete answer for the local authority to say, "We do not think it is necessary." The Minister might be ever so clear that it is necessary and yet he would have no remedy.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: The remedy is not to make a grant from the Road Fund.
VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD: That may be, but there may be the strongest possible feeling, as there is in the locality where I live, that they ought to have more power and they have no remedy. I do not say that in that particular case it would be possible to bring the matter to the courts, but the fact that it might be possible to proceed to the courts does make the official approach to these questions entirely different. They have to consider whether this is actually necessary, and they must consider, therefore, not only what their surveyor tells them, but whether the ordinary man in the street will think it is necessary. I hope my noble friend will accept the Amendment. If he is right and the effect will be nil, it will do no harm to accept. I am satisfied he is wrong, but that, naturally, he cannot believe. Therefore from his own point of view it will have no effect to accept the Amendment. From my point of view it will have great effect. I beg my noble friend to accept. It is not, as

1049
I say, a matter of the same importance as the Amendment which has just been rejected, but nevertheless it is a matter of considerable importance, and I do hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept it.
LORD BAYFORD: My Lords, I would like to remind my noble friend before he considers giving way to this, that the way it will be considered by local authorities is that it is taking the power of decision which now belongs to them out of their hands and putting it in the hands of the Ministry. To that they will most certainly object.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, the next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 31, leave out ("subsection (1) of Section one of this Act)" and insert ("any enactment or of any statuory rule or order, imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL, [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. I will only trouble your Lordships with a very few words in moving this Motion. Most of the Amendments are of a drafting nature and the others have been either moved or accepted by the Government and are substantial improvements to the Bill.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
[The references are to Bill No. 93.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out from ("him") to ("shall") in line 10.
Clause 1, Page 1, line 11, at end insert (" Provided that this subsection shall not apply to causes of action for defamation or seduction, or for inducing one spouse to leave or remain apart from the other, or to claims under Section one hundred and eighty-nine of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, for damages on the ground of adultery.")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will take these two Amendments together. Under Clause 1 of the Bill, on the death of any person causes of action, with certain exceptions, will survive against or for the benefit of his estate. The object of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that not only are causes of action for defamation and seduction excluded from the operation of the clause but also claims for damages against a co-respondent.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("vindictive") and insert ("exemplary")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,THE LORD CHANCELLOR, My Lords, I beg to move that we agree with, the Commons in the Amendment in line 16 to leave out "vindictive" and insert "exemplary." I might explain that "exemplary" is the word commonly used, and it is considered a more suitable word than "vindictive."
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 4, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) No proceedings shall be maintainable in respect of a cause of action in tort which by virtue of this section has survived against the estate of a deceased person unless either—

(a) proceedings against him in respect of that cause of action were pending at the date of his death; or

(b) the cause of action arose not earlier than six months before his death and proceedings are taken in respect thereof not later than six months after his personal representative took out representation.")

THE LORD CHANCELLOR,THE LORD CHANCELLOR, My Lords, I beg to move that we agree with the Commons Amendment to leave out subsection (3) and insert the words as printed. The object of this Amendment is to make the clause apply not only to actions but also to administration proceedings which are not actions.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("1843") and insert ("1846")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,THE LORD CHANCELLOR, My Lords, I beg to move that we agree with the Commons in this Amendment. It is a drafting Amendment. The date of the Act is, of course, 1846, not 1843.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("subsection (1) of this section")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next Amendment of the Commons is also a drafting one. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 2, line 30, leave out from the beginning to ("be") in line 32 and insert:
("(6) In the event of the insolvency of an estate against which proceedings are maintainable by virtue of this section, any liability in respect of the cause of action in respect of which the proceedings are maintainable shall")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that we agree with the Commons Amendment on line 30. The object of this Amendment is to make the clause apply not only to actions but also to administration proceedings which are not actions.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out ("1843") and insert ("1846").
Clause 2, Page 3, line 15, leave out ("1843") and insert ("1846").
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the next two Amendments of the Commons are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) In an action brought tinder the Fatal Accidents Acts, 1846 to 1908, damages may be awarded in respect of the funeral expenses of the deceased person if such expenses have been incurred by the parties for whose benefit the action is brought")
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that we agree with the Commons Amendment to leave out subsection (3) and insert the words as printed. This is really only a drafting Amendment. It was thought that the words in the Bill might possibly be misconstrued. The object of the Amendment is to remove any possible idea that an unreasonably large sum must necessarily be awarded for funeral expenses.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 11:
Outdoor relief to members of friendly societies, etc.
11.—(1) In affording outdoor relief to any person a local authority shall disregard—
(c) the whole of the maternity benefit payable in respect of his own or his wife's insurance under the last-mentioned Acts, exclusive of any increase of such benefit by way of additional benefit and of any second maternity benefit within the meaning of those Acts; and
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), to leave out "payable in respect of his own or his wife's insurance." The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment is mainly drafting and is to ensure that the concession regarding maternity benefit will extend to the maternity benefit that is payable to an insured unmarried woman on her confinement. It was found that the provision in paragraph (c) of Clause 11 as it stands

1053
at present would not cover that case. It was, however, intended that such a case should be covered. The Amendment brings the provision into line with the corresponding provision in Section 38 (3) (a) of the Unemployment Act, 1934.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 40, leave out from ("benefit") to ("under") in line 42.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)

COLONIAL STOCK BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bill:
Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (URBAN DISTRICT OF SEA- FORD ORDER).
Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Act to the urban, district of Seaford:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past seven o'clock.