Sitting of 7 June 1934

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the County of Middlesex (Twickenham Division), in the room of Hylton Ralph Murray-Philipson, Esquire (deceased).—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
North Wales Electric Power Bill [Lords] (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (Clacton-on-Sea and Saint Mawes) Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Thursday next.
Irvine and District Water Board Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].
Considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  SCOTLAND.

    SHIPBUILDING AND ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Minister of Labour how many men were employed in the shipbuilding and engineering industries in Scotland in 1920; what was the aggregate output of tonnage for that year; how many men are now employed; and what has been the displacement of labour in the Clyde area between 1920 and 1934?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I regret that comparable statistics are not available showing the numbers of men employed in the shipbuilding and engineering industries in Scotland in 1920 and 1934 or the extent
    1054
    to which labour has been displaced in the Clyde area during that period. I understand that the gross tonnage of merchant vessels built in Scotland in 1920 was 764,618, and the tonnage of British war vessels launched at Clyde yards was 429. No official statistics are available as to the output of the engineering industries in Scotland in 1920.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the information from the year 1923 up to the latest possible date?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, I shall be glad to give the hon. Member the information asked for from 1923 up to 1933, and I shall be glad to do so by letter or in the form of an answer to a question.

    SMALLHOLDINGS.
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken since the end of 1933 to meet the demand, noted in the recent report of the Department of Agriculture, of the 2,600 applicants for plots of land for cultivation; and what is the total estimated programme for the present year?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): Since 1st January, 1934, the Department have completed arrangements for leasing 492 acres of land in 48 centres in 10 counties, mainly in the industrial belt, on which 644 applicants have been given plots. As regards the last part of the question I regret I am not in a position to make any statement at present.

    DISTURBANCE, EDINBURGH.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any report from the Commissioner of Police for Edinburgh in connection with the disturbance at the Fascist meeting in the Usher Hall, Edinburgh, on Friday night last; if he is aware that 300 men from Manchester, Newcastle, Glasgow and Gateshead were sent to Edinburgh as a bodyguard; and if he can state the number of persons; injured at the disturbance caused?
    Sir G. COLLINS: I have received a report from the chief constable from which it appears that no disturbance occurred at the meeting referred to. In

    1055
    the neighbourhood of the hall, however, attempts to hold anti-Fascist demonstrations were made and after the meeting there was some disorder in the streets. With regard to the second part of the question I understand that some 350 Fascists attended the meeting and acted as stewards, but I have no information as to the districts from which they came. As regards the last part, I am informed that seven persons were injured during the disorder which followed the meeting.

    MUNICIPAL TRANSPORT SERVICES, PERTH.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the Perth town council by a majority has decided to sell the municipal transport services to a private company despite the opposition of the ratepayers, who signed a petition against the transfer; and will he consider the advisability of holding a public inquiry with a view to preventing the sale of a public service to a private company, which is part of a large semi-monopoly in Scotland in which the railway companies are financially interested?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): My hon. Friend has seen some mention of this matter in the Press, and when he has more information he will communicate with the hon. Member.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.
    Mr. THORNEasked the Minister of Labour whether men and women on transitional payments will share in the increased benefits which are being restored to the unemployed when they come into operation on 1st July; and whether cases in which determinations of need have been made at less than the existing maximum rates will be affected by the proposed change of benefit rates?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The increased benefit rates will replace the existing maximum rates at which transitional payments may be determined. Subject, therefore, to the requirements of the Order in Council it will be competent for local authorities to increase their determinations.

    DERELICT AREAS (COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS).
    Mr. GEORGE HALLasked the Minister of Labour whether any of the commissioners have completed their in vestigations into the special conditions in the distressed area, and has he received any report; and will he state whether it is intended to have a separate report from each area, or are the commissioners to meet at the conclusion of their in vestigations for the purpose of submitting a joint report?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. I anticipate that separate reports will be made by the four investigators, but until the investigations are completed it will be premature to reply to the last part of the question.
    Mr. BATEY: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman expects the investigation to be completed; has he fixed any date?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: No, Sir, because I want the investigators to have the fullest opportunity for making their investigations.
    Mr. BATEY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise the need for having these reports finished, so that the House can consider them before the Recess?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: I appreciate the importance of having the reports completed as soon as possible, but I do not want to place a limit of time which would have the result of making these investigations less valuable.

    INSTRUCTIONAL CENTRES AND CAMPS (RELIGIOUS WORSHIP).
    Mr. LOGANasked the Minister of Labour what provisions are made at the Government training centres and instructional centres and camps organised by his Department for the attendances of the men at places of worship and the fulfilment by them of the obligations of their religion?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Each man is free to attend at all reasonable times a place of worship of his religion if there is one near to the centre. If the centre is at a considerable distance from a church or chapel, a weekly service is held, usually taken by a minister of religion and

    1057
    generally of an undenominational character. If arrangements cannot be made for Roman Catholics at the centres or camps to attend a place of worship, an invitation is extended to a priest to visit the centre and conduct a service for them.
    Mr. LOGAN: If any hardship should arise, is the Minister prepared to enter into amicable arrangements with the authorities concerned?
    Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, certainly.

    UNEMPLOYMENT BILL.
    Mr. KIRKWOODasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that local authorities in Scotland were led to believe that, under the Unemployment Bill, the Government would take over the responsibility for able-bodied relief to the unemployed; and when the Government intends to give effect to their pledge on this subject so that the ratepayers in distressed areas may obtain the aid promised last year?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): The only pledge of which I am aware was that given by the Minister of Health, and this pledge is fully implemented by the provisions of the Unemployment Bill. I am not yet in a position to say when Part II of the Bill will be brought into operation.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Financial Secretary tell us when he will be in a position to make a statement?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As I cannot give an answer in respect to the future with accuracy, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will excuse me from answering it now.
    Mr. GUY: Will the hon. Gentleman consider issuing a White Paper showing how the Government will pay 95 per cent. of the cost of able-bodied relief, as there are doubts about this in the minds of local authorities?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will readily look into the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: In the event of a White Paper being issued, will the hon. Gentleman see that we on this side of the House get the information as well as hon. Members across the way?
    HON. MEMBERS: It will be a White Paper.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I know, but I only want to make sure.
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that he does not often allow himself to be left out of anything.

    LANCASHIRE COUNTY CONSTABULARY.
    Major JESSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction existing amongst the recruits of the Lancashire County Constabulary; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the actions of the chief constable in this respect?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): No representations have hitherto been made to me regarding any dissatisfaction among recruits to the Lancashire constabulary. I may say, however, that I understand that, at the request of the chief constable, a special meeting of the Standing Joint Committee is being convened for the purpose of considering the general administration of discipline in the county constabulary.
    Major JESSON: While assuring my right hon. Friend that there is substance in the question, does he not consider that in the interests of the future efficiency of the Lancashire police force it is very necessary that these nervous apprehensions should be allayed at the earliest possible moment?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I think the answer that I have given should do so.
    Mr. RHYS: When the committee called by the chief constable of Lancashire has met, is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to go into the whole question of the discipline of the police force in Lancashire?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: That is a matter for the Standing Joint Committee.
    Mr. DAVIES: Does he not think that the time has arrived when he himself should take a hand in settling this problem?
    Major JESSONasked the Home Secretary whether he will introduce legislation granting to members of county constabulary the right of appeal to a standing joint committee against disciplinary decisions of a county chief constable?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. There is an appeal to me if a man is dismissed or required to resign and I am not aware of any reason for any further appeal.
    Major JESSON: May I ask why a member of a borough police force should have a right of appeal to his watch committee, a right which is denied to a member of a county police force to the Standing Joint Committee; and does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that by denying this right to a member of a county police force it gives unrivalled power to an autocratic chief constable?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. There is a final appeal to the Home Secretary, and, if there be anything improper done on the part of any chief constable, it is fully investigated by the proper authorities.
    Major JESSON: But only in the case of a dismissal of a policeman?
    Mr. SUTCLIFFE: Does my right hon. Friend propose to ask the watch committee for an explanation of the present unrest in the county police of Lancashire?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: As I have stated, an inquiry is to be held by the Standing Joint Committee, and, until they have made their inquiries and moved in the matter, I have nothing further to add.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: After the inquiry has been held, does the right hon. Gentleman receive a report of the decision arrived at?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Not necessarily?
    Mr. PIKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for a report?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir. The power is in the hands of the proper statutory body. Until they think fit to apply to me, it is not my business to intervene.

    LEONAKD ROWLAND HILL (NEWSPAPER REPORTS).
    Sir REGINALD BLAKERasked the Home Secretary whether his attention
    1060
    has been drawn to the fact that certain newspapers recently published a photograph of Leonard Rowland Hill, stating that he was suspected of having fired at and wounded a police officer near Worthing, and made public the fact that this man had previously been convicted of other offences; whether the information as to such previous convictions was obtained from the police authority; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent in future the disclosure by the police of such information which is likely to prejudice the fair trial of accused persons?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I have seen an issue of one paper in which information was given of a previous conviction of this man. I am informed on inquiry that this information was not supplied to the Press by the police. The police authorities are careful not to supply such information to the Press for the reason to which my hon. Friend calls attention.
    Sir R. BLAKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring to the notice of the Press how undesirable it is that this information should be disclosed?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I think the answer I have given in this House will do that.
    Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Will he consider the advisability of excluding altogether any reference to previous convictions?

    BAKERIES (JUVENILE EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the prevalence of baking in small dwelling-houses and back shop-premises; and whether he will take steps to see that these places are properly supervised by the factory inspector, and to strengthen the law in this respect?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware that baking is carried on in many small premises. These are inspected by the factory inspectors and also by the officers of the local authorities who are responsible for the enforcement of certain special sanitary requirements applicable to bakehouses. They are receiving special attention at present from the factory inspectors in connection with an inquiry which is being made into the hours of the

    1061
    young persons employed there, and on present information no further steps appear to be necessary.
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Home Secretary whether he will state the number of permits given to employers to allow juveniles to commence work in bakeries before 6 a.m.?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: Permits are not required for this purpose. Under Section 38 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, male young persons over 16 may be employed in baking bread from 5 a.m. subject to stated conditions, one of which is that notice must be given to the factory inspector. The number of such notices now in force is not available, but, as I have just mentioned, the hours of young persons in bakehouses are being specially investigated during the present year, and when this inquiry is complete I will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Gentleman promise to do something about it if he finds that they are employed before six o'clock? Investigation is no use without action.
    Mr. THORNE: May I ask whether the Act applies to bakeries where no machinery is used?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I should like to have notice of that question.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is going to make inquiries. If he finds that injustice is being done will he take action?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: That is a purely hypothetical question.

    DRUNKENNESS (BLOOD TESTS).
    Mr. HALESasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that in Sweden a blood test is taken of a person charged with drunkenness; and, having regard to the satisfactory results thereform, if he will consider the desirability of taking steps to introduce the same procedure into this country?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the test to which my hon. Friend refers. Evidence derived from a blood test is sometimes given in this country in cases where drunkenness is an element in a
    1062
    criminal charge, but I have no power to require any person to submit to such a test.

    FACTORIES AND WORKSHOPS (INSPECTOR'S REPORT).
    Mr. RHYS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary when the report for the last year of the chief inspector of factories and workshops will be issued?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I hope the report will be issued by the middle of next month.

  EDUCATION.

    SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.
    Mr. TINKERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education if he has recently considered the question of raising the school-leaving age to 15; and will he state to the House the Government's intention on this matter?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My Noble Friend regrets that he is not in a position to make any statement in the matter.
    Mr. TINKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the urgent demand for the raising of the school age on the part of Lancashire authorities; and will he be in a position to give me a reply if I repeat this question in two weeks time?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am aware that a resolution has been passed in the sense which the hon. Member indicates, but I regret that I cannot add anything to my reply.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is it the decision of His Majesty's Government not to raise the school-leaving age; and, if not, will the hon. Gentleman bring the question before the Prime Minister, who is pledged to it, and the Lord President of the Council, and ask them whether they do not think it is time that something was done in this direction?
    Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Is it the case that unemployment among juveniles is much lower now than it was a year ago?
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the hon. Gentleman give us some idea as to when Be is likely to make a statement on behalf of the Government?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am afraid I cannot add anything to what I have said.

    TEACHERS' PENSIONS.
    Mr. BANFIELDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the amount of superannuation contributions paid by teachers during the year ending April, 1934; the amount contributed by local education authorities; the total amount paid in pensions during that year to teachers who were contributors under the 1918 and 1922 Superannuation Acts; and the total amount paid in pensions to all teachers during that year?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: As the reply involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    The information asked for in respect of the financial year 1933–34 is as follows:

    £

    (1) Pension contributions received from teachers

    2,469,914

    (2) Pension contributions received from employers

    2,478,453

    (3) Amount from Local Education Authorities included in (2)

    2,328,188

    (4) Total amount of superannuation allowances and gratuities under the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts, 1918 to 1925

    6,002,369

    (5) Amount attributable to service before 1st June, 1922, included in (4)

    4,928,496

    NEW SCHOOLS (YORKSHIRE, WEST RIDING).
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHSasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many schools are in course of erection in the West Riding of Yorks; and how many new schools have been sanctioned in each of the last three years?
    Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Approval was given by the board to proposals from the West Riding Local Education Authority for the provision of six new elementary schools in the financial year, 1931–32, 12 new elementary schools in the year 1932–33, and six new elementary schools and one mining centre in the year 1933–34. It is understood that 10 elementary schools are now in course of erection.

    WATER SUPPLIES.
    Mr. BERNAYSasked the Minister of Health whether he is in a position to make a statement on the water shortage in England?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend is advised that the position over a large part of the country, the North and East, Wales and the West and the South-West, as well as part of the Midlands, is generally better than it was a month ago. The South and South-East have not shared in the improvement. He has no reason to think that water undertakers will not be able to meet the situation, provided consumers play their part by reasonable economies in the use of water; the co-operation so far given by them accounts largely for improved conditions. In rural areas with defective supplies, the authorities should expedite measures for permanent schmes, with the grant available under the Rural Water Supplies Act.
    Mr. LEVY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while we are battling with drought because of the lack of water from the heavens, the Minister of Mines is battling with the problem of flooded coal mines; and that it is only a question of developing our subterranean resources?
    Mr. LOGAN: Is the Minister aware that there appears in the Press to-day a report of the Liverpool City Council meeting yesterday showing that a neighbouring borough has refused to be economical in the use of water drawn from the Liverpool supply; and is the Minister going to take action in regard to the borough of Wallasey?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Perhaps my hon. Friend would communicate with me about that matter.
    Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is the Minister satisfied that the provision made in the last Act dealing with this matter is satisfactory, and that it enables local authorities to promote works for the provision of water?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The powers conferred on local authorities and statutory bodies under the last emergency Measure are ample for the purpose.
    Sir JOSEPH LAMB: If the Minister believes that the powers are ample, does he also believe that the rural authorities are making the best use of them to-day; and is it not the trouble that some of the authorities do not use the powers that they have?
    Major LLOYD GEORGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are urban districts which cannot get any assistance under these provisions and that they are just as short of water as the rural areas?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The Measure applies alike to urban and rural authorities, and the powers are the most drastic that have been conferred in recent years.
    Major LLOYD GEORGE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are certain urban districts which cannot get grants at all under this particular scheme?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been confusing two Acts. There is the Emergency Water Supplies Act and there is the permanent Rural Water Supplies Act.
    Major LLOYD GEORGE: These authorities cannot get grants under either Act.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE indicated dissent.

    BATTERSEA BOROUGH COUNCIL.
    Sir WALDRON SMITHERSasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to irregularities in the working of the Battersea Borough Council; what action has he taken and/or does he propose to take; and what is the present position?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend has been in communication with the Battersea Borough Council with regard to certain irregularities in the solicitor's department. Two officers of the council were involved, both of whom have resigned. The council have informed my right hon. Friend that they do not propose to institute criminal proceedings against these officers, and, while fully appreciating the seriousness of the irregularities in question, he has, after very full consideration of the circumstances, decided that no further action should be taken.
    Sir W. SMITHERS: In the interest of clean municipal administration, will the
    1066
    hon. Gentleman ask the Minister of Health to use every power he has to bring to justice those officials or members of the council who have betrayed their trust?
    Commander MARSDEN: Is it not the case that not one penny has been lost to the ratepayers; and is it not also the case that the Battersea Council is one of the best borough councils in London and is fully competent to run Battersea and look after Battersea's private affairs?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As far as my experience goes, that is a true picture.
    Sir W. SMITHERS: Will the Minister of Health institute a full inquiry into this matter?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I assure my hon. Friend that we have given very full consideration to this matter with the result that we have decided that no further action should be taken.

    ROYAL SEAMEN'S PENSION FUND.
    Mr. NEIL MACLEANasked the Minister of Health whether he will recommend to the governing body of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund an alteration in the conditions under which pensions are paid, so that the men who serve on the railway boats sailing between Holyhead and Dublin can qualify for pensions providing that their homes are in this country?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: For the reasons given in reply to a similar question raised by the hon. Member on 5th December last, my right hon. Friend does not feel justified in asking the governing body of the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund to grant pensions by virtue of service on ships in respect of which no contributions are made to the fund.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Considering that contributions were made to this fund until 1922 by men who were serving on these boats, cannot something be done in the case of men who were employed under this company and who are resident in this country; and is it not the case that a large subsidy is paid by the Government to the railway company which operates these boats?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The purpose which the hon. Gentleman has in mind

    1067
    would be achieved if these ships were registered in ports of the United Kingdom. That is a matter beyond our control.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that the port of registration was altered because of a statute laid down by the Irish Free State; and will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why British citizens who were paying into this fund prior to that Act being passed, should now be the sufferers, although they are still working and living under the same conditions.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is not quite the case. These contributions were made by employers in respect of ships registered in United Kingdom ports. Since these ships are no longer registered in United Kingdom ports, no contributions have been payable in respect of them, and therefore no benefits have accrued.
    Mr. MACLEANasked the Postmaster-General the sum that is paid yearly to the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company for the conveying of mails between Holyhead and the Irish Free State?
    The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): The figure for which the hon. Member asks is £74,850.
    Mr. MACLEAN: Are there any conditions attached to the subsidy, and is one of the conditions that the company concerned shall see that the members of the crews operating the vessels are insured in the Royal Seamen's Pension Fund?
    Sir E. BENNETT: I am afraid I cannot answer that offhand, but I will get the information and let the hon. Member know.

    UNITED KINGDOM DOLLAR BONDS.
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of United Kingdom 5½ per cent. dollar bonds issued in New York and at present outstanding, the holders of which did not convert into British Government securities according to the terms set forth by him in July, 1933; and whether, as the law of the United States
    1068
    governing the payment of principal and interest of these bonds does not impose any hindrance, legal or otherwise, on His Majesty's Government fulfilling their obligations towards British bondholders of these dollar bonds in legal tender of the United States of America to the measure of the gold value, he will state upon what grounds His Majesty's Government decline to recognise their obligations in respect thereto?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The amount in question is 20,067,400 dollars, as shown on page 5 of the Financial Statement (House of Commons Paper No. 67). As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement which my right hon. Friend made on 21st July last in moving the Resolution approving the proposals of His Majesty's Government for dealing with these bonds.

    UNITED STATES (WAR DEBTS).
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will explain the circumstances in which the misunderstanding arose as a result of which the Press were informed of the proposals of His Majesty's Government regarding the American debt settlement before this information was given to Parliament?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): In the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will with my hon. Friend's assent reply to this question. It had been proposed that this Note should not be published in Washington until 10.30 a.m. Washington time, that is approximately 4.30 p.m. our time, on Tuesday, 5th June. Owing to a misunderstanding in regard to a telegram to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington the Note was issued there before the time which had been intended.
    Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that cases of this sort, in which intentionally or unintentionally this House is ignored, weaken the prestige of Parliament, and will the Government therefore take every possible step to prevent a repetition of this unfortunate mistake?
    Sir J. SIMON: My original answer shows that whatever occurred in this case

    1069
    was quite unintentional, and I would not agree that any breach of that very good intention is frequent. In the particular instance it was due to a misunderstanding.
    Mr. EMMOTT: On the part of whom was it a misunderstanding?
    Sir J. SIMON: I should not say there was a misunderstanding on the part of anyone. Perhaps it was due to the fact that in different parts of the world there are different times at the same time.
    Mr. SHAWasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider
    European War Debts to the United States Government.
    The following information is taken from the Annual Report of the Secretary of the United States Treasury for the year ended 30th June, 1933 (page 376), and the combined Annual Reports of the World War Foreign Debt Commission, published in 1926 (pages 325 to 327). Postwar advances to Austria, the Baltic States, Finland, Hungary and Poland are omitted; and account is taken of the payments made by certain Governments on 15th December, 1933.

    —

    Cash advances.

    Total payments received.

    Net principal outstanding (excluding accrued interest).

    ($ millions.)

    ($ millions.)

    ($ millions.)

    United Kingdom

    …

    …

    …

    4,277·0

    2,024·8

    4,368·0*

    France

    …

    …

    …

    3,404·8

    486·1

    3,863·6

    Italy

    …

    …

    …

    1,648·0

    100·8

    2,004·9

    Belgium

    …

    …

    …

    379·0

    52·2

    400·7

    Czechoslovakia

    …

    …

    …

    62·0

    20·1

    165·4

    Yugoslavia

    …

    …

    …

    51·8

    2·6

    61·6

    Rumania

    …

    …

    …

    25·0

    4·8

    63·9

    Greece

    …

    …

    …

    15·0

    3·2

    31·5

    Russia

    …

    …

    …

    187·7

    8·7

    192·6

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    10,050·3

    2,703·3

    11,152·2

    * The figure 4,713,785,000 dollars in Command Paper 4609 includes accrued interest up to 15th June, 1934.

    RIGHTS OF WAY (RECORDS).
    Mr. RAIKESasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Essex County Council demand a fee of 10s. 6d. from an owner depositing a map, or a statement of rights of way, under Section 4 of the Rights of Way Act, 1932; and if he will give instructions to the council concerned that as these records are voluntarily provided by landowners they should be accepted without payment of fees?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I was not aware of the facts mentioned in the first part of my hon. Friend's question. The matter is not one that comes within my jurisdiction.
    issuing a White Paper showing the original claims of the American Government against European countries in respect of war debts; the amounts now paid; the amounts yet outstanding; and the names of the countries which have declared their intention of not paying any more of these claims?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am having circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving the figures asked for. I am not aware that any country has made a declaration of the kind referred to in the last part of the question.
    Following is the statement:

  AGRICULTURE.

    FRUIT-PULP (IMPORT DUTY).
    Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSONasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that an application for a specific duty in preference to an ad valorem duty on imported fruit-pulp was made to and approved by the Import Duties Advisory Board in June, 1933, but up to the present has not become operative; whether he is aware of the low price at which imported fruit-pulp is being offered for 1934; and whether, in view of the prospects of heavier home crops of fruit than last year, he can press for a specific duty to be applied without further delay?
    Mr. ELLIOT: There is nothing I can usefully add to the reply, of which I am

    1071
    sending my right hon. Friend a copy, given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 15th May, to a question on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Christie).
    Sir J. LAMB: In view of the prospects of the coming harvest, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the fruit growers are very much concerned about this question and would like some reply?
    Mr. ELLIOT: I hope that the negotiations which are referred to will not be long delayed.

    MILK ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
    Mr. LEONARDasked the Minister of Agriculture what were the terms of reference given to the Milk Advisory Committee and the date of their last meeting; and whether he proposes to consult this committee in respect of the milk marketing schemes now functioning?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The terms of reference to the committee which was appointed in 1924 were as follow:
    "To advise the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries on matters concerning the production, handling and distribution of milk and dairy produce, including questions relating to education and research, and any legislation, orders and regulations which may be under consideration."
    The date of the committee's last meeting was 13th April, 1928. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
    Mr. LEONARD: As the Committee contains representatives of the medical profession, will the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing it together for the purpose of giving him guidance as to the proposals now being prepared to give cheap milk to education authorities?
    Mr. ELLIOT: There are representatives of so many interests on the Committee that we can never get a unanimous recommendation on anything.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this Committee is functioning in the interests of the people at the moment?
    Mr. ELLIOT: No, Sir. I think it might be said that the committee has faded out.

    CROWN LEASES, REGENT STREET (GROUND RENTS).
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the Minister of Agriculture what was the approximate annual revenue of the Crown Lands Department from Regent Street ground rents in 1913; and what is the amount now annually accruing on that account?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The approximate annual revenue from Regent Street ground rents in 1913 was £65,000. The amount at the present time is about £520,000.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is the proper policy for the Government to raise these rents so substantially to their tenants and yet at the same time by conversion to reduce the income by which the rents have to be paid?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It might also be said that up to 1913 the tenants were enjoying £500,000 worth of property for £60,000.
    Mr. THORNE: Does the increase in the rents fall to the Chancellor of the Exchequer or to private individuals?
    Mr. ELLIOT: It comes to us—my hon. Friend and myself.
    Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Is there any private landlord who has made such exactions as the State?

    TELEPHONE SERVICE (LISTENING-IN).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the fact that a man was convicted on the 21st May, at the West London Police Court, on charges of attempting to obtain money by false pretences, the evidence including that of a conversation overheard by a telephone operator; and what instructions are given to telephone operators with regard to listening in to conversations on the telephone?
    Sir E. BENNETT: I am aware of the case to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The conversation, which strongly suggested an attempt at fraud, was overheard by a telephone operator in the course of supervising a call in which exceptional measures were necessary to establish proper connection. Operators are instructed not to listen in to a telephone

    1073
    conversation except so far as is necessary to ensure that communication is satisfactorily established between the calling and the called telephones.

    BROADCASTING (SPANISH).
    Mr. JAMES DUNCANasked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange to have a regular weekly broadcast in Spanish for the benefit of British residents in South America, as nearly all such residents understand that language?
    Sir E. BENNETT: I will pass my hon. Friend's suggestion on to the British Broadcasting Corporation.
    Mr. DUNCAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not only a question of news but of British prestige and business; and in these circumstances will he really see if something cannot be done about the matter?
    Sir E. BENNETT: It may be so, but we have no jurisdiction in the matter, and I think the only thing I can do is to pass it on to the British Broadcasting Corporation to expedite an answer.

    HERRING FISHING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. LOFTUSasked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he has received information of the intention of the Dutch Government either to prohibit the import of fresh herring from Great Britain or, alternatively, only to allow their import on condition they are not cured in Holland; and, in view of the fact that British fresh herring to a value of over £100,000 were landed and sold in Ymuiden in 1933, will he take steps to induce the Dutch Government to reconsider their decision:
    (2) whether he will give the House any information as to the proposals of the Dutch Government to prohibit the import of salted herring of foreign origin; and whether this matter will be considered in connection with the trade negotiations now proceeding?
    Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I have no official information about such proposals, but inquiries are being made and I will communicate the result to my hon. Friend. The matter will certainly be
    1074
    borne in mind in the negotiations which are about to be opened with the Nether-land Government.
    Mr. LOFTUS: In view of the vital importance of maintaining our fishing fleets from the point of view of national defence, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give an assurance that the interests of the fishing industry will receive at least equal consideration with those of the coal trade in these trade negotiations?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: We regard the matter as important.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether there is any connection between British herring and Dutch bulbs?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. member must draw his own conclusions.

    SHIPPING INDUSTRY.
    Mr. STOURTONasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider introducing legislation to prohibit the sale of surplus tonnage to a foreign Power for a period of three years, with a view to mitigating unfair competition in the shipping industry?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): My right hon. Friend cannot anticipate the statement on the shipping siuation which he hopes to be in a position to make in this House at an early date.
    Mr. STOURTON: May we expect a declaration of policy on the part of the Government before the House rises for the Autumn Recess?
    Dr. BURGIN: I find it difficult to give a definite ansper to that question, but I think there is a very good probability of that being the case.

  PALESTINE.

    HERR FRICK.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the visit of Herr Frick to Palestine was known to the Colonial Office before he arrived there; and what reason he gave for his visit?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Yes, Sir. It was understood that Dr. Frick and his party intended to visit Palestine for two or three days in the course of a Mediterranean cruise.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether Herr Frick was received by His Excellency the Governor?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not the least idea.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the result of this fraternisation?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have not the least idea whether Herr Frick saw the Governor or not. Does the right hon. and gallant Member suggest that I should get from the Governor a record of all those persons whom he happens to see?
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think it is desirable that I should ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will find out whether this was an official visit, or whether Herr Frick only had a desire to see the Church of the Holy Sepulchre?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have told the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that Herr Frick happened to visit Palestine for a few days only in the course of a cruise.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: But is he not a notorious Nazi agitator?

    AKHI MEYR.
    Colonel WEDGWOODasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies under what ordinance Akhi Meyr is being prosecuted; and when the organisation for being a member of which he is charged was proclaimed illegal?
    Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not in possession of the information for which the right hon. Gentleman asks, but I will ask the High Commissioner for Palestine.

    GLOSTER AIRCRAFT COMPANY (POLITICAL FETE).
    Mr. D. GRENFELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that the Gloster Aircraft Company of Brockworth, who are contractors to his Department, are putting their aerodrome and machines at the disposal
    1076
    of a Conservative fete to be held on 30th June next; and whether he will represent to the company the undesirability of Government contractors being associated with the activities of a political party?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The facts are, I understand, not quite as stated by the hon. Member, there being, for example, no question of aircraft being placed at the disposal of the meeting. In any case, however, my Noble Friend does not consider it a matter in which he could or should intervene.
    Mr. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there is to be no display of machines and no display of the goods produced by this firm?
    Sir P. SASSOON: No display at all. The aerodrome will be more or less shut down on that day. I might add that any other association can have the same privileges.
    Mr. GRENFELL: In view of the recent contracts effected by this firm, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is desirable to encourage this sort of thing?
    Sir P. SASSOON: That is a matter of opinion.
    Mr. MAXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that nothing is said at that gathering that would tend to seduce possible air pilots from their allegiance?
    Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: May I ask whether there is any reason why this firm should not exhibit their own products if they so wish, provided that they are not the property of the Government or the Air Ministry?
    Sir P. SASSOON: I do not know that they propose to do so.

    ANNA PAVLOVA (PROPOSED MEMORIAL).
    Sir GIFFORD FOXasked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will make a statement with regard to the proposal for the provision of a site in London for a memorial to the late Anna Pavlova?
    The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I understand that an international appeal for the funds necessary to provide a memorial to the late Anna Pavlova will shortly be made. I have been asked to allow its erection in one of the Royal parks, and have come to the conclusion that the centre of the Rose Garden in the Inner Circle Garden, Regent's Park, would provide an admirable setting. Both the site and the proposed memorial, which will take the form of a fountain designed by Professor Carl Milles of Stockholm, have been approved by the Royal Fine Arts Commission. I should like to add that I deeply appreciate the proposed gift of the fountain by a sculptor of world-wide reputation, not only for itself, but also as a memorial to one whose art and personality gave enjoyment to so many thousands of our countrymen.
    Viscountess ASTOR: As there are so very few places in which public monuments can be erected, and seeing how many women have lived and died for England, is it not a little far-fetched to give one of those places for a statue to a Russian dancer, no matter how beautiful she was? It seems to me very farfetched.

    EARL HAGUE STATUE.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOOREasked the First Commissioner of Works if he will state the present position in regard to the Earl Haig memorial statue; whether he is satisfied with the progress made; and when it is anticipated the statue will be completed and erected?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The full size model in clay is nearly completed, and I have no reason to be dissatisfied with the progress made. My hon. and gallant Friend will realise that in matters of this kind it is not always possible to adhere rigidly to a pre-arranged programme. Consequently, I am not in a position at present to say when the monument will be erected.
    Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: May I ask whether the llama-like neck of the charger in the original sketch, to which exception was taken by many people, has been reduced, so that the neck of the horse will be more in character with that of an ordinary charger?

  TRANSPORT.

    DENABY MAIN LEVEL CROSSING.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the loss of time to road transport at the Denary Main level crossing; and what steps it is proposed to take with a view to the erection of a new bridge?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: My hon. Friend's attention has not previously been called to this level crossing, but he will consider any proposal which the highway authority may submit to him.

    MOTOR TAXATION (THREE-WHEEL VEHICLES).
    Mr. HALESasked the Minister of Transport whether it is intended that the reduction in the tax on motor cars and motor cycles shall be applicable to three-wheeled motor vehicles?
    Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The proposed reductions in the rates of licence duty will not apply to three-wheeled vehicles not exceeding 8 cwts. in weight unladen, which are already taxed at the low rate applicable to tricycles.
    Mr. HALES: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there has been a very rapid development of this class of vehicle, and is there any reason why they should not share equally in the concession given to four- or two-wheeled vehicles?

    COAL INDUSTRY (ACCIDENT, UDDINGSTON).
    Mrs. SHAWasked the Secretary for Mines if he can give any information regarding an accident which occurred at Viewpark Colliery, Uddingston, on Sun day, 3rd June?
    Dr. BURGIN: I have been asked to reply. My hon. Friend much regrets that an ignition of firedamp occurred in the Splint Seam, No. 2 Pit, Viewpark Colliery, near Uddingston, at 8.30 a.m. on Sunday, 3rd June, as a result of which four men were burned, one of whom has since died. A preliminary report has been received from the divisional inspector, but the reason why firedamp was present and the cause of the ignition are not yet definitely ascertained, and inquiries are still in progress.
    Mr. LAWSON: Has the hon. Gentleman any information as to how many men were in the pit on this Sunday, and will inquiry be made as to whether it was necessary for them to be at work then?
    Dr. BURGIN: I will call the attention of the Secretary for Mines to these points.
    Mr. KIRKWOOD: I want to draw the attention of the House to this accident—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—to point Out that it happened on a Sunday—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]
    Mr. SPEAKER: This is an occasion for putting questions.

    BRITISH ARMY (KILMAINHAM HOSPITAL TRUST).
    Captain CUNNINGHAM - REIDasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office when it is anticipated that the trust relating to Kilmainham Hospital will be closed finally?
    Sir FREDERICK THOMSON (Treasurer of the Household): I have been asked to reply. I regret that I am unable to say.

    MANCHURIA (OPIUM).
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the imports of opium into Manchukuo are increasing; and if there is any indication as to the illicit markets for which these drugs are destined?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have no information to show that opium is being imported into Manchuria.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Has the right hon. Gentleman any way of getting the information, seeing that this is such an important matter?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have said that I do not think opium is being imported into Manchuria.
    Viscountess ASTORasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the British Government have done towards ascertaining the conditions in which the Manchurian opium monopoly is operating;
    1080
    and whether they will publish the information supplied to the League of Nations on this point as a White Paper?
    Sir J. SIMON: His Majesty's representatives in Manchuria will, in the ordinary course of their duties, report any information on this subject which comes to their knowledge. Any trustworthy information not of a confidential character will be communicated to the League in accordance with a request made by the council at its January meeting. Information of this character communicated by His Majesty's Government or other Governments will no doubt be given publicity in the reports of the League. The answer to the last part of the question is therefore in the negative.
    Miss HORSBRUGH: Is this country acting in unison with other nations at the League of Nations, in dealing with this matter?
    Sir J. SIMON: Yes, that is so.

  CHINA.

    BRITISH MINISTER (RESIDENCE, NANKING).
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any report from His Majesty's Minister in China on the subject of an official residence for the Minister at Nanking?
    Sir J. SIMON: A report on this subject was received from His Majesty's Minister in China towards the end of last month, and is now under consideration.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Is it not a fact that the Chinese Government greatly desire to have the British Embassy situated in closer proximity to their own seat of government?
    Sir J. SIMON: That matter has a very considerable history and the question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman put does not refer to the transfer of the site of His Majesty's Government's representative but only to having an official residence at Nanking.
    Mr. THORNE: How many miles is the official residence of the Ambassador from Nanking?
    Sir J. SIMON: I should not like to make a mistake, and I would sooner look at the map.

    TREATY REVISION.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet able to give any further information with regard to the request of the Chinese Government for the revision of the Treaty of Tientsin of 1858 and the Mackay Treaty of 1902?
    Sir J. SIMON: In reply to their note concerning the revision of the Treaty of Tientsin and the Commercial Treaty of 1902 the Chinese Government were informed on the 19th May that, in accordance with their declared policy, His Majesty's Government were ready at all times to effect such measure of treaty revision as might be practicable and desirable, and would be ready to consider suggestions to this end. A further note has just been received by His Majesty' Minister from the Chinese Government, but the text has not yet reached me.

    FAR EAST.
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEWasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps have been taken, as provided for in the Nine-Power Treaty concluded at Washington in 1922, for consultation between the signatories thereof with regard to recent events in the Far East?
    Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to an identical question put yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral (Sir G. Clayton).
    Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether Far Eastern questions will be included at the Naval Conference to be held next year?
    Sir J. SIMON: That is an entirely different question. What will be discussed at the Naval Conference must, I think, be made the subject of a specific question.

    BORSTAL INSTITUTIONS (LINCOLNSHIRE).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Mr. T. SMITH)asked the Home Secretary
    1082
    whether an official decision has yet been reached with regard to building a new Borstal institution near the Wash, in Lincolnshire; if so, what is the estimated cost during the next five years; and whether he is aware that there are many prison workshops in empty and unoccupied prisons with equipment rusting away for want of use?
    Sir J. GILMOUR: In view of the increase in the number of youths sentenced to Borstal detention, it has been necessary to open a new training institution in Lincolnshire. The inmates will be employed in reclaiming an area of the out-marsh on the north-west coast of the Wash, and will be accommodated in a hutted camp. It is estimated that the total capital expenditure will not exceed £23,500. One of the features of Borstal training is the provision of healthy outdoor work, for which none of the unoccupied prisons offers any facilities. The suggestion that industrial equipment has been left to rust away in any of the unoccupied prisons is mistaken.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE, CLEE-THORPES (TEST WORK).
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS (for Mr. T. SMITH)asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Cleethorpes public assistance committee are setting recipients for relief to work in company with labourers employed by the local authority at ordinary rates of pay; that, for instance, at a job of levelling land for a putting green four men were labourers receiving 1s. 2½d. per hour, while others were men sent by the public assistance committee and receiving in one case 3s. for three days' work, and in two other cases 10s. 6d. for three days' work; and what action he proposes to take in this matter?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend is making inquiries and will communicate with the hon. Member.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If, when the right hon. Gentleman has made the inquiries, he finds that the statement in my question is correct, will he take action with the local authorities at once?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: We shall certainly take up the case.

    HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE, COLNE).
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALDasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the action of the Colne town council in evicting people from houses in the Windybank area of the Colne slum clearance scheme without providing alternative accommodation; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: My right hon. Friend's attention has not been previously drawn to this matter, but he is obtaining a report from the general inspector of the district.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what business it is proposed to take next week, and how far he proposes to go to-night, in the event of the Motion on the Paper being carried.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): Perhaps it will be better to allow me, first of all, to state that the report of the Committee of Privileges was laid on the Table last night. It will be printed and circulated to Members with the Votes on Saturday morning. Members therefore have adequate time to study the report before the Debate—I shall announce the date for the Debate in a minute. May I further add that, if any Members who wish that their Friday Papers, received on Saturday, should be posted to them in order that they may get this report as quickly as possible, will leave their addresses at the Vote Office, the Papers received by hand and delivered as a rule on Saturday, will be posted to them early that morning.
Mr. THORNE: Will it be possible to have them delivered by Friday morning?
The PRIME MINISTER: We have found it impossible to So that. Regarding the business itself:
Monday: Further consideration of the Finance Bill, in Committee;
Tuesday: Conclusion of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill; further progress will be made with the Statutory Salaries (Restoration) Bill, and the Gas Undertakings Bill from the House of Lords;
1084
Wednesday: Consideration of the report of the Privileges Committee; Committee stage of the Milk Bill; further consideration of the British Sugar (Subsidy) Bill;
Thursday: Supply [8th Allotted Day], Ministry of Health Estimate;
Friday: Discussion of a Motion to approve the Central (Coal Mines) Scheme (Amendment) Order, 1934.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
Regarding the business for to-night, we will try to get the first five Orders on the Paper, but we have no intention whatever of keeping the House sitting inordinately late.
Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether the Palestine Loan Bill is likely to be considered to-night?
Mr. PIKE: Can the hon. Gentleman say, with respect to the answer to the first question, whether or not it is intended to circulate the report of the Committee of Privileges to the Press in order that it shall appear in Saturday's issues, which would mean that the Press would have it in advance of the vast majority of Members of this House?
The PRIME MINISTER: It will be circulated to the Press in the ordinary way. If an appreciable time is to elapse between the publication and the Debate here, the Press in any event is bound to have it before the House discusses it.
Mr. THORNE: If any Member comes here on Saturday morning, will it be possible for him to get the report from the Vote Office?
The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. I am under the impression that the Vote Office is open on Saturday morning. If it is open, Members can have their Papers on that morning.
Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the question regarding the accident which happened in Viewpark Colliery, Uddingston; will the Prime Minister instruct the Secretary for Mines to issue instructions that Sunday work in mines be stopped except where necessary? I raised this question before. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Here is a case where a man was killed.
Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time to raise the question.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting,
from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 51.

Division No. 271.]

AYES.

[3.40 p.m.

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

Emrys-Evans. P. V.

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Entwistle, Cyril Fullard

Maitland, Adam

Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)

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

Albery, Irving James

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L'pool, W.)

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Marsden, Commander Arthur

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)

Fox, Sir Gifford

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Anstruther-Gray, W. J.

Ganzonl, Sir John

Milne, Charles

Apsley, Lord

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

Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)

Aske, Sir Robert William

Gluckstein, Louis Halle

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe

Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Goff, Sir Park

Moreing, Adrian C.

Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)

Goodman, Colonel Albert W.

Morgan, Robert H.

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

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

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

Barton, Capt. Basil Keisey

Granville, Edgar

Moss, Captain H. J.

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

Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas

Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley

Grimston, R. V.

Munro, Patrick

Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel

Gritten, W. G. Howard

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Bernays, Robert

Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.

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

Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.

Gunston, Captain D. W.

Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid

Blaker, Sir Reginald

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.

Blindell, James

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

Palmer, Francis Noel

Boulton, W. W.

Hales, Harold K.

Patrick, Colin M.

Bowstor, Col. Sir T. Vansittart

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

Peat, Charles U.

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry

Petherick, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald

Harbord, Arthur

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)

Brass, Captain Sir William

Hartington, Marquess of

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

Broadbent, Colonel John

Hartland, George A.

Pike, Cecil F.

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)

Potter, John

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

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

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

Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.

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

Browne, Captain A. C.

Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)

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

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Ramsbotham, Herwaid

Bullock, Captain Malcolm

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

Ramsden, Sir Eugene

Burghley, Lord

Hore-Belisha, Leslie

Rathbone, Eleanor

Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie

Horobin, Ian M.

Rawson, Sir Cooper

Burnett, John George

Horsbrugh, Florence

Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

Howard, Tom Forrest

Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-

Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm

Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

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

Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)

Carver, Major William H.

Hurst. Sir Gerald B.

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Castlereagh, Viscount

Iveagh, Countess of

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Cautley, Sir Henry S.

Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)

Rabinson, John Roland

Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)

Jesson, Major Thomas E.

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

Ker, J. Campbell

Runge, Norah Cecil

Clayton, Sir Christopher

Kerr, Hamilton W.

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cobb, Sir Cyril

Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)

Colfox, Major William Philip

Kimball, Lawrence

Rutherford, John (Edmonton)

Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey

Knox, Sir Alfred

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Coiville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)

Conant, R. J. E.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Cook, Thomas A.

Latham, Sir Herbert Paul

Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard

Copeland, Ida

Leckie, J. A.

Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.

Cranborne, Viscount

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Savery, Samuel Servington

Crooke, J. Smedley

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Levy, Thomas

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell)

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

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Crossley, A. C.

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Liewellin, Major John J.

Shute, Colonel J. J.

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

Lioyd, Geoffrey

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Davison, Sir William Henry

Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Denman, Hon. R. D.

Loftus, Pierce C.

Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.

Dickle, John P.

Lovat-Fraser. James Alexander

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

Donner, P. W.

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Smithers, Sir Waldron

Dower, Captain A. V. G.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Somervell, Sir Donald

Drewe, Cedric

McCorquodale, M. S.

Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)

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

MacDonald. Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)

Soper, Richard

Dunglass. Lord

McEwen, Captain J. H. F.

Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

McKie, John Hamilton

Stevenson, James

Elliston, Captain George Sampson

McLean, Major Sir Alan

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

Elmley, Viscount

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Strauss, Edward A.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Sutcilffe, Harole

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

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Tate, Mavis Constance

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertt'd)

Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd'gt'n, S.)

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)

Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)

Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.

Windsor Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Wise, Alfred R.

Thompson, Sir Luke

Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour

Worthington, Dr. John V.

Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswlnford)

Wells, Sydney Richard

Touche, Gordon Cosmo

Whyte, Jardine Bell

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir Victor Warrender.

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

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

Owen, Major Goronwy

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hall. George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Rea, Walter Russell

Banfield, John William

Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney ft Zetl'nd)

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thnest)

Batey, Joseph

Harris, Sir Percy

Thorne, William James

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

Healy, Cahir

Tinker, John Joseph

Caps. Thomas

Holdsworth, Herbert

Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah

Cocks, Frederick Seymour

Jenkins, Sir William

West, F. R.

Cove, William G.

John, William

White, Henry Graham

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)

Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Curry, A. C.

Kirkwood, David

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Dagger, George

Lawson, John James

Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Leonard, William

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)

Dobbie, William

Logan, David Gilbert

Wilmot, John

Edwards, Charles

McEntee, Valentine L.

Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)

Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)

Maxton, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Milner, Major James

Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS.
Resolutions reported from the Select Committee;

1. "That in the case of the London Passenger Transport Board (Interim Financial Arrangements), Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

2. "That in the case of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation [Lords] Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

BILLS REPORTED.

  NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.
  Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

  SOUTH DEVON AND EAST CORNWALL HOSPITAL, PLYMOUTH, ROYAL ALBERT HOSPITAL, DEVONPORT, AND CENTRAL HOSPITAL, PLYMOUTH (AMALGAMATION, &c.) BILL [Lords].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  WANDSWORTH BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords].
  Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

  LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BOARD BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Post Office (Sites) Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Steyning and District Waterworks Company, Limited." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Steyning and District Water) Bill [Lords.]
  Also a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the urban district of Milford Haven." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Milford Haven) Bill [Lords.]
  And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Morley." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Morley) Bill [Lords.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STEYNING AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL [Lords].
    Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]
    MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MILFORD HAVEN) BILL [Lords].
    Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 134.]
    MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MORLEY) BILL [Lords].
    Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]
    MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (PROCEDURE IN SUITS FOR NULLITY) BILL [Lords].
    Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HEBBERT in the Chair.]

  LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Permitted hours in the evening (validity of directions and decisions as respects parts of the year).)
    3.52 p.m.
    Mr. PIKE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, at the end, to insert:
    "and it shall be the duty of any licensing justices to consider, at any time before the first annual licensing meeting subsequent to the passage of this Act, a request for such a direction."
    The Home Secretary on the Second (Reading used words which in our opinion give the best possible reason why this Amendment should be submitted. He said:
    "The object of the Bill is a very simple one. It is to deal with a situation which has arisen owing to a decision in the High Court in April last, which has been subsequently upheld in the Court of Appeal."
    Later on he said:
    "I think it will be agreed that the situation which has been created has caused a great deal of confusion and is anomalous, and that, if the licensing justices have the power of increasing the hours for the whole of the year, it is a little unreasonable that they should be debarred from using their discretion with respect to a part of the year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1934; col. 497, Vol. 290.]
    The Amendment is intended to give to licensing benches which have not yet had occasion to consider applications for the extension of hours the same powers as would be given to those whose attitude has already been affected by the Steyning judgment. There are benches, for instance, which have not granted any extensions, either for eight weeks or more, because they doubted the legality of such an action, and in many parts of the country licensing justices have deemed it necessary to refrain from giving any direction in respect of extension applications because they were rather doubtful as to whether or not they themselves would be guilty of over-riding the law if that direction had been in favour of the application. On the other hand, there have been many interested parties, especially
    1100
    licensees and the trade in general, in various parts of the country which will be most affected by the Bill who have, in their desire to conform to the law, not made applications because they were doubtful as to whether they would be in strict conformity with the law.
    The Amendment is to empower the benches to hold special meetings with a view to considering any applications from interested parties not already affected by the Steyning decision. I hope, in view of the fact that the Measure was not opposed by hon. Members opposite, the right hon. Gentleman will allow these words to be included in the Bill. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), on the Second Reading, said he fully recognised that the Government were justified in introducing a Bill to deal with the confusion that had arisen in consequence of the recent decision. Unless these words be inserted, it is the opinion of many of us that great confusion will arise among persons who have in the past done their best in difficult circumstances to conform to the law in every respect. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept these words, I ask him at least to accept the spirit of the Amendment and to suggest other words which will meet our requirements in part if not in whole.
    3.55 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: It is true that last week I said we proposed to offer no opposition to the Bill. That was because the Government had deliberately confined themselves to dealing with the difficulty that had arisen from the Steyning judgment. The confusion arose there because of an interpretation of the law which necessitated proceedings before the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal. The Government were asked to deal with the difficulty arising from what had happened in the courts. They have confined themselves to that, and I suggest that the Amendment travels beyond what was then intended. I do not think the same objection applies to the Amendment of my hon. Friends, which falls far short of this. May I relate again the circumstances with which we have to deal? It is true that a number of benches throughout the country granted the extension from 10 to 10.30, and from eight to 8½ hours, in the belief that they could do so under the existing law. There were

    1101
    other benches of magistrates who thought that, if they made such an order, they would be going beyond the law, and they declined to do so. In that case, I think there is a legitimate grievance, Where a bench of justices say, "We would grant this extension but we feel that we should not be complying with the law," I think they ought not to be placed at a disadvantage with other benches of justices and, although I would very much rather that there had been no Amendment one way or the other, I recognise the justice of that case after consultation with Members with whom I am usually in consultation on these matters. I said last Friday that we did not wish to rest our case upon any adventitious result of legal proceedings. Although I deplore the necessity for the Amendment, I think something must be done to meet the situation in regard to magistrates who would have acted in a certain direction, but who, because they thought that in doing so they would come into conflict with the existing law, held their hand.
    It is very difficult to get at the facts. A number of applications were made, and those applications were dealt with in different ways. In some instances the bench of magistrates said, "We think that we are entitled to do this under the existing law. At any rate, we. are going to grant it." That was done, I think, in some 120 cases, including the Steyning bench. There were those who said, "We think that in doing so we should be going beyond our jurisdiction, that we should be exercising our discretion improperly, and we decline so to proceed." Some benches of magistrates, in announcing their decision, gave as the ground that they were prevented by the existing law. Others simply gave their decision without any explanation. Some may have acted upon the general merits of the question, and, whatever had been the state of the law, were not desirous of extending hours, and when they came into the court, after they had retired and the applications had been made, by the trade, or, it may be, by members of the public in some instances, they gave the simple announcement of their decision. I have no doubt that some benches of magistrates who refused the application did so, not because of any question of summer time, not because of the existing state of the law, but because they thought
    1102
    that extended hours in their district were not necessary. I think, therefore, it is very difficult to differentiate between the many decisions which were made, because of the different courses which were taken by the magistrates.
    Mr. CAPORN: Can the hon. Gentleman distinguish in the case of the licensee who refrained from applying because he was advised by his legal advisers—rightly, as it turned out—that the law was that the application could not be granted?
    Mr. FOOT: Of course, when the law is uncertain, it is bound to bear hardly upon some, and there are so many anomalies arising with emergency legislation of this kind that you cannot hope to remedy them. If you are going into all the anomalies, this ought to be a very much fuller Bill than it is. I do not think that it is competent for this House to try to ascertain whether applications would have been made if the law had been different some months ago. I think it would be only safe for this House to confine itself to those cases where applications were actually made, and, if that is done, I think that, broadly, justice will be accomplished, because no one could say what the law was at that time, and, further, no one knows whether, if the application had been made, it would have been granted. Therefore, you have to accept what are the difficulties arising from the uncertain state of the law, the interpretation of the Courts, and the emergency legislation which this House is now granting. We are desirous, if we can, of meeting what is the obvious difficulty where an application has been made, and where that application was refused, and I understand that the second Amendment on the Order Paper—in page 2, line 16, at the end, to insert:
    "Where before the date of the passing of this Act an application that eight and a-half hours should be substituted for eight, and half-past ten at night should be substituted for ten at night, has been refused by any court of licensing justices at their last general annual licensing meeting, it shall be lawful for a fresh application to be made at any ordinary or special meeting of the licensing justices, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in section twelve, sub-section (1), of the Licensing Act, 1921."

    1103
    is for the purpose of reviewing the cases, or to give the opportunity for review of those cases where the circumstances justify it.
    The CHAIRMAN: I think, perhaps, it will be right if I tell the hon. Gentleman that, unless anything unforeseen happens, I am not proposing to select the second Amendment on the Order Paper. The one which we are now discussing, I believe, covers the whole point. Therefore, I do not want the hon. Member to think that he will have an opportunity of speaking on the second Amendment. I think that anything which it is necessary to say can be said on this one.
    Mr. FOOT: As you please, Sir Dennis. I assume that under your ruling I can make a reference to the second Amendment, and to the difference between that and the present one?
    The CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
    Mr. FOOT: I have tried to show the circumstances in which applications have been made, and to ask the Committee to agree to some arrangement which will only apply where applications have been made in certain licensing districts and those applications were refused. If His Majesty's Government were inclined to do something to meet the request in the second Amendment, I should not object. If they said that in any instance where an application had been made and refused, they proposed to allow that case to be raised again, I think that it would be unfair on the part of any Member of this House to say "We are going to take a technical advantage, and to insist upon it." But I think that some safeguard should be introduced. I do not think it is right that a case should be reopened simply upon the application of the licensed trade, because if it were so, there would be automatically a new application, and the way to secure the safeguard, in my submission, is for the magistrates themselves in their several areas to decide whether a case should come up for review. They are well acquainted with the circumstances, knowing why they arrived at their previous decision, knowing whether they decided upon the merits of the case, or if they simply decided upon the state of the existing law. If a requisition were signed by the majority of the licensing justices desiring that the
    1104
    case should be reviewed, in that way, I think, justice would be done.
    It is very important that not only should there be that safeguard, namely, that the case should only be reviewed at the instance of the licensing justices, but that whatever are the rights of the public as they exist to-day, they should be maintained jealously. After all, an application for extended hours is one which is made ostensibly in the public interest, and it is in the highest degree important that when that application comes before the court, the rights of the public to make their representations in the matter should be jealously safeguarded. They are in a difficulty at present. It is the easiest thing in the world for the licensed trade in any area to make their application. They have their financial interests at stake. They are very highly organised, and they have in every local area, generally, a very able advocate who can put their case. But the members of the public who are also concerned in this matter are generally at a great disadvantage. I can speak with some experience, inasmuch as I have had frequently in the course of my life to appear for those who represent the public in this matter. The advocate who appears for the trade is generally the same advocate, a trained advocate; but very often when the public are concerned with an application, they have to form an ad hoc association. They have to make their contributions from some general appeal, and they are very often at a great disadvantage in the opposition that they make. Surely there is all the difference in the world between a highly developed organisation defending its own financial interests or out to secure its own financial gain, and the general public interest.
    Mr. PIKE: Is it not true that in at least 99 cases out of 100 where members of the public appear to oppose any application made to the licensing justices, their representation is voiced by an association of one description or another, such as a temperance association or a church society, and is in hands as capable as any representative who appears on behalf of the trade?
    Mr. FOOT: The hon. Member may know a great deal more about the licensed trade than I do, but I know a great deal more about temperance associations, and I know that in many localities there is

    1105
    not the organisation which can gather up, especially at the right time, the public representation upon this matter, or that representation of the public mind which is opposed to the granting of the licence. The hon. Member may take it from me that generally in these matters in the opposition to licences those who oppose are at a great disadvantage in that respect, both in regard to organisation and in regard to financial resources. But whatever may be the difference upon that, I hope that those who support the second Amendment upon the Order Paper will agree that, whatever are the rights of the public in making their views known to the licensing justices who are under Statutory obligation to gather the opinion in the locality upon the proposed extension, those rights should be jealously preserved, and if the Government accept an Amendment upon those lines, we should like to have an assurance in that particular respect.
    Further, there is greater necessity for this public representation because of the confusion which has arisen about this Bill. The hon. Member for Attercliffe and those who were here last Friday will remember that I dwelt upon the misunderstanding of this Bill consequent upon what, I think, has been said in the newspapers. Following upon the Debate last Friday that confusion is continued. It is quite clear that this Bill deals only with one narrow point. All that it does is to give to the licensing justices in any locality the power to grant for a part of the year what, under the existing law, they can grant for the whole of the year. It travels no distance beyond that. But the Bill is being spoken of in the country and in the newspapers as one for the extension of hours in summer time. I notice that one of our London newspapers with the largest circulation came out the other evening with "Commons vote for later summer drinks." The Commons have done nothing of the kind, and this Bill does nothing of the kind. It is not a necessary corollary of the passing of this Bill that there should be an extension of drinking hours for five months in any licensed house in the country. Let that be made perfectly clear.
    Further, I would point out that there is the more necessity for this public representation because of this confusion, and because of the misunderstanding in the public mind. I would like it to be made
    1106
    clear in this House that if any advocate for the licensed trade goes to any bench of magistrates and says, "We shall have within certain months summer time, and we ask that during that time, and because of summer time, you should grant these extended hours," he is asking the magistrates for what they have no power to grant. It is no good for the hon. Member to shake his head, because I have the authority of the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Justice Scrutton, who made it quite clear that if any bench of magistrates in any part of the country say "because in certain months there will be summer time, and because of summer time we are going to grant this application, and extend the hours of drinking," they will not be exercising judicially the discretion which is in their hands. That is made perfectly clear by the existing law. They are entitled in any district to say, "In this district, having its special requirements, we shall consider summer time as one of the factors"; but they are not entitled to do it on the ground of summer time, because their obligation is to make the extension only if the special circumstances of the district require it. summer time is not the special circumstance of that district; it is the condition which applies to every district and to all the country. Therefore, if only on the ground of summer time certain magistrates think it to be a right thing that people on light evenings should have the right to drink later, they are doing what they have no right to do.
    Sir REGINALD BLAKER: If this Bill passes, it will be perfectly competent as I see it, for any bench to say that by reason of the incidence of summer time the needs of that particular neighbourhood require this extension.
    Mr. FOOT: The needs of that particular neighbourhood. My hon. Friend is introducing the other factor. I hope that hon. Members will agree that, whatever is in their minds, there should not go from this House a Bill in regard to which there is danger of confusion in the public mind. Let us make the position clear. Take the Steyning case. It went up to the Divisional Court, and the Divisional Court, in which the Lord Chief Justice pronounced the decision, decided against the justices on two grounds. The first ground was that they had granted

    1107
    for a part of the year what under the existing law they could only grant for the whole of the year, and the second ground was that they had granted for summer time an extension which was not justified because, as the Lord Chief Justice said, summer time applied to the whole country, and therefore could not be looked upon as a special requirement of the district. When the matter went, with that statement of the Lord Chief Justice, to the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Scrutton delivered judgment, and I will qoute what he said about it. It is of importance and shows the existing law, and what will be the law after the Bill has passed. I quote from the "Brewing Trade Review," which gave the fullest report I have seen, of 1st June, 1934. Everyone who has any experience of licensing cases knows that these reports are very full on this matter. Lord Justice Scrutton dealt, first of all, with the power to grant for certain days in the year, and said that there was no such power. That was his first point. He said:
    "There is also a second reason which seems to me to be quite independent of the first reason, and which is mentioned by all three judges of the Divisional Court, which is this: Just as in a previous decision of the court the Divisional Court has held that summer time is not a special occasion which justifies making an order under Section 57 of the Act of 1910, so summer time is not a special requirement of the district which justifies the justices acting under Sub-section (b) of the proviso to Section I.—"
    That, of course, is the Act of 1921—
    "Summer time applies to the whole country. It is not a special requirement of the district, such as a race meeting, or a musical festival, or a dance, or a county ball, or any matter of that sort. It is a matter which applies to the whole of the country, and Parliament, when it passed the Summer Time Act, did not think it necessary to make any alteration in the licensing laws because they were altering the standard of life of the whole community by making 10 o'clock at night be what it used not to be before they passed the Summer Time Act."
    Here is the important thing:
    "For those two reasons, I think the judgment of the Divisional Court was accurate, and that this appeal must be dismissed with costs."
    The two reasons are (1) that the justices had granted in part what they could only grant in whole, and (2) that they had taken summer time as a special requirement of the district. It is no good
    1108
    our dismissing something which was considered so important that emphasis was laid upon it by the Lord Chief Justice in the Divisional Court and by Lord Justice Scrutton and other judges in the Court of Appeal. All I wish to say is that if generally throughout the country it is thought that because of summer time there will be extended hours—the hon. Member opposite still shakes his head and, of course, he is in the legal profession, but I appeal to other hon. Members of the House. If that be the impression which has got abroad, it is the result of what has been published in the newspapers. There is not a full report of the Debates in this House. The warning which I gave last Friday did not go outside the walls of this House except perhaps to those who are interested in the question. If there be a little back-chat about cricket it gets into all the papers, but, when there is an attempt to make a serious contribution upon a very difficult part of our law, very little public attention is given to it. I stake any legal knowledge I have, perhaps not very much, upon this, that the Bench of magistrates who state that summer time is between certain dates in the year and because of summer time they are going to extend the hours in their area, can at once have their decision challenged and can be brought before the High Court, and, upon the law as it exists to-day, under the declaration of the Lord Chief Justice and of Lord Justice Scrutton, can at once have their order set on one side on the ground that they have failed to exercise judicially their discretion.
    It was open for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to have dealt with both points which came before the court, but the Government have chosen to limit it to the one point. May I go further and bring to the attention both of the Secretary of State and my hon. Friends opposite, whom I have such difficulty in convincing to-day, the fact that not only was this point emphasised by the judges but by the counsel for the trade. Counsel for the trade, in the speech which is reported in the same paper, said that he did not contend that summer time was the ground upon which they were entitled to make the extension, but there were certain parts of the country and certain districts where there were watering places and where in summer time there is a big influx of population.

    1109
    In the submission he made to the Court of Appeal, he emphasised that it was in those cases that the extension could be given. You have your watering places and places where summer population is greater than the normal population, and in that case, where the concession is given, if all the factors are taken into consideration, the magistrates are well within their rights, but in the normal case where there is nothing special between summer and winter, and where the population remains pretty much the same, it will be a very difficult thing for any benches of magistrates to justify departing from the existing law, as has been made clear beyond any shadow of doubt by the highest Judge in the land.
    Therefore, because of that confusion, there should be every encouragement given to those who are genuinely interested, as they think rightly, in the public well-being. Their views may not be the same as the majority of the Members of this House. They have no axes to grind and nothing but the public interest to serve, and, when there is difficulty in interpreting the law in this House and confusion among magistrates, it is the more reason why there should be legal representation not merely on the part of the trade but those resisting the extension, so that at any rate the Jaw may be made clear when it comes to be administered. Although I regret that we could not pass this Bill without further Amendment, as soon as I saw the Amendment which had been put down in the name of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Major Mills) and other hon. Members associated with him, I thought that there was an honest grievance which would be fairly expressed. We said last Friday that we wanted to state our case with fair arguments; and if you can have the view safeguarded, namely, that a case shall not be reviewed in any district except at the instance of the majority of magistrates rather than at the instance of the trade, which would automatically make its application—let it be a fair safeguard, so that you may be able to differentiate between the cases where they acted by having regard to the existing law, and the cases which were turned down on their general merits—if we are given some safeguard making the reopening only possible at the instance of
    1110
    the licensing justices concerned and ensuring that whatever may be the right of the public under the existing law, that law shall be maintained, then, given those two safeguards—and we give this evidence of our desire for fair play and not to prolong the argument on this matter—we shall certainly not oppose an Amendment in those terms.
    4.27 p.m.
    Major MILLS: May I ask you, Sir Dennis Herbert, whether I shall be in order in discussing the points of the second Amendment on the Order Paper which stands in my name and that of other hon. Members?
    The CHAIRMAN: My Ruling was merely that there are no points arising under the second Amendment which do not fall under the First.
    Major MILLS: I should have liked to have had a chance ultimately of moving the second Amendment, because it differs in an important way from the First Amendment. I thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) for the very fair way he has considered the case, and personally, I should be prepared to accept his condition that the cases should be brought up at the instance of the majority of the magistrates of any particular bench. It is obvious that it would be no good if the majority of magistrates of any bench were not prepared to have a ease brought before them. Even if there be power for applicants to come, they will not get any further, because the majority of the magistrates will turn down the application on the ground that it is not needed in the district. The Amendment which I desire to move runs as follows:
    "Where before the date of the passing of this Act an application that eight and a-half hours should be substituted for eight, and half-past ten at night should be substituted for ten at night, has been refused by any court of licensing justices at their last general annual licensing meeting, it shall be lawful for a fresh application to be made at any ordinary or special meeting of the licensing justices, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in section twelve, sub-section (1), of the Licensing Act, 1921."
    We have deliberately framed the Amendment in that way to limit it to applications refused at the last brewster sessions, because we did not intend to let loose a flood of new applications on

    1111
    the licensing justices. We also thought that, if we put in the provision that cases should be taken at ordinary or special sittings of the licensing justices, the proceedings would be quicker in operation than is provided for by the wording of the first Amendment. Our object is to enable justices who did not at the last brewster sessions exercise their powers under the Act of 1921 merely because they realised that although they had the power to grant such an extension for a whole year they had no power to grant it for part of a year, and who would otherwise have wished to exercise their powers, to do so now, and not be at a disadvantage compared with those magistrates who made an Order, chanced the legality of it and now are fortunate enough to find their decision is likely to be legalised.
    Let me give a specific case. In a certain district in the New Forest an application was made to the brewster sessions in 1933 for an extension, and it was granted for that year! Application was made again in 1934. The magistrates retired, and when they came back they said that they had been advised that they had no power to grant the extension for part of a year and no case had been made out for granting it for the whole of the year, therefore, they must refuse the application. There is no question of the privilege granted in the previous year having been abused, in fact everything had gone extremely well and there had been, I believe, only four cases of drunkenness during the whole of the period. I feel sure that those justices would like to look into this matter again, but they will be unable to do so until the brewster sessions of 1935, because of the provision in the Act of 1921 which restricts the power to make these Orders to the annual general licensing meeting. Therefore, unless something is done, that district, and districts like it, will be unable to have the advantage of the new provision until 1935, just because as magistrates they knew the law too well and were too conscientious, and rightly too conscientious, to chance the legality of their action.
    At first, I considered the advisability of limiting my Amendment to cases where the magistrates had given their reason for not granting the application (because they knew they had not the power to do
    1112
    so, and then I felt that it was not fair to those justices who desired to make a direction, realised that they had no power to do so, but refrained from giving their reasons. How wise is that bench of magistrates which never gives a reason for its very excellent decisions! Therefore I deemed it best to give all benches power to revise their decisions, for this year only.
    Both Amendments have this in common that they seek to remove one further difficulty that has occurred. In certain areas benches of magistrates gave a decision and made an Order, but when they saw by the High Court decision that their action was not legal they sent out an intimation through their learned clerks to the licensees, asking them not to open. In other words, they rescinded their Order. I very much doubt if that action was legal. What are those justices to do now? Are they to rescind their rescission of the Order? Are they to send out a further intimation? I am sure that the magistrates who are in that position would much sooner have the chance, if they could—in the words which we hear so often in this House—to "ask leave to sit again," to reconsider their decision, rather than leave the whole matter tangled in doubtful legality.
    I have said that we do not desire to let loose a flood of new applications upon the licensing benches, but that only cases that were turned down on points of law and not on merit should be considered. I do not think the benches will be overwhelmed with requests, for this reason, that the applicants know the reception that they got at the brewster sessions, the facts are well in the minds of the licensing justices, and unnecessary or unwise applications would be dismissed very shortly. Further, the Amendment is not in any shape or form an attempt to give a Parliamentary hint to licensing justices that they should give an extension, because they remain, as they must remain, judges whether such an extension is or is not necessary in their area.
    Finally, I should like to quote from some of the speeches that were delivered in the Second Reading Debate and which secured its passing without a Division. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said:
    "The Bill is not an instalment dealing generally with the licensing problem; its

    1113
    sole purpose is to deal with a question of emergency, and to confer on the licensing benches a power which a large number of the licensing authorities throughout the country have believed that they possess, and which quite clearly they have exercised with considerable discretion and for the general advantage of the districts over which they preside."
    All that my Amendment desires to do is to confer on the better-informed benches the opportunity to use the power which they put aside last February because they knew too much.
    The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) used these words:
    "On general grounds I should always be in favour of saying that, where unexpectedly a legal decision has upset what was the intention of the House, and what has been held for a number of years to be the intention of the House, it should be put right by legislation."
    The hon. Member has the reputation for not wanting to do things by halves, for the future, at any rate, and I feel sure that he would not wish to leave obviously hard cases uncared for. My hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) also made remarks which I should like to quote, and may I say that in quoting them I am not in any way wishing to embarrass him or to wring a reluctant concession from him? The whole Committee knows very well that his principles are far too strong on this point and that he is much too consistent to be won over in that way. He plays the game with far too straight a bat for me to be able to get him out in any underhand sort of way. I quote his words merely to refresh the memory of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He said:
    "As a result of what is now being done, not a single extension is being imposed. It simply maintains the discretion of the magistrates and gives them the power to grant in part what undoubtedly to-day they can grant in whole.… Obviously the magistrates ought to have the power, if they want to give it for a limited period, to exercise that power, but, beyond giving the magistrates the power to grant in part what undoubtedly now they can grant in whole, the Bill does not travel by the width of a hair."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1934; cols. 498–499–502; Vol. 290.]
    No more does my Amendment, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to look benevolently upon it. I am conscious of the defects in the wording of my Amendment and I am equally conscious of the defects in my method of presenting what I believe to be a very strong case, but I
    1114
    hope it will be received sympathetically by my right hon. Friend and the Committee.
    4.40 p.m.
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): After this very interesting discussion it might be to the advantage of the Committee if I said a few words on this matter. I should like to say at the outset that the Government, as we announced on Second Reading, are dealing with a purely limited point, and it was because of that fact that the House gave a Second Reading to the Bill without a Division. This Bill rectifies the position where benches of justices have considered this question and have given an extension of the half-hour and have been told subsequently, because of the decision of the Court, that their action was illegal. This Bill is to put right for those districts what was disputed in court. On the other hand, since the Second Reading there has been brought to our notice a problem, again a very narrow problem, relating to the position where benches of justices who having considered the problem and having possibly even been advised from the Home Office that it was illegal for them to give the extension, have withheld it.
    I believe, particularly after what the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) has said, that it is recognised in all parts of the House that it would not be quite a fair deal on our part to restore by this Bill an advantage where it has been already decided upon by the justices and to deny it in those cases where the justices have adhered to the advice which they have received. If that is, as I understand it, the general view of the Committee, there remains the question how it is to be brought into effect. There is in the second Amendment a very near approach to what, I think, is in the mind of the Committee. I have had an opportunity with my advisers of directing our minds to seeing how effectively this can be done. If I am rightly interpreting the views of the Committee, I would say that the Government are prepared to accept the spirit of the Amendment, but we must set up certain definite machinery in order to carry out this common purpose. I will read the Clause which we propose, which would be a new Clause:

    1115
    "Where at the general annual licensing meeting of any licensing justices last held before the passing of this Act a proposal to make a direction under the said subparagraph (1) was considered and negatived, then, on the requisition of a majority of them made within two months after the passing of this Act, the licensing justices shall hold a meeting for the purpose of considering whether such a direction or decision as they are empowered by this Act to make ought to be made, and may at that meeting make such a direction or decision as aforesaid."
    Those words clearly lay it down that it shall be by a majority of the justices that they shall decide whether or not they shall call a meeting to consider this matter. I think it was the hon. Member for the New Forest (Major Mills) who pointed out that, if a majority of the justices in a district do not feel impelled to reconsider their decision to hold a meeting, no representation from any interest in the district is going to achieve any practical purpose. In the circumstances, that is what we propose to accept. The proposal continues
    "(2) In relation to a meeting held under the foregoing Sub-section, the provisions of the rules made by the Secretary of State under Sub-section (1) of Section twelve of the Licensing Act, 1921, shall have effect as if for references therein to the general annual licensing meeting there had been substituted references to the said meeting, and the clerk shall send notice of the said meeting to the superintendent of police of the district and to each of the licensing justices."
    That is pure machinery, merely to ensure that everyone concerned shall have notice of what is on foot. I hope the Committee will accept this proposal in this form. It is very desirable that the confusion which has existed in the country should be cleared up, and I think, from everybody's point of view, that it is very necessary that that should be done at the earliest possible moment. The question was raised as to whether it was correct for the justices, having had doubt in their mind, to rescind orders which they gave for this present period. Strictly speaking, I have no authority to give any ruling on the point, but I am advised that the powers of licensing benches in relation to orders under Section 1 of the Licensing Act, 1921, could only be exercised at Brewster Sessions and that the action of those benches which have purposely cancelled their orders in the
    1116
    past few weeks would not have any legal validity, I hope that that will be understood, and in fact I have little doubt that that is the correct interpretation of the law.
    Therefore, this proposal which I make to the Committee is to give that opportunity, which I think the Committee in all quarters desire to give, in those districts where the justices, having considered these applications during the earlier part of this year, for reasons good to themselves, have turned them down, to reconsider it. I would remind the Committee that we are only dealing with this one particular year, and that when you come to the future you come to the Brewster Sessions, and application can be made there from any quarter and from new quarters and considered under the clarification which this Bill now gives. In these circumstances, I hope the Committee will think it fair, without further discussion, to accept the proposals of the Government. It was possible either to put this Clause in here as a manuscript Amendment, which I think has been quite clearly understood by hon. Members, or to delay it until the Bill went to the House of Lords, but I hope the Committee will agree that in the circumstances it would be best dealt with here.
    4.50 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The right hon. Gentleman is about to deliver us all from a great difficulty, but I want to say this much about the Debate which has taken place so far, that I would not be doing my duty to my own conscience if I did not tell the Government that in future, when they find any anomaly in the laws of the land which operates against the working folk of this country, I hope they will be as quick in removing that anomaly as they have been in responding to the brewery interests in this connection. So far as I understand the situation it is found that some of the justices have given a wrong direction to the law, and the case goes to the court of appeal and all the rest of it, and we are now told that the law must be altered. I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, that whenever he finds a decision of that kind operating against the workers of this country, in connection with factory laws, or compensation laws,

    1117
    or anything like that, he will at once do as he has done in this case.
    We are in this position: So far as I understand it, we have now three proposals before us. The first proposal made is that fresh application shall be allowed in cases where these applications have been turned down. Then we are asked to alter the law in this Bill so that applications shall be allowed whether or not any previous applications have been put forward; that is the proposal in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christ-church (Major Mills). But we have now come to the stage of the right hon. Gentleman's own proposal, with which I agree, and in so far as any suggestion of mine is of any use, I would prefer it to be embodied in the Bill this afternoon, because I am anxious that the other place shall have no title whatsoever to touch anything that we can deal with in this House of Commons. That is how I feel about the other place on all occasions, and particularly when we come to the drink traffic.
    So far as we are concerned, we do not oppose this Bill, and the hon. Member for Attercliffe ought to be more careful about the use of the English language. Not to oppose is not exactly the same thing as to support a Bill. That is where I think he went wrong when he said that those of us on this side supported the Measure, and he referred particularly to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) when he said that he supported this Bill. I speak for myself when I say that I do not oppose this Bill, but that does not mean that I support it.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: If I used the word "support," perhaps it slipped out beyond my intention, but I explained at the beginning that I regretted the necessity for the introduction of the Bill.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: What I said was that the hon. Member for the Attercliffe Division made the statement this afternoon that the hon. Gentleman supported this Bill, and I was trying as a. Welshman to make the English language more clear by saying that there is a difference between not opposing a Bill and supporting it.
    Mr. PIKE: Does that apply to the hon. Member's position on that bench?
    Mr. DAVIES: Our position is always clear, and it is that we also regret the necessity for the introduction of this Bill. I repeat that I trust that the Government will see to it that any pressure from the trade unions of this country shall be as effective on all occasions as has been the pressure of the brewers on the right hon. Gentleman in this case.
    4.54 p.m.
    Major LLEWELLIN: I welcome the new Clause that my right hon. Friend, I understand, will shortly introduce. I do not intend to deal at length with the speech of the hon. Member for West- houghton (Mr. Rhys Davies), but I would refer to some of his opening remarks. My right hon. Friend and those who support him have shown them selves just as eager to get rid of any difficulties that oppress the working classes as did the hon. Member and his friends when they sat on this side of this House for 2½ years; and, after all, a very large proportion of the members of the working classes like a drink after 10 o'clock as much as any other people in this country. The justices up and down the country have very often given these extended hours in the special circumstances that a large number of people want to work later during the longer hours of daylight on their allotments, and so go in and have a drink when those hours are finished. I will only say, in answer to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), that there are a number of reasons which justices might find as being special occasions in their districts which would allow them to give the extra extension for a definite period of time. They have got to give this extension under this Bill for a minimum period of eight weeks, which makes the position somewhat different from that which existed previously. With regard to the new Clause proposed by my right hon. Friend——
    The CHAIRMAN: We cannot help, of course, referring to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, but we must not discuss it in detail until it is moved.
    Major LLEWELLIN: I understood that the Debate was going rather wide to cover the two Amendments.
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is apparently getting to a third Amendment, which has neither been moved nor is it on the Order Paper.
    Major LLEWELLIN: I bow to your Ruling, but with regard to the Amendment which might have been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Major Mills), the words "has been refused" did occur in it, and similar words may appear in the new Clause which may be moved later, but I will apply my remarks to those words, because of one particular case which I want to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend. The case is one of the licensing justices of a district in my constituency, who took what may be the doubtfully legal course of extending the time, under the Section which we are amending by this Bill, from 10 to 10.30 p.m. but of not extending the hours from 8 to 8.30, that is to say, they said to the licensees, "You can open from 6 to 10.30 p.m. instead of opening from 5.30 to 10 p.m."
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Surely the hon. and gallant Member means that they did not extend from eight to eight and a-half hours instead of, as he said, from 8 to 8.30?
    Major LLEWELLIN: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I meant that they extended the time of opening from 10 to 10.30 p.m., but they did not extend the number of hours on which they could open from eight to eight and a-half hours, and the result of that, of course, is that they only did half what they were entitled to do if they were giving a direction under the Sub-section with which we are dealing. It is rather doubtful whether that is a refusal or whether it is not, and I would ask my right hon. Friend—perhaps there may be other cases up and down the country—to consider that point, because I very much doubt whether these particular licensees who are now opening from 6 to 10.30 have any right at all to sell any alcoholic liquor in those hours. I think that where a muddle has occurred, as it has in that district the new Clause ought to be drawn in such a way as to cover it if that be possible. At any rate, I think we are right in being agreed to amend the Bill in this way to deal with cases where justices acted in accordance with the law. It would be quite absurd to put those districts on one footing with those where justices, perhaps taking the law into their own
    1120
    hands, did something that was not done in the other districts. That is why I welcome the attitude that my right hon. Friend takes up in this matter, and I hope he will also be able to consider whether the case I put to him—which may have happened, for all I know in other districts—may be covered in any new Clause.
    5.1 p.m.
    Mr. WISE: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not mind my uttering one or two words of criticism as to the method of dealing with the problem before us.
    The CHAIRMAN: The proper course if the hon. Member wishes to criticise the new Clause is to do that when the Home Secretary has moved his new Clause. It might be for the convenience of the Committee generally, if the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment. In that event, of course, the Home Secretary may move his Amendment, and we can go on to discuss it.
    Mr. PIKE: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment in order that the Committee may discuss the new Clause to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman. I will do so if that be the wish of the Committee.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 2 (Short title and construction) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    NEW CLAUSE.—(Power of licensing justices to make a direction or decision at a meeting held on requisition within two months after passing of Act.)
    (1) Where, at the General Annual Licensing Meeting of any licensing justices last held before the passing of this Act a proposal to make a direction under the said sub-paragraph (1) was considered and negatived, then, on the requisition of a majority of them made within two months after the passing of this Act, the licensing justices shall hold a meeting for the purpose of considering whether such a direction or decision as they are empowered by this Act to make, ought to be made, and may at that meeting make such a direction or decision as aforesaid.
    (2) In relation to a meeting held under the foregoing Sub-section, that provisions of the rules made by the Secretary of State under Sub-section (1) of Section twelve of

    1121
    the Licensing Act, 1921, shall have effect as if for references therein to the general annual licensing meeting there had been substituted references to the said meeting, and the clerk shall send notice of the said meeting to the superintendent of police of the district and to each of the licensing justices.—[Sir J. Gilmour.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Sir J. GILMOUR: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    5.5 p.m.
    Mr. WISE: I should like to mention one or two points which have arisen. Under this new Clause application can only be made on the recommendation of a majority of the licensing magistrates, and not at the instance of those who desire an extension of hours. It is true to say that, if a majority of the licensing bench were opposed to the making of any such application, it would be hopeless to make it. To my mind, the suggestion that a majority of the magistrates should themselves have to decide upon the question of a reopening, or take the initiative, is one which is not wholly fair to the licensees. For one thing, it is possible that a majority of the justices would be in favour of such an application being granted if it were made. On the other hand, as the Committee well knows, it is very difficult to collect these expressions of opinion from justices who are scattered over a wide area and who are not usually accessible at any time except when they meet for brewster sessions. Therefore, I do think it should be in the power of the licensees to make application to a bench, certainly where the previous application has been refused on any grounds with which this Bill deals.
    But I should like to go farther than that, and to say that the principle which is embodied in the Amendment which the House rejected was a better one still—that the application could be made in any case. There were occasions where application was not made to the bench at brewster sessions, because, as some hon. Member suggested earlier in the Debate, the licensees were properly advised by their lawyers that any such application would be illegal. It seems to me that they are being very hardly treated. To say that no application was made is not the same as to say that such an application would not be discussed provided the bench were convinced that they were
    1122
    enabled to do what the licensees wanted, by law. It would only be fair to allow such an application to be made even in cases where no previous application had been made this year.
    I was glad to be somewhat consoled by the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Major Llewellin) who mitigated, I think, the drastic pronouncements of the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) as to whether summer time was a special circumstance or not. I believe the ingenious legal mind of the hon. and gallant Member will be able to produce other suggestions for an extension of hours during the longer days. I hope so, after the hon. Member's remarks about the skilled advocacy which has always been given on behalf of the licensed trade and the simplicity with which the temperance societies always put their case—a simplicity so ingenuou3 that it has hardly ever been successful in having an extension of license refused. That is not quite a compliment to the organisation and efficiency of some of these bodies. After all, we on this side of the House, apparently, have a higher opinion of them than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. I am sure the Committee will agree that the temperance societies will never be unworthily represented either in Committee upstairs or in Committee downstairs.
    I should like to reiterate my plea to the Home Secretary to see if he cannot—possibly in another place if we accept his Amendment here—insert a Clause which would allow application to be made where it has not previously been made this year, even if he does not see his way to remove the initiative from the magistrates themselves and give it to the licensees. In spite of the remarks of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies), the other place is a very suitable one for making these minor adjustments. The hon. Member is not, as he says himself, opposed to the principle of this Bill. In fact, in the course of his speech on workmen's compensation he did let drop one remark, referring to this Bill, which indicated that he was prepared to withdraw his effective opposition. I am sure he will agree with me that there is an injustice being done to the licensees who did not apply for an extension earlier this year.
    5.11 p.m.
    Mr. JOHN LOCKWOOD: I do not propose to detain the Committee more than two minutes. Unlike other Members I know, I very rarely speak in this House, and it may possibly be that the Committee will give me a little patience for about half a minute. I confess I am profoundly disappointed with the attitude that the Government have taken, because I feel that they, like so many other people, have fallen victim to the wiles and charms of the temperance party. I feel that they have taken as facts the wild stories of possibilities that may arise from a measure of this kind. It is very difficult to resist arguments of this sort. It seems to me the Amendment has watered down what we want. It does not give what we seek to get. I cannot see why licensees who have so far not had opportunity of applying should not at this point get an opportunity. It may well be that the people of the district did not apply because they thought, and quite rightly thought at the particular time, that there was no hope of succeeding; and it seems to me unfair to prevent them now from coming forward and putting their case. There can be no danger, because the licensing magistrates can hear the evidence. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) will get exactly what he wants, because the magistrates can hear the evidence, and, if they come to the conclusion it is not a proper application, they can reject it. If, on the other hand, they think it is a proper one, they can grant it.
    A great deal of nonsense has been talked by certain Members of this House who seek to make out, for instance, that the magistrates are not in a position to hear the case properly because the advocacy is not competent. Those hon. Members know perfectly well the temperance societies are well organised. They are certainly exceedingly loquacious. I think no other bodies of men are so loquacious as the temperance societies, and, even if they talk nonsense, they have ample opportunity of doing so. If they want to brief counsel they can do it, and they are in a position to get the best counsel. In the circumstances, I am sorry the Government have fallen victim to the wiles and charms of the temperance party, and I hope that even at the eleventh hour the Home Secretary will think better of it and will grant us what
    1124
    we seek to get: that is to say, justice for those licensees who would have applied in the ordinary way, but who, because they were misled, did not apply.
    5.14 p.m.
    Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I only want to say that I think what was asked for is sufficiently given in the Clause now before the House. I understand nothing is done to interfere with the right of the public to make representations. I think there is a case for making a special exception in this instance. In any case, the Government are standing strictly by their arrangement. It must not go out that this is a Bill for which we have asked. We regret the Bill, but we want to see a fair arrangement made to end a confusion for which no one is responsible.
    Major MILLS: I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the concession. I think it does substantially meet the hard cases we have in mind, and we are grateful to him for having moved it.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

MILK BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I hope the Minister of Agriculture will be present to explain the terms of this Bill before any Member on these benches is expected to make any observations in regard to its contents. It is not my intention at this moment to address the House on this Bill, and we must, I think, wait for the Minister's arrival, or for some other Member of the Government to make some reference to this very important Measure.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): I assume that the hon. Member is rising to a point of Order, as I gather that he does not wish to exhaust his right to speak.
Mr. WILLIAMS: That is so.
Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I should like to argue the point of Order raised by my hon. Friend.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think the hon. Member can argue a point of Order.
5.17 p.m.
Mr. DAVIES: Then I will make some comments on the Bill itself. We are dealing with a Measure which involves an expenditure of £5,000,000—a very important Measure. The authority I have for saying that the Bill means an expenditure of £5,000,000 is my hon. Friend the Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who, I am sure, we are all pleased to see back again. The first Clause deals with Exchequer payments in respect of milk sold for manufacture. If the Minister of Agriculture were present I should ask him what exactly is meant by "milk sold for manufacture." There are many changes which take place in the production of milk and in the handling of milk. I speak with a little knowledge of co-operative societies, which handle large quantities of milk, and if they proceed and succeed as they have done in the last year they will be able to control practically all the milk which is produced in this country. Now that the Minister of Agriculture has arrived, I will put to him at once what I think is the most important question that will be put to him in connection with this Bill: What is actually meant by manufacturing milk? I thought milk came from the cow, and until I saw this Bill I never heard that milk was manufactured at all. I hope I shall get an answer to that question.
5.18 p.m.
The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I must apologise to the House for not being in my place and thank the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) for having commenced and continued the Debate until I was able to be present. I was attempting to stimulate the consumption of milk by consuming a little of the commodity myself in the tea-room, but owing to a lag in the indicator I was caught away from my post. I thank the hon. Member for his courteous intervention. I gave the House an outline of the milk position when presenting the Financial Resolution, and I do not think it is necessary to go over that ground again. I have just
1126
heard in the tea-room—it is one of the advantages of a visit to that spot—that there is no subject which would justify a speech of more than half an hour, and therefore I will confine my remarks within those limits.
The main objectives before us are, of course to secure an increased consumption of clean liquid milk in this country, upon which we are all agreed, to secure the confidence of the public in the purity of its milk supplies, and, thirdly, to hold the position while these two campaigns are got under way by advances for the manufacturing of milk. We do not require to argue the case for the two first proposals, an increase in the consumption of milk, and a clean up of the herds of the country, but I see that there is an Amendment on the Paper indicating that exception is taken to the advances for the manufacturing of milk, and to the rate at which we are proceeding in the campaign for cleaning up the herds, and I will devote a little time to these two points. It will be for the convenience of the House if I run over the Clauses of the Bill itself. Clauses 1 to 8 provide the machinery for paying out the advances for manufacturing milk which this House sanctioned in the Financial Resolution.
Clause 1 provides that payments shall be made by the Government in the case of sales of milk on contract by registered producers or of sales of milk by the board, if in either case the milk has been sold at less than the standard price. The opening words of the Clause provide that the Minister shall prescribe the evidence required to satisfy him that payment is due to the boards, and the Minister for this purpose is a composite body consisting of myself and the Secretary of State for Scotland acting together, with the approval of the Treasury. There is no danger of the two of us getting into a corner and writing out enormous cheques on the Treasury without consent. Clause 2 deals with the special case when payments are made in respect of milk manufactured by milk marketing boards. There may in such cases be no actual purchase or sale of milk. In the case of milk consigned to a board for manufacture the producer will eventually receive his share of the pool, and it is therefore necessary to make provision for calculating the price at which it can be

1127
assumed the milk has been sold. Clause 3 deals with the special case of payments in respect of milk manufactured into cheese on farms. The boards have agreed to accept responsibility for such milk and propose to enter into contracts with farm cheese-makers. This is important, first, on account of the quantity of milk which is here concerned, running into many million gallons, and secondly, because of the desirability of preserving this ancient and characteristic rural industry. There are many consumers also who like a bit of English cheese, and it would be a pity if this valuable foodstuff were removed from our tables.
Clause 4 defines the cheese milk price, and the standard price, and requires the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland, acting in conjunction, to certify the cheese milk price every month. Subsection (3) of this Clause requires the Minister to state the method by which he has arrived at the cheese milk price and to publish his certificate. The definition of the standard price is one which has been customary in the trade for many years past and I do not think that any exception will be taken to it. Clause 5 provides for repayment to the Exchequer during the years 1936 to 1938, if and when the cheese milk price rises, and it has to rise by 1d. over the standard price, because the price of cheese milk to-day is so low that it is only reasonable that repayment should not take place until it has gone as high as the standard price, and slightly above it.
It may be worth while here to deal with a criticism which has been made by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild), that we are here guaranteeing a profit to an uneconomic surplus. I do not think anyone will suggest that these prices give a profit or avoid more than a fraction of the loss which has been contracted. That answers in a word the criticism made by several hon. Members, that we are increasing the surplus by guaranteeing a remunerative price for it, and that consequently we are tempting the production of greater quantities of milk. No practical agriculturist in the House will contend that these prices represent anything like remunerative prices, or prices at which
1128
milk producers would be tempted to extend their production.
Clause 6 provides for Exchequer payments to the Government of Northern Ireland to be used in assisting milk producers in that country. No guarantee is given by this Government to make up prices in Northern Ireland to a standard price; the provision is only that a certain sum will be available to help the Government of Northern Ireland to guarantee a standard price. Sub-section (1) of the Clause shows that it is the intention of the Government of Northern Ireland to use the Exchequer payment only to assist the manufacture of cream or butter at registered creameries. The Government of Northern Ireland already has its proposals in legislative form, and they are extremely interesting. In some respects they go much further than the proposals which are laid before this House. They prohibit altogether the sale of liquid milk for consumption below Grade C and even on the Grade C milk, which is the lowest grade of their milk, they provide for a levy, running as high as threepence per gallon, to be used to assist the better qualities of milk. I may say also that even in the case of Grade C milk the cows will be inspected twice a year. It will be seen that these are very drastic proposals and go far beyond what we can look forward to introducing immediately in this country. It will also be clear that this money is not being paid over for any standards lower than those which we are enforcing in this country.
Clause 7 provides for the enforcement of payments due by milk marketing boards to the Exchequer. Sub-section (1) of that Clause requires a board to comply with the directions given by the Minister, after consultation with the Treasury, for ascertaining the amount and securing the repayment of all repayable advances. Clause 8 strengthens the security of the Treasury by providing that where one scheme is revoked by another, the debt of the first scheme shall be assumed to be the debt of the new scheme. So much for Clauses 1 to 8 dealing with the financial proposals which, in our judgment, are necessary, and which I think we can show to the House are necessary, if the industry is to be preserved. It is no use demanding a higher quality of milk and looking

1129
forward to a greater consumption, unless the industry is preserved as a going concern. The danger just now is far more low levels of prices leading to a general wilting and shrinking of the industry and a diminution of the supply of home-produced milk, rather than the fear that we shall not be rapid enough in improving the quality and increasing the consumption of the home-produced milk.
Accordingly, with this foundation given, Clause 9 enables the Minister to spend up to £750,000 during a period of four years in such ways as he thinks will improve the quality of milk for human consumption. That is to be done in consultation with the Ministry of Health and Treasury approval has to be obtained. In order that the work shall be continued after the expiration of the four years, the Minister is empowered to require boards to continue the campaign without further assistance from the Exchequer. Sub-section (1) of Clause 9 leaves the Minister a free hand as to the spending of the money but Sub-section (2) indicates that it is the intention to pay sums, by way of premium, to producers of milk of defined quality. Sub-section (3) requires the Minister to lay particulars of his plan before both Houses of Parliament.
Clause 10 amends Section 3 of the Milk and Dairies Amendment Act, 1922, so as to enable the Minister of Health to revise the designations of milk, a point which has been pressed upon us both by the Re-organisation Commission for Milk under my hon Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) and by the Cattle Diseases Committee of the Economic Advisory Council. Each of these bodies has recommended a reduction in the number of grades, including the elimination of the present Grade A which, of course, is the lowest grade of milk although it has the rather anomalous designation of "Grade A". No one is ever willing to admit that he should be classed in any category other than the highest, and consequently this grading began with the highest category, but since then a series of higher grades have been superimposed upon the original Grade A to the great confusion, I think, of the purchaser and without the least advantage to the producer.
Clause 11 contains provisions for increasing the demand for milk, and on this
1130
question we shall, no doubt, hear a great deal in the Debates which are to follow. I consider myself very fortunate in having been able to bring forward these proposals since for many years now I have taken a keen interest in this matter both professionally and in the House of Commons. I acted as chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Empire Marketing Board which carried out the great series of school-feeding experiments by means of which we were enabled to get the statistics upon which a great part of this work has been based. I was also responsible, when in Opposition, for a small Bill allowing for an improvement in the provision of milk in the schools in Scotland. I am not therefore to be taken as having referred cavalierly to this matter as I think I am accused by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) of having done in my speech on the Financial Resolution. I think the Financial Resolution itself means as much as or more than any laudatory phrases by a Minister. For the first time, in this Measure we have provision being made towards this end, which is a great event in the history of public health and nutrition in this country.
The Clause does not refer specifically to the provision of milk in schools but it was announced by me on 22nd February that the Government would only make grants in aid of an approved programme of publicity to be submitted by a milk marketing board, and that programme would be required to contain, among other things, provision for the supply of milk to schools at reduced rates. That assurance stands, although I did not think that it was necessary to write it into the Clause. If the House requires any further assurance from me. I repeat here and now the assurance which I was able to give on 22nd February. I am required also to lay before both Houses of Parliament particulars of schemes which have been approved for securing an increased demand for milk. Clauses 12 and 13 deal with general and supplementary provisions and because the provisions of the milk marketing schemes at present in force do not permit boards to make payments of any special premiums to producers, that is provided for in Clause 12.
That, briefly as I can make it, is a review of the actual legislative proposals

1131
of the Government. I now have to deal with the Amendment which is to be moved by my hon. Friends opposite. I am indebted to them for having put down a reasoned Amendment. I think the Financial Resolution was debated on a non-party basis and since there are many points of the greatest interest to be elicited in these discussions, a reasoned Amendment makes it possible for me to see those points to which my hon. Friends wish more particularly to direct criticism. Their objections are, first, that we are encouraging the production of milk products in preference to an increase in the consumption of fresh milk and, secondly, that we fail to make adequate provision for the eradication of disease from cattle. To take the second point first, I am assured by my technical advisers that in the provisions which we are now making we are proceeding as rapidly as is reasonable, considering the supplies both of men and money available for the eradication of disease from our herds.
The programme laid down by the Cattle Diseases Committee envisaged a plan covering a considerable length of time. For instance, on pasteurisation, they suggest that large municipalities ought to have the right to require that after two years notice all milk except sterilised milk sold within their boundaries which is not derived from herds free from tuberculosis shall be pasteurised, but that the power to exercise that right should be deferred for three years, making a total of five years before they would consider that it was possible to arrange for any large supply of tuberculosis free cattle. Our programme, providing, as I say, for the payment of premiums to attested herds, should, I think, bring us perhaps 1,000 herds in the first year and that number may be considerably increased in the subsequent year. If it increases rapidly no one will be more pleased than I, but I think it only fair to say that the conditions, as all practical agriculturists know, must be meticulous, and the difficulty of providing and maintaining these herds is so considerable, that it is unlikely that any rapid expansion may be looked for in the provision of this stock. Secondly, I think it fair to say that the financial provision here may well cover expansion, certainly in the preliminary years, to the utmost
1132
extent which we can hope for under such conditions. As for a general campaign of slaughter and the killing out of infected cows in this country, this is not possible—apart from any question of a lack of men or a lack of money to carry it out—because of the lack of milk which would ensue, and clearly it is useless to discuss measures which could never be applied in practice.
If we are to start on this very big programme, we must have the assurance of continuity, and that assurance I think we have. We shall be able by means of our programme to launch the scheme, but the main work will have to be done by the organised industry itself, and work upon the Marketing Board's roll of accredited producers is in fact taking place. It will be necessary to ensure a progressively larger supply of milk of a progressively higher quality and, while it is true that certain bodies such as the Cattle Diseases Committee recommended that the premium should not be paid by the Government but entirely by the board, I am sure that practical producers will agree that, at this moment, it is necessary to have a certain sum from the central authority. The board and the producers are in no condition at this moment to spend the sums which will be necessary to launch this campaign at the rate at which we hope it will be launched. Further, by means of a central grant we shall be able to meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) who said that the herds would never be cleaned up if it were left entirely to the farmers and to the councils elected by the farmers. By finding a certain amount from central funds, we thereby have considerable power of central direction, and that will be very valuable, not merely in speeding up this reform but in obtaining one standard and that the highest throughout the country.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: In order to make that point perfectly clear, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what other central direction there will be, apart from the payments of premiums, to ensure expedition in the cleaning up of the herds?
Mr. ELLIOT: The report of the Cattle Diseases Committee is just out. I would hesitate at the moment to sketch in any detail the proposals which we shall sub-sequently

1133
have to lay before the House. I can assure hon. Members that we are proceeding as rapidly as possible with the sketching out of the skeleton plan, which can only be followed after consultation with the authorities, both Government and scientific, on whom we shall have to rely for the framing of this scheme. We are putting forward our general scheme which is to raise the standard by the payment of premiums, thereby getting the farmer chasing the "vet" rather than the "vet" chasing the farmer; and we shall lay the proposals subsequently before the House as and when they are worked out, and I am sure they will satisfy the House as, step by step, we put them forward.
I will speak last of the proposals for increasing the consumption of liquid milk, and I will deal more particularly with the criticisms of my hon. Friends that we are making proposals designed to encourage the production of milk products in preference to an increase of consumption of fresh milk among children in public elementary schools. Taking alone the calculations of my hon. Friends which they brought forward on the Financial Resolution, I would say, in the first place, that the cost of their proposals is vastly greater than that of the proposals which we put forward. My hon. Friends said we could carry out their scheme for no more than the cost of the proposals which we have outlined. The figures put forward by them would run to £9,000,000 per annum.
Viscountess ASTOR: Think of the cost of beet sugar.
Mr. ELLIOT: The Noble Lady is a well-known battler when it comes to the Treasury, and I shall be glad to have her on my side in this matter. These are very large sums, and nothing is gained by ignoring the challenge which my hon. Friends threw out. My hon. Friends said that milk could not only be given at the schools but at the homes, which raises an entirely different problem——
Sir EDWARD GRIGG: I think the suggestion that children should have milk during the holidays is made on the supposition that they would fetch it from the schools.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: On what price per gallon is the £9,000,000 calculated?
Mr. ELLIOT: It is calculated on the same figure at which it is being supplied now.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The manufacturing price?
Mr. ELLIOT: No. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They bring forward a proposal for relieving the industry. It will not relieve industry to distribute milk at 3d. per gallon. I am basing the sum I gave on the figure at which it is being supplied now.
Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: What is it actually?
Mr. ELLIOT: Two shillings per gallon, and there are 1,000,000 children receiving milk in those conditions just now. I want to bring the House back in the consideration of these proposals to the fact that we have to deal with the stress upon the industry as well as the desirability of providing milk in the schools. Assuming the full contention of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley which raises the great question of distribution, it is not completely met by the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham that the difficulty of distribution could be met by children calling at the school for the milk in the holidays. Even supposing that were so, his figure and the figure of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley covered something like 80,000,000 gallons—a very large figure. But that does not deal with the surplus with which we have to deal.
Sir S. CRIPPS: £9,000,000 represents 90,000,000 gallons at 2s.
Mr. ELLIOT: I am willing to take the figure of 90,000,000 gallons. The deficiency will not in any way be solved by that. The quantity of milk covered by these repayable advances is estimated to be about 180,000,000 gallons. Therefore, 90,000,000 gallons still leaves the problem which this scheme is designed to solve of finding some way of carrying this quantity of milk for which the industry just now has no outlet except at these very low levels of 3d. and 4d.
Sir E. GRIGG: Does my right hon. Friend really mean that the surplus which fetches the lowest category of manufacturing price, which is therefore affected by this scheme, is 180,000,000 gallons?
Mr. ELLIOT: That is the lowest category. That takes no account of manufacturing milk sold in the higher categories, which does not qualify for advance. We estimate it at between 160,000,000 and 180,000,000 gallons. It must be clear to the House that a scheme which, at very great cost and under tremendous problems of distribution, certainly cannot be brought into operation in 12 months, or, I venture to say, an even longer time, and only deals with half the problem, leaving the other half absolutely unsolved, is not a scheme which faces up to our difficulty. That is the difficulty of ensuring that while we are discussing the milk industry, the industry itself does not founder and disappear and leave us nothing to discuss except how we are to make imported milk powder into milk for the taxpayers to distribute to the children.
The low price of surplus milk has grown up in a very strange manner. It has grown up because milk for liquid consumption continues to sell at prices which are based upon the home price in the home market, and the surplus milk is sold at prices based on the world price; and in these days world price is not merely a subsidised price, but an enormously subsidised price. This country has the cheapest butter and cheese in the world. I want my hon. Friends in all parts of the House to grasp that that involves a higher price for liquid milk, for if you fraction the supply and sell one fraction at a very low price, you drive up the price of the other fraction. I ask my hon. and learned Friend's attention to this, and I hope to command his sympathy, because unless he grasps this fact he will not understand the case which we put forward as to why money is given to manufacturing milk. It is given because, unless we underpin the price of manufacturing milk, the price of liquid milk will be driven up higher and higher by the low price of manufacturing milk. The price of liquid milk will go higher and higher so that it will go further and further out of the reach of the consumer. The consumption of liquid milk will be reduced, the demand for it will fall, and consequently we shall get into a vicious spiral of which none of us can see the end.
It is with the intention of breaking that spiral, of underpinning the market at the weakest point where it meets the
1136
competition of subsidised milk products from all over the world, that we have produced this scheme. It might be said that the simplest thing is to exclude these products entirely from our markets. Then, however, the case of those who are putting forward the case of the consumer would be enormously reinforced because the consumer has been educated over a long period of years to these uneconomic prices and to quantities of milk at prices far below those at which it is possible for any producer to produce. To guillotine the foreign products in sufficient quantity to bring about a relief to the milk producer of this country would set up economic stresses which it would be impossible for the House to contemplate. If I have carried the House with me in that argument I shall be glad. I have set out the line of argument, an unfamiliar line, which has led us to the proposal to underpin manufacturing milk, not because we love manufacturing milk the more, but because, unless we support the market there, the price of the liquid milk will be driven higher even than it is to-day, and the return to the producers will be lower correspondingly. Therefore, neither will the consumer have the advantage, because his milk will be higher in price, nor will the producer have the advantage, because he himself will have to provide a subsidy for manufacturing milk which will enable him to compete against the subsidised manufactured milk from all over the world.
Sir BASIL PETO: My right hon. Friend said that the consumers have been accustomed for many years to abnormally low prices for milk products. Is it not a fact that we never had a low price for butter until the year before last?
Mr. ELLIOT: I am not thinking merely of butter, but of condensed milk, which is one of the important outlets for milk products in this country. As we have found in the case of bacon, three or four years are quite enough to accustom the consumer to an uneconomically low price, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the strain of guillotining imported supplies on a large scale would undoubtedly set up a reaction against the producers themselves of which they would be well advised to be aware. I am sure the producers feel that, and for that reason are anxious

1137
to find an escape from the problem which besets us.
I do not pretend that these proposals are in any way final, but for the first time we have organised the industry in this country. That is to say, the solution is to be found in a better market, and an organised market is the one obvious way by which we can bring about a better market. It is useless for a Government to go to the distributors and tell them that they can run their business more profitably than they themselves, and that they can find unsuspected sources of profit. A commercial man will be always ready to discover, by skilful accountancy, ways to show he is not making any profit on the transactions in which he is engaged. The interest of the organised producer in the low cost of distribution is far greater than that of almost anyone else, because with low costs of distribution he can obtain a remunerative price for his products and still get larger consumption owing to the decrease in prices to the consumer. The organised producer is in a position to go into that problem with far more authority than any investigation which we may set up in this House.
Therefore, from all sides I ask support for our proposals since I am sure that the organised producer is the only person who can go into and investigate the variety of problems of distribution which, as the Commission of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham has said, and as many other inquiries have shown is the true solution of the difficulties in which we stand to-day. I must apologise to the House for having taken longer than I intended. This is a subject in which I feel the greatest interest, and always have done. I can only say that I feel myself greatly honoured and privileged to have brought these proposals before the House of Commons at this time. I am sure that we are on the right road. I am sure that these are worthy proposals that we are laying before the House. They are proposals which are flexible and capable of development. I am certain that the House will not regret having started upon this road by giving a Second Reading to this Bill.
Sir EDWARD GRIGG: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of schemes being laid on the Table of the House; will they
1138
need a Resolution of the House before they come into force?
Mr. ELLIOT: I hope that the House will not insist upon that. Clause 11 is not so drawn as to require a Resolution to be passed before schemes come into force. They will often be highly technical, and I think the laying of them before the House will be quite sufficient; but that is a Committee point which we can well discuss when we come to Clause 11.
Miss RATHBONE: When the right hon. Gentleman told us that the price hitherto paid for the milk supplied to schools was 2s. a gallon, did he mean us to understand that with any increased supply of milk to schools so high a price as 2s. a gallon is contemplated? The estimate of £9,000,000 was based on 2s. a gallon.
Mr. ELLIOT: Obviously, the exact price which is to be paid will depend upon the scheme brought forward by the Milk Board. The price will have to be remunerative or it will not help the milk industry. The exact quantity and the exact sum necessary will be the subject of close investigation as soon as the Marketing Board bring forward their proposals; but it cannot be at the low price of milk for manufacturing purposes.
6.3 p.m.
Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"whilst this House is of opinion that the wider distribution of a pure and efficient milk supply is an urgent necessity, it cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which is designed to encourage the production of milk products in preference to an increase in the consumption of fresh milk amongst the children in public elementary schools and at a price within the reach of the poorer households, and which, in view of the recent Report of the Economic Advisory Council, fails to make adequate provision for the eradication of disease from cattle."
We are much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his clear exposition of the Bill, and the principles on which he has acted in putting the subsidy upon the basis upon which it is. I call it a subsidy because I do not think any of us really look upon it as being a loan. Also, I am sure that all of us

1139
will pay the Minister the tribute that we know he is as anxious as everybody else that school children should get an adequate supply of clean milk. That is a subject about which he has always shown anxiety, and he has always done his best to accomplish that object; but we may legitimately have different views as to the best way of securing that end, and we do not believe this Bill is making anything like the best use of the money which is to be found by the community. We are all out for the same objective, to get the best use of milk and the best milk to use, and as we are to spend something like £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 in a year or two in trying to achieve that object we ought to remember that it is the community generally who are entitled to the full value of the £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 and not merely the farmers or the landowners who are receiving a subsidy in support of their business. It is obvious that under our existing system this business must be supported, but we cannot look at the position purely from that point of view.
There are two main points to take into consideration in deciding whether this Bill is the most desirable way of tackling the problem—first, the question of purity, and, secondly, the distribution of liquid milk. Those two do to some extent go together, because no one wants to distribute milk which is not pure or is a source of disease. The recent report of the Economic Advisory Committee on cattle diseases, following upon an earlier report by a special committee of the People's League of Health, shows the extreme necessity for action in cleaning up the herds. Most of us had a rather general and somewhat hazy idea that there was a great deal of impure milk on the market, but we had no conception as to how much of it was impure or as to how far it was responsible for disease. But now that we have these authoritative reports we have a proved set of circumstances which must be called appalling. I do not propose to reiterate the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in the earlier stage of these discussions, but I would like to read one passage from a speech by a very well known surgeon, because I think some hon. Members may not realise even now how serious is this question. Lord Moynihan, speaking at a
1140
meeting at the Mansion House nearly two years ago, just after the first of the reports I have mentioned had come out, said:
"It is also true that a very large amount of surgical tuberculosis is caused by the drinking of contaminated milk. I have some figures here which show that 59 per cent. of cases of glandular enlargement and 35 per cent. of bone and joint disease in England and Wales are due to the drinking of contaminated milk. In Scotland things were far worse; there, over 90 per cent. of glandular enlargement and over 60 per cent. of diseases of bones and joints were found to be due to the drinking of such milk. What we are accustomed to call 'surgical tuberculosis,' that is tuberculosis of the glands, bones, joints, skin, intestines and so forth, is due in large measure to impure milk. It has also become quite clear that a certain proportion of that form of tuberculosis which was supposed to be due to the contact of an individual with an already contaminated individual—that is to say, human tuberculosis—is also due to the drinking of milk. Therefore, against milk a heavy indictment may be brought: that it is the cause of a large proportion of surgical tuberculosis and of a certain proportion of medical tuberculosis."
That is a very serious statement indeed to be made by one of the leading surgeons of this country, and it is to be noted that it does not deal only with bovine tuberculosis, but also with human tuberculosis. That state of affairs, which is perhaps aggravated by the disclosures as to the lack of inspection even under the existing inspectorate in the county areas, calls for some far more drastic action than the Minister is proposing to take. Ministers are not always accused of not taking enough power unto themselves; the accusation is often the exact opposite, but we believe that a really determined attack ought to be made upon this state of affairs, and that that cannot be done adequately by offering a premium for milk which is relatively or completely pure, free from infection from tuberculosis. It is, of course, a difficult task inside any individualistic system of farming, where there are an enormous number of owners of small units who are not very amenable to the discipline even of so vigorous a Minister of Agriculture as the one we have at present; and we believe the Minister ought to take very much greater powers to deal with this matter than he will have under this Bill. It is true that a great deal might be done temporarily by means of pasteurisation and

1141
by other methods of getting rid of the disease which is in the milk, but, obviously, everyone would prefer to get milk which is clean at its source instead of impure milk which has to be purified subsequently. Under the Bill we do not believe the Minister will be successful in making any very effective onslaught on this state of affairs.
If this cleaning up is to be successful, it is essential that it should be done nationally from the centre. It will not be enough to do it through local government centres in various parts of the country, as is shown I think by the inefficiency of the present inspectorate and the small amount of work they put in. We suggest to the Government that this should be treated as a disease which is not only a cattle disease but which is infectious and harmful to the human being. In cases of foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever the central Government exercise very large powers of isolation and slaughter if necessary—not necessarily slaughter, though slaughter if necessary; but isolation above all things. One of the difficulties as regards outbreaks in cattle is the infection which even a decent herd, which has been got free from tuberculosis, may suffer from herds which are not kept free from tuberculosis. We believe that the Minister ought to take powers similar to those which he has for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease, not necessarily ordering slaughter in every case, but with a right, if necessary, to condemn, and especially with the right to isolate—the right to isolate areas if necessary—and with the administration carried out under a central inspectorate. The work should be put under the Livestock Department of the Board of Agriculture and be a direct responsibility of that Department. Even if it is necessary to spend a good deal more money in setting up an inspectorate it is an absolutely first essential in dealing with this problem. By attacking it by the method of giving an extra premium for milk we are tackling it from the wrong end. If we are only to spend a small sum of money that money would be spent much more usefully by dealing with this disease among cattle as other cattle diseases are dealt with, and, indeed, we believe it would be well worth while to spend a very much larger sum on setting up an efficient system on these lines.
Mr. ELLIOT: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will recollect that I indicated that we should be working centrally. It was one of the points I made.
Sir S. CRIPPS: I quite understand. What my right hon. Friend said was that the Government would control the purse-strings as regards the premium money for better milk, and that we should therefore work to a central standard in that matter; but that is not my point. The point I am making is the control of the herd side and of the inspectorate side. I am dealing with the inspection of the animals. The Livestock Department of the Board of Agriculture does the work now in the case of foot-and-mouth disease.
Mr. ELLIOT: I agree completely. Every attention possible will be given as regard attested herds by the Central Department.
Sir S. CRIPPS: I am sorry that I have not made my meaning clear. Merely keeping a roll of tested herds is not good enough. It is the untested herds that are a danger. With a tested herd we have a man who has already done his best to get his herd free, and once he has appreciated the advantage of that he will no doubt do his best to keep it free. The danger is from the rest of the people who make no effort to get their herds free, and who take no trouble to try to cleanup their herds. It is people who send tuberculous cattle into the market Where they may infect everybody else's cattle in regard to whom I want to give the Minister power; in bad cases of tuberculous infection he should have the power to make an order for them to be slaughtered—not wholesale slaughter. When you go about the country you can see tuberculous cows, starved-looking, lean animals, which some small man continues milking, especially in village areas. I want the Minister to have the very fullest powers, just as he would have to deal with any other serious disease in cattle. If he cannot spend the money on those powers, at least let him have the powers, in order that he may step in and make a really effective onslaught. I should like to see the greater part of this money spent on the exercise of those powers.
Let me come to the second point, the question of distribution. It is clearly unnecessary

1143
to wait until all the herds in the country are cleaned up before we consider the wider distribution of liquid milk. Besides that, there are other means by which some guarantee can be obtained that the milk will not infect children. In this country at the present time there is a fantastically low consumption of milk per head. In the United States, twice as much is drunk per head of the population, in Canada three times as much, and in the Scandinavian group of countries roughly six times as much per head. Obviously, there is very much leeway to be made up, in order to improve the health of the people of this country. The low consumption per head is not evenly distributed over the population. It is very largely the lower and poorer-paid classes who find that they are unable to get the liquid milk which they require. In other words, it is not merely a question of taste, but of ability to pay the money. The very remarkable figures which were quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) from the investigations on the consumption of milk in Cardiff by Mr. Jones and Mr. Cowie of the University College, Aberystwyth, proved conclusively that the incidence of the lack of milk very largely falls upon the families with children in the lowest grades of consuming power. There seems to be very large scope for the expansion of the consumption of liquid milk.
Perhaps I may remind hon. Members of one or two of those figures, which were given when some hon. Members were not present. The report, as the House will remember, divides the population into four classes: (1) good middle-class; (2) good working-class; (3) new housing area; and (4) poor working-class. The interesting fact about the new-housing-area class is that the consumption of milk is almost as low as in the fourth class, owing to the high rents or the high rate of purchase which is being paid by those individuals for their houses. The figures are these: The total expenditure on all milk and milk foods per week, that is condensed milk, liquid milk, dried milk, and all the other milk foods, is, in the first class, practically 12½d; per person; in the second class, 6d.; in the third class, 5d.; and in the fourth class, 5d. The consumption is less than half in the last two classes than in the ordinary
1144
middle-class families. On those figures the report says:
"Further it is almost certainly wrong to assume that the poor classes would not take considerably greater quantities of fresh milk if they were financially able to do so, and there is no reason to believe that the consumption of milk in those regions could not approach that attained in the more prosperous districts."
That is to say, if the purchasing power for liquid milk were there, consumption would follow. A little further on the report says after further analysing the different classes:
"Not a single one of the remaining 22 households obtained any kind of milk food other than tinned skimmed milk, whilst only four of the children living in those homes, are supplied with milk at school. It is therefore apparent that 24 children, 10 of whom are under seven years, have to depend entirely upon tinned skim milk for their requirement of milk."
Obviously, in a country where it is said that there is a surplus of 118,000,000 gallons of milk a year, that is something which no community can tolerate, if there is any means of putting it right. We believe that this is an opportunity, when the community is about to spend money to assist the dairying industry, to cure to some extent this very serious evil, as regards the health of the school children.
If one looks a little further, one finds that the amount spent per head on milk falls very rapidly, as one would expect, when the number of individuals in the family is greater. Where there are children, the consumption of milk per head is much smaller in the poorer families than where there are no children. In a family where there are two people, generally husband and wife, the consumption in pence per head per week is just over 8d.—8.7d.; where there are five persons, that would be three children, the consumption falls to 5d. per head. The more children there are, the worse is the share which each child gets of the small amount of milk which goes into the home. The state of affairs thus disclosed must lead us if possible to do something to expand milk production. The right hon. Gentleman has said that that is quite impossible from a financial point of view to face the expenditure that would have to be made if we were to try to provide children—which is the obvious way to do it—with a free supply of milk. I would be very glad if he will follow me

1145
in the figures which I want to take up and which he gave us.
He says that the excess is to be taken as 180,000,000 gallons. I thought that that was rather a maximum figure. Of the 160,000,000 to 180,000,000 gallons, 90,000,000 gallons would go to supply those children if it were distributed free, and he assumes that the other 90,000,000 gallons would go at 2s. There is the present position; 90,000,000 gallons are going for 3d. and the other 90,000,000 gallons is what we are to subsidise. It is suggested that we should subsidise it at 1s. 9d., and the hon. Gentleman says that that would cost £9,000,000. That would be a fantastic proposition, I agree. What we have to do to meet the hon. Gentleman's position is to give to that 180,000,000 gallons somewhere about 5d. per gallon, and that is what he is seeking to do in the Bill. Let us assume that half of it is sold for manufacturing purposes at 3d. per gallon; how far have we to go in order to bring out the average at over 5d. a gallon?—8d. a gallon. That is to say, if we give 8d. a gallon, we shall be giving the same amount of subsidy as is provided in this Bill for 180,000,000 gallons. It is suggested that if you do that, the 90,000,000 gallons will not fetch 3d. I do not think so. If the 90,000,000 gallons were taken off the manufacturing market at a higher price, the manufacturing objective would absorb a very great portion of the 90,000,000 gallons, and it might be that the cheese makers would be short of milk.
Mr. ELLIOT: It is a very interesting point, but it would stabilise the price of milk at what would become the general level for all milk, and that would ruin the scheme completely. I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman to appreciate the full weight of the argument. If you distribute any such quantity as 90,000,000 gallons at an average price such as he suggested it would be impossible to get other consumers to pay the higher price, and you would have to subsidise every gallon of milk which is sold in this country.
Sir S. CRIPPS: That would not frighten me if it were necessary. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has looked at this matter as it actually is. If a scheme is devised for the distribution of free milk to school children, on special contract entered into by the
1146
Milk Marketing Board at a special price, taking manufacturing milk, as it is called at present, for that purpose, he is not going to affect the liquid milk in the least. How are you going to use the surplus? The right hon. Gentleman said he hopes, by paying more for the manufacturing milk, to reduce the price of liquid milk. If he is going to pay more for this milk, it will gradually reduce the price of liquid milk, as he has just told us, but it will not tend to bring it down to the special contract price, and if the milk consumer thinks that he is going to get this reduction by reason of the fact that it has been decided to give this special service for school children, he will be disappointed. The Milk Marketing Board will be there to fix the price, if it can, at 8d. It can, as it has done before, fix a price of 1s. 2d. or 2s., but surely the hon. Gentleman is not going to say that this scheme is so futile that if I, or someone else, determines that it is a proper use for this milk at a price which is far more remunerative than is given now, it cannot work, because everybody will want it at the same price. The whole scheme of milk is differential price, and it always has been.
The right hon. Gentleman is very good over the wireless. He has only to put across about three speeches to explain to people this special scheme for giving milk to school children, and he might even get a few votes for the National Government. I am sure that he would have the country 100 per cent. behind him for that scheme, and that if the Milk Marketing Board found themselves in difficulties because of this, they could get any extra powers in order to make the scheme satisfactory. The farmer would have the advantage not only of getting an extra price but of educating every school child to the milk habit, so that when they come out of school they would become purchasers. I can imagine no more valuable form of advertisement, because to create a habit is the most valuable form of advertisement. That is exactly what this would do; it would create a habit for liquid milk. The right hon. Gentleman himself is going to try to encourage it in schools, because it is part of his advertising scheme for milk and because it is good for the school children, but he says he cannot go more than a certain distance.

1147
We say to him that, if he is bold enough to go the whole distance, the farmer will not suffer, for the same amount of money spent will give the farmer as good a return—indeed, I am not certain that the same amount of money might not give him even a better return, because the price of manufacturing milk might actually go up if this quantity were removed into the liquid milk market. It is only if the right hon. Gentleman says that neither he, nor the Board, nor the Government, nor the milk marketing scheme, nor the producers, are capable of putting across a scheme like this without the consumers demanding an immediate reduction of price to the same level as is adopted for this scheme, that he has any argument to put against it.
Mr. ELLIOT: It would be wrong for me, naturally; to enter into a contravention of the elaborate argument which the hon. and learned Gentleman is putting forward, but I assure him that I could do so, and should not have any very great difficulty in destroying it. I would merely enter a caveat now. The picture which he has drawn is a most enticing one, but I assure him that it has no connection with the facts of the case.
Sir S. CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman says that it has no connection with the facts of the case. Its connection may not be one of which he approves, but it has some connection with the facts, because I have taken his figures to work upon.
Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not taken the cost. He says that the same amount of money might be spent with very much greater benefit, and outlines a scheme which admittedly would cost very much more—I only take that as one point—and he assumes that this manufacturing milk is some special kind of milk in some special kind of pool. It is merely the ordinary milk of the countryside. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot assume that there is this special kind of milk, which can be drawn upon at 3d., or even 8d., and has no connection with the ordinary milk supplies of the country.
Sir S. CRIPPS: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; he has given me a very good argument. I agree that
1148
any gallon of milk may be either. It is not pink, or blue, or anything else; you could not distinguish it if you saw it in a churn. And yet the manufacturing milk has not brought down the price of liquid milk to the same price as manufacturing milk; the consumers have not demanded, because manufacturing milk is sold at 3d., that they shall not be called upon to pay more than 3d. Why, therefore, should they, because school children's milk is sold at 8d., demand that they should not be called upon to pay more than 8d.? That is precisely the argument which the right hon. Gentleman is putting forward, and, really, it will not square.
This surplus milk is milk for which the farmer is bound to accept a lower price. All that we are suggesting is that, instead of its being all at one lower price—that is not so even now, because this is only a part of the manufacturing milk, and manufacturing milk itself is sold at different prices—we are suggesting that it should be divided into two halves, some of it at a lower and some at a higher price; that the half at the higher price, which on the average evens out the subsidy, should be sent to the school children, and that the subsidy should be paid to the Milk Marketing Board, who should be allowed to apply it so as to get this volume of liquid milk for the schools. It is exactly the same from the farmer's point of view whether it is applied in that way or not, so long as he gets his share, and, if he gets an average price of 5½d. a gallon, the fact that half the quantity is paid for by the State at 8d. per gallon in order to supply school children, and half is paid for by manufacturers at 3d. in order to make cheese, will make no difference to the farmer at all. The Milk Marketing Board can average it out and pay every farmer 5½d. a gallon, so that there would be no difficulty in working the scheme at all, while, on the other hand, there would be the vast advantage that not only would the fanner get the benefit of having his dairy herds continued and sustained, but the community would get the vital advantage of milk for children who at the present time do not have it, and who, as every one admits, ought to have it. The right hon. Gentleman is as anxious as anyone else that they should have it.
Why, in these circumstances, are we to say we are very sorry, but they cannot

1149
have it, that it has to be put into a tin or made, into cheese? That seems to me to be a most fantastic admission of inability to deal with material things; the mind of man would seem to have sunk to a lower status than the tuberculous cow if we are going to take that attitude towards this Bill. I have stated the two main objections that we have to the Bill. We agree that in the existing circumstances something has got to be done to help the dairy industry, but we say that, if it is done, first of all let the Minister take full power to deal with the whole veterinary and disease side of tuberculosis in cattle, and, secondly, if this subsidy is to be given to the farming industry, let it be given in such a way that it will also enable the supplies of liquid milk which, we all admit, the school children should have, to get to those children.
6.39 p.m.
Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: I am rather tempted to try to deal with the misunderstanding—because that is rather what it is—which has arisen between the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the Minister, but I think I had better leave that to him. There is, however, a (misunderstanding which I think lies at the base of some other misunderstandings which have arisen, and to which I should like to refer. It has arisen in the minds of a good many people, if one looks at the Press, as a result of something which was said by the Minister last week in the discussion on the Money Resolution. He said that the object of the subsidy was to insure the milk producer against the disastrously low level of 3½d. a gallon, and to raise it to a minimum of 5d. He rather suggested last week, and again to-day, that there was no fear that a subsidy for that purpose would tend to encourage the production of manufacturing milk, and it seems to me that that reads, to anyone who does not know the methods of the Milk Marketing Board, as though, without this subsidy, the producer would only be receiving 3½d. a gallon for his milk, and as though the subsidy would bring the price up to 5d.
If that were so, truly it would be a disastrous position and a disastrous price, but, surely, that really is not the position at all. The producer, surely, gets the
1150
district pooled price, less deductions for transport and administration and all the rest of it. That is what he gets without his bonus for regular quantities and superior quality, and he gets it whether the milk is used as liquid milk or as manufacturing milk. Surely, we must start all these debates with the understanding that, as compared with the position as it would have been if there had been no Milk Marketing Board, the position of the producer whose milk actually goes for manufacturing purposes as been enormously improved; and that improvement is only rendered possible by considerable deductions from the selling price of the man who sells his milk as liquid milk. That is one of the grounds for the dissatisfaction with the operations of the board—that, in order to even up the price of milk, and give a better price for that which goes for manufacturing, they have had to give, to the man who sells his milk as liquid milk, such a very small proportion, as he thinks, of the actual price paid by the consumer of that liquid milk.
If that be the real structure of the machinery, and there is no question of the producer getting only 3½d. a gallon, to be raised only to 5d., it leads me to a further point which I think is worth making. This proposed subsidy for two years seems to me to be something more than would be necessary merely to tide the industry over this summer, and over the difficulty into which it has got owing to the levelled district pool price system. It is to last for two years, but it seems to me that after that time the producers will certainly expect it to continue, and it will tend to become a habit. The question is whether, as the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol suggests, the subsidy will encourage a good habit, or whether it will tend to encourage a bad habit. My fear is lest it may tend to lead the industry in the wrong direction—not towards producing high-grade milk for human consumption, but towards producing even larger quantities than the present surplus of factory milk for cheese or butter. There is already, as we know, talk of the Milk Marketing Board, encouraged by this subsidy, building cheese or butter factories. If that is done, it can only be by making, upon those whose milk is sold as liquid milk, a levy heavier than it otherwise would be, and causing more disappointment with the operations

1151
of the board even than there is now. The levy, as we know, is very heavy already, and is tending always to become heavier.
It seems to be that the problem for the board is always likely to be the problem of the surplus, that is to say, the problem of the summer months, and that this subsidy is likely to make it more acute rather than less. The board undoubtedly had a modest success at first, because they dealt with the winter months, coming into operation just before the winter period, during which the liquid milk is normally absorbed, and is likely to go on being normally absorbed, to the extent of about 80 per cent. of our home supplies. But, when the principle of the levelled pool price was applied to summer supplies, it produced the position which has led to the very big change in the personnel of the board which came about at the recent election.
A uniform price in summer, increased, as it will be, by this subsidy, will tend to encourage and to perpetuate irregular supplies without regard to questions of quality; and, as regards that large summer surplus, there will be little, if any, incentive to improve the quality and eradicate disease. Therefore, I think we shall get a vicious circle, or vicious spiral, as the Minister called it, though not quite the same vicious circle as he described. We shall have manufacturing milk depressing the price of liquid milk to its producer; we shall have the price to the consumer remaining rather high, and so there will not be much more liquid milk consumed; but we shall have the subsidy tending to bring about an artificial increase in the general price level, and so stimulating a new surplus of manufacturing milk, which will in its turn lead to a fresh depression in prices and a fresh demand for a fresh subsidy to hold up prices and so on. I believe there were good reasons for tiding the Milk Marketing Board over this difficult summer, I believe the Milk Marketing Board sooner or later will have fundamentally to alter the basis of its prices. I believe that what the Minister told us to-day as to the system prevalent in Ulster is right and that the board will have to check the production of the lower grades of milk by a very stiff differentiation in the price given for those grades. I believe that time to work out methods of that kind as Northern Ireland has
1152
done might reasonably have been given. I am certain that the sooner any subsidy that is given goes to encourage high grade milk for human consumption instead of lower grade milk for factory use the better it will be for everyone concerned.
What prospects are there that in those particular years, 1936 and 1937, the subsidy provided in Clause 5 can be repaid? The answer really, of course, is "None." Is there anything that we have been told that leads us to expect that the price of New Zealand cheese will suddenly rise in those two particular years, so that the subsidy can then be repaid? If there are no particular prospects of it being repaid in those two years, surely there are two alternative things each of which will be better than what is suggested in the Bill, namely, either to make the subsidy generally repayable, regardless of any two particular years, as and when circumstances may enable it to be reasonably and fairly repaid, or admit outright that it is to be regarded as a subsidy and not as a loan at all and to put in some figure like £4,000,000 as a limit, which will show us where we are and make it necessary for the Government to come back if they want to go beyond that figure.
The cleaning up of herds simply by eliminating reactors to the tuberculin test is bound to be a terribly slow and uncertain process. I very much doubt if you will have half the herds cleaned in 25 years by that method. But, if you can clean up by immunising by inoculation, that of course will be a very much speedier and more effective process. I think we are nearer to that than the report of the Economic Advisory Committee would suggest. I have been going into it, and I can say with some authority that, if those responsible would consult Doctor Nathan Raw and Doctor W. M. Crofton and would conduct experiments with proper scientific controls we could quickly discover methods of building up herds immune from the risk of subsequent infection. It would have to he applied to new-born calves, but, once that had been done, those calves would not be infectible by an ordinary infection and you could Build up immune herds. I hope that the first money spent, and the £750,000 that we are now asked to vote for this process of cleaning up herds, may be spent on the work of testing the possibility

1153
of immunising herds by inoculation.
My last point concerns the distribution of milk in schools and to necessitous children under school age and to expectant and nursing mothers, to whom some of us want the scheme to be extended. With regard to children under school age, I should like to tell the House something that fell within my own personal experience. The county of Devonshire was appointing an assistant medical officer. Several candidates came before the selection committee, and I had to ask each of them in turn a sort of test question, and I asked them, if money were no bar, and if they had their own way with regard to matters of health, what they would concentrate on as the thing that would do most to improve health. Their answers were interesting. Some said rural housing. Some said rural water supplies. The man who gave the best answer, for which he could give the best justification—he was the best man, and he got the appointment—was a man who said he would concentrate everything on the children under school age. That shows the importance of extending anything that we do in the way of milk to that class. Last week I stressed the importance of seeing that the supply to children was a safe one for fear that, if it were not, it might lead in some cases to an outbreak of tuberculosis of bovine origin, and that we should therefore get all the medical officers of health against the scheme and so waste the £1,000,000 that we are proposing to spend on advertising. My point to-day is: as and when a sound supply becomes available, let it not be distributed grudgingly but in a way which will really make an impression on the public mind and on the public health. I believe, if you are to do that, it is very necessary that milk should be made available for all children and for expectant and nursing mothers and for children under school age who need it not at a charge, whether 8d., 1s. or 2s. a gallon, but for a certain period free. I am bound to look at it from the point of view from which I have come across it most, namely, as Chairman of a County Education Committee.
I ask the House to consider the administration of the distribution of milk in schools. If all along the benches at half-past
1154
eleven in the morning there is an automatic distribution of little bottles of milk and straws and everyone consumes it at the same time under the same system as part of the school routine, just as they get Scripture or drill or anything else that is supposed to be for their good, the teachers will manage it perfectly well, and it will be done. But I ask the House to realise the alternative to that under the scheme proposed. I am assuming that there will be a scheme under which the payment will be a halfpenny for a third of a pint bottle per day, which would work out at 1s. a gallon. There will be in all schools three classes of children. There will be those who at present get milk free under the certificate of the school medical officers. They, presumably, will continue to get it free. There will be children paying a halfpenny per day, and there will be a third class, those who need it most, who will not be able or willing to pay a halfpenny per day, and therefore will not be getting any milk at all.
That division of the children into three classes is an administration which it will be very difficult to ask the staff of the schools to undertake. I do not like the idea of the teacher having to say, "No halfpenny, no milk," and, when Tommy says, "May I divide my milk with Emmy in the girls' school?" the teacher saying, "No, the girls' school is 150 yards off, and it cannot be done." Under that scheme, you will get the inevitable claim every week that more bottles have been delivered than halfpence have been collected, and the teacher will make it up out of her own pocket, and that is not an easy thing to do. Teachers will do an enormous amount, apart from their ordinary duties, when the health of their children is concerned, but you cannot ask them to do miracles. I ask you to consider it from the point of view of the difficulty of administration, every class consisting of three sets of children who have to be dealt with differently.
To sum up, I think the subsidy is wrongly conceived. It is neither a short-term subsidy to help the Milk Marketing Board to get its house in order and to get on the same sort of basis as that now worked in the North of Ireland and to prevent prices being killed, as they are bound to be, by a great increase of the summer flow of milk, nor is it a subsidy

1155
directed to encourage the sort of milk on which we ought to specialise, namely, sound liquid milk. There is a danger of the advertising £1,000,000 a year being wasted if you spend it in advance of really getting a supply of clean milk. Thirdly, let the investigation of and immunisation of herds by inoculation be vigorously and properly pursued, and, as the supply becomes available for schools, let it be for all the children and for the mothers and for the children under school age who most want it, and let it be free. If you advertise by distributing your product, do it in a way which will really strike the public eye and have a real visible effect on public health.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. LAMBERT: We have heard a considerable amount about the distribution of milk. One agrees with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that we should like a plentiful supply of pure milk, but this afternoon it has all been distribution. What about production? You will not be able to distribute pure milk unless producers can produce it at a profit. That they cannot do to-day. I am not going into the elaborate argument between the Minister and the hon. and learned Gentleman. It seemed that on some points the hon. and learned Gentleman got the best of it, because he is really a fullblown Socialist. I am not going to say how far the right hon. Gentleman goes in that direction, but I want to ask the Government, when they are spending these large sums of money, to think a little more of the producer. Producers are really at their wit's end, and the Milk Marketing Board up to now, though it has eased some of the difficulties, has not solved them by any means. I have the report of the Milk Marketing Board here, and the Commission's Report has not been fully adopted. I want to put this to my right hon. Friend, who has established a central producers' board, that the Commission recommended much more elaborate machinery. The Commission recommended a central dairyman's board in addition, plus three independent members, one appointed by you, Mr. Speaker, one by the Minister of Agriculture, and the other by the President of the Board of Trade. If that had been carried into effect, it would have avoided the dissatisfaction
1156
at the arbitrary award the other day. Those arbitrators made the award, I am afraid, in ignorance of the conditions,
Under the present system, clean milk producers are penalised because they have to contribute to a pool drawn on by those producers whose milk is not up to their quality. That is wrong. In my own county of Devon, we have great agitation on the part of milk producers, so much so that the National Farmers' Union candidate for the milk board was defeated in our area. Here may I warn the right hon. Gentleman that the Farmers' Union up to now has been conducted with remarkable skill. This milk marketing scheme is not entirely the Farmers' Union scheme, and some of the most respected members of the Farmers' Union retired when the scheme was put into operation.
Of course, as an old Liberal, I dislike subsidies. I would much rather the industry was put under fair conditions of production. I would prefer fair play to what has been called a dole. I see that the proposals of the Government are only temporary. What is going to happen when they come to an end? Are we to have a flood of products coming in? If so, I suggest that for any practical purpose, though this seems a large sum, the contribution will be inadequate so far as any profit to producers is concerned. Putting the figures broadly—I do not propose to go into the 80,000,000 or 90,000,000 figures thrown across the table—374,000,000 gallons of milk were dealt with by the Milk Board in the six winter months, and that will be greatly increased in the summer months to a figure I put down at 430,000,000 gallons. That brings the total to 800,000,000 gallons of milk dealt with by the board during the year. There is a great deal of milk that does not come under the milk board at all, and this figure does not include Scotland. A sum of £1,500,000 was proposed as a subsidy. For the milk coming under the milk board itself that is less than a halfpenny a gallon, and for the whole of the milk of the country probably just over a farthing a gallon. If any hon. Gentleman thinks that by increasing milk by a little over a farthing a gallon the whole of the producers of the country are going to to lifted into prosperity, they are making a great mistake.

1157
I do suggest that we should get fair play. The Milk Board themselves have stated that they wish the Government could carry out their portion of the programme; that is, to regulate imports. They ask that in their report which I have here. Take the competition which we have to meet: There is Soviet butter, sold at from 40s. to 50s. a cwt.—41s. a cwt. It takes 2½ gallons of milk to make a pound of butter, so that the Soviet sells milk from 2d. to 2½d. a gallon. It is impossible for the British producer under decent conditions to compete with anything like that. Take another country, Denmark, and we get a large amount of butter from Denmark, which has a depreciated currency. They have endeavoured to meet competition in this market by depreciation. Australia has a depreciated currency and also a bounty of 3d. a pound on butter. Is that fair play to the British producer? I am only asking for fair play. Let us think of the children, but you must give the producer fair play in the first place. At the present moment we are being subjected to ruinous competition. My right hon. Friend the other day gave the figures of this industry, which is a very large one, with 320,000 persons engaged in it and an annual value of £63,000,000. We are entitled, when dealing with such an important product as milk, to fair play. There is no one more clever at fencing off questions than my right hon. Friend. I asked him the other day if he could ascertain the cost of the production of milk, something like the average cost, but he fobbed me off with something about the Milk Board. I do suggest that there should be an inquiry into the cost of milk; then no one would be able to say that the producer is getting too much.
Last Thursday I took up the question of distribution. The distributors have been, what shall I say, coddled on every side, while producers have been harassed and hampered on every side. I have figures from the report of my right hon. Friend's commission which shows that a roundsman just delivering milk, part of the cost to the consumer, in the country districts receives 42s. for a week with a day of eight hours, in a town of 20,000 he receives 52s. a week, and in London 53s. a week with an eight hours day. That roundsman is just carrying milk round. What about the producer, the
1158
man who looks after the cows. Do they get 42s. a week? Everyone who knows anything about cows knows that they have to be looked after seven days a week.
I was very interested in the distributors' profit, and I looked it up in one of the financial papers to find what were the profits of the United Dairies which distribute milk to London. In 1924 they had a profit of £476,541, and in 1933 it had risen to £583,439, an increase of over £100,000. I know a good many gentlemen in the Ministry of Agriculture who think they understand farming. I suggest that here is a field for them. Let them do the distribution. I was going to suggest to some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of the Socialist party who have a Socialist London County Council, what better opportunity have they to attempt Socialism than by taking up the distribution of milk for London, saving this enormous profit. It would be a good working model for Socialism, though I expect the people of London after three years would not vote for any more Socialism. May I put it again that you are regulating the imports of many of the requirements of farmers. Feeding stuffs are taxed 10 per cent. churns, cream separators, and all that paraphernalia are taxed 15 per cent. Why is it that the milk producer is the only person not to have protection?
Mr. ELLIOT: Surely my right hon. Friend is aware that there is protection in butter.
Mr. LAMBERT: But Dominion products are coming in free, and milk products from Australia and New Zealand have increased.
Mr. ELLIOT: There is no duty on feeding stuffs from the Dominions.
Mr. LAMBERT: Not much feeding stuffs come from the Dominions, but a large amount of finished products. I am afraid we shall have to give my right hon. Friend instruction on this matter.
Mr. ELLIOT: I am always willing to receive instruction from the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. LAMBERT: I am sure. I hope he will follow my advice and apply this treatment. We have heard a great deal about doctors. They are creating a great deal of prejudice against milk. This

1159
Economic Council has talked about there being no effort made to clean up herds. I beg to differ. This would apply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who says that the local authorities have not done their duty. If you were to compel all the cow-keepers in the country to slaughter all tubercular cows, compel them to keep cows in full condition to produce absolutely pure milk, it could not go on, for producers could not sell the milk at the price it costs to produce. You can get pure milk, but you must pay for it. I believe that there has been a great deal of exaggeration by these doctors. If the doctors would drink more milk and talk less about it, it would be a great deal better. We have regulations which are very strict, but, if they are carried out, the cost of the production of milk must go up. Indeed, instead of plentitude, there will be a scarcity of milk. May I draw the attention of the Government to the fact that we are getting milk products from all over the world, and do they mean to tell me that they are all produced under conditions which will satisfy the Economic Advisory Committee's report. If not, why not? Why is not the same meticulous examination made of the purity of the products which come into this country as you are endeavouring to make of the products which art produced here? Why is there not fair play?
Mr. ELLIOT: The supplies which come into this country are examined by the Ministry of Health, and there is a very thorough examination. I am anxious to get the strongest case for the farmers, but exaggeration does no good.
Sir B. PETO: Is there any guarantee that foreign manufactured butter is free from tuberculin?
Mr. ELLIOT: There is an inspection of all supplies as they come in.
Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether milk produced in countries like Latvia, Lithuania and Russia is produced under perfectly healthy conditions, and that butter is made under pure conditions? That is not exaggeration, and I am surprised that my right hon. Friend has said so. We ask that as regards the production of
1160
milk abroad the same regulations should be applied, as are applied here. If that cannot be done, why not? I do not understand it. My right hon. Friend may have some ingenious argument about it. I was reading some little time ago about some conditions in a factory in Russia. It was a cutting from the "Daily Telegraph," which is not a stunt paper, and said that the management of a factory in Russia had an ambitious programme for manicuring the working girls, but meanwhile there were no washing facilities in the factory, no soap and no towels. If this is what goes on in a factory, what must go on on small farms in Russia? Do you mean to say that the product which comes here is of an entirely healthy description? Can you say that the so-called butter that comes into port can be certified as healthy and contains, at any rate, the same nutriment as our fresh butter? I am amazed at the Minister of Agriculture suggesting that these foreign products are pure and fit for human consumption. I do not believe it for a moment. I would not eat them. We have been talking about the nutritive value of milk. Everybody agrees upon it, but the poor people do not get it. They buy skimmed milk and milk powder, and heaven knows what is in those tins. Give the producers of this country fair play and a fair price for their products, and you will get a plentiful supply of pure milk.
7.20 p.m.
Sir E. GRIGG: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) for what he said in the course of his speech in support of the main recommendations of the Milk Reorganisation Commission. I am afraid that it is the fate of commissions to receive much praise for the brilliance and cogency of their arguments, and then to find Governments deciding to do something else. That was certainly, in part at least, the fate of the Milk Reorganisation Commission. I do not wish to pursue the arguments the right hon. Gentleman advanced upon that subject to-night, but I express my thanks to him for having reminded the House that the marketing scheme which is working at present is not the scheme recommended by the Milk Reorganisation Commission.
I propose to say a few words on the Amendment which is before the House.

1161
I do not support the Amendment, though I have considerable sympathy with at least a part of the argument which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) advanced in support of it. I am not going to support or to vote for the Amendment, because I am convinced that it is necessary, as an emergency measure, to buttress manufacturing prices. The right hon. Gentleman made an unanswerable case on that point, and, since the Amendment ignores the urgent character of the emergency, I think that it is failing to face facts. I also think that hon. Gentlemen who drafted the Amendment are wrong if they suppose that one of the effects of the proposals of the Government is to encourage the production of low quality milk. That would not occur unless the Government's advances were about to cause some substantial rise in the pool price for milk. It is generally agreed—it is a generally accepted calculation at any rate—that the Government's advances will not have the effect of raising the pool price by more than something in the neighbourhood of a farthing a gallon, and that is not likely to encourage a great increase in the production of surplus milk. For those reasons, I have no sympathy with the Amendment and shall vote against it, and shall most certainly support the Second Reading of the Bill.
I confess, however, a little disappointment at the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his remarks, said nothing to suggest that he regarded the Bill as in any sense a makeshift Measure and that it will be necessary after this Measure to bring in something to deal more permanently and thoroughly with the troubles of the milk industry. This Bill it is true will give temporary help to the industry, but it will create liabilities for the industry most of which will begin to mature in two years' time. These liabilities are really serious. First of all, there is the liability for repayment which will mature in two years' time. The price will have to rise a penny above the standard price both in summer and in winter, but if that occurs the liability will fall upon the board. It is no use blinking the fact. Another liability is the payment of premiums. Under this Bill part of the premium on milk of good quality will be paid by grants from this House, but in two years' time these
1162
premiums will presumably have to be paid out of the sales of milk, and they will become another liability for the Milk Marketing Board. Finally, and perhaps this is the most important of the liabilities which will be incurred, is the liability for supplying cheap milk in the schools. The Government are to assist in that for a period of two years. The milk habit is to be created, I hope, in a very considerable number of schools. Clearly, if the Milk Board have done anything to promote the sale of milk in schools at a special price, they will have to continue that system even after the Government grant has expired. These liabilities, most of which mature in two years, will, I believe, necessitate a very considerable increase in the pool price if the board is to deal effectually with them.
I should like to repeat the argument which I expressed in Committee last week, that that rise cannot possibly be expected to come from an increase in the manufacturing price. I said just now that it was a generally accepted calculation—and I think it is—that the advances now being made by the Government to buttress the manufacturing price will not produce more than about a farthing a gallon on the pool price of milk. The subvention paid by the Government on the milk which is going to earn this subsidy is an average of 2d. throughout the year—l½d. for six months and 2½d. for the other six months—and a subsidy of 2d. in regard to that part of the surplus which earns the subsidy is only equivalent to a farthing a gallon on the pool price of milk. That shows what tremendous rises are necessary on the manufacturing side if you are to produce an effectual rise in the pool price of milk. It is on that I based the argument which many hon. Members disputed last week, that you cannot expect to make an adequate price to the producer of milk simply by dealing with imports and supposing that when you have done that you will find that the producer receives an adequate price. I hope that the Government will begin to face the issue next year and will deal with the question of helping the producer to secure a larger share of what the consumer pays for his milk—that is the vital question of the milk industry—

1163
and that they will also go further than they are at present prepared to go in supplying the schools.
I do not wish to wrangle over gallonage with the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound to say that some of the figures which he used in his speech when moving the Second Reading of the Bill astonished me. He said that the surplus which we must take into consideration if we were to deal with the question of school milk was 180,000,000 gallons. That was the figure he used. I rose and asked him whether he meant by that the surplus earning the lowest category manufacturing price, and he replied that it was the surplus in the lowest category manufacturing price, which is to say 3½d. According to the Report of the Milk Marketing Board, the total surplus dealt with by the board for the first six months was 63,000,000, and of that at least one-third was milk paid for in the higher manufacturing categories. Not more than two-thirds, that is to say 40,000,000 gallons, was milk earning the lowest manufacturing price. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's figures are correct, in order to get his 180,000,000 gallons surplus in the lowest category, it is necessary that the surplus should rise by 140,000,000 in that category alone during the six summer months. That really seems to be an inconceivable figure, and I was astonished to hear him basing his argument against the provision of milk for schools on a calculation of that kind. I very much hope that he will go into the figures and possibly revise them.
Another thing which astonished me was the fact that he based his calculations on the cost of supplying milk to schools on a price of 2s. a gallon, and he supported that calculation by saying that the farmer was entitled to a fair price. I entirely agree with him that the farmer is entitled to a fair price, but 2s. a gallon includes more than a fair price to the distributor as well. Is anybody going to suggest that the Government must also subsidise the distributor in giving milk to schools? The argument has always been that in supplying milk in quantity for schools the cost of distribution should be enormously reduced. It is not reasonable to take the normal price of 2s. a gallon as the basis of
1164
calculating how much it will cost to supply milk to schools.
Mr. ELLIOT: I was not giving it as an ideal figure, I was going on the basis of the 9,000,000 gallons of our present supply. Although the cost of distribution in respect of the supply of milk in schools includes certain abnormal items, I gave the figure not as an ideal figure but merely as the figure upon which we are working now.
Sir E. GRIGG: I am ready to accept my right hon. Friend's explanation, but I must quarrel further with him in his contention that in order to make the scheme workable for the farmer it is essential that he should get the full liquid price for milk supplied in schools. It seems to me quite sufficient from the point of view of raising the pool price if for the milk supplied in schools the producer gets something substantially better than the manufacturing price. That is the calculation on which I have always understood the argument in regard to the supply to schools has been based.
I seldom find myself in agreement with arguments advanced by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), but I think he made out a good case. I am debarred from disagreeing with him because in the Milk Commission's report his argument was anticipated by the Milk Commission itself. That report says:
"A period when the supply of milk surplus to existing liquid requirements seems certain to increase affords an opportunity in which the Central Producers' Board may, with advantage to those it represents, take measures to lower the cost of milk of good quality to schools. We believe it possible, in these circumstances, to expand the market for liquid milk with lasting benefit to all concerned. It is better that good milk should go at a low rate to schools than that it should go at an even lower rate into manufacture, and the pooling scheme may stand to gain substantially by measures of this kind."
That was the substance of the argument advanced by the hon. and learned Member, and I find myself in accord with it because I stand entirely by what the Milk Commission said on that point. I, however, dissent from him altogether, and from my right hon. Friend who spoke from the benches behind me, in thinking that the milk scheme in schools should be free. It seems to me essential that the scheme

1165
should be contributory. I hope therefore that the Government will give serious consideration to the possibility of introducing next year a new system of health insurance for children, which will provide among other things for milk in schools, a system of health insurance under which the benefits have to be paid even if the contributors are out of employment and not for the moment making payments. That system of health insurance seems to me to be essential for children, and I hope the Government will give consideration to that proposal in the autumn with a view to its introduction next year.
Finally, I feel very strongly that the Hosue should be enabled to discuss the schemes under this Bill which are introduced by the Milk Marketing Board after approval by the Minister of Agriculture. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether these schemes will need a Resolution before they come into force, he said that it was a Committee point and he would deal with it at a later stage. I say, with great respect, that it is something much more than a Committee point. The House is voting a very large sum of the taxpayers' money for measures which are outlined but not clearly defined. We cannot tell from this Bill exactly how that money is going to be used. Neither the Money Resolution nor the Bill are well drawn in that respect. They are much looser than Measures of this kind have habitually been, and it is important that any schemes under this Bill for using the taxpayers' money which we voted last week should come before the House and be approved by Resolution of the House before they are put into force.
7.37 p.m.
Mrs. WARD: I am sure that every hon. Member will welcome this opportunity of debating the vital question that is contained in the provisions of this Bill. These proposals are very long overdue. The fact that nothing has been done to clean up the dairy herds in the country is a disgrace not only to our Ministry of Health authorities but to the country as a whole. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said that no effort had been made by the farmers of this country to produce a better quality of milk. I should like to ask
1166
him—I am sorry that he is not in his place—what incentive has ever been given to the English farmer to produce the high quality of milk that we all want to see produced. Under the regulations in force, if a farmer wishes to produce grade "A" milk, which is the lowest quality of graded milk, he has to pay for the privilege of producing it. If he wishes to produce certified grade A milk, which is the highest quality, he has to pay a still higher price for a licence for the privilege of producing it. The farmer whether he has produced good milk or bad milk has never been able to demand a better price.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture on being the Minister to bring in a Measure which is the first real attempt on the part of any British Government to clean up the milk supply in the country. It may not go as far as many of us would like, but we cannot deny that it is a genuine effort to do something to give the public clean milk. One Clause of the Bill gives power for the making of new designations of milk. That is a reform long overdue. There is no doubt that great confusion has been created in the minds of many people who thought that they had been buying the genuine article because it was called grade A milk. The fact that there were three qualities of grade A milk has been most confusing. In many cases whether a distributor was a manufacturer of milk or a man who treated milk by pasteurisation or sterilisation, he had only to be registered with one producer as getting grade A milk and he could bottle any amount of milk and call it grade A, whether it was produced under grade A conditions or not. I hope that when the new designations come into force there will be no loop-holes in them, and that the public will really know what they are getting and will really get what they think they are getting.
There is often a great deal of talk about the pasteurisation of milk. I know that this is a very delicate and complicated subject and that there is great diversity of opinion on it, but I read from the report of the Hopkins Committee that:
"Milk sold from licensed pasteurising plant and still more milk sold from plants where other forms of heat treatment are carried out is not infrequently found to be infected with the tubercular bacilli."

1167
Therefore, it seems to me, as the Minister of Agriculture stated in introducing the Bill, there is no alternative but to clean up the herds. When purchasing pasteurised milk one cannot be certain that one is buying milk free from tubecle bacilli, and safe for the public. It has been stated in the House that doctors are a source of great annoyance to the milk producer. Doctors are very much divided in their opinions on this subject. They are experts I have heard that the definition of an expert, is "a man who knows more and more about less and less." When the doctors disagree so much, as they do, on this subject it leaves in the mind of a lay person like myself, great confusion of thought.
Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: The doctors do not disagree one little bit on this subject.
Mrs. WARD: It has been stated that doctors are a source of trouble. I would never underestimate the great danger of contamination from milk or the great danger of getting tuberculosis from milk. Doctors are not the only sinners in this respect. In my own area, I have seen big posters issued by various firms who pasteurise and sterilise milk; posters got up with beautiful colouring which can never miss the eye. I have seen these posters on the vans delivering milk too containing the words: "There is danger in drinking milk straight from the cow." When I see things like that it makes me all the keener to support a Measure of this kind, which seeks to get rid of something that is a stumbling block to the greater consumption of milk.
There has been much talk about milk for schoolchildren. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) that it is very essential that schoolchildren should have this milk; but I can see objections to giving it to them all free. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man or beyond the wit of this House to devise some scheme whereby milk can be supplied to schoolchildren without it in any way demoralising them, and without in any way making discrimination.
Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is it demoralising the farmer to give him a subsidy?
Mrs. WARD: I should like to say to my hon. Friend who talks about demoralising the farmer in giving him a subsidy, that unless milk can be produced in this country at a profit we shall reach the point, which was ably pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, when there will not be an adequate supply of good milk. I notice from the Hopkins Report that they state that the simplest and most effective inducement is to secure for the owner of the tubercular free herd a higher net return for the milk which he sells than is obtained by the owners of other herds. That, I think, is the crux of the whole matter. I believe that if an inducement were given to the farmer to produce a really good article, you would get that good article.
I am certain that it is not going to be easy to have those drastic reforms about which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) spoke. We are so used to reading about his drastic reforms, but when you come to deal with the question of the production of milk and getting rid of tuberculosis in cattle, you are dealing with something that you cannot do all in a moment of time. Those of us who know anything about the testing of cattle for producing tuberculin-tested milk know that you have all your cows tested, and that it takes two months before you really know the final result, and everyone who has had practical experience knows that at the end of six months, if those self-same cattle that did not react to the test, which meant that they were free from tuberculosis, are tested again, you will find some of them reacting, as a result of the irritation set up by the tuberculosis injected. It is not an easy matter, and I believe it will take us years to clear up the herds in our country, but I believe also that we must do everything that lies in our power, such as by keeping those animals that are in fected apart from the others and by moving them about the country very carefully because of the infection they might get in the markets, and we have to take every available precaution and to make every possible effort to rid ourselves of what I consider is the greatest stumbling block to the larger consumption of milk in this country.
I should like once more to congratulate the Minister on making this effort, and I

1169
should like to appeal to him to try to devise some means whereby we can give milk to as many school children as possible, because I believe that what they lack more than anything else, and what has never been given the prominence in our country that it ought to have, is the real food value of milk. I believe that that food value of milk has never really come into the question; it has always been a question of price. I can see two sides of the picture. I can see the farmer, who has got to be adequately remunerated for producing a better article. Never let us forget when we ask him to produce a better article, to wash down his cattle, and to take all the precautions that he will be obliged to take, and that he should take in the interests of this question, we are asking him to add to his cost of production and to employ more labour, and we must be prepared to see that he gets an adequate return for all that.
But, on the other side of the picture, I can see the housewife, not only in the industrial areas, but in the rural areas as well, who cannot afford to pay more money for her milk. She ekes out her housekeeping by threepences and sixpences. It is amazing to see the way in which she allocates her threepences and sixpences to this, that, and the other thing, and if she wants more of one thing, she must go short of something else. I can see these two sides of the picture, and I cannot see how they are to be reconciled, unless by some means such as those that the Milk Marketing Board is devising now, some scheme whereby there will be a levy on all milk in order to pay a better price or a bonus to the farmer to produce the best article so that the consumer has to pay no more. I congratulate the Minister and whole-heartedly welcome this first great effort to give to our public a clean, decent supply of milk; and I shall be proud to go into the Lobby to support him.
7.51 p.m.
Sir JOSEPH McCONNELL: I rise heartily to support the Second Reading of this Bill and to congratulate and thank the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of the farmers in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland we have a very gallant lot of farmers, who have been suffering under very adverse circumstances, and I should like to direct the attention of the
1170
Labour Members to the fact that 75 per cent. of those farmers employ no labour except that of their own family. Those men are gallant, struggling men, who submit to such privations that, if they were to happen in urban areas, they would cause a great shout from the Labour benches. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Healy) has left his place, because I am sure that if he were here, he would support me in every word that I have said. I am very proud to say that, in all these circumstances, every year the pride of our farmer is to increase the quality of his herds. We have no scrub bulls in Northern Ireland, and I believe we have one of the finest herds, if not the finest herd, of milk cattle in the world. Therefore, I appeal to the House that it is necessary to do something to help these people who are not making ends meet, and I hope that something further can be done to put a duty on all milk products that are brought into this country. I congratulate my right hon. Friend.
7.53 p.m.
Mr. R. J. RUSSELL: During the last five years we have discussed in this House, with a continuity that is not often equalled, the great problem of how we shall restore agriculture, and all hon. Members know that the general trend of the discussion has rested between two schools of thought. We have been told, on the one hand, that industry was against agriculture and, on the other, that agriculture was against industry. We have been told, in regard to the one, that we must have a system of protection, and in regard to the other that we must have a system of Free Trade, but we have at last, I think, come to the decision that by neither of these processes shall we reach salvation, but that we shall reach it in all probability by the application of each of them in its own place and in its own way. When we come to the consideration of the two great principles involved, unfortunately we have for many generations reached a deadlock, because a very large percentage of our imports has been in the direction of foodstuffs, and so we came almost to a hopeless position with regard to agriculture. Now we have come to another position. We have now ourselves to decide what foodstuffs we can produce in the fullest quantity, to concentrate

1171
upon them, and then to allow the other foodstuffs to come here in full quantities, and so raise the standard of life all round.
When we come to the consideration of that problem, the first of these foodstuffs that we can consider is undoubtedly milk. We can provide all the milk that our people require, and it is the purpose of this Bill to see to it that the conditions which prevail in the production and distribution of milk are such as will make that industry profitable and successful. It is when we come to the consideration of the difficulties that the industry has to face that I want to support most heartily the Second Reading of this Bill. What are the difficulties that the dairy industry has to face? We have been told by the Minister to-day that they are chiefly those caused by a glut of milk in the market. What are the conditions which have produced that glut? I submit that they are two—first of all, that they are due to price, and then to quality. This Bill to a certain extent deals with both those questions. On the question of price, I do not think the Bill goes far enough. I think my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) will remember that the commission over which he so ably presided recommended a much wider scheme. The price of milk as it stands to-day in this country is not the consequence of action by the producers, but the fault of the system of distribution through the country as a whole.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking the other day on this question, said something to the effect that they were considering the question of distribution but had not yet got all the facts. I think it is time in this question that we cut through a lot of nonsense that is put together by accountancy and got really down to the facts. I have never had a financial interest in the production or distribution of milk, but for almost 50 years I have been in constant weekly contact with those who were producing and distributing the article. I am at present in almost daily consultation in Liverpool, where, years ago, we had to face the question of the reconstruction of the whole of the interval supply of that city. I had as a young man to hold a watching brief and studied every step taken by Dr. Hope, the medical officer,
1172
to obtain a safe and satisfactory output, so I am going to be dogmatic and to say, without the slightest hesitation, that the price of milk both to the producer and to the distributor is fair under present conditions. If the farmer gets for his summer milk from 8d. to 10d. net at his farm, he can carry through, and if he can be secured in the amount of milk that he can sell, he can expand his herds and have prosperity at that summer price. If during the winter he can get 1s. to 1s. 2d., the same is applicable. I go further. I say that if that is the price to the producer, then the consumer should get his milk at 1s. 4d. to 1s. 6d. a gallon in the summer and at 5d. to 5½d. a quart in the winter. I know I shall be open to criticism for giving these figures, but I can challenge refutation of them at any time or anywhere. Wherever the retail price of milk, at the present time and under present conditions, varies from these figures, it is due either to inefficiency in distribution or to profiteering. If you could supply your people with milk at these prices, you would do the first thing to take away the glut. You would vastly increase demand. But that is not the whole case. You cannot increase the demand unless you deal, as this Bill does, with the question of supply and the question of quality.
A great deal has been said to-day upon this question of quality. I listened to the Mover of the Amendment. I listened with interest to the argument he had with the Minister over the question of supply to school children at a certain price. But what struck me as extraordinary was, that in the first part of the speech he told this House what terribly infected stuff milk was. He told us to think of the condition of the cattle in our herds. Then in the second half of his speech he told us we should increase to the fullest extent the consumption of this infected stuff. I have every sympathy with those who want the children to have more milk, but what I deprecate is that there should go from this House such an exaggerated conception of the condition of the herds of this country. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) for example, speaking the other day on this question, told us that 40 per cent. of cattle were infected with tuberculosis, and led us to believe, of course, that a very heavy infection was carried in milk. I do not

1173
know how he can establish such a figure. For this reason. We have been told that one of the first things we need is inspection of our herds. If we have not efficient inspection, who is going to dogmatise as to the number of cattle infected with tuberculosis? But there is a more important point still. It is a very well-recognised fact that, unless there be tuberculous condition of the udder, you do not get tuberculous milk. Tuberculous udder is not found in more than 5 per cent.—not 40 per cent.
Then we have had a lot of talk about the question of pasteurisation. I have read with very great interest the report of the Hopkins Committee. What does it amount to? I think I can summarise its findings in this way. There are three things that are proved in that report. The first is that milk is of the highest food value. No one disputes that. The second is that every application of heat lowers that value. Nobody disputes that. Third—and this is the vital point—pasteurised milk alone would starve a child. As a matter of fact, according to the Hopkins Report, if you feed a child on pasteurised milk you must also give it either cod liver oil or some citrus fruit. That is the gist of the case for pasteurisation; but it is not the whole story of its effect. Every time you attempt to manufacture or cook the milk you add to the price to the consumer. Every improvement, on the other hand, in your herds, in your cowsheds, in your pastures, lowers the cost to the consumer. Therefore, there is no difficulty in coming to a reasoned decision as to what it is necessary for this House to do in order to safeguard our supply. There is only one thing, and that is to clean up the herds. Everybody wants that to be done. Farmers want it to be done. Why are herds in the state in which they are described? I wish Members of the House would come, and examine our herds in Cheshire. We would show them some cows.
Viscountess ASTOR: There are good cows in Buckinghamshire, too.
Mr. RUSSELL: We would show them some conditions under which cows are fed. We would give them a different opinion of milk. It is all very well for those who live in towns somewhere to say that milk is this, and milk is that, and milk is the other. Do not run away with notions. Our herds have been improved,
1174
are being improved, and will continue to be improved. But this is a much bigger question than the House realises. The first step will be taken in dealing with one half of the herds, the male half, with the scrub bull orders at once. That is a step in the right direction. You must deal also with the question of the housing of the herds and the question of the management of the herds; and you cannot possibly bring all these matters under review in a few months. It takes you three years at least to get a dairy cow into your herd in efficiency. I would suggest to the Minister that the first thing he might very well do—and I have no doubt for a moment that the officials of his Department would say the same—is to deal with the rising generation of our cattle. The way in which calves are treated sometimes on the farm is wrong. I am not going into technical details here, but I want to remind the Minister that according to all reports on diseases of animals the tubercular bacillus is voided in excreta, and therefore it is of first importance that the calves should be taken away from any possibility of contamination. As the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) suggested, we should see if we cannot immunise these calves, this growing stock, and so make the progress quicker than it could otherwise be.
But there is one section of this Bill to which I want to refer more in detail. It is a section which has been under repeated attack: I mean that dealing with the manufacture of cheese. Under the present condition of things, and while the Ottawa Agreements and other factors remain, it is essential that we should stay up one of our finest and oldest industries. Members of this House talk about putting more people on the land. There is no finer way in which you can increase the population of rural England than by a development of your cheese industry. Now what has Happened? A year ago the price of cheese in the market was round about 6d. a lb. A couple of months ago the rumour went out that a subsidy amounting roughly to 2½d. a lb. was going to be paid to cheese makers. I should like someone to explain—I confess I cannot for the moment—why it is that this year, with steady determination, the price of cheese dropped until it reached 3½d. Now 3½d. and 2½d. makes 6d. Therefore, somebody

1175
brought the price of cheese down in the market to the price at which it stood last year.
I make no further comment on that. But I do want to say that behind all our discussions we have the fact that we have not yet got in this country some data upon which to base our policy. I have tried for some years now to get accurate figures with regard to cheese-making. I have never yet got any figures from any Department which could be relied upon for five minutes. I suggest, as one of the first results of the policy put forward by the Government, that we shall now get for the first time accurate returns, and from these accurate returns be able to make some definite progress. It is a big job to which the Minister has set his hand. Only those who are brought in contact with it know fully its difficulty. But I believe that the Bill is the first move in the right direction. We want our rural districts to be brought into a state of prosperity. We want our dairy industry to be one of the finest in the world. We want our children to have milk of the finest food value. This is one of the ways in which we ought to bring it about; and I for one know that this House will gladly give a Second Reading to the Bill.
8.15 p.m.
Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: The hon. Member who has just sat down has said that there are cows in Cheshire. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) says there are cows in Buckinghamshire. We have cows in Scotland. I want to put a definite case which has cropped up in Scotland recently which, if not rectified, will seriously damage the good effects of this Bill, which we all admire, and injuriously affect all producers of certified milk in Scotland. During this interesting discussion many hon. Members, indeed, I think every hon. Member, including the Minister of Agriculture himself, has used the expression "when the Marketing Board makes certain schemes." There are two marketing boards, and it is because one marketing board makes a scheme different from the other that I am on my feet at this moment. The point is this. The Marketing Board in England have given certain rights, certain
1176
privileges to producers of certified graded milk which the producers of the same milk in Scotland do not enjoy. Under the scheme the boards have power to grant exemptions:
"The board shall have power to exempt from any or all the provisions of a scheme producers and sales of such classes or description as they may determine."
What has happened in Scotland is very different from what has happened in England. The Marketing Board of Scotland have said that these words mean that they cannot, at any rate they have not, exempt producers of this high-grade milk from the levy which is made on all producers of all milk, high and low. It costs 3d. more per gallon to produce high-grade milk more than to produce ordinary milk. In addition, there is a levy in Scotland of 4d. per gallon on this milk, which the board does not touch at all but which the producers of certified graded milk sell direct to their customers. The board does not render any service to the producers of certified milk in return for the levy which they ask them to pay. The consequence is that they have to pay 7d. per gallon more than their confreres in England.
Viscountess ASTOR: Why?
Sir S. CHAPMAN: I should be very sorry to try and explain to the Noble Lady why, but I will tell the House what I think has happened. In Scotland we are all very careful people. The Milk Marketing Board in Scotland say "we are not going to let the Minister down and make him pay through the nose so far as settling our accounts are concerned; we are going to be on the safe side." The English Milk Marketing Board take a greater chance, they do not care how many hundreds or thousands of pounds the English pay——
Viscountess ASTOR: No, no.
Sir S. CHAPMAN: The Noble Lady is always asking for money. In Scotland the Milk Marketing Board has pursued a too careful policy, and the result is that the producers on whose behalf I am speaking now, there are over 200 herds in Scotland producing certified milk—we are, indeed, the pioneers of certified milk——
Viscountess ASTOR: No.
Sir S. CHAPMAN: Yes.
Viscountess ASTOR: I cannot let that pass. The first herd was in Basingstoke and the second in Maidenhead.
Sir S. CHAPMAN: Well, I am quite willing to say that we come next to the Noble Lady, and in that case we have done quite well. Let me say that we are third on the list. I know that her family has set the pace, and that is why I want her sympathy. These pioneers in Scotland of certified graded milk are really pioneers of agriculture, they have as much right to be called inventors as the man who makes a new machine to produce artificial silk in Lancashire. They are producers. Since I am here let me say that my ancestors have been mixed up with agriculture for centuries. They were the inventors of Leicestershire sheep; that is the reason why I am taking an interest in this matter. My great-grandfather sent the first Leicester ram to Scotland, which is something to be proud of. There are 12,500 gallons of milk produced by certified producers in Scotland every day, and on a surplus of 5,500 gallons they are mulcted to the extent of 3d. because it costs them 3d. more to produce, and then there is a levy of 4d., which means that on this 5,500 they have to pay 7d. more than their confreres in England.
I appeal to the Under-Secretary to have this matter settled. It is not right it should go on. We have our grievances in Scotland, and if it is known that the producers of certified milk in Scotland are mulcted in 7d. per gallon more than their confreres in England there will be Home Rule for Scotland in a short time. This is because we have two boards. If there had been one it would have been alright. It shows what a difference may easily spring up if you get two boards or two parliaments in one country. The Scottish producer has not been given fair play and equality. This is a practical matter on which we feel deeply. As to what it costs the 200 producers in Scotland, let me say that it means a loss of about £50,000 a year, that is a rough Calculation. It costs three of these producers £1,000 a year each, and it is not fair. We must have this matter rectified. I place it in the hands of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland and I shall expect something to be done in the
1178
near future to place Scotland on a basis of equality with England in this respect and to do justice to the producers of graded milk in Scotland.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman) will not expect me to follow him into a discussion of Home Rule for Scotland. I take it that the policy of the marketing board which deals with Scotland is dictated and decided by the Scottish members of that board but I will not venture further along that line. My purpose in rising is to try to put before the House the views of a Member representing an industrial constituency. Very often agricultural Members take up the greater part of these Debates and I have no complaint to make on that ground because they understand the technical side of the question and on that I do not presume to offer any comments. But I think it is desirable to point out that the success or failure of these schemes depends upon the industrial population. I was interested some weeks ago to receive a publication called "The Home Farmer" from the Milk Marketing Board and I find that a certain gentleman writing in that publication says that there ought to be a better feeling between the agricultural population and the industrial population. He complains of a lack of understanding on the part of townspeople of the farmers' problems. I believe on the other hand that there is a complete misunderstanding of the attitude of industrial population towards the agricultural population. This writer states:
"Every year we have the same fatuous caricature of Farmer Hayseed depicted as a bucolic yokel, chewing a straw and looking as intelligent as a turnip."
I do not know any intelligent townsman who thinks of the farmer in that way. If it is necessary for the townsman to try to understand the point of view of the agriculturist, do not let the agriculturist misunderstand the point of view of the townsman. I recognise that the farmer's task is hard. His job is an arduous one. I recognise the difficulties he has experienced in the last few years. I cannot see that the prices of his commodities have been at all remunerative. His business is subject to the vagaries of the weather. In anything I may say on this subject I do not want to be taken

1179
as having no sympathy with the farmer. Any criticism I offer of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme is not due to any lack of sympathy either with the right hon. Gentleman in his sincere and earnest attempt to help the farmer or with the farmer himself. I think everybody desires to see the farmer prosperous but the question is whether these schemes in themselves, however well intentioned, are sound and calculated to solve the problem and hold an equitable balance between producer and consumer.
The Bill is designed to meet a temporary emergency created by the existence of a surplus of milk. That is not a surplus over the requirements of the nation. It is a surplus which exists because of the inability of people to purchase liquid milk owing to exorbitant retail prices. This Bill proposes to deal with what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has so often described to us as "the economics of glut." I have never been able to understand what the hon. Gentleman meant by it, but that is the term which he has used. There is no real glut at all in regard to milk. There is a glut so far as the inability of the people to pay the price demanded by the retailer is concerned, I wish to examine how far this Bill goes towards supplying what is the only cure for the milk problem, namely, a larger demand for liquid milk.
There are two aspects of the Measure on which I propose to touch briefly. The first is the provision for securing a pure milk supply. Parliament is being asked to vote £750,000 to be expended during a period of four years for this object. Personally, I have no objection to that provision I look upon it as a health service. The only question in my mind is whether the sum is adequate to achieve what is intended. Secondly, there is to be a contribution from the Exchequer towards expenses incurred by milk marketing boards in increasing the demand for milk. In so far as provision is being made under that scheme for milk for school children I am in entire sympathy with it. I shall have something to say later about that question but to my mind the provision which is being made here, as regards a part of this £1,000,000 merely touches the fringe of the problem. I was astounded to hear
1180
the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Mrs. Ward) come out with that old, imaginary—I cannot find words to describe it—that old fear of the demoralising effect on school children of getting milk free.
Viscountess ASTOR: No.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I do not think the Noble Lady was here during the speech to which I refer.
Viscountess ASTOR: Yes, I was.
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: If the Noble Lady reads the OFFICIAL REPORT I think she will find that I have not misquoted the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock. I would not do so in regard to any Member of the House. But I ask, is it demoralising to give children free education? Is it demoralising to give them the advantages of any of the social services which they now receive? My only complaint regarding the provision of free milk is that we are not providing enough of it. I am not afraid of demoralising the children. The hon. Lady cited the difficulties which the ordinary working woman finds in expending her income. She mentioned the threepences and the sixpences which had to be spent on this and that. Then she talks about demoralising children by giving them a pint of milk for nothing each day at school.
In my judgment the money which is to be spent in other ways in attempting to popularise the demand for milk will be to a large extent wasted. No advertiser can succeed if his wares are outside the purchasing power of the public. I do not suggest that the farmer is getting too much for his milk. He certainly is not, but the price to the consumer is prohibitive. To talk about spending money on a campaign to advertise milk at 2s. a gallon is simply wasting money. There is no need to advertise milk if the quality and price are right. You have not to create a demand in this country for milk or the taste for milk. I would suggest that the only way to get an increase in the consumption of milk is by reducing? its retail price. Why should the people who have sent me here be called upon to pay to the State money to advertise a commodity which they cannot afford to purchase in the quantities that they desire and which they would in fact purchase if it were a reasonable price? I

1181
want to suggest definitely that the principle of subsidising private enterprise is wrong. The one justification for the existence of private enterprise is competition. What answer is there to give to the person who says, "If you use our money to subsidise industry, why should I not receive any profits arising from it?" I can find no answer to that question, and one of the things that astounds me in this House is the easy way Members walk into the Lobby to give presents to private enterprise and think that the people of this country are going to tolerate it for ever and ever.
In view of what the hon. Member for Cannock said about demoralising the child, let us see what the farmers are getting as a direct subsidy to-day. When the de-rating Act was introduced, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the 25 per cent. of the rates which the farmers were paying would, when taken away, cost £4,750,000, so that the total cost in rates prior to this 25 per cent. being taken off was £18,000,000. The total cost for the beet sugar subsidy last year was £5,500,000, and of wheat £4,500,000. Under this Bill the annual expenditure in the next two years will be £2,000,000. These sums make a total of direct subsidy of £31,000,000. The poor woman living in some miserable hovel is demoralised because her child gets a pint of milk a day free. What about the farmers who are receiving the £31,000,000? If private enterprise cannot stand on its own feet, it appears to me that it has no justification for its existence. I believe it can stand on its own feet. Every hon. Member will agree that the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) made a remarkable speech on the Financial Resolution last Thursday. He told us that the amount which is to be spent on the repayments in respect of milk used for manufacture amounted to less than one halfpenny per gallon on the total pool price. He was then referring to the £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 which is to be spent in the next two or three years. There is no definite sum named, but the Minister suggested £3,500,000 on the Financial Resolution. So that the £1,000,000 which is to be spent on the publicity campaign to popularise the consumption of milk would mean little or nothing per gallon, and it could very well be taken off the distributor's profit without calling on the Exchequer.
1182
I want to come to the first part of the Bill, which is the real reason for its introduction, namely, the Clauses which make possible the payment to Milk Marketing Boards of such sums as may be required to raise the value of milk sold for manufacture. The Minister of Agriculture told us last Thursday and repeated it to-day, although the figure has been challenged, that we were in this Bill dealing with a surplus of 200,000,000 gallons. There is one point upon which I should like to compliment the Minister. He is not attempting to solve this problem by creating an artificial scarcity. The Government have somewhat changed their policy so far as that is concerned. In view of the other marketing schemes, coupled with the limitation of imports covering bacon, potatoes, the suggested hop scheme and the sugar scheme, we can congratulate the Minister upon this particular scheme. My own view is that so far as this £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 is concerned, the House can be quite sure that the money will never be repaid, and the total cost to the State of this Bill under the three different headings will amount, so far as I am able to calculate, to at least £5,000,000, or, under the particular subsidy so far as manufactured milk is concerned, at the rate of £1,500,000 for the next two years. The hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham in his speech on Thursday said that 100,000,000 gallons could probably be used in giving it to the school children. The figure of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) was 80,000,000 gallons. I was rather astounded that the Minister of Agriculture should have challenged the argument of the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I could not see one fallacy in it, and I think when the right hon. Gentleman has time to read the OFFICIAL REPORT and really to consider the argument, he will be bound to agree with the absolute correctness of it.
It is rather a coincidence that yesterday I spent some time in the Library, not knowing that the hon. and learned Member was going to deal with it, working out the same point. There is no difference, so far as the pool receipts are concerned, whether the Minister receives 3½d. from the schools or from manufacturing milk. I made a calculation that; if the 100,000,000 gallons, that is, half the surplus, were provided to the schools at

1183
the present price of manufacturing milk, namely 3½d. per gallon, and with the advance of 2d. a, gallon which is the average throughout the year, making a total of 5½d. per gallon, and reckoning a distribution of 100,000,000 gallons, the cost to the State would work out at £2,291,000. It is rather striking that if you examine that figure you will find that the total almost coincides with the cost under the subsidy of £1,500,000 coupled with the portion of the money that is to be spent during a given year on popularising milk.
I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that from every point of view this is a better way of expending the money. The first result would be an improvement in the health of the children. I do not know what would be saved about extending this so far as after treatment is concerned. I know from the ease of my own child, who has been fortunate enough to have all the milk she wished to drink, that there is no difficulty in getting a child into the habit of drinking milk. Every child in school would jump at the opportunity of having a free supply of milk. I was struck by a remark made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland). I wonder whether the House realises the indignity that a child feels when it has to say that it cannot afford the halfpenny which is demanded of it for milk at school. The children who cannot afford it are those who need the milk most. The child who can afford the halfpenny or penny comes from the home where there is liquid milk, but the other child very often comes from the home where liquid milk is never or rarely seen.
That is my suggestion for dealing with half the surplus. What about the other half. The "Home Farmer," the official publication of the Milk Marketing Board, says that the sale of liquid milk in April amounted to 45,000,000 gallons, and on that basis the sale of liquid milk in a year amounts to 540,000,000 gallons. If we took from the distributors less than one halfpenny per gallon it would produce £1,000,000. I want to address myself to the question of distribution. We have suggested taking one farthing for publicity and with the halfpenny I am suggesting that gives the total of
1184
three-farthings per gallon. There is a striking article by Mr. Baxter, the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board, in the "Home Farmer." He says:
"Under the current contract the producer is awarded for liquid milk 1s. per gallon in all regions except the southeastern region, where for four months the price is one penny more, but he assumes all responsibility for the manufacturing surplus, and therefore will meet the effect of that in the reduction of all his milk by from 2d. to 3d. per gallon. Having also to meet the full obligation of freight charges from farm to buyer, it is likely that the price at the farm will be between 7d. and 9d., yet the distributor will get a gross profit of 10d., or even more in thickly-populated areas."
I do not think any hon. Member can wonder that the farmer complains. He is not getting a fair deal, nor is the consumer. In Bradford the consumer pays 2s. per gallon for milk, and yet the pool price, which I think covers Bradford, is 10½d., subject to certain deductions. The problem of distribution has got to be tackled. So far as I can see, many of the distributors have simply to hand out bottles of milk which come to them already made up. I do not want to cite certain cases that I know of quite definitely. If the distributors' gross profit is 10d. per gallon, that is l½d. on every pint bottle of milk he distributes. What I cannot understand is why, in the industrial areas, the profit should be more. The distributor in Bradford is working in a thickly-populated area. At some houses he leaves two or three bottles of milk, and in many streets he will deliver a dozen or two dozen bottles. I know that I am speaking without absolute knowledge, but it seems to me that the cost of delivery must be much higher in a rural area than in an area where he can go from door to door distributing bottle after bottle of milk. If a milkman delivers 480 bottles in a day, which I do not think is a difficult task in an industrial area, his profit is £2 10s. a day, and in a seven-day week it is £17 10s. per week. If half of that is net profit it is not a bad job, as we should say in Yorkshire.
The right hon. Gentleman will be far better employed in tackling this particular problem. The only solution of the problem is to make milk cheaper. It needs no campaign to make milk popular. Offer any lad in the streets of Bradford a pint of milk and see whether he refuses it. Probably you will not feel inclined to

1185
offer him another pint. Put milk within reach of those who desire it and need it, and there will be no surplus. I think I can speak for every hon. Member on this bench in saying that all wish the farmer well. We realise his difficulties. I sympathise with him in his difficulties. I must decline, however, to vote for a Bill which does nothing to reduce the price of milk to the consumer, but adds to his burden by calling upon him to make a further contribution through the Exchequer grant, and further deprives him of purchasing power.
8.53 p.m.
Sir ERNEST GRAHAM-LITTLE: I am going to support the Amendment, because I think it appears to offer that practical stimulus to consumption which should precede any other factor in the Bill. The urgency of distributing milk to school children ought to determine our action to-night. There can be no question about that urgency. The nutritional value of milk need not be stressed and the need of it in particular circumstances calls for no emphasis; but the supply of that milk must be immediate and there can be no immediate supply if we are to wait for the cleaning up of the herds. That will take a very long time. The cleaning up cannot be applied to every disease which is derived from the distribution of milk. As a matter of fact it has been applied practically only to tuberculosis; a very expensive method has been adopted and the results have been to a certain degree satisfactory. Samples of certified milk, that is, milk certified as free from tubercule have been examined in laboratories and disclosed an incidence of something like 2 per cent. in milk supposed to be free from tubercule. That is relatively a very small incidence but no freedom is secured by that method from other dieases of milk which are becoming more frequent and more widely recognised. There is no question as to the frequency and the importance of those diseases, although many efforts have been made to minimise their incidence. Those efforts are entirely fruitless, in view of the enormous increase in the reporting of such cases as they become more familiar.
I may, perhaps, give the House some figures which demonstrate very alarmingly the state of affairs before pasteurisation. An experiment was conducted under the
1186
supervision of the perfectly competent officers of the laboratory at the Royal Veterinary College with samples taken from 63 separate 3,000 gallon tanks. All the samples thus gathered showed active tubercule bacillus causing lethal effects in guinea-pigs injected with the milk. Hon. Members may say that that is very remarkable, but it is not so when one considers that milk is the very best medium for the nutrition of the tubercule bacilli. They flourish excedingly in it. A large number of experiments have proved beyond question that milk tanks are practically uniformly infected with tubercule before pasteurisation.
To show the effect of pateurisation, an experiment is conducted by taking a sample of milk before it goes into the inlet and another sample 35 minutes after at the outlet. The first sample has been untreated by heat. At the outlet, after treatment by heat, all bacilli were destroyed, including tubercule, the brucella abortus and the bacillus of the organism of septic sore throat. Those are the three most important infections which are bred in milk. People without any knowledge of the subject assert that pasteurisation destroys the value of milk. That is probably an entirely fallacious statement. There has been 25 years' experience at the Children's Hospital, Great Ormond Street, which is the premier children's hospital in the world; 25 years ago, pasteurisation was adopted there, and the children have since been fed on pasteurised milk. The experiment has been watched by some of the most eminent specialists in this country and they are perfectly satisfied that at Great Ormond Street there is no deficiency in pasteurised milk which cannot be supplied very easily and inexpensively by other methods. We hear a great deal now of vitamins, and the quantity which goes to supplement a diet is exceedingly small and perfectly easy to supply.
It is obviously wrong to distribute a product which can cause widespread disease, and must inevitably cause it, if there is an economical method of rendering that product safe and clean. There is no question that we have that method in pasteurisation. All medical authorities who have any knowledge of this are entirely agreed upon it. The unanimity on this subject is very remarkable. It has become the opinion of the medical profession

1187
that to distribute milk of any kind in the fresh state is unwise, and that applies even to tuberculin-tested milk. There is freedom from tubercle in tuberculin-tested milk, but no freedom from other infections.
I may, perhaps, give a personal experience. All my family were fed upon the most expensive milk we could buy, milk produced by Wilfrid Buckley at the Manor Farm, Berkshire. We did the very best we could, and for years and years my family throve upon that milk. My boy, who was at public school, after having absorbed that kind of milk all his life with very great gusto came home with a fever which all the specialists in Harley Street could not diagnose. It was a brucella infection which had been derived from the very best milk that you could buy. That milk was free from tubercle, but it was not free from other bacilli. Tuberculin-tested milks do not pretend to be free from other infections and they cannot be made free from such infections.
Mr. ELLIOT: Does the hon. Member deny that it is quite possible to clear the brucella abortus from a herd, and that there is a perfectly reliable test in respect of that infection?
Sir E. GRAHAM-LITTLE: I am afraid that the methods taken against tubercle do not protect herds against the infection mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. ELLIOT: I think my hon. Friend is saying that it is impossible to defend milk against infection from bacilli.
Sir E. GRAHAM-LITTLE: I do not see any possibility of distributing milk upon a scale which is required if it had to go through all the tests and methods necessary to free it from all infection which may be found in it. If you are to take measures to free milk from bacillus abortus, tuberculosis and septic sore throat and other organisms, the expense of the process would be quite prohibitive, and it would be impossible to make the supply immediate. It is the immediacy of the problem which I want to stress.
Mr. ELLIOT: Surely the same procedure which is used now could be used in the future. About 1,000,000 children are now receiving milk under the supervision of a school medical officer. A great deal of the milk is passed by them,
1188
and there is no difficulty in the problem at all.
Sir E. GRAHAM-LITTLE: An experiment ought now to be tried of distributing the milk in quantity and in bulk, as it is now possible to do, and immediately. I believe that it would result in the improvement of nutrition of the children, and it would also be possible at a relatively small expense to secure their safety from any disease infecting that milk. I believe that it would result in an economic gain to the community, because, as has been shown, it would be very inexpensive. There is no reason, as far as I can see, to suppose that there will be any deterrent effect upon keeping up the herds and supplying milk free from heat treatment for those who desire it. It may taste nicer; it does taste nicer, and those who wish to pay for that taste can do so still. The price charged for that very superior milk is sufficiently high to make it a commercial transaction to supply it, but that must remain a luxury milk and that luxury milk is not as safe as the milk that should be distributed to school children.
It has also been said that pasteurisation encourages uncleanliness in the distributors of milk. That is an entirely fallacious statement, because you will find that progressive distributors are concentrating, very sensibly, upon the importance of using what one might perhaps call surgical cleanliness in the instruments with which the milk is distributed. It has been found that the improvement which takes place when measures of that kind are taken has been astonishing; it has gone more than half-way towards eliminating the diseases which are attributable to milk. One cannot estimate the mischief that comes from milk, and especially from tuberculous milk, by taking the number of deaths which may be recorded from time to time. It is not the deaths which are recorded that represent the sum of the disease produced by tuberculous milk. A far larger amount of unhappiness and disease is produced by illnesses which do not kill the patient, but which maim and mutilate. I was a member of the staff of a children's hospital for some 30 years, and I took the trouble at one time to obtain statistics of the part which tubercle played in the diseases for which children were admitted to that hospital.

1189
I found that at least one-third of the admissions were directly attributable to tubercle, and to the variety of tubercle which is called surgical tuberculosis. It is these facts, which are not conveyed in statistics and do not appear in the mortality tables, that swell the volume of disease which results from infected milk, and it is for that reason that I support the Amendment.
9.7 p.m.
Duchess of ATHOLL: I am sorry to say that I view this Bill with rather mixed feelings. On the one hand I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is correct in saying that the root cause of the very serious troubles of the milk industry lies in the low prices ruling for butter and cheese, and, therefore, I am very glad to know that he regards it as an urgent matter to take steps to raise those prices. But I do not feel confident that he is taking the steps that will be most effective, and I cannot help feeling the profound truth of the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), that not only the proposal to make an advance to improve the prices of milk products, but the other proposals in the Bill, will create a liability for the future which the industry may well find it very difficult to meet. Again, in common with all the rest of the House, I am extremely glad that, if there is money to spare, it should be spent on endeavouring to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. I should also be glad to see an increased consumption of milk, because I have a very high appreciation of the value of milk, not only for children, but for adults; but I cannot help feeling that I would rather have seen the sum which it is proposed to spend on publicity devoted to the very expensive matter of making the herds tubercle-free. I cannot help feeling that there may be rather a waste of money on publicity which will not be needed when once the medical profession have been made easier in their minds about the fear of infection.
The first point that I should like to put to my right hon. Friend, or whoever may reply at the end of the Debate, is that he should follow up what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman), who voiced the very serious difficulties under which the Scottish producers of graded milk feel
1190
they are labouring at the present time, because they are getting no higher price for their milk than is paid for non-graded milk. I shall be very glad to hear if the £750,000 which is to be provided will be available for securing an improved price for the existing producer of graded milk, and not only for freeing herds which at present do not produce such milk——
Mr. ELLIOT indicated assent
Duchess of ATHOLL: I am very glad to know that that is so; an assurance of that kind will bring relief to these producers, though I am not clear how much improvement in the price will be given. Like my hon. Friend, I know that at the present time production of graded milk is being run at a loss, and, unless something substantial can be done towards helping the owners of tubercle-free herds, we may see a decrease in infection-free milk, instead of the increase which we all desire.
Then I should be glad if my right hon. Friend would tell us whether, when the £750,000 is exhausted, a continuance of the efforts to clear the herds will bring an addition to the levy on the non-graded milk; and, if so, can he give the House any indication of what the amount of the addition will be? Will he also tell us what addition, if any, to the levy is likely to be caused by the pound for pound which the milk board has to find for the publicity scheme? These are points which seem to me to be of very great importance, because I think that the House has perhaps hardly realised how very serious is the position of the producers of ordinary milk in Scotland. I do not think that anything was said on the subject in the Debate last week, and I do not think that any Member has yet referred to it in this Debate.
I speak for that part of Scotland, the Centre and East and South East, which is linked up with the great milk-producing area of the South West of Scotland. Unlike the South Western area, in which there is a considerable manufacture of cheese, the milk in the centre and East of Scotland is mainly sold in liquid form, and I believe that most of it is produced all the year round, which I think everyone must recognise is a great boon to the consumer. But dairymen in the centre and East of Scotland labour under this difficulty, in comparison with dairymen in

1191
the South West, that, as my right hon. Friend of course knows, our grass is less succulent and our climate is colder, so that the period for which the cows must be artificially fed is longer. I am assured by someone in touch with dairymen all over this area that they reckon the winter in which artificial feeding is necessary as running frrom the 1st September to the 30th April. That, I believe, is a distinctly longer period than is necessary for artificial feeding in the South West of Scotland. It is owing, of course, to the fact that the South West enjoys advantages of climate and grass that it is the great dairying area of Scotland.
Producers in the centre and East of Scotland assure me that they understood, when meetings were held to explain the scheme before they voted on it, that the levy would not be more than 1d., and probably would be less; but, in the first month of the scheme, the levy was 2d., it has since risen to 4d., and I have had word to-day that producers are very anxious in case for the month of May it should reach a level of 5d. That is exclusive of l½d. per gallon for haulage, which compares with the price of 1d. for haulage which was charged by a big cooperative concern in Fife before the milk scheme came into operation. This, in addition to the 10d. which has to be left, as my right hon. Friend knows, to the distributor, means that the producer in the centre and East of Scotland to-day is not getting more than 8id. a gallon, and I am assured by one in the area who is in a good position to know, that a price of 10d. in summer is necessary if costs are to be met. A price of 1s. 1d. or 1s. 2d. per gallon net was received before the scheme came into operation, and this, I am told, is the figure which is necessary to make milk production pay in this area in the winter.
Of course, the reason why the levy is so heavy to milk producers in the area is because it is linked up with the great dairying area of the South-West, in which much milk is made into cheese. I cannot help feeling that my friends in Aberdeenshire never showed more clearly the business instinct for which they are proverbially famous than when they realised that the Grampians were a very fine barrier between them and Ayrshire, and determined that they would limit their
1192
milk scheme to the North of that mountain range. In other words, the Aberdeenshire men contracted out of having anything to do with the South-West, and the centre, the East and South-East of Scotland are left to carry a pretty heavy baby. Therefore, on all hands I have been hearing for the last few months of the terrible burden imposed on dairymen in my constituency. In January I was hearing that men were losing at the rate of from £80 to £250 a year as compared with the prices they had been receiving before the scheme came into operation. To-day I have heard of a dairyman in the East whose loss so far has averaged £83 a month as compared with the corresponding months a year ago. This means an anticipated loss of £1,000 in the year on a dairy farm the rent of which is £700.
I am assured by a representative of the producers in this area that they are ready to bear some share in helping to keep the South-Western dairymen on their feet. They do not object to the principle of a pool, but they say that it is impossible for them to meet the burden that the scheme is imposing upon them. I have a letter which says:
"The board are meantime paying a premium to producers who can find distributors prepared to contract to take a definite quantity daily from the producers. The distributors then pay an extra penny per gallon to the board for the milk and the board in turn hands the penny over to the producer. It is perfectly obvious a distributor will not agree to pay the extra penny in order to get a definite quantity of the regulated product from any producer since he, the distributor, can get whatever quantity he wishes from the board daily without paying the extra penny and, if he takes over 500 gallons per day, then any of the milk he does not sell in liquid form he only pays for the latter at manufacturing prices in the region between 3d. and 1d. per gallon. There is, therefore, no incentive for distributors to enter into such contracts to pay the extra penny. One or two of the local distributors have agreed in very few instances to pay the extra penny out of sheer consideration for their producer-customers, for whom they have the greatest sympathy in the farmers' present plight."
It seems to me therefore, that there are grave dangers in the scheme to the producers of liquid milk who are linked up with the great cheese manufacturing area. There is no limit to the levy that the board may impose and no amendment can be made in the scheme except by producers representing not more than two-thirds of the milk production of the

1193
area; and I am informed that it would be very difficult for the producers of the East and the centre to outvote the South-West by anything like that majority. It has therefore been made plain to me that there are many dairymen in the centre and East of Scotland who are facing inevitable bankruptcy if no relief can be afforded. Of course, it is true that this advance proposes to give a temporary relief, but I am doubtful whether it is going to be sufficient, because I am informed that, if a dairyman is to receive a remunerative price for cheese manufactured in the South-West, he needs a price of 7d. in summer or 8d. in winter, and the advance does not propose to raise him to that level. The minimum is fixed below that, and I cannot help fearing that, when the price reaches the one penny above the standard price at which repayment has to be made, it is probable that an effort may be made to stabilise the price at a figure which will not make repayment necessary.
Moreover, I cannot help reminding my right hon. Friend that there is, as I believe, a more effective and a more permanent way of raising the prices of butter and cheese on this market, and one which will need no repayment in the future. I regret the little weight that the Milk Commission appear to have attached to the effect that low-priced imports of butter and cheese and other milk products are having on the milk problem. I am glad to find that the report of the Scottish Development Council pays more attention to this question, and it is still more satisfactory to find the English Milk Board stressing the great effect that imported supplies of milk products have had, particularly imports of butter and cheese, in reducing prices "to a hopelessly unremunerative level." I have not found, however, that any of these reports have paid sufficient attention in detail to the prices at which these imports are coming into this country. They are inclined to average the prices over a period of years, or to lump them together without endeavouring to see from which country the lowest priced products have come. If the figures are examined there can be no question, I think, as to the tremendous effect that imports from Soviet Russia have had in lowering the price of butter. Russian butter, which was coming here at 157s. a cwt. in 1928, has been coming at 41s. in
1194
the last few months. It may be said that the price of butter from other countries has also dropped heavily. But whereas Russian butter came in in 1928 on a level with Australian butter, it has steadily dropped proportionally lower than butter from other countries, until this year it is 18 per cent. below the next cheapest butter. No one therefore who has studied these figures can fail to see that Russian butter has been a big factor in the depression of butter prices in our market, and I believe that if my right hon. Friend could induce the President of the Board of Trade to utilise Article 2 of the Russian Trade Agreement to exclude Russian butter—he now has this instrument to his hand for this purpose—he would get a much more substantial rise in butter prices than he sets before himself in his proposed advance. I understand, further, that it is recognised in the dairy industry that the price of cheese follows the price of butter, and I believe, therefore, we can get a, rise in the price of both commodities if he will use Article 2 in the manner I have indicated.
Then I should like to urge on the Secretary of State for Scotland that the investigating committee which, I understand, the Government have set up, should examine most carefully the grievances submitted to the Scottish Milk Board by producers in the centre and East of Scotland. The board have apparently not met any of those grievances. Many men are drifting rapidly into bankruptcy and really desperate feeling is being engendered in the minds of many of them. Therefore, while welcoming the advance that is proposed in this Bill, I should prefer to regard it only as an emergency measure to be utilised for a shorter period than the Bill proposes, partly because it will mean a liability for the future and partly because I believe it will tend to neutralise to a certain extent the rise in prices which is to be expected if Russian butter can be excluded from this market. I would urge that the whole scheme be followed most closely by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, for the scheme seems to have grave defects which will not be remedied by this Bill, and unless there is an early and a substantial rise in the prices of butter and

1195
cheese, it may be necessary for Parliament to take steps to amend the Scottish milk scheme.
9.26 p.m.
Mr. DREWE: I should like to give my support to this Bill, because I am always willing to give my support to any Measure which will be of benefit to agriculture, which is in such a difficult position. All of us agree with the desire for a greater consumption of liquid milk and a reasonable price for the producer. I must say that I was very impressed with the arguments in favour of using a greater proportion of surplus milk for school children instead of for manufactures. I believe that the case put up was a good one and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give it his full consideration. I feel that I should be failing in my duty if I did not say that this Bill will not, in itself, restore prosperity to the dairy industry in this country. You can go all through the West of England, and you will find that practically every farmer is dependent either on dairying or on livestock production, and neither of these important branches of agriculture can show any possible margin of profit either at the present time, or, in my opinion, when this Bill is in operation. In the West Country, where there are very many important seaside markets and small towns, there are first-class dairy farms around and excellent markets, but the dairy farmers cannot get a profit for their milk, though the consumer has to pay such a price for his milk that he is unable to increase his consumption. I maintain that the Government have & direct measure of responsibility in this direction. I welcome the temporary loan, but only as a temporary measure. I welcome the grant for clean milk for school-children. I do want to impress on the Government that they should go forward and make a declaration of a greater long-range policy. It is quite true that the Milk Marketing Board is a producers' Board, but the Government have a very real measure of responsibility.
I know perfectly well that if the farmers had not been told quite clearly, when asked to vote for the milk marketing scheme, that the Government would see to it that if they reorganised their markets and industry, their market would
1196
not be flooded with foreign produce, they would never have voted for the milk marketing scheme. The Government, under the marketing scheme, have power to protect the consumer. I do, therefore, earnestly appeal to the Government to see to it that these pledges—and they were pledges given at a time when the marketing schemes were going through, and the Bill was under discussion in the House—shall be redeemed absolutely. It cannot be denied that since this scheme came into operation the farmers have received less for their milk and the distributors more. In spite of certain views expressed in this House, I maintain that one of the chief troubles which result in the low price paid for milk going into manufacture, is the abnormal importations from overseas. I think that my hon. Friend who has just spoken has done real service in this House in drawing attention to this danger. I do not want to ask the Government to bring forward any policy that is going to damage our overseas trade or arrangements with our own Dominions, but I do want to assert that where a case can be made out that foreign importation of milk products is coming in with some form of subsidy, then action should be taken. Where it can be proved definitely that the prices for home consumption in a foreign country are higher than the exporting prices to this country, then, in fairness to our own producers, they should be given some substantial measure of assistance. The right hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) said that all he asked for was fair play for our own producers. That is all I am asking for this evening. If we can give absolute fairness to our own producers, I think it will put fresh heart into our dairy farmers. At the present time it is no exaggeration to say that dairy farmers in the far West country do not know what to prepare for in the future.
The right hon. Member for South Molton also referred to the question of the purity of imported milk products. It is impossible to buy any Russian butter in this country, although we know it comes in in considerable quantities and is sold under some other fancy name. I think we can ask the Government to give us some reasonable assistance in that direction. I am very much in favour of trying to clean up our herds and get the

1197
cattle free from tuberculosis. I am only doubtful whether the kind of provision in this Bill is going to be sufficient for this particular object. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said it was no good anybody suggesting a policy of slaughtering tuberculin cows, because the problem is far too big. But I do know from my own experience, when a few farmers have cows tested, if a cow reacts there are three alternatives—to kill the cow, to keep it, or to put it on the market. I am afraid many farmers put the cows on the market and so free their own herd, but somebody else gets the tuberculin cows. It is difficult to ask for a policy in that direction. I do not know whether it would be possible when building up a credited herd, if, in the case of tubercular cows, he could give some greater measure of compensation if the farmer slaughtered those cows, which in the opinion of the veterinary surgeon, ought not to go on the market. I am rather afraid that if we are to clean up the herds at the expense of having a limited number of clean herds free from tuberculosis, and pass the rest of those cattle on to other farmers, we shall not make the rapid progress which we all would desire. I shall certainly support the Bill, and as far as the West of England is concerned we appeal most earnestly to my right hon. Friend to come forward and give us some further long-range policy which will give us encouragement for the future.
9.36 p.m.
Sir B. PETO: I would remind the House that we have before us an Amendment moved from the Front Opposition Bench by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). Very little has been said about the Amendment, and therefore I would like to detain the House for a few moments on the subject. The Amendment complains of the Bill before the House on the ground, firstly, that it does not do enough to clean up the herds of our country from tuberculosis, and the hon. and learned Gentleman made it clear that if he had his way he would adopt a very drastic and costly policy in that connection; and, secondly, that it does not do enough to supply and to deal with liquid milk. But half a loaf is better than no bread, and I should have thought that, if the Bill went halfway towards what he desires, the hon. and learned Gentleman would
1198
not want to kill outright the budding act of a poor and indigent Government to which he was in opposition. Part of the Amendment is wholly misconceived. He says that the Bill is designed to encourage the production of milk products. It is nothing of the kind. It is designed to relieve such people as the farmers of Scotland, of whom the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) has spoken so eloquently, from some portion of the terrific levy which they have to pay to bring up the price of the milk which is not used in liquid form but which is used in manufacture. Therefore, there is no real difference of opinion between the two Front Benches on that point at all.
Having said that, I want to say that I am a supporter of the Bill, but certainly not of the Amendment. At the commencement of the Debate, we had a sharp though not acrimonious contest between the two Front Benches on the question of the supply of milk to schools, as to what the volume ought to be, and the price at which it should be delivered at the schools. I frankly say that I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, as perhaps one might expect from his immense experience of similar contests in the courts, had rather the better of the battle. It is clear that the retail price of milk in this country of 2s.—whether it is excessive or not is another matter; we all have our own opinions, and I think it is excessive—involves the cost of retail distribution from door to door, which is a very costly process. But you are dealing here with schools with perhaps 200 or 300 scholars, and you know exactly what you have to supply. It is a much more simple problem of distribution. It is really wholesale distribution and not retail distribution, and it cannot possibly cost 2s. per gallon to deliver milk in bottles to schools. I want to refer to another little contest in the Debate. I ventured to interrupt and ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he could really assure us that in butter form the importations of milk were absolutely free from the risk of tuberculosis. He told me something about the result of importing milk in manufactured form. I have been provided with the actual Clause of the report of the Economic Advisory Council on Cattle Diseases, and it says that of milk products:

1199
"Cheese is not likely to harbour infection. Being kept in store for the time usual in commercial cheese manufacture the chemical changes that take place have the effect of disarming the tubercle bacilli. Milk is rendered safe by the heat used in the process of manufacture, but butter, cream and cream cheese, and ice cream, which is made from raw milk are capable of carrying infection."
On that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert). What right have we to impose all these tests on the production of clean milk in this country if we allow the importation from Soviet Russia of enormous quantities of butter, which, according to our most recent and learned report, is capable of introducing into this country exactly the same tubercular bacilli.
I regard the scheme of the Bill—Clauses 1 to 8 which constitute the main part of the Bill, and the provisions for raising the price of manufactured milk without calling upon the sellers of liquid milk for an undue proportion of what they would otherwise get and rendering the whole milk industry of the country un-remunerative—as a temporary expedient to get out of the difficulty caused in the main by the Ottawa Agreements entered into by the Government two years ago. By those agreements free entry was given for all milk products to our market without restriction. They have two years to run, and therefore it is a very natural conclusion for the Ministry of Agriculture to decide that they must take these temporary and otherwise undesirable measures in order to get over the difficulty of the next two years. The Bill is limited to two years from 31st March last.
The difficulty which the milk industry of this country has got into would never have arisen if we had originally boldly adopted, as we ought to have done according to the policy we have generally adopted in the country, the tariff method with regard to the importation of agricultural produce. But representatives of the Government went to Ottawa with their hands tied. They had to go in for this costly and cumbrous system of restriction by quantity, dealing by negotiation with country after country, instead of adopting the simpler and much more generally tried method. This cumbrous quantitative restriction method will have to be replaced sooner
1200
or later—and I put the utmost limit to the time of its existence, the two years-which this Bill is designed to meet—by the tariff method and a full measure of Imperial preference to our own Dominions.
The low price of butter is one of the principal causes of the failure of the policy of milk distribution schemes hitherto. Long before this scheme came into operation I said that it never could work unless the Government gave effect to what they had promised to do, namely, to make an effective restriction of imports from foreign countries and from our own Dominions. The imports from Australia and New Zealand, in particular, mainly caused the great rush of increased imports of butter and cheese into the country. On the top of that, we have had something to which the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross has already referred, which has had an even more acute and direct effect in lowering the price of all milk products. I refer to the abnormal imports from Soviet Russia during the last five years.
Let us look at the figures published by the Board of Trade, which have been tabulated with great care by the Noble Lady. I will take the figures for the Soviet Union. Starting just over five years ago, in 1928, their imports of butter into this country was at level prices with the imports from other countries, namely, 157s. per cwt. That state of affairs persisted for the next year, but in 1930 there was a decrease in price to 121s., in 1931, to 97s. Then we had a terrific drop in 1932 to 76s., in 1933 to 60s. and for the first three months of 1934 to 41s. per cwt. Those prices have had an immediate effect on butter prices. Although the total volume of Soviet Russian butter compared with the total imports of butter would not have been a very large factor in the price of butter from every other source, we find that whereas Australian butter started in 1928 at the same figure as Soviet Russian butter, namely, 157s., when Soviet Russian butter dropped to 97s., Australian butter fell to 107s. When Soviet Russian butter fell to 76s., Australian butter fell to 95s. When Russian butter dropped to 60s., Australian butter fell to 77s., and for the first three months of this year with Soviet Russian butter at 41s., Australian butter has gone down to 65s.

1201
It is perfectly clear that the trouble from which our own Dominions are suffering in diminished price has increased the quantity of exports of butter to this country. They have had to send so many more tons of butter in order to realise less pounds sterling. That is the trouble from which they are suffering, because Soviet Russian butter has knocked the bottom out of the whole market. The Minister of Agriculture said that for many years consumers in this country have been accustomed to low prices for such articles as butter. I question that statement. I agree that it does not take long to accustom the housewife to a low price, but it is only during the last two years, or at the most, three years, that we have had this abnormal condition of affairs, under which butter, of a sort, has been sold in this country at a far lower price than people were ever accustomed to pay for margarine. Such a state of affairs is absolutely inconsistent with the continuation of the dairying industry of this country.
Although I support the Bill as a temporary expedient, I do not like a loan-subsidy. It is a sort of a cross. Some hon. Members have called it a loan, while others, like the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) regard it as a subsidy. I call it a loan-subsidy, that is, a subsidy with a possible return. I do not like that any better than I like a loan, and I do not like it any better than a subsidy. Even as a temporary expedient I do not believe that it will work unless at the same time the Minister of Agriculture, in conjunction with the President of the Board of Trade, takes his courage in both hands and determines to put into operation Clause 2(2) of the Temporary Commercial Agreement with Soviet Russia:
"Failing a settlement by negotiation the party giving notice under paragraph (1) of this Article may intimate to the other that the provisions of Article 1, from a specified date, shall cease to apply in the United Kingdom or in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as the case may be, and in so far as the prohibition and restriction of imports are concerned."
We must absolutely face the fact that to make the scheme of this Bill work we require to stop the importation of butter at prices which have done incalculable injury to our own farmers and incalculable injury to farmers overseas in our
1202
Dominions. Prior to the recent election of the Milk Marketing Board a statement was made by the Milk Marketing Board with regard to their policy. I would crave the indulgence of the House while I read a short paragraph from that statement, which was broadcast throughout the country when the board asked for the votes of farmers to continue them in office. They said:
"In regard to milk sold for manufacturing purposes, which during the period under review represented 19.87 per cent. of the total milk production under wholesale milk contracts in England and Wales, we have also realised from the outset the necessity for safeguarding the home manufacturing market. We have constantly impressed upon the Ministry of Agriculture the necessity of implementing its promise that the regulation of competing imports would follow the reorganisation of home agriculture. The rapid increase of imported supplies of milk products caused market prices, of butter and cheese in particular, to decline to a hopelessly unremunerative level."
If anyone knows what has been the course of events during the last six months in the dairying industry it should be the Milk Marketing Board. After pointing out that under this Bill the price for (manufacturing milk has been fixed at 5d. a gallon in summer and 6d. a gallon in winter for the next two years, they say:
"In spite of this we realise that for the complete success of the scheme there must be a further substantial increase in the average price of milk sold for manufacturing purposes."
In my view, you cannot get that substantial increase in the price of milk sold for manufacturing purposes unless the Government use the powers they have already taken, not to regulate but to restrict the importation of products from abroad when we are capable of producing every ounce that we require, through our own farms and by employing our own labour in this country.
9.55 p.m.
Viscountess ASTOR: I thought that when the Noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western (Duchess of Atholl) got up to speak, no matter how far she got where milk was concerned, she was certain to get back to Soviet Russia. You see the hare that she started. I do not blame her for that, because no matter what I start with, I always get back to beer. These are our

1203
little weaknesses. But I want to talk about something far more important than either beer or Soviet Russia. All this story about Russian butter is so much bunk. We all know it, and the Minister of Agriculture knows it. The Noble Lady has got Soviet Russia on the brain and cannot get away from it, just as I have got beer on the brain and cannot get away from it. We must both wake up to that fact.
My heart aches for the Minister of Agriculture, because we all know that no matter who tries to please the farmers, nobody is going to do it. I once said in this House, and I mean it, that even the Creator of heaven and earth has never pleased the farmers. If they had rain they would pray for sun, and if they had sun they would pray for rain. My heart aches, as I say, for the Minister of Agriculture, because he has got an agricultural programme which he could not have thought out for himself. It is a sort of half-baked thing that came from the Labour benches. We all know that the Minister of Agriculture's plan was really started by the last Labour Government, and he took it, I think, without looking it full in the face, and he has had a very difficult time ever since. I must say that the way that the Tories have swallowed it, lock, stock and barrel, amuses me very much. They have taken it all in without asking any questions, and they need not turn round on the Minister when it does not work.
It is not the Minister's fault, but the fault of the House of Commons, for not looking more fully into it, and it is the fault of the agricultural people themselves for never really having had a good agricultural programme. Whenever the Tory party have got into trouble over agriculture, they have given a subsidy. We have never had a good agricultural policy, and if we have not got one now, it is not the Minister's fault. I am not going into that policy, but I do say that some people who know far more about agriculture than the Minister does think that, the Government having got into a mess over milk, this Bill, or part of it, is only going to get us into a greater mess. I do not talk about what I do not know, but I happen to be married to a man who knows more about agriculture than the whole of this House of Commons put together, and the funny
1204
thing is that he knows so much about it that no Government has ever used him up to now, and I do not suppose they ever will. If they had half his knowledge of the subject, they would not be in the mess in which they find themselves now. The Labour party have had sense enough to take up some of his proposals, and they are perfectly right, because he does understand milk, and as far back as 1911 he started with cleaning up the herds and getting clean milk and better milk for this country.
It is not at all easy, but it is not as difficult as the Minister makes out. I do not want to go into the inside of that question, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to press on and to join those who think that as long as you are going to give subsidies to agriculture, you should subsidise health along with it. None of us like subsidies, but this House has voted subsidies and nothing else for the last two years. In fact, it began a long time ago with the sugar beet stunt, and this Government and all Governments have gone on voting it—including the Labour Government. Now you have a vested interest of which you are all terrified, and we have voted £40,000,000 in our day for sugar beet. Wheat has been subsidised, mining has been subsidised, and nearly everything else. Whether we like subsidies or not, therefore, as long as we have them, let us get the best benefit from them.
The Minister knows what a Godsend milk is to children, and this was a great experiment. I have heard him get up and talk about what he knew on the subject, and I am only sorry that he has not had a greater effect upon the Government, but I should have thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer would understand that there is one thing we ought to be careful with, and that is milk. We had to fight an election on the question of £150,000 for milk for the kiddies, and the Labour party behaved, as usual, perfectly disreputably, and misrepresented the question all over the country, so that we lost thousands of votes over that £150,000 worth of milk.
I, therefore, think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be only too willing to help about milk, and I ask the Minister to go on and press the Government. If he cannot do it in this Bill, let him do it in a further Bill. After all,

1205
the whole of the country wants certain classes of people to get milk, and to get it free. I go so far as to say that. They want necessitous children and expectant and nursing mothers to get milk, not because they want to give things free, but because they think it would be a national investment. I do not like to give anything free, but I see the difficulties where one child in a school gets it and another does not. I think we ought to make them pay for it at the rate of, say, a penny a week, so that everybody could give that, and it would do away with the idea of giving it free and would ensure that all the children got milk.
The medical profession have made a tremendous row about the quality of milk, but I would remind them that the children of the well-to-do have always had milk, and very seldom clean milk, because very little clean milk exists, yet those children are far healthier than the children of the very poor, who have never had milk. Nobody can dispute that—no doctor in the country can dispute that—so that it would be better to give the children even this milk that is not pure than no milk at all. It is a very dangerous thing that they are doing in going round and talking about the danger of drinking milk. There is far more danger in not drinking milk than in drinking milk, and I think they are doing a great disservice to the children of this country by carrying on such absurd propaganda.
I hope very much that the Minister will realise that there is a strong demand throughout the country, if you have got surplus milk, that it should get to the school children. The right hon. Gentleman has got to make the Government see it. The Government will see it if the House of Commons demand it, and I beg the House of Commons to-night to press the Government in this matter. Let us not waste our time in advertising milk. The best advertisement is to get the children of this country into the habit of drinking milk. I do not want to get back to beer, but, after all, we all know that people who drink beer demand better beer and cheaper beer, and that is what would happen with regard to milk. If they get into the habit of drinking milk, the people will demand more and better milk, and the best advertisement, as I say, is to get the children of the country into the habit of drinking
1206
milk, and then you will not need to advertise it at all.
I am surprised at the complete lack of imagination on the part of all Governments. I am not in favour of Communism for this country, but there is one thing about Soviet Russia, and that is that you do see there a good deal of vision in this matter. I saw a woman to-day who has come back from Russia, and they have a great deal of vision and imagination where children are concerned. And they need to have it. They are starting afresh, and they have sacrificed one whole generation for another, but if hon. Members could see what arrangements they are trying to make for their children, it would make a great difference. I believe the House of Commons has got a chance to-night. We have a surplus of milk, and we are going to subsidise it, and we should demand that it should get to the necessitous children and to the expectant and nursing mothers. We can quite easily get it done. It may be a little difficult. It may be a little expensive. But it will not be half so expensive as the beet-sugar subsidy, and it will not be so expensive as many other subsidies. If we begin subsidies, let us go to the bitter end and see that we subsidise the health of the country, and especially the health of the children.
I do not want to be hard on the Minister of Agriculture. His very boldness has brought down a great deal of criticism. But now that he has been bold, let him be more bold; let him carry it out; let him press on the Government to do what he knows ought to be done, and what I think, really, the whole House of Commons wants done. Let him insist on the school children having the surplus and not bother about the advertising, but insist that it goes to them. He may not be able to do it at once, but he can do it with a little care. I could guarantee that we could set up a committee of some of the women of this House that would find a way out. It is a real tragedy that there are not more Members of the National Government who do not mind acting boldly. It seems to me that there are too many timorous people in it, too many people who do not realise what the country wants. You need someone with a little imagination. Tell the people frankly! Get on the radio and say what

1207
you are going to do. Tell them what you mean to do. Tell them your policy is milk for the children, milk for necessitous children, milk for the children in all the schools. Say that, whatever other countries do, we are determined to raise the standard of the health of the children of this counthy. And one of the quickest ways of doing that is to see that they have their proper supplies of milk.
10.7 p.m.
Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I rise with very great nervousness and humility, as one of the agricultural Members of the House and as one who cannot attempt to attain the standard of knowledge of the Noble Lord the husband of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor). I feel somewhat dismayed that I am attempting to talk upon a subject—and I apologise to the House for talking upon it—a subject of pure temperance. I have in the past addressed the House upon another agricultural commodity, that of pure beer. But, when speaking of that commodity I have always had the opposition, and the keen opposition, of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth. I do ask to-night for her tenderness, for her kindness, to me when I plead a very great desire for pure milk. I hope that on a future occasion when I speak in this House of the advantages to the agricultural community of pure beer I shall obtain her support in return for the support I am giving to her plea for pure milk.
I desire to say to the House and to the Minister that I whole-heartedly support the provisions for improving the quality of milk and for increasing the demand for milk. But the reason for my getting up this evening is to deal with the first part of the Bill, that is, the payments from and to the Exchequer in respect of milk used for manufacture. The payment from the Exchequer, whether considered as loan or as subsidy, is a payment of 5d. in summer and 6d. in winter to the agricultral producer, and is accepted by him with gratitude. It is a step in the right direction, and for that we thank the Minister to-night. The Bill is brought in to meet a temporary emergency; it is only for a period of two years. It is brought forward as a temporary Measure-by the Minister to meet the urgent needs
1208
of the industry, the importance of which he so very clearly stated to the House in his speech on the Financial Resolution.
The Bill also mentions his long-term policy. His long-term policy must also be one to save the industry from collapse. The measures in the Bill by which he proposes to do this must, if they are to be successful, raise the market value of milk surplus to the requirements of liquid milk, to a figure where no further Exchequer grant will be necessary. What are these measures? There are two in the Bill. The first is to improve the quality of milk. The second is to increase the demand for it. These measures are all to the good. But I respectfully suggest to the Minister that, however much it is possible for him to increase the demand for liquid milk, there will always be a large redundance of British milk that must go into manufacture. It is necessary to deal with that problem.
How can this be accomplished? As has been said to-night, imported dairy produce is entering this country at such a low figure that it is absolutely impossibe for the products here to give an adequate financial return to the home milk producer. The Minister, in dealing with this problem, will have a choice of two methods. First, there is the method of permitting the continued import of these low-priced milk products and subsidising, as in this Bill, the home milk producer. The Chancellor might have something to say if the Minister brought forward a Measure of that description. He might say that the country could not afford it. The other method by which he might deal with it is to subject the low-priced imports to quantitative regulations and thus raise the price of manufactured dairy produce in this country, which would allow the home manufacturer to get an adequate price for the milk he is producing. This method would satisfy the British milk producer. But would it satisfy the British consumer of the milk? The Minister has very clearly stated this afternoon that it would so raise the price of these manufactured products that the consumer would not be satisfied. Both these means therefore may be somewhat unpopular.
Is there a middle course? It is to suggest a middle course that I have risen to-night. I would ask him to consider one of the most successful of the agricultural

1209
Measures ever brought before this House, and that is the Wheat Act. I ask him to consider the Wheat Act and to see whether the method adopted in that Act is not applicable to milk. If he permits these foreign cheap milk manufactured products to come into this country, I suggest that he should let them come in by paying adequate toll for the privilege of entering our markets. If they paid that duty there would be a sum of money available to give a subsidy to British producers of milk for manufacturing purposes, or make free milk available for the children.
When I suggested tariffs I was told that they would not do what I desired, raise the price for milk. If a tariff was placed on these milk products it would not raise their price but the duty would bring in revenue which would help to subsidise the milk producing industry. If the right hon. Gentleman would follow my advice in this direction all of us would be satisfied and happy. The farmer would get a price for his milk, the consumer would pay no more, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not have to pay any subsidy, because it would come out of the revenue from the duty which would be paid for by the foreigner, and we should get this still further advantage; a duty upon foreign milk products would enable us to assist the Dominions and give to their milk products a definite and substantial preference. I have simply risen to put these points to the Minister. There is one other matter of interest in dealing with the problem of agriculture, and that is to diminish the toll taken by the distributing agencies between the producer and the consumer. It is essential in milk, in meat, and in every agricultural product. I welcome the Bill on behalf of agriculture as a temporary Measure and shall give it my support.
10.18 p.m.
Mr. T. WILLIAMS: We on these benches can congratulate ourselves on the sympathetic reception which our Amendment has received in all parts of the House. I do not recall any Amendment of an opposition receiving such sympathetic treatment, and I should imagine that the Minister of Agriculture has been very embarrassed during the Debate when he has realised how correct the Opposition have been in their views on this matter. I want to refer to one or
1210
two points which have been raised during the Debate. Two hon. Members, who have for the moment left the House, are suffering not from a bee in their bonnets but from a whole hive of bees from Russia. They are suffering from Russianitis, a double dose of it. They made lengthy references to the extraordinary situation resulting from the imports of butter from Russia into this country. The facts of the situation are that during the first four months of this year Russia has sent 1 lb. out of every 41 lbs. of butter imported, or 2½ per cent. of the whole; and I suggest to the House that to say that the one determines the price for the 40 is simply toying with the intelligence of hon. Members.
Two points have emerged during the Debate. There is first the question of a pure milk supply, which has occupied a good deal of attention, as indeed it must. The right hon. Gentleman, when explaining the terms of the Bill and, later, the policy of the Government in relation to the £750,000 to be expended in four years on the creation of a pure milk supply, was careful to admit that this was only a start. He was also careful to admit that, so far as his Department had considered the question up to the moment, they had only decided to provide a premium for Grade A milk or milk of defined quality. Bearing in mind the figures of the Hopkins Report and the nation-wide knowledge of the percentage of cattle which have tuberculosis, that is what the right hon. Gentleman, so far, has informed the House. What may be lurking in the dim recesses of his mind or the mind of the Department, we do not know. All he says is: "I am setting apart £180,000 per annum for four years in the hope of encouraging the farmers by a premium to produce a pure milk supply."
What does this mean? If the right hon. Gentleman offers a bribe of 1d. per gallon to milk producers for certified milk or milk of a defined quality, that will be 1d. per gallon on 43,000,000 gallons. Last year the output was 1,425,000,000 gallons. So that the premium would only be on 1–32nd part of the output and, be it remembered, that is only for four years. If, therefore, only 1–32nd part of the milk produced is expected to reach the defined quality, we must assume that 31–32nds may be of doubtful quality. If

1211
he reduced the 1d. per gallon premium for milk of a defined quality, that would of course increase the number of gallons over which it might be spread, but, supposing he reduced the premium to ½d. per gallon, that would still only cover 86,000,000 gallons out of 1,425,000,000 gallons or about one gallon to every 15 gallons produced. Does any hon. Gentleman consider that such a rate of progress is going to be satisfactory to this country?
Medical associations, like the Royal Society of Medicine and the Royal Society of Surgeons—almost every organisation capable of expressing an opinion—have declared themselves to be between two fires in regard to this question. They are satisfied as to the nutritive value of fresh milk; they want to recommend a greater consumption, but they are afraid to do so, because they know that the milk supply in this country is not as pure as it ought to be. We say, therefore, in our Amendment that the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the production of a pure milk supply is inadequate. He tells us that they have been waiting for the Hopkins report before proceeding to deal with questions of isolation, condition of cowsheds, water supply, slaughter, or any of those things which may be contributory factors in the production of a pure supply. The right hon. Gentleman says, "We have not considered our scheme yet; therefore we do not know anything about it; therefore we are not going to make any promises; we are just setting apart £180,000 per annum for four years in the hope that the farmers will produce a pure supply."
The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the one agricultural commodity which held its price long after the prices of other commodities were tumbling down, was liquid milk. It held its place for years and years when other commodity prices had fallen to rock bottom. But the farmers did nothing to purify their milk supply. The hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Mrs. Ward) asked whether there had been any incentive to farmers to produce a pure milk supply. I am amazed that she made such a statement because it is the one commodity produced by the farmer where the price has been good enough not only to help the dairy farmers to do well for a long period
1212
after the War, but to enable massive fortunes to be made by many of the bigger dairy farmers. Yet only a very small proportion have felt that they had an obligation and a duty to the milk consumers.
Mrs. WARD: Many of the large dairy farmers have very much improved their herds and the standard of their milk is very much higher than it was. It is the small man who has not the money and cannot afford to improve his herds. The point I made was that the Government Departments have never given him any incentive because he has even been made to pay for the privilege of producing good milk.
Mr. WILLIAMS: The hon. Member's explanation scarcely satisfies the point she made because for the first eight or nine years of my presence in this House farmers were always telling the politicians to keep their hands off the industry and were always declaring that if they would keep their hands off they would make their industry pay. So the hon. Lady has not made her point there. Farmers have had every incentive to produce a good milk supply, and now we say that the right hon. Gentleman's policy is so weak as not to be worthy of a moment's consideration and is going to leave the would-be supporters of a milk campaign in the clouds not knowing whether or not they ought to advise young and old to consume more milk. I wanted to make some reference to pasteurisation, but as the hon. Member who dealt with it is not in the House, I will leave it. This very small beginning may be worthy of some of the commendation and praise that has been showered on the Minister. Some hon. Members asked what the Labour Government have done. There is no reason why the Labour Government should have done anything at that point, but now that the Government have the Hopkins Report, with suggestions of all kinds to produce a pure milk supply, a mark-time policy is unworthy of the Government, who definitely, with their eyes wide open, are giving another subsidy of £5,000,000 to agriculture when they know that at the end of two years, or four years if you will, the position will be almost as it is to-day.
If we turn to the other side, the scheme to increase consumption or to subsidise manufacturing milk, what do we discover?

1213
I made a statement a week ago with regard to the provision of free milk for children. The figure I mentioned was 80,000,000 gallons. The right hon. Gentleman asked to-day if I was aware that that would cost £9,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman, of course, bases his calculation upon paying the farmers or the board or the producers and distributors no less than 2s. a gallon. Clearly the calculation was not consistent with the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, for if he can provide milk for cheese manufacture at 3d. per gallon, I do not see why he should even suggest that we ought to charge elementary school children 2s. per gallon. I said then that to provide the 6,000,000 children with one-third of a pint of milk per head per day would scarcely cost more than the present policy of the Government, and I repeat the statement.
Mr. ELLIOT: How much?
Mr. WILLIAMS: When the right hon. Gentleman has subsidised his manufacturing milk it is to be paid for by the manufacturer, plus the Government, at 5d. per gallon. If the Government pay to the board, who ought to be made responsible for supplying schools with pure milk, 6d. per gallon, allowing 1d. margin for the cost of distribution in large quantities to elementary schools, the 90,000,000 gallons per annum required would cost £2,250,000.
Mr. ELLIOT: Is my hon. Friend really serious in putting before the House a suggestion that 1d. per gallon would cover the cost of distribution?
Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should sell milk to manufacturers of cheese at somewhere round about 5d. per gallon, including the cost of distribution to the cheese maker. I am suggesting that what we can do for the cheese manufacturer we can do for the schools. I am suggesting that at a cost of 6d. per gallon the cost would be £2,250,000. Perhaps there might be a slight excess for the cost of distributing milk in one-third-of-a-pint bottles. He is setting aside money for advertising purposes, and if he were to allow £100,000 a year to enable this to be done I think it would be well worth while. The point I make is that the figure I gave a week or two ago is
1214
not an inaccurate one, and when I say that the cost would be but little or no higher than the present cost to the Government, I do not think there is any misstatement of fact. The right hon. Gentleman is providing between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 for this year, but says that next year he cannot say how much it may cost. It may be £3,000,000 but it is an unknown figure, the figure X. My figure is £2,250,000, and that would give 6,000,000 children a free ration of pure liquid milk daily. Our figures have not been opposed and we stand by the policy embodied in the Amendment.
The right hon. Gentleman is subsidising manufacturing milk for two years. Will he tell us what is to happen at the end of those two years? He expresses the vague hope that then there may be some repayment. I asked him the other day what the price of Canadian and New Zealand cheese will have to be before the farmers can start to repay. We do not expect there will be any repayment. The right hon. Gentleman tells us, rightly, that we have a surplus of milk, but he does not tell us how and why the surplus has been created. He cannot say that consumers are consuming less and have lost their taste for dairy products, for, in fact, the opposite is the situation. There is in this country a greater appreciation of dairy products than ever before. Before the War each person was consuming 153/4 lb. of butter per annum and last year 22 lb. The reason for that increase was that the price of butter had come within the purchasing power of the people. Eight hon. Gentlemen talk about a duty upon dairy produce; do they imagine that if butter goes back to 1s. 3d. per lb. consumption will remain static? Obviously it will do nothing of the kind. I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what is to happen at the end of two years, when this two years' subsidy has been paid? Is there anything in the figures of production which justify him in the belief that the surplus will have gone, or that the situation will be so radically changed that there will be no surplus on the market?
Hon. Gentlemen will recall that I said last Thursday the production of milk in 1925 was 1,117,000,000 gallons, and that last year it was 1,425,000,000 gallons. If you guarantee prices, either for liquid milk or for manufacturing milk, for all dairy farmers, will that not tend to attract

1215
a greater production? And if at the end of two years it has created a greater production, what is to happen then?
Mr. ELLIOT: Drink it.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Who is going to drink it?
Mr. ELLIOT: The public.
Mr. WILLIAMS: Who is going to persuade them to drink it?
Mr. ELLIOT: I am.
Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman tells us that his policy embodies payment towards an approved publicity scheme. That means either anything or nothing, but it does not mean that the 200,000,000 gallons of milk that the right hon. Gentleman is subsidising this year and next year will be consumed in the form of liquid milk unless the right hon. Gentleman finds a way out. We are suggesting that way out to him. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and I entirely agree that if the right hon. Gentleman can see the wisdom of supplying school children, and of subsidising that outlet where fresh milk has never found a way, that might even get the National Government a few votes; we do not mind. We concede that as a present, but we ask him to pick up this Amendment, to read the commonsense it contains and then to work upon it. He will find, in all his agricultural activities, that in the end this will prove to have been the best.
10.38 p.m.
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I ask the House to pick up this Amendment, to look at it and to reject it. If the House does not do that, the policy which we are suggesting in the Bill will fall to the ground. The Debate to-day has not proceeded on exactly the same lines as that upon the Money Resolution. Two main subjects have been concentrated upon, and one has been the supply of milk to school children. Discussion has ranged around the point as to whether more of the money provided by the Money Resolution and dealt with in the Bill ought to have been directly applied to the supply of milk for school children. In the speech of the hon. and learned
1216
Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who spoke for the Opposition, was a new proposition based upon a series of figures, whereby it was attempted to be shown that, by one of those curious arithmetical bits of good fortune, if we applied the money which is to be used for the purpose of giving a greater value to manufacturing milk for the purposes of supplying milk for school children, exactly the same amount of money would be needed to produce a very much better result.
The proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman is as follows: Why not supply 90,000,000 gallons to children at 8d.? You would then have 90,000,000 gallons at 8d. and 90,000,000 gallons at 3d., or 180,000,000 gallons at 5½d. That seemed to be a very remarkable suggestion, and rather impressed the House. More than one hon. Member addressing the House subsequently said that for the life of him he could not see where the fallacy lay. The fallacy lies in this, that my hon. and learned Friend has made absolutely no allowance for costs of distribution. Those costs of distribution must be borne by someone. If they are to be borne by the school child, they will raise he price of the milk from 8d. to 1s. 4d. a gallon. If they are to be borne by the Government, then the money voted in the Resolution will not foot the bill. The fallacy is that, in a calculation which was supposed to be arithmetically beautiful and correct, one of the most important factors in the price of liquid milk has been either neglected or forgotten.
Now let me approach the question of the figure that ought to be attributed to the cost of distribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), who had begun to have an inkling that perhaps after all there might be some fallacy in the calculation, thought it was necessary to allow some margin for distribution costs, and he selected the figure of 1d. At least, it was 1d. ten minutes ago; it may be 2d. now. I had better call it 2d., because it will be 3d. in a moment. It is not I presume, proposed, in this health campaign, to give children raw milk presented to them in open vessels carried from the dairy to the school without protection, so that every form of infection, both rural and urban, can have been added to it before the happy child consumes it.

1217
Surely not. That is to say, in your costs of distribution you have to allow for the most careful handling of the milk from the time when it leaves the farm until it is presented into the hand of each happy child in a separate sealed bottle; and, if my hon. Friend thinks that that can be done for 1d., or 2d., or 3d. a gallon, I think he is an optimist even greater than, in public affairs, most of his party are. That is the answer to this beautiful arithmetical calculation, and it means that the whole theory that you can get exactly the same result from the money which the House of Commons has voted by using it for giving milk to school children, as would be the case by the method which we propose to follow, is based upon a fallacy.
Let me turn for a moment, in com mending the Second Reading of the Bill to the House, to the positive advantages that are gained by giving assistance to milk which is to be used for manufacturing purposes. The whole argument of those who oppose this Measure assumes that there is no use for milk except for consumption in liquid form—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—that there is nothing to be gained by preserving such an industry as that of making cheese, and that there is nothing to be gained by developing the other industries connected with the processing of milk. That is a proposition with which we on this side of the House cannot agree——
Mr. HOLDSWORTH: Nobody ever made it.
Mr. SKELTON: It was implied in every word of criticism——
Sir S. CRIPPS: Really, the hon. Gentleman must not say that. What has been said is that a better use for the milk is to provide it as fresh liquid milk for children.
Mr. SKELTON: My hon. Friend says, "A better use." Is it a better use if the selection of that use involves the destruction or non-development of the industries that I have mentioned?
Sir S. CRIPPS: Certainly.
Mr. SKELTON: I can only say that, if that is the proposition, if no assistance is to be given to the industries connected with milk and all Government assistance is to be concentrated on the giving of
1218
milk to school children to the exclusion of everything else, it is to divorce the activities of the House from the industries of the country.
Sir S. CRIPPS: Do the Government consider a cheese factory of more importance than a school child?
Mr. SKELTON: That seems to me to be an effort to compare things so unlike——
Sir S. CRIPPS: Exactly.
Mr. SKELTON: I am unwilling to be led into this sort of argument, but at this stage of this Measure, when the total amount of money at our disposal has been decided upon——
Miss RATH BONE: Why did you fix it so low?
Mr. SKELTON: I dealt with that when we were dealing with the Money Resolution. I am dealing with the facts as they stand to-day, and the financial fact is that we have been given a certain amount of money. We have to distribute it so that some of it is used for certain manufacturing industries, so that some of it is used for the purpose of cleaning the herds and some of it is used for the development and encouragement of the supply of milk to school children. We have not neglected any of these three main objectives for the use of the money in connection with the industry. We are invited to concentrate our expenditure almost entirely, if not wholly, on the supply of milk to school children. I believe that our proposals are wiser because, while developing the supply of milk for school children, we also keep in view that milk is the raw material of several industries which are important to the life of the country, and we are not going to see those industries destroyed. We are not going to give up, what we believe to be of prime importance, taking the first step towards Government assistance in encouraging the cleaning up of the herds.
Ours is a balanced policy. There is no real denial that these three are the main objectives in regard to the milk industry. There may be discussion as to whether we have distributed the sums in exactly the same proportions as hon. Members opposite would like. It is much more easy to concentrate upon using money for

1219
the supply of milk to school children when you are in opposition than when you are on this side of the House. Here we have to look at the interests of the country and the community as a whole, and you cannot be looking at the interests of the community and the country as a whole if you watch the slow and steady decline of one of our most important rural industries without taking any steps to put it right.
I turn from that general observation to one or two particular questions, and the House will forgive me if in one sentence I deal with two questions from across the Border. My Noble Friend need not fear that Scottish milk producers will not be able to get some assistance from the premium. The Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman), who drew the attention of the House to the position of the specialised milk producer in Scotland, would, I think, find it well in examining that question to see whether at the outset these producers do or do not desire to make use of Section 30 of the scheme.
Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not think my hon. Friend was here to hear my questions put. I do not recognise his answer as relating to anything I asked.
Mr. SKELTON: I am sorry and I stand corrected. What I had in mind would be the premium for the existing herds.
Duchess of ATHOLL: For producing accredited herds?
Sir S. CHAPMAN: If he finds inequality and injustice, however it has happened, will he see it rectified?
Mr. SKELTON: These are heavy burdens to put on a junior Member of the Government. The answer to my Noble Friend's question is "Yes." The answer on all subjects is that I try to reach my ideal. In this particular matter the solution of the equity matter lies rather with the committee of investigation. If the question should be put before the Secretary of State for Scotland, he would consider carefully whether that question should be submitted to them. Those; are the particular questions with which I have to deal.
Sir S. CRIPPS: I do not quite understand how this happened. He says he is going to assist these industries, yet I
1220
undertand the industry continues to pay the same price for the milk, and there is no difference to them or to the farmer.
Mr. SKELTON: I do not think that is a fair way of looking at the situation. From the manufactured article point of view, what will happen will be, he will get the advantage of the article at cheaper cost and in adequate quantities, because the producer of the article can get better prices for it. How can you be certain that you will not be faced with a glut in the course of time, meaning the destruction of the commodity? I need not deal with the farm generally. I should only like to add that this policy is to bridge a gap for two years. It will be no excuse if the propositions were bad that they were only going to last for two, or in one case, four years, but I submit to the House that the methods we have adopted do bridge the economic difficulties the milk producer is immediately encountering. This is a live policy not to be brought to an end only after two years have elapsed, which will contribute directly and, I believe, permanently to the improvement of herds, and will lead the way to a constantly increasing supply of milk for children in the schools. With that matter the whole House is in sympathy. We believe that this encouragement we give will not be forgotten. We believe we are setting a stream flowing which will be of the greatest importance to the milk industry and the people of this country.
One last word on the method for keying up the herds. My hon. Friend was all for slaughter and for the powers of slaughter, saying, "Arm my right hon. Friend with the knife and everything will be right with the country." Those powers are already in existence and large numbers of cattle have already been slaughtered, but we do believe—and there is strong evidence in its support—that if you wish to accelerate and encourage the cleaning up of herds you must make it worth while. That method we are adding to the slaughtering method which my hon. and learned Friend so much desiderated. On the whole, I think that the House may rest content that in moving the Second Reading of this Bill the Government are materially assisting the safety of this great industry, and are taking steps along

1221
new roads with a new objective which may in the end be of great value to the people of this country.
Duchess of ATHOLL: Would my hon. Friend mind replying to one or two questions which I put? One was whether, if the milk boards are required to continue the efforts to eradicate tuberculosis after exhausting the £750,000, the cost of these further efforts will mean an additional charge on the present levy, and, if so, can he say how much? Will the pound to pound publicity campaign also mean a charge in addition to the present levy, and if so how much, and are the investigating committee remedying the grievances of producers in Scotland?
Mr. SKELTON: I omitted to say—and I apologise to my Noble Friend—that I had in mind the variety of questions which she put. I propose to look at them carefully when I receive the OFFICIAL REPOBT to-morrow, and will give her written answers. With regard to what will happen at the end of four years, I think that my Noble Friend is inviting me to enter with her into the realms of prophecy which I do not feel competent to do.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 47.

Division No. 272.]

AYES.

[10.59 p.m.

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

Everard, W. Lindsay

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

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Ford, Sir Patrick J

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

Albery, Irving James

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

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

Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Aske, Sir Robert William

Ganzonl, Sir John

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)

Gillett, Sir George Masterman

Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres

Bainiel, Lord

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

Morrison, William Shephard

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Gower, Sir Robert

Moss, Captain H. J.

Bateman, A. L.

Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

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

Grigg, Sir Edward

Munro, Patrick

Blinded, James

Grimston, R. V.

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Bossom, A. C.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Boulton, W. W.

Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)

Palmer, Francis Noel

Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Peat, Charlas U.

Broadbent, Colonel John

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.

Penny, Sir George

Brocklebank, C. E. R.

Heligers, Captain F. F. A.

Petherick, M.

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)

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

Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller

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

Browne, Captain A. C.

Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

Pike, Cecil F.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hore-Belisha. Leslie

Pybus, Sir Percy John

Burghley, Lord

Hornby, Frank

Raikes, Henry V. A. M.

Burnett, John George

Horsbrugh, Florence

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

Cadogan, Hon. Edward

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

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

Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

Hume, Sir George Hopwood

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer

Reid, David D. (County Down)

Carver, Major William H.

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

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

Renter, John R.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)

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

Renwick, Major Gustav A.

Clarke, Frank

Jennings, Roland

Rosbotham, Sir Thomas

Clayton, Sir Christopher

Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)

Ross, Ronald D.

Colman, N. C. D.

Ker, J. Campbell

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Runge, Norah Cecil

Conant, R. J. E.

Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger

Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)

Cook, Thomas A.

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Russell, R. J. (Eddlsbury)

Copeland, Ida

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Salmon, Sir Isldore

Craven-Ellis, William

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.

Leckie, J. A

Savery, Samuel Servington

Crooke, J. Smedley

Leech, Dr. J. W.

Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell)

Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)

Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)

Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)

Croom-Johnson, R. P.

Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunlifle.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Crossley, A. C.

Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Loder, Captain J. de Vere

Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)

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

Loftus, Pierce C.

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

Dickie, John P.

Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander

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

Drewe, Cedric

Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.

Somervell, Sir Donald

Duckworth, George A. V.

Lyons, Abraham Montagu

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

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

Mabane, William

Soper, Richard

Dunglass, Lord

McConnell, Sir Joseph

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Edge, Sir William

MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Edmondson, Major Sir James

Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)

Spens, William Patrick

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

McKie, John Hamilton

Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)

Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Stevenson, James

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)

Stones, James

Emrys-Evans, P. V.

Macquisten, Frederick Alexander

Storey, Samuel

Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest

Stourton, Hon. John J.

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

Turton, Robert Hugh

Wills, Wilfrid D.

Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.

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

Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George

Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Wise, Alfred R.

Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart

Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)

Womersley, Sir Walter

Sutcliffs, Harold

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Tate, Mavis Constance

Waterhouse, Captain Charles

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

Thomas, James P. L, (Hereford)

Watt, Captain George Steven H.

Commander Southby and Dr.

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)

Morris-Jones.

Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

NOES.

Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke

Groves, Thomas E.

Nathan, Major H. L.

Attlee, Clement Richard

Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)

Pickering, Ernest H.

Banfield, John William

Hamilton. Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)

Rea, Walter Russell

Batey, Joseph

Harris, Sir Percy

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thnen)

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

Holdsworth, Herbert

Thorne, William James

Cape, Thomas

Jenkins, Sir William

Tinker, John Joseph

Cripps, Sir Stafford

Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)

White, Henry Graham

Daggar, George

Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

Williame, David (Swansea, East)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

Lawson, John James

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)

Leonard, William

Williams, Dr. John H. (Lianelly)

Dobble, William

Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest

Williams, Thomas (York, Don Vallev)

Edwards, Charles

Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)

Wilmot, John

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

McEntee, Valentine L.

Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E)

Gardner, Benjamin Walter

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)

Mailalieu, Edward Lancelot

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro, W.)

Mander, Geoffrey le M.

Mr. John and Mr. D. Graham.

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

Milner, Major James

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for Monday next.—[Captain Margesson.]

STATUTORY SALARIES (RESTORATION) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
11.8 p.m.
Mr. MANDER: I am not going to oppose this Bill, but I want to make a few comments on the position of His Majesty's judges and the way they were dealt with in the matter of the economy cuts. I cannot help thinking that a grave mistake was made in the way in which they were handled at the time of those cuts. No doubt action was taken in an emergency and in a great hurry, and probably the whole of the circumstances were not clearly thought out, but I cannot help thinking that the situation was not satisfactory then and is really not satisfactory, from their point of view, to-day. I have no doubt that what we did was perfectly legal, because this House can do anything in the way of changing the law, but I cannot think that it was wise. I should have thought that it was desirable to recognise the very special
1224
position that the judges of this country occupy under the terms of the Act of Settlement.
Some people say that the Judges are very highly remunerated, and these people have not much interest in and sympathy with the case that is made out for the Judges, but, after all, they are only paid a standard rate, and I am inclined to think that they are not even being paid a standard rate at the present time, and it is of the utmost importance that their position should be absolutely separate and apart from the Executive of the day. We are all very proud in this country of the British judiciary. We believe it to be entirely without its equal in the whole world for probity, fairness and consideration. It is of the utmost importance that there shall be no suspicion that the Executive, by means—by reduction of salaries or in any other way—can interfere with or influence His Majesty's Judges; and whatever we may think, whatever Members of the Government may think, there is no doubt at all, I imagine, what His Majesty's Judges thought about this particular matter. It is of the utmost importance that in all respects they should be above suspicion, as they have always been.
I am very glad to make this suggestion. I think it would have been wiser at that time to make an appeal to them voluntarily,

1225
realising that they could not be dealt with in quite the same way as Civil Servants—to make appeal to them to come into line with the rest of His Majesty's Judges at a time of grave crisis, and to accept the cuts thought necessary at that time. I believe His Majesty's Judges would have responded, I will not say willingly, because nobody responded very willingly, but they would have risen to the occasion and fallen into line with the rest of the community, and there would not have been produced that feeling of soreness and misunderstanding that undoubtedly did exist. I do not know now whether it is possible to do anything on these lines, but I do want to take this opportunity of making this point regarding a fact which I think is generally recognised now, that the matter was not handled in the wisest way, and that exactly the same results could have been produced by making an appeal to the judges at that time on a purely voluntary basis.
Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Captain Maryesson.]

PALESTINE LOAN BILL.
Read the Third time, and passed.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1926.
11.15 p.m.
Dr. O'DONOVAN: I beg to move,
"That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty against the draft Order in Council under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, which was presented to this House on the 8th May, 1934."
I have to offer to the House an apology for detaining them on this matter, but I can see no other opportunity of asking the Minister for an explanation of an Order which affects so many people and which has received very little publicity. After one has gone round to the Vote Office and obtained a copy of these Orders from the Stationery Office it often takes a day or two to find out their meaning, and I have additionally this difficulty, that I have but an
1226
unscholarly knowledge of the proceedings of the Privy Council. One assumes that much debate and discussion has gone in the framing of this Merchandise Marks Order, but I am not familiar with it. The Order affects so many people and such a large industry that I hope the Minister of Agriculture will not take it amiss if I ask him to explain what is behind it. The Imported Meat Trades Association has posted to me since I put my name down to this Prayer the following figures: The total shipment of Australian, New Zealand and South African frozen and chilled meat to the United Kingdom in 1933 was made up of the following massive quantities: Sheep, 3,944,414; lambs, 17,280,597; quarters of frozen beef, 1,261,576; pigs, 474,173. I have no financial interest whatever in the dead meat trade, but these figures are astronomical. The proposition is that an indication of origin should be "branded or stamped, stencilled or printed in ink or stain, durably and conspicuously, in letters, which shall, except where otherwise specified, be of not less than half of one inch in height." The reading of these statutory rules brought to my mind my student days. The Minister of Agriculture will appreciate the anatomical skill which must be displayed by any scholar from an elementary school who has to brand frozen meat when he has to bear in mind that in the case of chilled beef, each side of chilled beef shall bear the indication of origin "on the outer side from the hock joint to the neck, in a line passing over the round, aitchbone and rump and then continuing at distances of two inches from the chin bone to the neck." When we studied anatomy these details were somewhat of a pleasure, but whether the operators in the meat market will study this anatomy with equal pleasure is open to question. The wording of the Order is not easy to comprehend. Each paragraph starts with the words "And whereas," and there are six "Whereases." The definite deduction to be drawn is a little obscure, but the meat has to be marked.
My first objection to the Order was purely sentimental. Unfortunately, in the hospitals, patients die, and it is the practice of nurses who attend the death of a patient to mark the dead body with indelible pencil. Their instructions are almost exactly the instructions in this

1227
Order. The purpose of such instruction is that the wrong body is not unfortunately delivered to the wrong sorrowing relatives. It is a small point, but it affects those who know of this practice and then read the Order.
There is a psychological problem which affects all who eat. Few of us eat purely for nourishment. Man does not live by calories alone. The smell and appearance of the food are most important, pleasurable to the healthy and necessary to the sick. The sight of branded meat on the counter of a shop is not inviting, and as this brand will withstand cooking, if not incineration, we shall see it upon our tables. I say "upon our tables," because the figures show that Canterbury lamb and frozen meat, in the present state of society and of meat production, are common on the tables of the middle classes. It is true that the branded parts of the meat might be cut out and thrown away, but waste in the kitchen is not advisable. I submit this small point of psychological interest: One does not like, owing to the little innate snobbery of the kitchen and the parlour, to show to one's guests where one's food is purchased. If one invites a Minister to dine, one likes to assume that he will believe for the time being that everything on the table has been grown upon English soil. It is a pity that this little piece of polite affectation would no longer be possible under this Order.
There is a more serious point which I think has some weight in it and which may appeal to the Minister of Agricuture. "Branding" is a most unhappy word to use in connection with poor peoples' food. It is true that the poor were branded in the days of Queen Elizabeth but those days have passed. t believe that in stories and pictures, if not in fact, the clothes of convicts are branded and those who have, by compulsion, to eat branded food, may feel a sense of inferiority and resentment, which I am sure, it is not the wish of His Majesty's advisers that they should feel. I gather that evidence was given—I have not read it—by a Government expert to the effect that this meat might well be stained with aniline dyes, dissolved in methylated spirits. That point is worth consideration. If these millions of carcases
1228
are to be marked with aniline dyes then the consumption of aniline will be of a measurable quantity. Aniline is a substance from which can be produced explosives, dyes and poisons. Aniline dyes are a prolific source of litigation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts in connection with the production or alleged production of occupational dermatitis. Butchers as a rule are stout and sturdy men but if every butcher handling frozen mutton or chilled beef is to appear before his doctor, every time he has a rash and claim that the rash is due to aniline dye, the woes of those who have to sign certificates, will be trebled and the occupation of the County Court registrars will be increased. This is not a figment of the imagination. Dermatitis is all too common and there is a common feeling among working-people that all dermatitis is due to work and that all dermatitis should be compensatable. If the idea spreads that this brand may be made with aniline, then as a dermatologist, I fear that my labours will be added to unnecessarily. Although a small quantity of aniline absorbed might not be poisonous, one knows that problems of idiosyncracy arise in connection with this aspect of the case. Recently, we passed in this House a London County Council General Powers Bill under which doctors are compelled to notify at once, any "suspicion" of food poisoning even though the suspicion should afterwards prove to be unfounded. Thus, if one suspects that a consumer of this frozen meat has a stomach-ache due to aniline, one is compelled to notify the mere suspicion without even calling in another opinion to check that suspicion.
Then, I put it to the Minister on the ground of consideration for the very poor. No one in the House wishes anything but well to the English meat producer, but the figures show that this frozen diet is an uneseapable necessity for thousands of poor homes. Up till now, I believe, there has been no record of the branding of English people's food, and I await with great interest what may be said by the Minister for this Order. I do not assume for a minute that it was lightly conducted or enterprised, but I do say that a matter that concerns the tables of the poor is worth detaining the House for a few minutes in order that we may

1229
have the pleasure and experience the benefit of the Minister's words upon this subject.
11.26 p.m.
Sir PERCY HARRIS: We owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) for moving this Prayer. It shows he is diligent in the interests of the food of the people. That is not surprising. This Prayer is the result of an application made by the National Farmers Union. I want to be fair to the Government; it was not done at their initiative. Under existing legislation, an application was made to the appropriate committee, and, after considering the evidence, they brought in this recommendation. The Report, Command Paper 4470, showed that the proposal was vigorously opposed by the New Zealand Producers Board, the New Zealand and Australian Agents Association, the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress, the Railway Companies Association, and, of course, the Australian and New Zealand Governments. They considered it, quite rightly, injurious to the interests of the producers in the Dominions and the consumers in this country. I would remind the House that under our existing orders and regulations all imported meat, whether from the Empire or foreign countries, has to bear a distinguishing label showing where it comes from. I submit that that ought to be a reasonable protection, but the present proposal goes too far. I am all in favour of the public having all reasonable information about the country of origin of their food supplies where it can be given without unreasonable expenditure and injury to health or damage to the food.
There is always some prejudice against foreign goods, but 73 per cent. of the meat supplies that are to be affected come from our own Dominions, whom it is our desire to bind closer to us and to help in these difficult times. The policy of the Government to limit supplies from the Empire by quotas is deeply resented. This proposal is another serious blow to the Commonwealth of Nations. It has indeed been protested against vigorously, and it is suggested by the Dominions that it is a departure from the Ottawa Agreements. Certainly it is against the spirit of Ottawa, and I would like to know
1230
whether the Dominion Governments have been officially consulted. We know their official representatives in this country are protesting vigorously and saying it will do them serious injury. It is not merely a question of forcing consumers to eat British meat instead of Dominion. As the Minister of Agriculture pointed out the other day, there is a tendency towards a decrease in the consumption of meat.
Mr. ELLIOT: Beef.
Sir P. HARRIS: If we make meat, whether beef or mutton, unattractive in appearance that will not stimulate the demand and make the housewife, with a limited sum of money in her pocket, anxious to buy it. My hon. Friend the Member for Mile End is right in saying this is a big and important business. More than 11,250,000 carcases of mutton and lamb were brought to this country last year 4,500,000 coming from Australia. Three-quarters of our supplies of mutton and lamb are drawn from our Dominions. I know that a case for this proposal can be put up on the analogy of the National Mark applied to British beef, and that case has to be met. A considerable proportion of British beef, though not by any means all, is so marked. The answer is that in the case of beef the mark is on the fat, and can be cut off before or after cooking. It is not very palatable to have a print on the Sunday joint, but if the consumer objects the offending piece can be cut off. In the case of lamb or mutton the print will be on the skin, and it will not be possible to remove it without detriment or damage to the joint, and there will be a. serious interference with its appearance.
Then there is the question of price. The tendency nowadays is to raise prices, and I am in favour of prices rising—if it is a universal rise and applies to all commodities, if it is, in short, a general rise in the price level; but to add artificially to the cost of production by machinery of this kind seems to me to be unfair to consumers, and especially to the poorer consumers who are going through very difficult times. The justification for this marking is, I understand, that a certain number of retailers have evaded the requirements about putting labels on the meat they display for sale. But it is pointed out in this report, which on the

1231
whole is a very fair statement of both sides of the case, that as far as wholesalers and importers are concerned there has been no attempt to mislead the public by palming off on them imported meat as British. It is also pointed out that any attempt by a retailer to deceive the public is a rare thing, and that instances are decreasing in number. I submit that it is a libel on butchers in general to say that there is any real attempt to mislead the public. I go further and say that it is a needless contention of the housewife, who is quite able to look after herself. If her butcher has supplied her with an imported Sunday joint and charged English price for it she will very soon find another butcher. This is a needless interference with the trade and ought to be withdrawn.
We are not likely to carry the Prayer. Whatever case is made out, the House always automatically supports the Government; that is a great compliment to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is unfortunate for the public, because they have no chance of their interests being looked after. It is admitted in this report that it will be possible to brand every particular joint, and there are charts in the Order showing not merely the carcase but the various parts of the beast, in large letters and made as unsightly as possible. [Interruption.] If the hon and gallant Gentleman wants his Sunday joint with a large violet brand on it, by all means let him have it, but why force that upon the public? It is a piece of petty tyranny in which some people like to indulge.
Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: I am wondering how the hon. Gentleman knows that some people do not like it.
Sir P. HARRIS: If people like to have their joints decorated with large brands, by all means let them have them, but do not let us introduce into our legislation needless expense of this kind. In New Zealand and Australia, representatives of the trade say that it will slow down and decrease output and will increase the cost of production to such an extent that it will seriously disorganise the trade. This is a most objectionable attempt to interfere, in the interests of a small section of the community, with the very large and important trade on which our
1232
Dominions are dependent for their prosperity and existence. On the other hand, it will add to the cost of our food supplies and make meat less attractive for sale by disfiguring it, when it comes to be consumed.
11.38 p.m.
Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: For once in my life I am in partial agreement with the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). In 1926, I spent many months in the Committee upstairs supporting the Merchandise Marks Act, which was vigorously opposed by the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green and Members of the Labour party. I think the marking in general is a good thing. It happened by a curious chance, as a result of a little service I rendered to the meat traders at that time, that they elected me one of their honorary vice-presidents, and I heard from them a good many of their grievances in regard to this Order.
The ordinary meat trader, or butcher, as he is generally called, is a reputable citizen, and I have learned, from communications I have had from them, that they are definitely resentful about the Order, but not because they want to conceal the origin of the meat they are selling, the resentment is directed against the method of marking. I am not inspired by the same venom as the hon. Baronet; I believe in marking. Merchandise marks helped us a great deal when we were a Free Trade country, but they are not so necessary now that we are Protectionist. We are not, however, a Protectionist country in regard to meat, and therefore there remain grounds for marking in regard to that commodity. I am going to ask the Minister to watch the operation of this Order very carefully. It is always a pity if, when a change is made, those who have to give effect to it are hostile to the change, and the great mass of the butchers of this country are bitterly hostile to this change, not because they want to deceive the public, but because they believe it is going to prejudice the sale of meat as a whole. It is on this ground, and not because I object to marking, for, in general, I believe in marking, that I appeal to the Minister to watch the operation of the Order very carefully.
The farmers, with whose predicament I have the greatest sympathy, as I have

1233
shown by numerous speeches and by, on one occasion, a vote against the Government, do not want to be prejudiced by getting into antagonism with the distributing trade through whom they market their products, and it seems unfortunate that there should be a conflict of interests between the. farmers of this country and those who distribute their products—a very large body of citizens, the bulk of whom, so far as I am aware, have the good sense to belong to the party to which I belong; and from the Empire aspect I am a little sorry that Canterbury lamb—one of the most excellent products that I know—is now to be disfigured with these large marks. I am not going to support this Motion in the Division Lobby, because I do not think I should be justified in doing so. My sole reason for rising was to appeal to the Minister to watch the operation of the Order very carefully, and, if he finds that the prejudice to trade which some people honestly fear is realised, not to hesitate to take the necessary steps to relieve them of what they regard as a burden.
11.43 p.m.
Mr. ELLIOT: We have had one or two rather anomalous speeches to-night. We have had an eminent dermatologist suggesting that the passing of this Order might lead to more work for him; we have had my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), who was the prime mover in the Merchandise Marks Act, urging me to watch very carefully the operation of the Order in case it should prejudice any body of persons in this country; and, crowning anomaly of all, but one to which we have become accustomed nowadays, we have had the. representative of a party who have crossed the Floor of the House owing to their opposition to the Ottawa Agreement demanding to know if this fulfilled the spirit of the Ottawa Agreement.
This is a business matter. Of course the Merchandise Marks Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon will admit, was very carefully scrutinised by the retail trades of the country as a whole, not merely as regards meat but as regards other commodities about which apprehensions were felt, and in this particular case we can at any rate say that we have not merely the precedent of the dissecting room or the mortuary; but we have the precedent of the highest class of
1234
beef in this country, which is marked with the National Mark. That is a mark which is used with the object of producing the highest possible price for our best home-killed product, and it seems anomalous to suggest that a similar procedure in the case of imported produce will lead to a catastrophic result.
I have been a beneficiary of the Imported Meat Trade Association, as other Members of the House may have been, to the extent of receiving an excellent quarter of lamb (marked in accordance with the proposal. I was very glad indeed to receive it. The hon. Member for Mile End (Dr. O'Donovan) suggests that when one entertains guests one desires that everything on the table shall be home-produced. I am not afflicted with that narrow nationalism. The fore-quarter of lamb was very well cooked, brought up and served, the mark was indistinguishable, and it had not injured the meat in any way. My guests consumed it with the utmost relish. I cannot admit that there is any injury either to the consumer or the vendor of such meat and I fortify myself with the opinion of the Australian representative as quoted in this report:
"It was the desire of the Commonwealth Government that Australian produce should be easily recognisable by the purchasing public and that his Government fully appreciated the desirability of labelling meat so that its origin may be immediately evident to the purchaser."
Sir P. HARRIS: Read on.
Mr. ELLIOT:
"But that they were opposed to the imposition of any marking requirements which involved the marking of carcases with an ink or stain mark, as proposed by the applicants."
It is clear that the whole of my hon. Friend's contention falls to the ground. All that the Commonwealth Governments have contended is that the particular method of marking might be subject to a certain amount of criticism, and on that I am willing to give the undertaking asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon. We shall examine the working of this closely. After all, it will not come into operation for at least six months, and there is every reason to suppose that during that time some electrically driven device may be produced which will obviate the use of ink or

1235
stain, if ink or stain is held to be a disadvantage. I am not suffering from aniline dye poisoning or repugnance to my food or lack of the Ottawa spirit. The matter was gone into by a committee of considerable competence the enquiry occupied twenty days, voluminous evidence was taken and as the result the Order was made. It would be a. pity if the House were to overturn such a recommendation and it should be pushed aside. We can say to our Dominion friends that this is a method that is already applied to our own produce and we are not discriminating against them in applying it to them. With regard to the argument of discrimination against the food of the poor, there, too, we can say that to sell goods under a distinctive label has always been one of the quickest and most definite ways of bringing up quality.
Sir P. HARRIS: The label has been on for years.
Mr. ELLIOT: The evidence that it did hot provide sufficient identification was almost overwhelming. It was the emphatic opinion of the Committee that the labelling requirements of the Sale of Food Order were ineffective and failed to provide the public with a satisfactory means of distinguishing between home, Empire and foreign meat, and there was no satisfactory alternative to the marking of the meat itself. For that reason,. I cannot agree to the Address.
11.50 p.m.
Sir JOHN PYBUS: The objection seems to be to the use of paint or aniline dye. Everyone agrees that meat should be marked with the country of origin. As the trade is so very much against the use of aniline dye, will the Minister see whether another method of marking could be evolved?
11.51 p.m.
Mr. ELLIOT: The Order does not in any way involve that method of marking. The method of roller-marking is practicable, and the method of electric branding of meat cannot be held to be comparable to the branding of animals. Our own home market uses that device, which does not involve dies. I have every reason to suppose that some such device will be in operation soon after the Order comes into force.
Dr. O'DONOVAN: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I would like to say a word. The House had heard two doctors disagree in consultation and has enjoyed the charming bedside manner of my senior. As agreement has been reached between the two doctors, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Prayer.
Question put, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty against the draft Order in Council under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1926, which was presented to this House on the 8th. May 1934."
The House divided: Ayes, 22; Noes, 95.

Division No. 273.]

AYES.

[11.52 p.m.

Daggar, George

Jenkins, Sir William

Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)

Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)

John, William

White, Henry Graham

Edwards, Charles

Lawton, John James

Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)

Foot, Dingle (Dundee)

Leckie, J. A.

Wilmot, John

George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)

Griffith, F. Kingeley (Middleibro', W.)

Mailalieu, Edward Lancelot

TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

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

Milner. Major James

Mr. Rea and Mr. Harcourt

Harris, Sir Percy

Nathan, Major H. L.

Johnstone.

Holdeworth, Herbert

Pickering, Ernest H.

NOES.

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

Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)

Fraser, Captain Sir Ian

Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.

Caporn, Arthur Cecil

Fremantle, Sir Francis

Atholl, Duchess of

Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)

Gower, Sir Robert

Balniel, Lord

Colman, N. C. D.

Graves, Marjorie

Barclay-Harvey, C. M.

Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.

Guy, J. C. Morrison

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

Conant, R. J. E.

Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)

Bottom, A. C.

Copeland, Ida

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.

Boulton, W. W.

Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.

Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)

Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.

Crossley, A. C.

Hornby, Frank

Bralthwaite. J. G. (Hillsborough)

Culverwell, Cyril Tom

Horsbrugh, Florence

Broadbent, Colonel John

Duckworth, George A. V.

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

Brown, Ernest (Leith)

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)

Browne, Captain A. C.

Emmott, Charles E. G. C.

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

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)

Jennings, Roland

Caine, G. R. Hall-

Ford, Sir Patrick J.

Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)

Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton

Penny, Sir George

Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.

Lambert, Rt. Hon. George

Petherick, M.

Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.

Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)

Pike, Cecil F.

Spencer, Captain Richard A.

Loftus, Pierce C.

Pybus, Sir Percy John

Spent, William Patrick

Mabane, William

Ralkee, Henry V. A. M.

Stourton, Hon. John J.

McConnell, Sir Joseph

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

Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

McKie, John Hamilton

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

Sutcliffe, Harold

McLean, Major Sir Alan

Ramsbotham, Herwald

Thomas, James P. L, (Hereford)

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

Reid, William Allan (Derby)

Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles

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

Renter, John R.

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

Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John

Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)

Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

Salmon, Sir Isidore

Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.

Morrison, William Shephard

Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart

Wise, Alfred R.

Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.

Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.

Womersley, Sir Walter

Munro, Patrick

Skelton, Archibald Noel

Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

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

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Somervell, Sir Donald

Major George Davies and Dr.

O'Donovan, Dr. William James

Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)

Morris-Jones.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER
1238
adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twelve o'Clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  IMPORT DUTIES (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE).
  IMPORT DUTIES (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE).
  AUCTION SALES.
  AUCTION SALES.
  ARMS (EXPORT).
  ARMS (EXPORT).
  GREAT NORTH ROAD (TRAFFIC FACILITIES).
  GREAT NORTH ROAD (TRAFFIC FACILITIES).
  HOUSING (BUILDING STANDARDS).
  HOUSING (BUILDING STANDARDS).
  WATER SUPPLY (RESERVOIRS).
  WATER SUPPLY (RESERVOIRS).
  RODEO CONTEST, WHITE CITY (IMPORTED CATTLE).
  RODEO CONTEST, WHITE CITY (IMPORTED CATTLE).
  PENTONVILLE PRISON (OFFICERS' QUARTERS, RECONSTRUCTION).
  PENTONVILLE PRISON (OFFICERS' QUARTERS, RECONSTRUCTION).
SCOTLAND.
  LAND DRAINAGE.
  LAND DRAINAGE.
  DISTRESSED AREAS (INQUIRY).
  DISTRESSED AREAS (INQUIRY).
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.
  DOMINIONS OFFICE (STAFF).
  DOMINIONS OFFICE (STAFF).
  FOREIGN OFFICE (STAFF).
  FOREIGN OFFICE (STAFF).
  PROPOSED TECHNICAL SCHOOL, MEXBOROUGH.
  PROPOSED TECHNICAL SCHOOL, MEXBOROUGH.
  EGGS (COST OF PRODUCTION).
  EGGS (COST OF PRODUCTION).
  EMPLOYMENT (IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES).
  EMPLOYMENT (IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRIES).
  LAND REGISTRATION.
  LAND REGISTRATION.

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Selby—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Viscount Long—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

LONDON, MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY BILL.
Read 2ª, and committed.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (STEYNING AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MILFORD HAVEN) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MORLEY) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (BURNHAM AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (HERRIARD AND DISTRICT WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (SHEPPEY WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).

TITHE BILL. [H.L.]
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, my attention has been drawn, as has doubtless that of other of your Lordships, to a statement in that usually well-informed paper, The Times, with regard to the Tithe Bill. As I have still a Question on the Paper with regard to tithes, and as it is a matter of very deep importance to the part of the country from which I come, I venture to ask if the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House has by any chance any statement which he would be prepared to make to your Lordships' House.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend for asking me this question, and it would be convenient, although slightly irregular, if I ventured to answer it at this stage. Your Lordships will remember that the Bill to which my noble friend refers did not purport to deal with the whole position of tithe in this country. It was avowedly a compromise. The first clause was designed to give relief to the tithe-payers in cases of real hardship, and the second clause was designed to assist tithe-owners by rendering the collection of their due less cumbrous. Before bringing these proposals before Parliament the Government had grounds for believing that these proposals would recommend themselves to the great body of moderate opinion both of tithe-owners and of tithe-payers. In the event, however, it has proved that this belief has not been justified. Possibly the fact that neither party is satisfied is an argument in favour of the view that the proposed compromise was essentially fair. The Government, however, have come to the conclusion that they would not be justified in attempting to force these proposals upon the contending parties when neither of them professes to desire them, and they do not intend to proceed with the Bill.
This involves that the existing conditions will continue. The Government, however, have reached the conclusion that it would not be right to leave that

909
position indefinitely, in view of the complaints which both sides have put forward. But before bringing any proposals of their own before Parliament to deal with the general position of tithe in this country, they think it would be right to give to all parties concerned a full opportunity of putting the facts and contentions which they desire to have considered before an impartial tribunal. Accordingly the Government are proposing to set up a Royal Commission with the widest terms of reference—namely, to enquire into and report upon the whole question of tithe rentcharge in England and Wales and its incidence, with special reference to stabilised value, statutory remission, powers of recovery, and method and terms of redemption. The Government hope to be in a position to announce the names of the persons serving on the Royal Commission at an early date.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble and learned Viscount for the very full answer he has given to my question, and I hope that neither he nor your Lordships will think me presumptuous if I venture to congratulate His Majesty's Government on the decision they have taken. It will be no doubt a decision that will occasion the greatest satisfaction to thousands, not only of tithe-payers but of tithe-owners. It may be that there will be bodies, or even individuals, who will claim this as a personal triumph for themselves. Speaking for the body on whose behalf I some times address your Lordships' House, I can say at once that that will not be their attitude in the least. If there is any cause for anybody to regard it as a triumph I think we should regard it as a triumph for His Majesty's Government, because, as I know your Lordships will agree, it takes not only a good Government but it takes a good man to reverse an opinion that has been formed when further evidence is brought forward. If I might venture to express two hopes, they would be, in the first place, that the utmost expedition may be used with regard to this matter, because the thorn is still rankling in the countryside, and in the second place, that the terms of reference, as I gather they will be, will be sufficiently broad to allow that Commission to look at all aspects of the case in the present situation in order to effect a lasting peace in this unfortunate contest.
LORD PONSONBY or SHULBREDE: My Lords, we on this side of the House note that the Government are dropping a Bill owing to the opposition of the parties who would have been affected by that Bill, and I congratulate the noble Lord on having succeeded in inducing the Government to do that. His proposition that there should be a full investigation, which he urged on the Second Reading of the Bill, has now been adopted by the Government. May I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether the Government will continue that practice and drop the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, against which there is a very large body of opposition?
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount replies may I associate myself with the noble Lord who expressed the hope that all expedition may be shown in this matter? I am afraid I am not able to associate myself with everything that fell from him, because we fear that this delay may foster the scenes of disorder which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack so very much deprecated when he framed one of the clauses of the Bill which at present has been abandoned. There is no question of anything so petty as a personal triumph in this House or in your Lordships' minds, but I cannot help thinking that outside, where passions are less regulated and where enthusiasm is apt to run wild, it may be that those who agitated against the payment of tithe and against the due processes of law will be encouraged to continue the practices which this Bill, had it become an Act, would have tended to reduce.
I am a governor of Queen Anne's Bounty, and I am well aware of the way in which the conciliatory attitude adopted by the Tithe Committee of Queen Anne's Bounty has led to a deal of contentment and success. I have access to the figures available in the Bounty office, and I am able to say that the tithe rentcharge collected in recent months has steadily and quietly improved. I attribute that more than anything to the way in which the law has been clarified in the Courts. A year ago there was a great deal of doubt in regard to the powers that might be exercised by the tithe-owners against the tithe-payers, and especially by Queen Anne's Bounty, which, as an administra-

911
tive trustee, is interested in collecting the tithe due to the clergy. In recent months cases have been heard in the Courts and decisions have been given which have led to the satisfactory conclusion that the tithe has been flowing in contentedly and in a far greater amount than at this time last year.
What I am afraid of is that if there is any delay in appointing the members of this Royal Commission and their reporting, there may be, while the delay continues, a cessation of payment on the part of tithe-payers, and that the conciliatory attitude adopted by Queen Anne's Bounty may become stultified in its results. Meanwhile, large numbers of the clergy are wholly dependent upon the payment of tithe and, as there are a great many arrears, many of the clergy, as we all know, are in rather a bad way in consequence. I confess that I look with some anxiety on what the position of the clergy dependent on tithe may be during the course of the inquiry. I quite agree with the noble Lord that it is very desirable that a Royal Commission should look into this very intricate matter. It is an intricate matter. One can approach it from a great many different points of view, and the whole subject bristles with the difficulties that belong to any very ancient institution. I am glad to hear that a Royal Commission is to sit. I had hoped that the inquiry would have taken place after the Bill had become an Act. We have, however, heard from the noble Viscount that this is impossible. I consider that there should be no delay therefore in setting up this Royal Commission.
There is another point which fills me with some distress. What will happen to the arrears that Queen Anne's Bounty have been trying to collect, which have been spread over a great many months past? It is unlikely that arrears will be paid, and I think that it is more than probable that the clergy will suffer a greater loss than they have in recent months, not to say years. There is another interest involved, which will no doubt be represented upon the Royal Commission, and that is the interest of the clergy. Only to-day or yesterday, if I am not misinformed, there was complaint in the Lower House of Convocation of Canterbury that they had not been consulted about the proposal to
912
change the compromise arrived at in 1925. I am afraid that on the part of the authorities of the Church—by that I mean those who are the appointed representatives of the beneficed clergy—some anxiety will he felt owing to the delay which must follow the appointment of a Royal Commission.
I do not know whether it would be proper to enquire whether during the meantime anything can be done to see that the law does stand and is enforced as the noble Viscount said it does still stand. I am quite sure that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will feel as much regret as I should if the appointment of a Royal Commission, which we all welcome, leads to a repetition of those unpleasant scenes with which we have become familiar. I was not able to be present when tile Bill was first introduced and I want to say that I believe that delays will be very dangerous. Speaking still as a governor of Queen Anne's Bounty, I would like to say that we are in the position of administrative trustees. We have no wishes in the matter except to carry out the duties imposed upon us and to help the clergy in any way that is possible.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Order, order.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: I beg your Lordships' pardon if I am travelling beyond the question. I will only say with what pleasure I have heard of the appointment of the Royal Commission and that I trust that delays will not be considerable.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I venture to hope that the members of His Majesty's Government who have been questioned on this subject will not think it right to reply, because I am sure your Lordships will allow a very old member of the House to say that this discussion is in its nature very irregular.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is quite usual, of course, for a question to be put on private notice to the Leader of the House or to any member of the Government, and the Minister, out of courtesy to the questioner and out of respect for the House, always replies. But it is not correct for a long discussion to arise upon a mere question on private

913
notice. I hope, if I may say so very respectfully, that your Lordships will see fit not to continue this discussion, which places the Government in a very difficult position and is really contrary to the practice of the House.
LORD DARYNGTON: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to say one word.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order.
LORD STRACHIE: My Lords, as I had placed upon the Order Paper a Motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, may I say that I think that would have been the better course to adopt in order to have an inquiry into the whole question? I have served on Select Committees and I cannot help thinking that such a Committee would have been better than a Royal Commission. A Select Committee would contain representatives of all sections of the House.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order.
LORD STRACHIE: I cannot help thinking that a Select Committee would have been better than a Royal Commission. As the noble Viscount said—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise to Order. I ventured to call attention just now to the fact that this discussion was an irregular one and I hoped, and I think the majority of your Lordships hoped, that members of the House would obey the Order of the House and not continue a discussion which is in its nature irregular. I beg to submit that this is out of order.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, venture to support that appeal from my noble friend who has a far wider experience than I have in this matter. Of course, if any noble Lord feels that this is a matter which ought to be discussed, he can put a Notice on the Order Paper.

COTTON MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL.
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ROCHESTER): My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is "to make temporary pro
914
vision for enabling statutory effect to be given to rates of wages agreed between representative organisations in the cotton manufacturing industry." It is even less contentious than the Bill which we have been discussing during the last two days. The proposals which are in the Bill represent an experiment and are designed to provide the cotton industry with an opportunity for which the organisations of both employers and workers in the industry have asked. If it is said that an experiment of this kind should not be tried upon a great industry such as the cotton manufacturing trade, I would remind the House that in the history of industrial relations no part of this country and no industry has given earlier or more constant support to collective principles than Lancashire and the cotton trade.
Permit me to state briefly the circumstances in which this request has been made for assistance by the organisations in one of the most highly-organised industries in the country and one which has always been put forward as a notable example of voluntary collective arrangements. In this industry 15 per cent. of the production in times of prosperity is for export, largely to the East. The lowered purchasing power of those countries, mainly agricultural, has transferred trade to the lowest priced goods from whatever source. Again, some of those consuming countries have become large producers and thus the export of cotton goods from this country has fallen to a calamitous extent. There have also been great changes due to the growth of the use of artificial silk and other textiles. This has affected the financial situation of the industry and accentuated the difficulty of securing new capital for its organisation and development to meet modern competitive needs.
For our present purpose the effect in this country which has chiefly to be taken into account, as the result of these circumstances, is the scramble for business between the mills irrespective of the ultimate result. There has been reckless price-cutting which has wasted the capital resources of the industry and has not added to the total volume of trade. In short, in face of the most serious and well-organised competition abroad which the industry has ever had to face 'and at a period when the most effective use of

915
its combined resources in technique and finance was necessary, it has been disintegrated by internal dissension. Amongst the reasons for this are that the transition from the misleading trade boom after the War to the difficult conditions which have followed has necessarily involved changes in costs, including wages. When I tell your Lordships that the total number of persons employed in the cotton industry has been reduced from 485,000 in 1924 to 374,000 in 1933, I think your Lordships will appreciate that such a change could not take place without affecting wage standards; but in the chaotic conditions prevailing, the normal resistance of the workers' organisations to changes in wages has been accentuated by their lack of confidence that reductions would be used for the general good of the industry. In fact, they have felt that these reductions have been frittered away in uneconomic competition between mills and have not been passed on in such a way as to increase trade and employment.
The result has been that the adjustment of working conditions to the circumstances of the industry has become more and more difficult because of the prospect that any wages agreed will immediately be undercut by individual employers. In recent years there has been a complete stoppage of the industry every other year, with immense loss to both sides and a permanent loss of trade to the industry and to the nation. That loss has fallen with greatest severity upon those better elements in the industry who wish to make and to keep reasonable agreements and who are now being driven to think only of themselves. In the negotiations for the settlement of the great dispute in 1932, the proceedings were greatly hampered by the feeling that, whatever the terms agreed, there was no assurance that they would be generally observed, and the reluctance of the unions to agree to reduction of wages was thereby greatly increased. A special section of the agreement was devoted to the subject of the honouring of agreements and, in view of the importance of this and of its close connection with the joint application which has led to the introduction of this Bill, I crave your Lordships' indulgence that I may be allowed to read that special section of the agreement.
916
It states:
"(1) it is essential, if agreements are to be honoured, that they shall embody conditions which are suited to the circumstances of the industry and therefore will not cause either employers or operatives to have any adequate reason for departing from them. Continued failure to reach agreements on adjustments required by either side may produce a tendency to depart from agreements, and, in proposing additions to the Joint Rules, the parties have the intention of removing this obstacle to the effective operation of collective agreements.
"(2) Industry requires for its proper regulation, and for the preservation of equitable arrangements as between employers and employers and as between employers and operatives, the effective operation of collective agreements throughout the whole industry.
"(3) It is necessary to consider means by which the conditions agreed upon by the responsible organisations can be made generally operative, and that this subject shall be further explored in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour on the termination of this dispute.
"(4) Nothing but harm can result from the unfair competition within the industry which arises from the operation of working conditions different from those settled by agreements, provided always that those agreements are maintained in relationship to the general circumstances in which the industry has to he carried on."
These statements embody, I think your Lordships will agree, the whole case for collective agreements in this country, and this Bill is founded upon a belief in the principles set out in this agreement. It will be seen that there is emphasis upon the necessity of the agreements being in accord with the requirements of the industry, and the provisions of this Bill are such as to ensure that no agreements will be made which are against the welfare and progress of the industry and of those engaged in it.
The events since this agreement was made have emphasised the need for getting such order in the industry, particularly as regards such changes as the introduction of the more-looms-perweaver system. I am sure your Lordships will agree that every legitimate and practicable method for putting the industry in a better position to compete with lower prices abroad should be adopted, and it has been recognised by the operatives that such new methods should be adopted under proper conditions. Those employers who have competed unfairly with others by not observing proper conditions for the working of the more-looms

917
per-weaver system have done a disservice to the adoption of further new methods. Whatever gain they individually have secured has been paid for by other employers and the operatives. The limit of the resisting power of groups of operatives, in the midst of a large body of unemployed, cannot be regarded as the proper basis for settling conditions of work, especially when the immediate object is to take an order from another employer who operates fair conditions, an order which in any case would be given to the industry. This, of course, is entirely to be distinguished from that proper exercise of individual enterprise which is necessary for the health of the industry. Trade Boards Acts were made necessary for just those conditions which are rapidly, growing in the cotton manufacturing industry.
It was hoped, my Lords, that in the course of the exploration of the position which was provided for by the 1932 agreement, those in the industry would be able voluntarily to find means of securing order in the industry. In order to get down to brass tacks, if your Lordships will excuse the expression, my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour caused a special investigation to be made into the wages position, principally in those mills where the more-looms-perweaver system was in operation. In this he had the co-operation of both employers' and workers' organisations, and it is believed that the report which was made confidentially to both sides gave a basis of facts as opposed to theory, which was of considerable assistance in indicating the real position. Unfortunately, in the fairly long period which has since elapsed the organisations have had to confess their failure to deal with the situation by their own unaided efforts, and have thus had to seek the temporary assistance of the Government as embodied in this Bill. The Government, after full consideration, have felt it necessary to give such assistance, and that is the raison d'être of this Bill.
Let me now summarize in a few words the proposals in the Bill. In the first place the scope of the Bill is confined to the weaving or manufacturing side of the industry. It does not cover the spinning or finishing branches in which conditions are different. Further, the Bill is only to operate in a particular geographical area defined in the Schedule to the Bill. This
918
is the area covered by the organisations whose agreements as to wage conditions this Bill is designed to uphold. I think I should add that cotton manufacture is so defined in Clause 7 as to exclude any possibility of including woollen or other textile industries. In the second place, the Bill leaves the existing voluntary machinery in the industry for reaching wage agreements entirely untouched. There is nothing whatever in the nature of a compulsory balancing element, such as is provided by the appointed members of a trade board, put in to tip the balance arid prevent deadlock. There is, that is to say, no element at all of compulsory arbitration. Having made their agreement, and only when they have made it, the organisations are then empowered by Clause 1 to apply jointly to the Minister for an Order to give legal effect to the agreed rates. They are required to give public notice of such application and to specify a time for objections. The Minister must thereupon, unless it is clear that the joint applicants do not respectively represent majorities, appoint a board of three persons not connected with the industry to report upon the application.
The board will be assisted by six representatives from each side, sitting as assessors. In this way they will be assured of all the technical assistance they may require. The first duty of the board will be to satisfy themselves that the joint applicants represent respectively employers controlling a majority of the looms in the industry and a majority of the persons employed in the industry of the class or classes affected by the agreed rates of wages. If they are satisfied on this point, they must then report to the Minister, after considering objections and taking evidence, upon the desirability of making an Order to give statutory effect to the provisions of the agreement relating to wages. Any recommendation to the effect that an Order should be made must be unanimous, and a further point to which I would call your Lordships' attention is that neither the board nor the Minister will have power to modify the terms of an agreement. Nothing has been included in these proposals which would in any way impair the freedom of voluntary agreement. If the board report in favour of an Order it will be for the Minister to decide in the light of all the facts whether an Order should or should not be made.

919
Clause 3 provides that an Order, when made, shall have the effect of making the agreed rates, wherever they apply, a term of the contract between employers and workers. Any employer, organised or unorganised, who pays less than the legal rate is to be subject to a penalty on summary conviction not exceeding £10 for each offence. Employers are further required to exhibit a notice of the statutory rates, and to keep records to show that they have paid not less than the legal wage. There is no provision for Government inspection. The whole object is to give the industry power to help itself. Its purpose is to ensure that rates of wages, once they are agreed, are really observed, provided a disinterested tribunal has first been satisfied that they should be made legally binding. It will be for the associations themselves to decide what rates should be made the subject of an Order, and whether the Order should include "piece" as well as "time" rates, and whether it should be coterminous with the whole field covered by an agreement, or should be limited to one or two simple basic rates. It might, of course, happen in spite of all the safeguards provided in the Bill, that the rates scheduled in an Order, or some of them, prove unsatisfactory. Clause 4 accordingly provides that either of the parties may at any time apply for revocation, either in whole or in part; and the Minister is thereupon required to revoke the Order, or the part in question, after three months notice. It is further provided that after a period of twelve months the Minister himself, after proper notice, may refer the question of revocation to a board for inquiry and report.
I must frankly admit to your Lordships that in giving statutory effect to voluntarily agreed rates of wages, as is here proposed, a new departure is being taken. It is an experiment called for by a particular situation; and it is provided in Clause 8 that the Bill shall remain operative only for three years. If the Bill is to be continued after that it will be necessary to ask Parliament for further authority. Before I sit down I should like, if I may, to refer to three points of criticism of the Bill that have come to my notice. In the first place it is suggested that unless a very high and definite percentage of membership of
920
organisations is required on each side there is a danger of substantial minorities being unfairly coerced. In point of fact there is in every industry a large proportion of employers and operatives who, while faithfully observing agreed conditions, do not, by reason of apathy or for other Causes, become members of organisations. The requirement of at least a majority on each side is sufficient to give the organisations the right to have their agreements considered for the purposes of an Order. The board of three impartial persons will then consider the objections, and it is obvious that the larger the number of reasonable objections the greater will be the onus upon the board in reaching a decision. In fact it is certain that in all cases there will be an attempt, before agreements are reached, to bring the whole industry into counsel, and I may say that the first result of even the presentation of this Bill has been that non-affiliated employers have been invited to confer with the affiliated employers' organisations. I cannot help feeling that much of the present trouble would have been avoided if a similar instrument to stimulate such co-operation had been available earlier.
A second criticism which has been brought to my notice and which I intend to meet quite frankly on the floor of this House is that this Bill will destroy the voluntary system. What I have already said is a reply to that, but I would go further and say that the voluntary system in this industry would appear to be approaching the point of collapse, and that without such support as this Bill gives, collapse may possibly occur. As I have said, this Bill is a temporary measure for three years and is intended for the purpose of giving the voluntary system time and opportunity for re-establishment. It is not expected that the powers of the Bill will be used for more than a minimum and necessary amount of statutory enforcement, but that the greater part of the operations of the industry will remain under voluntary arrangements, loyally observed.
The third objection, and the last I will refer to this afternoon, is that elasticity of conditions and innovations of method will be jeopardised. I submit that there is no ground for such fears. It is not the case that enterprise and initiative are found only among unorganised employers,

921
and it may be accepted that, in making their agreements, the organisations will provide for changes in the industry to be met. As a final safeguard the Minister himself has power to initiate action to revoke an Order if it is shown to him that such action is desirable. I would emphasise that it is not likely that the Bill will be used to bring rigidity into all the complex conditions in the industry. To suggest that is to suggest that common rules in highly organised industries are unworkable, for all this Bill does is to enable the industry to regulate its conditions as if both sides were fully organised. To come to the example which has been most quoted by critics, it is not piece-rates, which may be Changed from time to time, which will be the subject of regulation, but the basic conditions upon which those rates are fixed. In fact it is fully anticipated that this Bill will give an impetus to a simplification of wage-fixing in the industry which has long been recognised as necessary but which, by reason of the circumstances, both sides have been reluctant to tackle.
I trust that I have succeeded in this necessarily brief summary, in making it clear to your Lordships that the provisions of the Bill have been drawn up with the single aim of strengthening and unholding the principle of voluntary agreements, freely negotiated, and loyally observed. It is, I think, altogether auspicious that, as I have said, since the drafting of this Bill the very first, step taken upon the employers' side has been to send an invitation to the employers in unfederated districts, inviting them to send representatives in order that all parts of the industry may join together in considering the steps which should be taken to put the machinery provided by these provisions to the best practical use in the interests of the whole industry. All that we can hope to do is to provide this great industry with such machinery. It is for them, relying on the sturdy principle of self-help, to put the opportunity provided to the best and most effective use. In doing so, it is necessary to ensure that all minority and individual interests will be safeguarded and that the progress which arises from individual enterprise will not be jeopardised. It will be seen that the Bill makes such prevision and the favourable reception which it has received throughout the industry encourages me to
922
submit this Bill to your Lordships for Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Rochester.)
LORD ASKWITH: My Lords, I am not surprised at the Minister introducing this Bill. He frankly says that it is an experiment, and it is clear from the Bill itself that it is a Bill of agreement. The proposed terms cannot be altered by the Minister. It says expressly:
"No such Order shall modify the terms of the agreement."
Further, it is agreement which is to cover the industry as a whole and to be in the best interests of the whole of the industry. The noble Lord says that there has been criticism on the point whether minorities are being sufficiently protected. On reading and studying this Bill and from my knowledge of the cotton industry, I should have thought that they were more than amply protected. The difficulty in the cotton industry over and over again has been that there have been, either within the association itself or outside it, persons who cannot come up to what is wanted by the majority as wages in the weaving and other sections of the industry. Particularly there has been under-cutting from outside, very often by persons who have left the association, in a manner that puts those members who try to keep loyal to agreements in the most difficult position.
At the present time the cotton industry has fallen into a very bad way indeed. It has been attacked by fierce competition from the Far East, which may be only the begin-ling of still worse competition. It is an industry that requires some support horn the Government, and I am glad that the Minister is trying this experiment, guarded and hedged in as it is, in the hope that it may be of some advantage to the cotton industry. There is only one clause to which I might call attention, which it seems to me might be more clearly expressed, and that is Clause 7 (2), where it says that
"…other classes shall be determined in like manner by reference to the several occupations of the persons employed."
That is a rather difficult phrase to understand, and I confess I do not quite understand it myself. Years ago I was engaged in a very big dispute in the cotton trade, where with great difficulty

923
a general strike was averted on the single question as to whether a man was a grinder or whether, as a grinder, he was entitled to be a picker or cleaner of flax. That nearly upset the whole industry.
This difficulty was so much recognised during the War that in one of the Munitions of War Acts it was expressly laid down that the courts of arbitration should decide what industry a man belonged to and what section of it. While much else was swept away, that particular arrangement was still maintained in the Wages (Temporary Regulation) Act of 1918, in a clause which stated that:
"Where a difference as to whether a workman is a workman of a class to which a prescribed rate of wages is applicable.…"
that matter shall be decided by arbitration. There is no method of deciding here, and there might possibly be considerable difficulty in deciding to which class of weaver a workman belonged. It might be left to the Minister of course to decide, but I should be very glad if the noble Lord would look into the matter.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I undertake on behalf of the Government to bring in an Amendment on the Committee stage substituting the word "grade" for "class". I think that would meet the noble Lord.
LORD ASKWITH: Very probably.
LORD ROCHESTER: I will look into it further, but I think that will probably meet the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARCHITECTS (REGISTRATION) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, in moving that the House do now resolve itself into Committee, I should like to make one general observation. Three years ago your Lordships were good enough to give a great deal of attention to this Bill and in the process of Amendment it was made in Committee a
924
thoroughly watertight measure. I fear, however, that in the text presented then there was an oversight in that the finance for running the council and committee was not provided during the first few months of its operation. This Bill, by universal consent of all those concerned in education and registration, makes that omission good. The Home Office have also pointed out to me that the drafting of Clause 3 is inadequate in so far as application to Ireland is concerned, and accordingly I shall submit two drafting Amendments in due course. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the chair.]
Clause 1:
Amendment of s. 14 of principal Act.
1. Section fourteen of the principal Act (which relates to the provision of scholarships and maintenance grants) shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had effect, as if the words "from and after the first day of January nineteen hundred and thirty-five" were inserted after the words "in each calendar year."
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDmoved to leave out "from and after the first day of January nineteen hundred and thirty-five" and insert, "after the year nineteen hundred and thirty-four." The noble Earl said: This is the Amendment to which I referred. It authorises that half the amount of fee shall start on and from the first of January next.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 9, leave out from ("words") to the end of line 10 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Short title and construction.
3.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Architects (Registration) Act, 1934.
(2) This Act shall be construed as one with the principal Act, and the principal Act and this Act may together be cited as the Architects (Registration) Acts, 1931 and 1934.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDmoved to add to subsection (1) the words "and the

925
principal Act and this Act may be cited together as the Architects (Registration) Acts, 1931 and 1934." The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the third Amendment on the Paper are drafting Amendments, making a more correct form of the application of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 16, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
("(2) It is hereby declared that this Act extends to Northern Ireland, but, for the purposes of Section six of the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, this Act shall be deemed to be an Act passed before the appointed clay." —(The Earl of Crawford.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to secure in proper cases adequate compensation for pedestrians, pedal cyclists, and other non-motoring persons who are killed or injured on the roads, in view of the entirely inadequate compensation which, under the existing law, they are able to receive. The Bill is substantially, almost verbally, identical with the Bill which was unanimously recommended by the Report of the Select Committee to which it was referred last year. That Committee made certain recommendations which were accepted and adopted by the House. From the Bill as drafted to-day there are certain omissions which do not touch the main principle of the Bill at all and to which I shall refer later on. I am not going to weary your Lordships to-day with a recital of the very lengthy arguments which were used in the many discussions that took place on the Bill last year, but may I deal with some of the more serious points which arise today?
The first point is this: the necessity for the Bill. The reason why this Bill is, as I think, absolutely necessary is this. It was conclusively proved during the course
926
of the debates in this House and by the evidence which came before the Select Committee that under the present law pedestrians and pedal cyclists in many cases obtain wholly inadequate compensation. May I quote the words of Lord Iveagh who was Chairman of the Select Committee? Speaking in this House on the 18th of July last year, after the Select Committee had reported, the noble Earl said:
"…. we had overwhelming evidence of great hardship, in many cases amounting to injustice in the ordinary common-sense. meaning of the word."
The noble Earl is not a person who ia generally inclined to indulge in exaggerated expressions, but that was, his view after hearing all the evidence put before us, and if any one wishes to read the statement he will find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Volume 88, column 880.
May I mention two of the main reasons why under the existing law pedestrians and pedal cyclists are unable to obtain adequate compensation? One reason is this, that they very seldom can get adequate evidence. If a pedal cyclist is killed he is not there to give evidence; if he is seriously injured it is quite impossible for him to give complete or satisfactory evidence of the circumstances in which he was injured. That is one reason. The other reason is that the pedestrian or pedal cyclist is generally a poor person, and he is quite unable to fight the rich insurance company which is always behind the motorist. If that be the necessity, as I think, for this Bill, may I now suggest what the main purpose of the Bill is and how the object is sought to be attained? I do not to-day propose to go into the question of the total number of these appalling accidents, of people killed and injured on the road, but I may mention one fact which struck me as really appalling. Between 1926 and 1033 there were no fewer than 50,837 people killed on the road and very nearly 1,500,000 people injured.
What I propose to do to-day is to deal very shortly with the figures for pedestrians and pedal cyclists. This year the necessity for the Bill is not less but greater than it was last year, when your Lordships were pleased to give it your favourable consideration. I find, as regards pedestrians and pedal cyclists, that whereas in 1932 there were 4,431

927
killed on the road, in 1933 the number went up to 4,858; and whereas in 1932 125,000 odd persons were injured, in 1933 that number went up to 135,000. In the case of deaths alone something about two-thirds-67 per cent. to be quite accurate—were cases of children under ten or of men over sixty. Your Lordships will find these facts set out in the Return made by the Minister of Transport for the first half of the year 1933. It can be said with truth that many of the cases of these pedestrians and pedal cyclists killed or injured suffered through their own negligence. That is quite true, but it is undoubtedly equalled by the fact that an immense number of them suffered through no fault of their own whatsoever.
It is not suggested to-day—it has never been suggested in connection with this Bill—that it will materially reduce the number of accidents on the road. That matter is being dealt with in a Bill which has been introduced by the Government in another place. The object of this Bill is to provide compensation, and it is an undoubted fact that the greater the number of persons killed or injured, the greater the necessity, the absolute necessity, for further compensation being found. The principle on which this Bill is founded is that the injured party is not bound to prove negligence on the part of the motorist before launching his claim. That has been shortly, and not quite accurately described, I am afraid, as shifting the onus of proof. This is fundamental to the Bill, and as there have been difficulties felt about this fundamental principle by members—though not very many—of your Lordships' House and persons outside, perhaps your Lordships will allow me very shortly to quote some of the statements made in the course of discussion upon this point by persons of unquestioned authority.
My first quotation would be from the speech of the Lord Chancellor which he made when a similar Bill was brought in on the 2nd of June, 1932, and the quotation is to be found in Volume 84 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, column 552. The substance of his statement was that this was not a new principle in our law and that there were many cases in which a similar principle had been applied. This is what the noble and learned Viscount said:
"This is no new principle, but a principle which has been in our law for
928
generations, and it does not seem to be a very alarming or revolutionary change to apply it to a potentially dangerous machine like a motor vehicle. At any rate it does not seem unjust to say that where a motor car has injured a pedestrian the onus should at least he on the driver to establish some lawful defence."
Discussions in this House turned far more largely upon what should be allowed than upon the general and fundamental principle to which I have referred, and which was agreed to by most speakers in your Lordships' House.
The other utterance of the Lord Chancellor was made on the 7th March, 1933 —your Lordships will find it in Volume 86, column 1066—and emphasised what he said the previous year. He then said:
"At present a man has to go into the witness box, and he has to prove, first of all, that the accident has taken place, and then he has to prove negligence, but he is the very last man who can prove it."
The noble and learned Viscount went on to say:
"Surely, it is only fair in those circumstances that the onus should he shifted."
Your Lordships will perhaps pardon me for going a little further into this, because it is the fundamental principle of the Bill, and if anyone can prove that that fundamental principle is wrong the whole Bill drops. I asked your Lordships to say it is right, and your Lordships said so by a large majority, last Session.
May I quote a very short passage from an ex-Lord Chancellor whom we regret very much is not here to-day, I think owing to illness; I refer to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. Speaking on March 7, 1933, Volume 86, column 1057, Lord Buckmaster said the reason why this Bill was necessary was that
"by special legislation and special privilege people have become entitled to put upon the roads machines which they may drive at any pace to the public peril."
I know that it is proposed in another place to limit the speed in a certain limited number of cases. Lord Buck-master went on:
"The result has been a lamentable list of figures referred to by more than one speaker this afternoon. It is in return for that privilege that this Bill is required, and it is for that reason that the ordinary rules that affect ordinary questions of negligence have no application here."

929
Then you have the further fact that this principle was unanimously agreed to by all the members of the Select Committee to whom your Lordships referred the question. The Committee was composed of people chosen from all Parties.
Then comes What is really an important fact, and it is this. As I read the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, on the Second Reading of the Bill on the 7th March, 1933—this Will be found in Volume 86, column 1072—I find that Lord Plymouth said:
"As I have said, in a large majority of European countries the practice already exists that the onus of proof is upon the defendant motorist rather than the plaintiff."
That is the principle of this Bill. He goes on:
"I am quite prepared to go as far as that."
That is a pretty definite statement.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): I do not think, if I may be allowed to intervene, that the noble Lord has really given the interpretation of the speech which I intended. All I intended to say was that I was prepared to go as far as to admit that that was the case in many European countries. I did not mean to convey that the Government themselves would be prepared to go as far as that.
LORD DANESFORT: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Earl. It is quite true that in other parts of the discussion he said he was not prepared to agree to all the details of the Bill, but I cannot find in any speech that he made, and he made several—I am not complaining, in fact I am very glad of it—that he said he objected to the fundamental principle of the Bill. If I am wrong in that of course I can be corrected. But that was not tire only passage in the noble Earl's speech of tlhe 7th March of last year that I want to draw your Lordships' attention to. He also said:
"There are questions which we must ask ourselves on which, I think, we should come to a considered opinion before we pass any legislation which will make fundamental changes in the present law. With regard to the first point I want to say this. In my opinion the argument on the side of shifting to some extent the onus from the plaintiff to the defendant in the case of motor injuries is a very strong one. I entirely agree with what the noble and learned
930
Viscount on the Woolsack said in that respect."
I have told your Lordships what the noble and learned Viscount said, and I am extremely gratified to find that the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, agrees with him. That is not quite all, because this so-called shifting of the onus has been adopted in motor legislation in no fewer than eleven out of thirteen Continental countries, and it has also been adopted in all or nearly all the provinces of Canada. That is the position as to onus.
May I tell your Lordships as shortly as I can what the history of this Bill is because it is rather significant. In 1932 I introduced a Bill upon the same fundamental principle but rather less favourable to motorists than the present one. It came on for Second Reading on the 2nd June, 1932, and was read a second time by a large majority in your Lordships' House—twenty-two to eight. The Government did not oppose or vote against me on the Bill, but suggested that I should not, go further with it that Session so as to give the Government time to consider the question. I acted on that suggestion and did not go further. Early in 1933 I reintroduced the Bill, slightly altered, with the same governing principle. That came on for Second Reading on the 7th March, 1933. On that occasion the Lord Chancellor made the statement which I have already quoted. He suggested that the motorist should have further defences than the Bill gave and the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, for the Government, made the statement I have read. He supported the Second Reading but urged that the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, that the Bill should go to a Select Committee, should be agreed to, and to that the House agreed. That being so the Second Reading was carried by thirty-one to two, the Government not only supporting but voting for the Second Reading.
On the 22nd March of that year the Select Committee was appointed, consisting of seven persons with the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, as Chairman. We sat nine days and heard twenty witnesses from the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Health, the Home Office, the Police, pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and insurance companies; so that we got fair evidence from all quarters both from sup-

931
porters and from those not in favour of the Bill. In July the Select Committee unanimously reported and produced an amended Bill, adhering to the fundamental principles but altering—and I think for the better—some of the defences that were to be allowed to the motorist. That amended Bill came before your Lordships' House on July 18 last year and the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, speaking for the Government, said he regarded the Report as a very valuable one which contributed largely to the solution of a difficult question. He promised to bring it before the notice of the Government. It is quite true that he did not commit himself to the details of it, but he did not condemn the fundamental principles.
On July 25 the Bill as amended passed through Committee with some slight alterations and on November 9 it came up on Report. Certain Amendments were moved arid were opposed and then an unfortunate event happened. An Amendment was defeated by twenty-five votes to two and unfortunately twenty-seven members do not constitute a quorum in your Lordships' House so the matter had to be adjourned. It was very late in the year and we were unable to finish the Bill. It had passed through all its critical stages and all that remained to be dealt with on Report and Third Reading were some relatively small points.
Before I come to the provisions of the Bill itself I should like to say one word as to cost. Insurance companies have been asked to what extent this Bill if it became law would increase the cost of premiums. The insurance offices have absolutely refused to give any estimate whatever as to cost. No doubt there may be some increase of cost, but there is no evidence to show that it would be large. I think it is only necessary to refer briefly to the provisions of the Bill. The seven clauses in the Bill are the same as those approved by the House last year with only one or two verbal alterations. Clause 1 says that a claim may be made by an injured person or his representatives, but certain defences are given to the motorist. The first is that if the injury was solely due to the negligence of the person injured the claim shall be wiped out. The second is that if there was contributory negligence on the part of the person injured, that shall not wholly defeat the claim, but, follow-
932
ing certain precedents set out in the Report of the Select Committee, damages should be reduced accordingly. The third defence is that if there was a third party responsible the motorist should be entitled to indemnity.
Clause 2 is a small one dealing with the case of the death of a child. It was put in on the suggestion of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, so that persons responsible for the child should be reimbursed medical and funeral expenses. Clause 3 merely provides that the motorist shall insure against his liabilities under the Bill. Clause 4 is a definition clause and Clause 5 is a saving clause in reference to the recovery of damages apart from this Act, such as, for instance, under Lord Campbell's Act. Clause 6 deals with the application of the Bill to Scotland. Clause 7 was rather an important one in the last Bill. It provides that the measure shall not come into operation for six months after its passing so as to give insurance companies and others time to make proper provision. That is really the whole of the present Bill.
Certain clauses which were in the Bill of last year have been omitted and I think I ought to tell your Lordships in a few words why they are omitted. The first was known as the Hospital Clause. It was very favourably received in this House and was viewed so favourably by the Government that they inserted the whole clause in one of their own Bills which they passed last year. That is why the Hospital Clause is omitted from this Bill. There were two clauses in the Bill of last year which dealt with agreements between solicitor and client, when a solicitor wanted to make an agreement with his client as to what he should receive out of any damages that might be awarded, and what costs he should be entitled to Charge. Since last year the Law Society have very carefully considered these clauses and as I understand it, while they were anxious on the one hand to prohibit improper agreements made between solicitor and client, they were anxious on the other hand, and I think very rightly anxious, to preserve the right of a solicitor to make a proper and reasonable agreement with his client. They examined the clause for the purpose of seeing whether it could be amended so as to prohibit improper agreements while preserving the right of a

933
solicitor to make a proper agreement. They found it impossible to devise a method by which both those results could be obtained. In those circumstances we thought it right, in deference to the views of that exceedingly important body, the Law Society, which administers discipline in the profession with great discretion and satisfaction, to drop those two clauses. That is the case for the Bill and I beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Danesfort.)
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, the case for the Bill has been thoroughly covered by my noble friend Lord Danesfort, but as I was, I think, the first member of your Lordships' House to take up the question of the increasing number of motor accidents, I should like to say a few words. Last year the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, opposed the Bill on the ground that it would reverse the law of tort in this country. The law of tort really does not operate in this case, it seems to me. The whole conditions of life have changed. Circumstances have altered, and you have this frightful number of accidents taking place and increasing year by year, and apparently no method of preventing their occurrence. Surely something must be done for those who are hurt and injured, and for the relatives of those who are killed. Unless you say that the individual pedestrian should insure himself, I see no remedy other than that a Bill of this character should be passed, to give some retribution to the unfortunate sufferers.
My noble friend Lord Danesfort will agree that it is not likely that this Bill will prevent accidents, but its purpose is to give some relief to those who suffer. The number of people who suffer is not likely to be lessened, judging by the opinion of the motoring world. In a paper called the World's Carriers, in a leading article on February 15, it is stated:
"Deaths on the road are, emphatically, remarkably small in percentage, and so long as the roads are used as they are, not only fur transport, but every conceivable purpose, neither education nor restrictive regulations, which cannot be completely enforced, are likely to result in any material reduction."
It is not a very cheerful outlook for those who want to walk along the road or to cycle along the road, if we, are to look
934
forward to a still greater number of accidents in the future. As my noble friend said, last year there were 1,517 pedestrians killed, and those under fifteen year of age and over fifty-five years constituted 78 per cent. of the number killed in that appalling massacre. I am sure your Lordships will agree that some consolation, even if is only financial, should be given to those who are maimed and to those who have suffered the loss of their friends or relatives.
In a very notable speech recently made. by the ex-Minister of Transport, Sir John Pybus, at the meeting of the Phoenix insurance Company, he made the following remarks:
"The toll of fatality upon the highways is unfortunately still increasing, and it may not be out of place if I refer to the Report on fatal road accidents which has been issued by my successor at the Ministry of Transport. It contains a warning that the particulars given of estimated speeds of vehicles involved in accidents should be interpreted with caution, and points out that in nearly 68 per cent. of the cases analysed the pedestrian or pedal cyclist was dead or fatally injured and was, therefore, unable to give his version."
That is a strong argument in favour of my contention that some provision ought to be made for the families of those who suffer death. He goes on, in a passage which is not quite so germane to the point with which I am now dealing:
"For the first time, however, we are in possession of reliable information concerning the circumstances in which accidents occurred; 70 per cent. of the accidents analysed occurred on straight roads or bends with a good sight line. Nearly two-thirds occurred in daylight or in clear weather with normal visibility; 60 per cent. happened on roads carrying only very light traffic at the time and only 3 percent. on densely trafficked roads.…
"No free people will long tolerate a state of affairs in which every waking hour a human life is lost; its amelioration is everybody's business. The Minister of Transport can rest assured that the great insurance undertakings of this country will continue to help him in his humane but supremely difficult task."
I would draw special attention to what I am going to read now:
"Occasionally the tragedy on the road is intensified by the subsequent failure of the dependants to secure compensation under a third-party risk policy, and, as a result of one or two cases reported in the Press or in Parliament, the general public are prone to impute to the insurance companies a desire to evade liability on obscure legal points. In the case of our

935
own company and almost the entire majority of other insurance associations, a humane and generous attitude is invariably adopted, irrespective of the strict letter of the law."
That is a very satisfactory statement to be made by the chairman of one of the most important insurance companies. I might say in this connection that the Irish Free State last year passed an Act in connection with road traffic which makes provision against those cases where insurance companies—presumably weak ones—have done their best to avoid paying compensation. In Ireland the money is paid to the insurer only when he has compensated the person injured. That is not a provision which I hope to see introduced into my noble friend's Bill, but it is one which the Government might secure in that other Road Traffic Bill with which they are now dealing in another place. I have now mentioned the two or three points which I wanted to make. I am very glad indeed that my noble friend has perservered with this Bill and I trust that it will be passed unanimously by your Lordships' House.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I desire on behalf of the motoring element in the community to offer the most vigorous protest that I possibly can against the Bill which has been introduced into your Lordships' House this afternoon. I wish to protest not so much against the details as against the whole principle of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Danes-fort, in introducing the Bill said that it was one for non-motoring persons. In fact it is a Bill to single out one class of road user from all others and to place upon him the whole responsibility for the accident, if an accident happens, even though he was in no way to blame. I see that there is a clause in the Bill which perhaps waters it down a little; it is the proviso in subsection (1) of Clause 1 wherein it says that the amount of negligence on the part of the injured person may be taken into account in assessing the damages. None the less the motor driver—one section of road users—is held to be entirely responsible for an accident caused very likely by no fault of his own.
I will give your Lordships an instance of a case which occurred, I understand, to a member of your Lordships' House only so recently as yesterday. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, when
936
going down to the Derby had an unfortunate experience in his motor car. I read in the newspapers that owing to another car swerving to avoid a cyclist his Lordship's car went into the ditch. His Lordship was fortunately not hurt, and I am sure we all congratulate him and are very glad to hear that he did not suffer any injury. Nothing very much is said about the cyclist, but supposing that by any chance the cyclist had been knocked over, it might have been due entirely to the fault of the cyclist, but notwithstanding that, he would have been able to claim either against the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, or against the driver of the other car, although it was in no sense their fault.
LORD DANESFORT: There is an express provision in the Bill which says that if the accident is due entirely to the fault of the cyclist he cannot recover anything; the motorist is free.
EARL HOWE: As long as the Bill singles out one section of the community, as I understand it does when I read the first page of the Bill and as I gathered when I listened to the discussions on the same measure in former Sessions—as long as it contains a clause to the effect that
"damages shall be recoverable from the motor vehicle in respect thereof without proof of negligence or intention or other cause of action as though the injury had been caused by his wilful act, neglect or default…."
I shall contend that it is an intolerable injustice to one section of road users.
LORD DANESFORT: Will the noble Earl read the rest of that clause?
EARL HOWE: There then occur the words to which I have already drawn your Lordships' attention. With regard to the speeches which have been made in support of the Bill, I listened to Lord Danesfort and to Lord Lamington. Both of them referred to the deplorable casualty roll, and to the deplorable number of accidents which take place on the roads to-day, which every section of our people, whether in a motor car or on foot, or in whatever capacity they use the roads, equally deplore. We all want to find a way out of the trouble, and I say without hesitation that we shall never find a way out of our troubles on the highways unless we lay down in legisla-

937
tion that there must be equal responsibility all round. One must be able to bring home to every road user the consequences of his action. Lord Danesfort and Lord Lamington both cited casualties, but they have not told your Lordships in how many of those cases the injured parties failed to secure compensation under the existing law. The noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, desires in this Bill to amend the existing law and to put the blame on the driver of the motor car, or, to put it in another way, to transfer the onus of proof of negligence.
The fact remains that you are trying to place one section of road users in a privileged position as compared with others, and what I hope and pray for is that the Government will finally lay it down that everybody who uses the road is responsible, individually and severally, for his acts. To-day you will see pedestrians take the most absurd risks. You will see them neglect to use the refuges and crossing places and entirely ignore the traffic signals. Compare what happens in Germany and other countries. I happened to be in Berlin the other day and I saw pedestrians being stopped in large numbers for ignoring the traffic lights. In this country pedestrians ignore both Police and traffic signals. They sail out into the middle of the traffic, and if a pedestrian gets knocked over the only thing which happens is that he may be held guilty of contributory negligence and fail in his action for compensation; but there is no responsibility upon him, although other people may lose their lives or be endangered. I beg to offer the most energetic and vigorous protest that I can against this Bill. I think it will have a bad effect on the mentality of certain sections of road users who already fail altogether to realise their responsibility. I think it will destroy the sort of co-operation that we really must get if we are to do something in the public interest to save life on the highways.
As to what effect the Bill will have upon insurance premiums, neither of the noble Lords who have spoken in support, of the Bill has been able to give us any sort of idea. The humble, or perhaps I might say noisy, motor-cycle, as well as the motor on four wheels may be in question. These may be called the vehicles of the people, because the motor is no
938
longer a sign of wealth, as perhaps it used to be considered. It is owned by large numbers of wage earners, and if the passage of this Bill has the effect of increasing insurance premiums—and there is no guarantee against that—then I think it would open up a very serious question indeed. There will be vigorous protests from owners, and the Bill will deal a serious blow at a great industry which has done a great, deal in difficult years to maintain the modicum of prosperity which has been attained in this country. I therefore move as an Amendment that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months"). —(Earl Howe.)
THE EARL OF IVEAGH: My Lords, I hope you will not adopt the Amendment, because I think it will be a very sad thing if your Lordships come to the conclusion that this Bill should not go forward with your endorsement. The members of the Select Committee spent very many hours on this question, and I am afraid I cannot remember all the evidence although I can carry it in my hands. A great deal of it was conflicting, but I am convinced in my own mind that there is a great deal of injustice being done to the inhabitants of this country under the existing law, because it is almost inevitable that the individual who is hurt—obviously if he is killed he cannot give any evidence—is in a less good postion to remember what happened than the driver of the motor car, who, we will presume, is not hurt. I was convinced that there was a very considerable grievance in the community, because, as the law at present stands, the individual hurt has to take action in Court, supported no doubt by solicitors and all the paraphernalia of the law, and if he is a pedestrian he has to prove negligence on the part of the driver. If he is a motorist no doubt he will be insured himself.
The arguments which have just been placed before your Lordships would lead us to this conclusion, if carried into effect, that everybody who goes on the road, whether man, woman, child or dog, ought to insure, so as to be able to be responsible for whatever accident he, she

939
or it may cause. I do not think it is within the province of your Lordships' House to put such a burden on the whole community. I dare say the Government might find some way out of the difficulty, but that is not within our province, nor do I think the Government are likely to take this burden upon themselves. I do not think the suggestion made is one which we as a Select Committee could have considered. That not being possible we still had to face the fact that there was a large number of individuals who had been hurt through no fault of their own and who could not prove negligence on the part of the driver of the car which hurt them, not necessarily because the motor car had not been negligent. We had to consider how on earth we could get some proper compensation for those individuals.
It seemed to me, and I think also to my colleagues, that the only possible way was to assume that the motor car had been negligent, and then let the Court protect the motor car owner from that assumption. The individual who was hurt would therefore have always a possible action against the motorist. This sounds as though we would increase the volume of burden on the insurance company very considerably, but we were assured that there was a very large portion of the population always looking out for motor accidents, who went to the individual who had been hurt and said: "Leave it in my hands, and I will get you what I can out of the company that has insured the car which caused this accident." We were assured that a great many actions were brought in this way. It seemed to me that. it was a very undesirable state of affairs that a person should arrive at the bedside of someone who was ill in consequence of an accident and persuade him to take an action, though possibly he could not produce any real evidence of what had happened, in order to try to compel the insurance company to give some compensation.
For my part I was very much impressed by certain arguments placed before me by someone, I think called the Controller of the Metropolitan Police, who looked after all the people who were in trouble from accidents. He also had under his supervision a very
940
large fleet of cars in the Police service. He pointed out to me—and I drive a motor car myself pretty considerably—that if an accident occurs it is extraordinarily difficult to know what has happened. The thing is over in a flash. You did not think it was going to happen. He gave us an example of most conflicting evidence, which he was sure had been given in perfect good faith, and he argued therefore that it really was almost impossible to get reliable evidence of what actually happened and who was to blame.
That influenced me a great deal in my belief that the only way was to assume that one party, obviously the one that can be insured, was at fault. I quite agree that logically you ought all to be insured and then this trouble would not occur, but it is almost impossible to imagine such a state of affairs; therefore you must assume that a certain individual has been at fault—the one that can be insured. The community decided some years ago that everybody who owned a motor car should insure against third-party risk, and it seems to me very extraordinary that in doing so it never took any precaution to see how compulsory insurance, which it put on the motorist, was really working, what it really did, and whether it did what was wanted, which was that anybody who was hurt by a motor car would really get his proper compensation if he had received injury through no fault of his own.
That is what I should have thought, but I have found since I have been Chairman of this Committee that it is by no means that. Anybody can get compensation who can prove that the driver was negligent. But because somebody else causes the car to swerve that rules out the car and the insurance of the car. He cannot recover from the cyclist on the other side of the road which caused the car to swerve into the ditch because the cyclist is not insured. I presume that the noble Earl, like all of us, is insured for himself and his car, so that is all right. But the individuals who are hurt through no fault of their own and who have great difficulty in knowing whether they are entitled to bring an action are, it seems to me, distinctly to be pitied, and it also seemed to members of the Committee that some time ago the community must have intended that these people should receive compensation. We could devise nothing

941
better than the provisions which we reported last autumn, and the main provisions of which stand in the Bill which has now been introduced. It seems to me that we have no alternative but to ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading, and, I hope, a Third Reading too. Let us hope that some day it may be passed and that the Government will not be adamant about time.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): May I ask a question of the noble Lord, Lord Danes-fort? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that the Bill would, make the motorist, even when entirely innocent, responsible for compensation to an injured person. May I draw attention to the two lines of Clause 1 (1) where it says that damages shall be recoverable for an accident without proof of negligence "except where the injury was solely due to the negligence of the injured person." Therefore if the injured person was the guilty party then he does not get compensation. If he is contributory to the negligence, if there is dual negligence, then the pedestrian will only get half of the compensation. Am I correct in understanding the Bill in that form?
LORD DANESFORT: Perfectly correct. The two lines of Clause 1 to which the noble Earl referred distinctly provide that where the accident was solely due to the injured party, the motorist does not pay a farthing.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to state what the position of the Government is in relation to this Bill. The main feature of this Bill is that where fatal injury to a person is caused or arises out of a motor accident, or rather the use of a motor vehicle on a road, damages shall be recoverable from the owner of that vehicle "except where the injury was solely due to the negligence of the injured person." I am afraid, in view of the speeches which have been made, it is necessary for me to refer quite shortly to the history of this Bill. It was introduced originally in April, 1932, and an amended form of that Bill eventually received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House in June of that year by 22 votes to 8. On that occasion the Government abstained from voting, and the Bill made no further progress that Session.
942
Then a slightly revised Bill was introduced, again by the noble Lord, Lord Danesfort, in February of last year, and that received a Second Reading by 31 votes to 2. On that occasion it is true that the Government supported the Second Reading, but they did so with a specific object in view, and that was that it should be referred to a Select Committee for examination. I confess quite freely that I did, on the Second Reading of the Bill, express sympathy with some of its objects and some of its provisions, but I made it perfectly clear that the Government were not committed to the Bill in principle or in detail. Indeed, I was not in a position to commit the Government definitely, either to principle or to detail, because the Government had not at that time come to any definite decision. That Bill was referred to the Select Committee of which Lord Iveagh acted as Chairman. The Committee examined the Bill very carefully, and I should like once again to acknowledge the very thorough and conscientious way in which they carried out their work. They reported to the House and said that the Committee were in favour of a change in the law in the direction of the provisions of the Bill which had been submitted to them, but they modified the arrangement of the Bill and made certain Amendments to it.
These Amendments included, firstly, one to enable the medical and funeral expenses of a child killed in a road accident to be recoverable; secondly, one to amend Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and enable hospitals to recover £50 in respect of patients to whom treatment has been given; and, thirdly, one to prevent certain abuses such as ambulance chasing on behalf of speculative solicitors. Later on further debates were held on the various stages of this Bill, during which additional Amendments were made, but eventually, as my noble friend Lord Danesfort has told your Lordships, he withdrew the Bill while saying that he intended to reintroduce it in another Session.
I should like to refer for a moment to the main principle of the Bill. It has been argued that the principle that the driver of a motor vehicle is prima facie responsible for any accident in which he may be involved has been adopted in most European countries. I admit that that as a general statement may be looked upon

943
as true, but the position really varies very greatly between one country and another and no exact comparison is therefore possible. I do not want to weary your Lordships with a repetition of information which has been given to the House on a number of occasions before, but I would like to say this, that if the position in other countries in this respect were carefully examined it would be found that in nearly every instance there exist additional provisions and circumstances which must lead one to modify very greatly the somewhat sweeping generalisation which has been made on this subject.
I am not going to argue, and I have never argued during the course of these discussions, that the present position is entirely satisfactory. It is perfectly evident that it is not, but there are one or two considerations in connection with the Bill before your Lordships to which I feel bound to draw your Lordships' attention. To begin with we have had reference once again this afternoon to the question of accidents upon the road. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, it is quite clear that this Bill is not going to have the slightest effect in reducing the number of accidents upon the road. In fact, I think that if there is a tendency of any kind it would probably be in the opposite direction, for, by making it immaterial whether the motorist is negligent or not, the Bill might very well produce an undesirable state of mind in certain motorists. The very fact that a motorist is cast in damages as the result of an accident will no longer imply that he has been found to be negligent, and the force of the existing deterrent to reckless behaviour may in the result be considerably weakened.
Then again, it would certainly lead to some increase in insurance premiums. It is quite true we have not been told —no one has offered any definite suggestion—as to what that increase might be, but I think it is generally accepted, and was accepted by the Select Committee, that some increase would undoubtedly take place if the provisions of this Bill were put into operation. Another difficulty, a very important difficulty, in connection with the Bill, is that it involves a serious departure from the Common Law principle that in order to obtain damages an injured person must prove negligence on the part of the defendant.
944
I am well aware, as I have already said, that I have during the course of these discussions admitted that very strong arguments can be adduced in favour of shifting the onus of proof to the defendant in such cases. There are undoubtedly precedents in this country in other connections and there are precedents in other countries in this particular connection, though admittedly the circumstances in other countries differ considerably from the circumstances here at home.
But I must say that a departure of this kind from the generally accepted principles of our law cannot lightly be undertaken, and I must therefore point out to your Lordships certain other features in connection with this Bill that are very pertinent to our discussions. In the first place the Bill does not merely put upon the motorist the onus of proving that he was not to blame; it goes a very great deal further than that. If no one at all is to blame the motorist is, notwithstanding, to be held liable in damages to the third party, and where there is contributory negligence that no longer affords a ground of defence, although I agree it can be urged as a factor to be taken into account in the assessment of the damages to be paid. We must also remember that in its endeavour to make the position of the injured party as easy as possible this Bill has been forced to the expedient of throwing the responsibility, not on the driver of the vehicle, but on the owner of the vehicle. In some cases this might be a reasonable thing to do, but in others the owner might be in no sense legally responsible for the acts of the driver of the vehicle, and unless the driver had been negligent the owner would have no claim to indemnify himself against any claim in respect of injury. All these points are very relevant to our present discussions.
The Government have given the most careful consideration to the Bill and to its predecessor and to the Report of the Select Committee, but they have come to the definite conclusion that they cannot support this Bill or afford any facility for its further progress. Indeed it is, I think, perfectly obvious that at this stage of the Session it would not be possible in any circumstances to find time for its passage through another place. This Bill makes a proposal which,

945
while aimed at removing one kind of hardship, creates another, and it will impose upon careful motorists, in circumstances in which they are quite innocent of blame or responsibility, the liability to pay damages merely because they have had the misfortune to be involved in an accident. I need hardly say that it is for Parliament to balance the hardships or the grievances on the one side against the hardships and the question of principle on the other, but I must repeat that, for their part, the Government cannot give any support to this particular measure.
There are just a few words more I want to say. The Government have not been unsympathetic to those injured or affected by road accidents. The Hospital Clause, which has been referred to during the course of this debate and which was previously included in the Bill now before your Lordships, was incorporated in the Government's Road and Rail Traffic Act last year, and is now actually in operation. Then the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which was framed as the result of the Committee appointed by the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has passed through the House of Lords and will no doubt receive the Royal Assent before the end of the summer. One of the provisions of this Bill will remove what was a very real grievance arising out of the maxim Actio personalis moritur cum persona. Again, there are certain proposals for strengthening Part II of the Act of 1930, in the direction of giving further protection to injured third parties, which are now before Parliament in the Road Traffic Bill of the present Session. In those circumstances I maintain that it cannot fairly be said that the Government have turned a deaf ear to the cause of those injured or affected by road accidents.
I should like to mention one point in conclusion which seems to have escaped the notice of the noble Lord who introduced this Bill, and it is this. As he has told the House, the Bill in its previous form gave effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee for dealing with certain abuses arising out of the activities of speculative solicitors. For reasons which the noble Lord has given this afternoon he has dropped this clause, but he has not gone far enough in his
946
deletion. Clause 6 (b), if he looks at it, still contains the Scottish adaptations required by the clause which he has dropped.
EARL BUXTON: My Lords, I have listened with some surprise to the speech of the noble Earl representing the Government. All of us who take an interest in this question, had thought, after the consideration which this Bill has received in your Lordships' House on more than one occasion, and after it has been before a Select Committee which was unanimous in its recommendations, that we should not have had from the Government a non possumus attitude. The noble Earl has made some comments in regard to Amendments of the Bill, but if it is desired no doubt further Amendments could be made to meet any objections that there may be. The noble Earl's main objection to the Bill, as I understand, is this, that it does alter in a way the onus of proof, shifting it from the pedestrian to the motorist. That, he says, is a change of the law. But, after all, the law is made to be changed when it is found that the law leads to inequality and injustice. We have listened to the appalling figures of injuries and deaths, and most of them are undoubtedly due to the fault not of the pedestrian but of the motorist, and I think it is time to consider whether under those circumstances the law ought not to be altered when it is shown that at present it is grossly unjust.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred, I think, to the increase in the insurance premium to be paid by the motorist which would be involved. What does that mean? Surely, the argument that an additional premium would have to be paid is an argument for the Bill. What it means is that the burden of paying compensation for these injuries is to be removed from the shoulders of the pedestrian and placed on those of the motorist where in any case it is shown that the pedestrian is injured by the action of the motorist. To my mind that is an argument in favour of the Bill and not against it. The mere fact that it may raise the premium and to a certain extent injure the motor trade is surely an argument which ought not to weigh with your Lordships in a matter of this kind. I hope that my noble friend, in spite of the Government's attitude, will go to a Divi-

947
sion. It is true that the Bill on this occasion has not much chance of succeeding because we are near the end of the Session, but my noble friend is persistent, and he has carried his Bill through successfully on previous occasions, and he may do so again. I hope the Government in further considering the matter, as the noble Earl said that they would further consider it, will come to the conclusion to which the Select Committee came. When that Committee was first formed some of its members did not think a Bill on this subject would be successful, but in the end they were unanimous in their view, and I regret very much that the Government cannot see their way to go further than has been stated by the noble Earl.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I confess I have been very greatly surprised by the action which the Government have taken on the Second Reading, and before I go further I should like to ask the noble Earl who speaks for the Government whether he will leave this to a free vote of the House. If he feels a difficulty himself in supporting this Bill, will he leave it to noble Lords who have already voted for it several times to enable them to be consistent and vote for it again, or would he urge his followers in this House to vote against it? If the noble Earl would kindly answer that it would probably shorten the discussion.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: Indicated dissent.
LORD DANESFORT: I am still more surprised. What does the noble Earl want to do?
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I do not know what the noble Lord is referring to. He talks about supporting this Bill. As I have pointed out before, the Government on the Second Reading voted in favour of it with the specific object in view of sending it to a Select Committee.
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, I realise that the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, is entitled, if he thinks fit, to alter the views which he expressed on previous occasions, but the question I wanted to ask was: Will he leave it to a free vote of the House? The position is this. The House has already by large majorities, not once but several times.
948
approved of this Bill, and voted for it, and in that majority, not once but several times, the Government themselves supported the Bill and voted for it. The only passage in which I can find there was a sort of guarded word by the noble Earl is one spoken on July 18, 1933. When the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, said that the noble Earl had given his blessing to the Bill as a whole and that as far as the Government were concerned they were in favour of the proposals now contained in the measure, the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, intervened and said:
"I did not commit myself to every detail."
I have already pointed out that they have voted for it not once but several times. They voted for it in March, 1933, when they sent it to a Select Committee. Then when it came back with the recommendations of the Select Committee, which the House adopted, the Government supported those recommendations and voted for them, and amongst those recommendations was the proposal which we call shifting the onus. Now, for the first time in all these two years, or rather more, the Government say they cannot support the Bill.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I do not think that is a fair statement of the position.
LORD DANESFORT: I hope I am not unfair.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: We did not support the recommendations of the Select Committee but at that time I made it perfectly clear in the debate that in my opinion it would be better that the Bill should go forward substantially in the form that the Select Committee recommended, so that the Government could at the same time examine the report of the Select Committee and the Bill as it left that Committee.
LORD DANESFORT: The last thing in the world I should desire would be to misrepresent the noble Earl. I merely stated the fact that the Bill came from the Select Committee with Amendments and that the Government supported them. In view of that it is very strange that they now say that they cannot support the Bill. Everyone is entitled to vote as he thinks best, but I trust that the rest of the members of the Government

949
will feel themselves in a position to act consistently and to vote as they have voted formerly. In any case I hope that the noble Earl will allow his followers, those who act under his suggestion, to vote as they voted last year time after time. I would ask them not to stultify themselves now by saying that their previous votes were wrong and that they must Vote exactly to the contrary. I hope the noble Earl will not use any influence he has to get his followers to take that course.
The only other comment I would make is on the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. If I may say so, he always makes an admirable speech, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that his speech to-day was in substance practically the same speech that he made last year, and that the House then voted against his recommendation. I gathered from his speech that he would like to see every one insured—not only the motorist, but the poor pedestrian and the pedal cyclist who goes to work every day on his bicycle because it is cheap and he has no other means of transport. All these people should be insured and be prepared to pay if they cause damage.
EARL HOWE: I hope the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting him. I know that he does not want to misrepresent me, but I never said anything of the sort.
LORD DANESFORT: That was the impression I gathered from the noble
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Earl's speech. If he says he did not mean that, I accept his statement. I understood that his recommendation was that every person should be responsible for every injury which he caused, and if that is so I should have thought it necessary for them all to insure. However, if the noble Earl says that is not his intention I accept his statement. There is one other point in his speech to which I wish to refer. He said that I did not give any estimate of what would be the increase in insurance premiums. It is not for me to do that. The insurance companies have been asked from time to time, but they could not give any estimate and there the matter stands.
I ask your Lordships most earnestly not to go back upon the decision reached last year after long and careful discussion. Why should you? Your Lordships' House decided by considerable majorities up to the very last moment, just before the Bill was stopped at the close of the Session, that the Bill was a right one. Surely your Lordships will not now stultify yourselves by saying, although no new facts have been discovered and no new arguments brought forward, that you were then wrong. I ask your Lordships to adhere to your former opinion and to give the same decision as last time.
On Question, Whether the word "now" shall stand part of the Motion?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 14.

CONTENTS.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Exmouth, V.

Lamington, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Bathurst, E

Clwyd, L.

Newton, L.

Buxton, E.

Danesfort, L. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Iveagh, E.

Daryngton, L.

Rennell, L.

Onslow, E.

Dunleath, L.

Rhayader, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Levan, L.

Strabolgi, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

De La Warr, E.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Lawrence, L.

Howe, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham, V.

Marley, L.

Lucan, E.

Rochester, L.

Plymouth, E.

Cranworth, L.

Stonehaven, L.

Stanhope, E.

Denman, L.

Templemore, L.

On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, the primary object of this Bill is to increase the penalties for illegal fishing. The sea fisheries committees have for some time contended that the maximum penalty under the present law is quite inadequate as a deterrent in the case of illegal trawling, which is the most serious offence that commonly arises. The committees have also requested that the penalty for obstructing fishery officers in the performance of their duty shall be increased. I will state the increased penalties proposed by the Bill. In Clause 3, subsection (1), the penalty is increased from £5 to £50 in respect of offences for refusing to allow a fishery officer to exercise his powers. Section 3 of the Act of 1888 enables a local fisheries committee to impose as penalties for the breach of any by-law fines not exceeding £20 and in the case of a continuing offence an additional sum of i:10 for every day during which the offence continues to be committed. This Bill substitutes for these penalties the penalty of a fine not exceeding £50 for the first offence and not exceeding £100 in the case of a second or subsequent offence. Subsection (4) of Clause 3, as your Lordships will see, amends the Sea Fisheries Act, 1883, which relates to offences by foreign sea fishing boats entering within the jurisdiction of this country, by increasing the penalties in the same mariner as I have already mentioned in regard to home fishing boats. Confiscation of catch and gear is no longer provided for in the present Bill as it is preferable and sufficient to rely on the increased amount of the fine that may be imposed. In spite of these increases the penalties are still very much lower than those which are in force in other countries, including Scotland, the Irish Free State, and such foreign countries as Norway, Denmark and Iceland.
At the same time advantage is being taken of the presentation of this Bill to deal with two difficulties of an administrative nature which arise under the existing
952
law. The first is that in practice great difficulty has been experienced in finding suitable persons with the necessary qualifications who are able and willing to attend the meetings of the sea fisheries committees. Clause 1 of the Bill, therefore, gives the Minister a wider discretion as to both the number and the qualifications of the additional members whom he appoints to the committees. The second point is dealt with under Clause 4 of the Bill, by which the Minister is given the same power to revoke a by-law relating to sea fisheries as he has in the case of salmon and freshwater fisheries under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with a point which was overlooked when the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act was passed, and it removes the doubt as to whether migratory trout is to be treated as sea or freshwater fish by putting it into the latter category. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.— (Earl De La Warr.)
LORD RHAYADER: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of opposing the Bill at all, but I was staggered at the comparative indifference with which the noble Earl who introduced it referred to the increased penalties. He said that the main purpose of the Bill is to raise the penalties which are inflicted for breaches of the present law. He did not tell us that these breaches were very frequent, or that difficulty had been caused because they found that offences were continually repeated by the same person because the penalty was too small. I venture to suggest to the noble Earl that to bring in a Bill to increase penalties from £50 to £50—a tenfold increase—without any proof of necessity, without any proof that offences are frequently committed nor any evidence that increased penalties are going to diminish the number of offences, does seem to be a somewhat strange proceeding. The noble Earl quoted other countries to us. I hope that we in this country are more law-abiding than they are in other countries. I do not think that it is the existence of high penalties which prevents British subjects from breaking the law. I think that you will probably find that when penalties are too high, that fact has not the effect of diminishing the commission of offences but only leads to

953
greater ingenuity in avoiding conviction. I have made this small protest because I think that a Bill of this kind, mainly for imposing fresh penalties on British subjects, requires rather more justification than the noble Earl gave us in his rather light-hearted speech.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, my noble friends have asked me to say a few words on this Bill, and particularly to give our point of view on one important aspect of it; but first of all I would like to protest on grounds quite different from those of the noble Lord who has just addressed the House. My protest is as to the way in which this Bill is drawn. It is a very bad example of legislation by reference, and when it is remembered that this Bill has to go to all kinds of people on these local committees, it is very unfortunate that it cannot be understood—for I defy any noble Lord to understand this Bill—without reading through at least three old Statutes, of 1883, 1888, and 1891. I have a suggestion to make to the noble Earl, whose great interest in fisheries and legislation concerned with fisheries is, I am sure, known to everyone. My suggestion is that when this Bill finally passes, if it does pass, through Parliament and receives the Royal Assent, you should issue with it to the public, at an extra charge of a halfpenny over the penny which the Stationery Office charge, an explanatory memorandum giving a reasoned account of the old Acts of Parliament which are amended. It may be said that all the existing sea fisheries committees have the old Acts with them, but then all kinds of other people are concerned—fishermen, fishing vessel owners, and so on—and I throw out the suggestion to the noble Earl, and to the Government in the case of all similar Bills, that information and guidance and assistance should be given to the people affected by this legislation.
The second point, which I will make very briefly in view of the lateness of the hour, is a point on which my noble friends place considerable importance. It is that extra persons are to be appointed as additional members of these local fisheries committees, who are to have knowledge of the industry or of the needs of the industry. The actual words are these:
"such number of additional members, being persons acquainted with the needs and
954
opinions of the fishing interests of the district, and including one representative, at least, of any fishery board having jurisdiction within the district."
Although I know there are certain difficulties in many parts of the country in carrying out what I am now going to propose, I think it should be laid down a little more clearly, nevertheless, that wherever possible fishermen themselves should be represented on these committees. You might have committees composed of local county council representatives, none of whom might be fishermen, and of the local trawl owners, or net owners, or private people with no general knowledge, and no representative of the fishermen in the area coming within the jurisdiction of the committees. The difficulty, of course, is in finding suitable or retired fishermen, or representatives of the fishermen, who could give their time and afford to sit on these committees.
That brings up another point. Under the existing regulations and laws I think I am right in saying that the local fisheries committees can only pay travelling expenses. I am not now referring to the county council or the local authority representatives. The additional members can only be paid their bare travelling expenses in certain cases. Now the whole trend of modern legislation, in controlling the other industry under the noble Earl's Department, and in order to get the best and most suitable people who cannot afford to serve, is to pay not only travelling expenses but compensation for broken time. You cannot be sure otherwise of getting representatives, in this case of fishermen, as has been recognised in the case of agriculture. In the case of agriculture you cannot get the small farmers or the milk producers. In this particular case of fishing I think the Ministry of Fisheries itself might perhaps try to do something to help the representatives of the fishermen where such help is needed. I should be very much obliged if the noble Earl would look into that question and see whether anything can be done. If there is no great objection, and the Government see their way to accept it, we would like to move an Amendment, not to implement what I have just said about expenses and compensation for broken time, but to insert some form of words that wherever possible representatives of the fishermen themselves shall be appointed.

955
There is one other point that I have to make, and that is that this Bill is at present incurring serious opposition from the deep sea fishing section of the industry. The noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, was surprised at the light way in which the increase of the fines was apparently dealt with by the noble Earl, and the noble Earl did not want to keep your Lordships waiting, but I am sure he is aware how this is looked upon by the trawler owners. I have a letter here from which I am only going to read two brief extracts. I will leave out the other part, which is highly complimentary to myself. It comes from the Hull Fishing Vessels Owners' Association, Ltd. Hull is the second fishing port in the world, and in some years has been the first fishing port, having in the value of its catch exceeded its great rival Grimsby. The Hull fishing vessels are those which specialise in long-distance voyages. We have gone in for very fine sea-going vessels, and they have suffered from this tendency to come down most heavily upon fishing vessels who contravene the by-laws.
These are the extracts which I feel it my duty to read to your Lordships:
"I am to state that the producing side of the fishing industry has decided at the various ports that the Bill should be opposed on principle, and the British Trawlers' Federation has been asked and will take such steps as may be possible, when the Bill comes before Parliament."
The second extract is as follows:
"The industry objects to any increase in the penalties, which are considered to be sufficiently ample to meet the situation. The number of cases of alleged illegal fishing in the last five years is insignificant, and certainly does not justify the proposed increase. The Bill is regarded as an attempt to follow the lead of the Scottish Fishery Bill, and there is no justifiable reason why it should be followed to create an ever-widening circle, ultimately spreading to the Scandinavian countries, whose penalties are already excessive and out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence."
That is a very strong letter, and I have felt it right to read it.
At the same time I want to say that I believe there is some misapprehension in the minds of the leaders of the fishing industry as to the real extent of the penalties. My reading of the Bill—and here we come to the disadvantages of legislation by reference—is that in the case of British fishing vessels, under the old
956
Act they were fined £10 and £20, and £5 and £10, and their gear, nets, trawls, and so on were liable to be confiscated. Now, the part dealing with confiscation of gear and catch, which may come to many hundreds of pounds on the modern fishing vessel of the latest type, is repealed. Therefore, if my reading is correct, the increase of penalties is not so heavy as might at first appear. Equally, in the case of foreign fishing vessels, under a section of the Act of 1891, which is not repealed, a foreign vessel still can have its trawl and catch and gear generally confiscated. So the foreign fishing vessels stands to be fined more heavily than our own. Lord Rhayader is a great internationalist. Nevertheless, I presume he would like to see foreign vessels which poach more heavily fined than British vessels which, generally by accident, contravene some by-law.
This Bill wants explaining to the industry and I ask the noble Earl to give us this assurance, that when these Bills are brought in every possible step shall be taken to ascertain the views of those intimately connected with the industry. I think that should be done in all such cases. I know that the officials do their best in all these matters, and I know that the noble Earl would not close his doors to any representation made to him from the industry, but in this case there certainly does seem to be a misunderstanding which ought to be cleared up. I would therefore ask for an assurance that this very hard-pressed and important industry will really be satisfied that it is not being treated unjustly, before the Bill is proceeded with further.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he has raised, because they are very important points and require to be dealt with. I am sorry if I was not quite clear to the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, as to the reason why this increase of penalty was required. But I certainly meant to mention—I am not sure that I did not—that we are bringing in this Bill at the express request of the sea fisheries committees, which are the bodies specifically responsible for administering the existing law controlling fishing in territorial waters. Further, I would emphasise the point again—although he said he does not think it important—that actually it will still leave

957
our penalties in this country lower, I believe, than in any other fishing country. That includes not merely foreign countries, but also Scotland and the Irish Free State.
LORD RHAYADER: Do I understand that they ask for an increase because the offences are numerous and they think that the penalties are insufficient? Do they give any evidence of the existence of the necessity for the increase, or is it merely a request which comes from them without reason given?
EARL DE LA WARR: I should not like to say that there has been a large increase, but there has certainly been no diminution. It was considered necessary therefore. But I can confirm the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that Clause 3 (3) does repeal the liability to have the gear confiscated, and therefore to that extent the increase is very much less than it might seem to be under the Bill. With regard to the drafting of the Bill, I do not think that Lord Strabolgi will expect me to give him any assurance at the moment. I will look into that matter, but the language is not really so difficult to read as he thinks, because, after all, it is very largely a matter of the alteration of figures from 5 to 50 and so on, and is comparatively easy to understand. With regard to the constitution of committees, of course the real difficulty is the difficulty we have of getting anybody at all to serve on these committees, and that is why under this Bill we are taking power to give the Minister greater freedom of choice. We do at the moment pay travelling expenses, but nothing more. Whether we could get a representation from the fishermen themselves I do not know. I am inclined to think it would be difficult to get them to attend. But I note the point that the noble Lord has put about the payment of the expenses. I will go into that.
LORD STRABOLGI: And broken time?
EARL DE LA WARR: I do not know whether I can hold out very much hope at present. It is something we are prepared to consider.
LORD ST. LEVAN: On the fisheries committee on which I sit there are representatives of the fishermen—there are
958
actually fishermen representatives on the committee.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very much obliged. That is not required by Statute. It is only the good sense of the local people.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POST OFFICE (SITES) BILL.
Read 3ª (according to Order), and passed.

THE TWENTY-FOUR-HOUR SYSTEM.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they have had a report from the B.B.C. as to the experience of the working of the twenty-four-hour system; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to say anything at this juncture except that it is surprising that the Government referred this matter to the B.B.C. They have already got a Department, the Post Office, working it in a minor degree, and they have some experience there. The introduction of this system only concerns the Post Office, and it is surprising they could not have taken their advice from the Post Office, or from the Navy and the Air Force, who also operate the twenty-four-hour system.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I rise only for the purpose of making an earnest appeal to the Government Department concerned—though I have considerable doubt which Department it is—not to expose this country to the derision of the civilised world by paying attention to the arguments brought forward by those who are protesting against the experiment now being conducted by the B.B.C. I observe that the B.B.C. have expressed the opinion that these objections are founded on a mistaken impression. That, of course, is a polite way of saying that the people who write these letters are incapable of understanding a simple fact or a simple question. Personally it strikes me that these objections which have appeared in the Press with regard to this experiment are a most painful exhibition of ignorance and prejudice. You find people actually proclaiming to the world

959
that they cannot count beyond twelve. If I were unable to count beyond twelve, I should prefer to keep the fact to myself.
I wonder what foreign nations will think of education in this country, more especially as the kind of people who write are people upon whom thousands have been expended in a vain endeavour to educate them properly. If they do not write and complain that they cannot count they produce other reasons. They complain in brokenhearted accents: "Am I supposed to sacrifice my grandfather clock? Because it is not going to be any further use to me. And, if I do so, I shall have to invest in a twenty-four-hour dial watch or clock in order to ascertain the time." I expect I have seen as much of foreign countries as those who write those letters, who I suppose must be largely old men, or perhaps old women, who are suffering from imaginary grievances, but I am bound to say that in the course of my experience I have never come across a twenty-four-hour dial clock or watch. I suppose they do exist, because I have heard them spoken of, but everybody manages to get along without them.
This clotted mass of ignorance, as I cannot but call it, is reinforced from another quarter. My noble friend Lord Cranworth, for whose intelligence I have considerable respect, the other day in a debate that took place on this question in your Lordships' House, solemnly stated that in his neighbourhood particularly there was a vast number of people of all ages who were firmly convinced that the institution of summer time was responsible not only for drought but for floods—and I dare say that if an earthquake took place that would be attributed to the same cause. Is it possible to argue with people who hold that sort of view? It seems impossible to make them understand that there is no occasion to pollute their lips by talking about 14 or 15 o'clock or whatever it is. It is not an oral matter at all, it is merely a matter of alterations of time-tables and postmarks for the purpose of arriving at greater correctness. As for investing in twenty-four-hour clocks, of course that is pure nonsense. Nothing of the kind is necessary. It really seems to me that if you are going to listen to these people and be swayed by their arguments you might just as well say that physical geography should no
960
longer be taught in this country because it might hurt the feelings of the people who believe that the earth is flat.
Apparently, the public is divided into two schools on this subject. There are those whom I have mentioned, and on the other side there are the scientific people, the scientific societies, men of great experience in administration in different parts of the Empire, and, I might add, all foreigners. Somebody is going to decide between those two schools of thought. I wonder how they will arrive at their decision, and I wonder what their decision will be. I do not know which Department is going to decide, but judging from the fact that they have been unable to take any action for something like nearly twenty years they will probably find it difficult to come to a decision now. I should not wonder if, in the long run, they invoke the assistance of the Whips. The Whips, being people of notoriously little imagination, will probably, when they are consulted, say: "Upon the whole the opinion of the Astronomer Royal, for instance, ought to be considered, and it is just possible his opinion might be a better one than that of the man who thinks summer time is responsible for floods and all the rest of it." But on the other hand each of them has a vote. The Astronomer Royal has a vote and the old woman who thinks that her grandfather clock may become useless has got a vote, and they balance one another. I am very much afraid that the stupid people are in the majority, and it is possible that the decision may be given on their side. I hope that will not be the case, but it seems to me there is an unfortunate probability that that is what will happen. Various Governments have tried to tackle this question, but no Government has shown to much advantage.
Either the thing is wrong or it is right. If it is wrong the Government ought to have said at once that this is an impracticable proposition and that they would have nothing to do with it. If, on the other hand, it is good—and it is good, as everyone knows in his heart who has any common sense—they ought to enact it without having recourse to this particular experiment. This experiment seems to be quite inconclusive. Everyone who cannot count and is probably supremely ignorant of most questions is entitled to express his or her opinion, and that will

961
be thrown into the scale against those who really know what they are talking about. It is possible, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we may make ourselves an exhibition of futility to the world at large. If the Government are afraid to deal with this question themselves obviously what they ought to have done was to have gone to a railway company and asked that company to try the experiment without waiting for an official lead. I venture to say that if they had done that everyone would have recognised the value of this extremely modest innovation. In a very short time it would have been universally recognised as a thing that ought to have been adopted long ago, and everyone would have found it a vast improvement on the system in existence, at the present moment as far as reckoning is concerned.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, we have had a amusing little debate on this subject, especially the speech of my noble friend who has just sat down. He will not, I am sure, expect me to enter into any argument with him or to comment in any way on his diatribe against those who happen to disagree with him on this particular subject. I must say that my noble friend Lord Lucan and I were rather hurt at one stage when he suggested that Whips were people with no imagination, but the noble Lord from the trend of his further remarks seemed to indicate he was referring to the Whips in another place and not to those in your Lordships' House.
I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Lamington a specific Question, and to that I have been asked to give the following reply. Your Lordships will remember that my noble friend Lord Feversham stated on the 7th of March that a certain experiment would begin with the B.B.C. for an indefinite period a month later, and that the Government proposed after that experiment had been given a thorough trial to ask the Corporation for a report on the matter with particular reference to the attitude that the public had taken up towards the innovation. The present position is that the experiment is still proceeding. No date has yet been fixed for its determination, and therefore the B.B.C. have not been asked to furnish, and have not yet furnished, a report.
LORD LAMINGTON: May I ask when they are likely to report?
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I cannot say. The period has not yet been determined.
LORD NEWTON: Would the noble Lord inform me which Department is responsible for the decision of this question? We have never been able to ascertain that.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I have answered the Question on the Paper, and I am afraid I cannot answer the question which the noble Lord puts to me.
LORD NEWTON: The question has been going on for fifteen years or more, and somebody must know by this time which is the Department concerned.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am replying at the moment as the representative of the Post Office, because that is the Department which has dealings with the B.B.C., but I believe that the Department which is usually in charge of this matter is the Home Department.
LORD LAMINGTON: Why the Home Department? What have they got to do with the Post Office and with dies that stamp the time of the arrival of telegrams and with the times shown on post boxes and that sort of thing? Why should it be the Home Office? There is one minor point I should like to make. I see in some reports of the B.B.C. experiment the statement that four figures should always be employed to designate the hours. I do not quite see the necessity for that, and I think it alarms the public more than anything to think that 9.5 in the morning should he 09.05. I do not see why that is necessary at all. If you look at Bradshaw's Continental Guide or Cook's Continental Guide you will find that a.m. trains are shown simply as 9.5 and so on. Four figures may be necessary for scientific purposes—I do not know—but I think it is very complicated and confusing to the public, and I hope the noble Lord will ask for information on this point.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I think I can answer that question in a way, though I am not sure I am right. As the noble Lord knows, various Government Departments use this system, especially the War Office and the Admiralty. I know something about the War Office, and I

963
know that four figures are invariably used in the Army.
LORD LAMINGTON: I am talking about the effect on the general public who, as my noble friend suggested, are so ignorant and dense that they will think they will have to alter all their times for social purposes. Of course in no single instance will that be necessary, but I consider this proposal is prejudiced by the fact that the Government propose to insert four figures instead of two in a.m. times.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: May I remind my noble friend that the Commission over which I think the noble Lord, Lord Stone-haven, presided, recommended that the four-figure system should be adopted? That was the reason.
LORD LAMINGTON: My Lords, I beg to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LICENSING (PERMITTED HOURS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª; and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD MARLEY: May I ask the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, if he can tell us the business for next week?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl there is really
964
very little business in addition to what has already appeared on the Order Paper. On Tuesday there is the consideration on Report of the Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Bill, the Report stage of the Betting and Lotteries Bill and the Report stage of the Workmen's Compensation (Coal Mines) Bill. In addition there has been put down for Tuesday the Architects (Registration) Bill, which passed through Committee to-day, and there will also be taken then the Second Reading of the Bill which has just been read a first time, the Licensing (Permitted Hours) Bill. On Wednesday Lord Strabolgi is moving a Resolution recommending the Government to institute an immediate investigation of the monetary system. Your Lordships will see the wording of it on the Paper. There are also the Second Reading of the Adoption of Children (Workmen's Compensation) Bill and the Second Beading of the Protection of Animals (Cruelty to Dogs) (Scotland) Bill, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is moving. On Thursday there is the Administration of Justice (Appeals) Bill in Committee, and the Committee stage of the Unemployment Bill. In addition, the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, is asking a question of the Government as to the creation of an Imperial Air Force and the assembling of a defence conference for that purpose in London. I understand the Committee stage of the Road Traffic (Compensation for Accidents) Bill will also be taken on Thursday.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past seven o'clock.

Preamble
RAMSGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WALTHAMSTOW CORPORATION BILL.
WESTON-SUPER-MARE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
STOCKPORT EXTENSION BILL.
CHAILEY RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills; namely:

E. Shaftesbury (Chairman),

L. Gough,

L. Tweeddale (M. Tweeddale),

L. Derwent,

L. Swinfen:

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

SOUTH DOWNS PRESERVATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee adjourned this day at
966
twelve o'clock; and pray leave to adjourn over to-morrow: Read, and leave given.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Rhayader and the Lord Woodbridge be proposed to the House as members of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Viscount Elibank and the Lord Stonehaven: Read, and agreed to.

TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL. [H.L.]
The King's consent signified; and Bill reported, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Reported, with Amendments.
SHEFFIELD GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.