HC Deb 03 December 1948 vol 458 cc2351-78

1.7 p.m.

Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 25th October, 1948, entitled the Knacker's Yard Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 2353), a copy of which was presented on 26th October, be annulled. I should make it absolutely clear at the outset that my hon. Friends and I have no desire whatever to place any obstacle in the way of the authorities in dealing effectively with the black market. Indeed, we desire to assist them to use the right method in order to suppress abuses and undesirable practices. Perhaps it may be thought that that need not have been said, but I have said it because it has been suggested occasionally, when we have moved to annul orders made by various Ministries, that we have been facilitating black market operations. Therefore, I wish to make it clear that what we are endeavouring to do is to secure that the right method is adopted.

In that we have the powerful support of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments which, like all Select Committees of this House at the present time, contains a preponderance of Members of the party opposite. In the Second Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which was printed only yesterday, it is stated on page 3: Your Committee have also considered the Knacker's Yard Order, 1948 and are of the opinion that the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on the ground that it appears to make an unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statutes under which it is made. Before I proceed to deal with the order, I should explain why it has been unavoidable that such short notice of this Motion should have been given. As I explained, this Report of the Select Committee was printed only yesterday, although it was actually laid on Tuesday. Of course, I am making no complaint against anyone in this connection; I am merely stating the fact that it was only available yesterday. Unfortunately, the 40 days during which it is competent for any Member to move to annul this order will be up tomorrow. Therefore, this is the last and only day upon which we are able to move this Motion.

As I said, the Select Committee has made this Report to the House. They made the Report only after consideration of a long and excellent memorandum submitted to them by the Ministry of Food. It was only after consideration of that memorandum, which presented the case for the Ministry with the most able advocacy, that they decided to report to the House that this order, appears to make an unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statutes. … I will first explain the position under the present law, which still remains in force. Under Section 57 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, we have a very comprehensive code for the licensing and control of knackers' yards by the local authority, the local authority being either the borough council or the urban or rural district council concerned. Before I proceed I should say that the definition of a knacker's yard in the order is the same as in the Act which I have mentioned. It states: Knacker's Yard' means any premises used in connection with the business of slaughtering, flaying or cutting up of animals, the flesh of which is not intended for human consumption. That is the distinction between a knacker's yard and a slaughterhouse. In the case of a slaughterhouse, the production is intended for human consumption. Section 57 of the 1938 Act provides that no one shall be able to carry on the business of a knacker's yard without being annually licensed by the local authority. The local authority may not grant or renew a licence until the officer of the authority has inspected the premises. There are also provisions for the local authority requiring work to be carried out in order to render the premises suitable.

There are safeguards in the Act in order to ensure that injustice is not done. First, it is provided that if the local authority should refuse to grant or to renew a licence, and if the person affected so requires, they must state their reasons for refusing. Then, if the person affected is dissatisfied with the position, he may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. That is a very valuable safeguard. It is further provided that the local authority may make by-laws for ensuring proper sanitary conditions at knackers' yards and may require the proprietors to keep proper records. It is also there provided that a licensed knacker must display a notice outside his premises; "Licensed knacker's yard." Therefore it will be seen that before this order was made—and I should emphasise that this Act is still in full force, and is not affected by the order which is superimposed upon it—we had already very substantial provisions which have received the full consideration of Parliament.

I will now read the first paragraph of the explanatory note of the order. It states: This Order requires the occupier of knacker's yard in England or Wales to hold a licence granted by the Minister of Food under this Order in addition to any other licence to use the premises as a knacker's yard granted by a local authority under the existing law. I feel that that is a very drastic provision. It is superimposed upon the existing law which provided for control by the local authorities, with obligations to state their reasons, and with an ultimate appeal to the court of summary jurisdiction. This order provides no such safeguard. It makes the Minister a complete autocrat. Notwithstanding the fact that a proper knacker's yard may completely satisfy the local authority in all their requirements, the knacker must now also obtain a licence from the Minister, which the Minister can revoke at any time without giving any reason, and there is no appeal whatever to the courts. The House will therefore appreciate the very drastic character of this order, and I feel that we should require to be convinced of its absolute necessity and also that there is no reasonable alternative.

The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, referred to this matter during the Debate on 28th October when it was then under discussion. It had been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe), who was concerned about the position. The hon Lady said: We find that, in these cases, when we send an inspector, male or female, to make a purchase for some curious reason the controlled price is always charged."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1948: Vol. 457, c. 386.] The question I wish to ask is whether, by the imposition of this order and the introduction of the Minister's inspectors, we are going to gain any advantage at all. The hon. Lady, rather pathetically complains——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill)

Not pathetically.

Sir J. Mellor

—that when her inspectors go round, for some curious reason the controlled price is always charged. I rather suspect that one reason is that a person who gets employment as a snooper always looks like one. I am reminded of what was said by the chief of police in a Balkan State. He was complaining of the difficulty of catching brigands. He said, "You see, my men are on duty during the day, but for some reason the brigands always operate at night." In view of the admitted inability of the hon. Lady's inspectors we must consider whether this order will serve any useful purpose. I would refer to her reply on 11th November to the Question by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke). She said: I would like to say that our enforcement officers have paid special attention to knackers' yards during recent months but have found no other case of this kind.' She was referring to certain prosecutions that had taken place. There she says that although her officers have paid special attention to knackers' yards, they have found no other case of that kind. I doubt how far this order is necessary at all, and if an order of this kind is necessary, whether this is the right way of doing it. I will make certain suggestions which I hope are constructive.

My first suggestion is that the proper way is co-operation between the Ministry of Food and the Ministry's officers and the local authorities. I would pray in aid in support of this suggestion what the hon. Lady herself said later on in the same reply on 11th November. The responsibility for enforcing this Act"— that is, the Act of 1938— rests with the local authorities and we rely on them to exercise constant vigilance to prevent such cases remaining undetected. With this object the Ministry of Food officers have been instructed to co-operate to the fullest extent with officers of the local authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th Nov., 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1734.] Does the Parliamentary Secretary suggest that any of the local authorities are refusing to co-operate? If so, that is a serious matter and the hon. Lady ought to tell us which local authorities have been obstructive. Surely, the right way is for the Ministry and the local authorities to pull together. Indeed, that line was suggested by the Association of Municipal Corporations. The Ministry's memorandum, which was before the Select Committee, stated: The Association of Municipal Corporations suggested that the objectives of the proposed Order could be secured by arrangements to be agreed upon between the Ministry of Food and the local authorities. That is what should be done. The hon. Lady must make a strong case. I do not see how she can do that unless she is prepared to say that the local authorities, or some of them, are obstructive. If she says that, she ought to tell the House which they are, because obviously that is a very serious matter.

I should like to make another suggestion by which this Order, if we are to have it, could at any rate be made fairer. I do not like the order at all, but if we are to have an order, which superimposes the power of the Minister upon the existing law, at least there should be an appeal from the Minister's decision. On that point the same memorandum by the Ministry of Food to some extent anticipates me. It says: Nor does the Statute under which the Order has been made make provision for appeals from the Minister's decision. The statute, the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, would not make an express provision of that kind, because it was a general enabling Act. That Act, which continued in force Defence Regulations, taken together with the Regulations, gives such very wide powers to the Government that I should have thought it would have been within those powers—I may be wrong—for an order to provide for an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction against the Minister's decision. If I am wrong, I should like to know whether, before inserting this paragraph in the memorandum, the Ministry took the advice of the law officers. That is a most important point. In the memorandum the implication is that it is not possible in one of these orders to make provision that there shall be any appeal from a Minister's decision. I should like to know whether, in the considered view of the Law Officers of the Crown, that is the case.

Bearing in mind the wide interpretation which the Government always attach to their powers under the Defence Regulations, I should have thought that it would not be stretching those powers too far to provide that there should be an appeal from the decision of the Minister to a court of law. We want to find the right way of doing this, if indeed it is necessary to take any steps in the matter. I am afraid that even when they are looking for the right way the Ministry of Food often seem to show a genius for finding the wrong way. Surely the right way, if it is considered that the powers of local authorities under the Act of 1938 are insufficient, would be to amend that Act. Apparently the Ministry take the view that the powers of local authorities under that Act are insufficient, because in the memorandum from the Ministry of Food which was before the Select Committee, it is stated: These provisions… that is, the provisions of the Act of 1938— …do not, however, specifically require local authorities to take into account, when considering applications for the granting of licences for new premises, the question of the number and location of existing yards in the surrounding area and it is doubtful, therefore, whether local authorities can properly be influenced in their decision by this question. That is very interesting, and it may be that the Ministry are right. Surely then the proper course would be to amend the Act of 1938. That could be done by a very short Bill which I should think would not be controversial in this House. If the reply from the Minister is that that procedure would take too long—I do not think it would take very long—then I suggest that they should make a temporary order and I think that we would accept it if it were really a temporary order which would remain in force only until an Act was passed amending in a suitable manner the Act of 1938 in order to give the local authorities the necessary powers.

I have suggested various courses all of which I think are reasonable and which would satisfy three considerations. First, they would ensure that there was adequate power to deal with the black market and to stop abuses. Secondly, they would ensure co-operation between the Ministry of Food and the local authorities. Thirdly, they would secure justice for the individuals affected by such administrative action. We should ensure those three considerations, and we should not forget the last of them. Under this order there is no provision whatever for appeal. The Minister is a complete autocrat. He can revoke a licence at any time and the individual is deprived completely of the right of appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction which he has under the Act. It is a high-handed deed to make this order without ensuring that there is some provision for a review of the Minister's decision.

In these circumstances, I hope that the hon. Lady will deal carefully with the points I have made and that she will say whether she is prepared to introduce legislation to amend the Act of 1938. If she is prepared to do that, then I am content that this order should remain for the interim period, provided the legislation is to be introduced forthwith. If she is not prepared to do that, is she prepared to introduce an amending order to secure that there shall be right of appeal from the Minister's decision? I think that at least she should introduce some modification in order to meet the objections which my hon. Friends and I are raising.

1.28 p.m.

Mt. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

I beg to second the Motion.

It would be as inappropriate as it would be unchivalrous unnecessarily to deprive the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food of her lunch. I am, therefore, glad that the hon. Baronet has made it clear that this Motion has had to be moved today because this is the last day on which it could be moved. It seems to me that that fact reveals a considerable weakness in the power of this House to control delegated legislation. It is the fact, as the hon. Baronet has said, that the Select Committee whose duty it is to consider this matter was able to make its report on this order available to the House only yesterday. That puts hon. Members in a difficult position. I say with respect that I personally have the greatest admiration for the untiring zeal of the Select Committee. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), who I know is a most zealous member of that Committee, is in his place this afternoon.

When hon. Members see an order of this kind which the Select Committee is considering, they are in a grave position. If they put down a Motion to annul before the Select Committee has considered the order, not only might they seem to be showing disrespect to the Select Committee, but equally they would be handicapped by not having the result of the Committee's very well-informed and—as the hon. Member for East Islington will agree—very well-advised deliberations. On the other hand, because of the inevitable passage of time, if they wait they find themselves in the position of being right up against and over the time limit. Therefore, I suggest this matter is of very wide general importance and should be considered by those responsible.

On the order itself, I do not think it is necessary for me to add very much to what has been so very lucidly stated by the hon. Baronet. I only desire to make a number of brief points on the order. In the first place, it seems to me that the explanatory note is not as informative as it should be. The point of substance on this order is the transfer of authority in this matter from the local authorities who, as it has been explained, are subject to appeal to summary courts of jurisdiction, to the Minister without any appeal at all. Although trained lawyers reading the explanatory note would appreciate immediately that that was the effect, to the layman I think the explanatory note is not very clear on this point of substance. It does not make it clear that the effect of this order is to hand control over these people's livelihood to the decision of the Minister from whom no appeal whatsoever is possible. It seems to me that, with the best will in the world, the explanatory note does not deal sufficiently clearly with that point from the point of view not of lawyers but of intelligent laymen.

Thirdly, I confess that on principle, article 5 (1) seems to call for comment. It says: The provisions of this Order are subject to any directions which may at any time be given by or on behalf of the Minister and to any licence or authorisation which may be granted under this Order by or on behalf of the Minister. As I understand it, it comes to this. Under the delegated powers granted to the Minister, he has made this order which is subject to limited review in this House, but he is taking under this order further powers to ignore the order and to act differently from it without those further powers being subject to scrutiny in this House. It seems to me quite wrong, first of all to lay down in this proper form what he proposes to do, and then to provide a loop hole under which he frees himself to take other and possibly inconsistent action.

Another point is this. It seems to me that this is a matter on which the views of the representatives of the Association of Municipal Corporations should have been given greater weight. After all, they have been concerned directly with responsibility for administering the provisions of Section 57 of the 1938 Act for ten years. They have got very considerable practical experience of the matter; yet it appears from the Ministry's own explanatory memorandum submitted to the Select Committee and printed with the Select Committee's Report, that their views have been disregarded by the Minister.

There is one other aspect of the matter. In the explanatory memorandum submitted to the Select Committee this rather unusual statement is made in paragraph 9: The licensing arrangements under this Order will be such that any decision not to issue a licence to the occupier of an existing knacker's yard or to an applicant for a licence for any new yard and any decision to revoke a licence issued under the Order will rest personally with the Minister of Food. If that is the intention, it seems to me that the Minister of Food should have been in his place this afternoon to answer this Motion. If I may say so, I think the Parliamentary Secretary is probably a more effective debater than her right hon. Friend, and the right hon. Gentleman himself seems to take that view, judging by the frequency with which he delegates the function of replying in this House to the Parliamentary Secretary. In general, the House accepts that view, but on a matter in which it has been expressly stated that the personal discretion of the right hon. Gentleman himself is going to be exercised, I think it is very unfortunate that he has not come to this House this afternoon to explain how he proposes to exercise that personal discretion which he expressly reserves to himself under this memorandum.

I entirely support what the hon. Baronet has said as to our intentions not in any way to interfere with the Ministry's control of a serious and delicate matter. I fully appreciate the difficulty of their problems, but the fact that those problems exist is no reason for this House blindly to acquiesce in every proposal that the Ministry makes for dealing with them. Where, as here, we see a valuable right—the right of appeal—taken away, and, according to the explanatory memorandum, apparently taken away purely for technical reasons which could be overcome by adopting another procedure, then I submit that we are entitled and, indeed under a duty to protest. After all, these licences are a matter of economic life and death to the people concerned. If a licence is revoked it means absolute ruin for the individual concerned. That that is so has been recognised by this House in the statute to which reference has already been made in providing for the right of appeal.

It having been made quite clear by the hon. Baronet that every reasonable objective which the Ministry seeks to obtain can be obtained by the alternative procedure which he has suggested, but without depriving these individuals of this safeguard, I think we are entitled to press the hon. Lady to reconsider this matter and to see whether her objectives cannot be attained without the risk of inflicting injustice upon even a very small section of the community.

1.38 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

This is not a party matter, and I hope it will not be treated as such. It has not been treated as a party matter by either the mover or the seconder of the Motion, and I hope it will not be treated as a party matter by anybody in any quarter of the House. This matter affects the consciences of all Members of the House in the discharge of their duties with regard to the Executive.

There are occasions when hon. Members opposite move Prayers, as they are perfectly entitled to do, for purely partisan purposes because they object to certain Statutory Instruments put forward by His Majesty's Ministers, and on all previous occasions when such a Prayer has been moved, I have always supported the Government and opposed the Prayer. In my view, however, this is not one of those cases. I think it is evident from what has been said that this Prayer has been moved as a result of the Report made by the scrutiny Committee.

I desire to remind the House that that scrutiny Committee was appointed by this House for the purpose of exercising the duty of vigilance on the exercise by Ministers of delegated legislation. The scrutiny Committee is representative of all parties in the House, and there is a majority of Labour Members on it. It is because, when this particular order came before the scrutiny Committee, protests were made on all sides at what appeared to be an abuse of the Ministerial power to legislate by Statutory Instrument that the matter was reported to this House.

It is perfectly right, therefore, that the House should now consider the matter on its merits. When I say "on its merits" I am not concerned at the moment with whether the objective sought by this order is good or bad. I think it is a perfectly good objective. The question is whether this is the right way to do it or whether we shall not be parting with one of the proper, cherished privileges of the House of Commons in regard to its relations with the Executive.

The matter arose in this way. This House has had to consider the law with regard to knackers' yards for a very long time and hitherto it has been thought a proper matter for the attention of Parliament. Parliament was concerned about the appropriate method of licensing knackers' yards in the year 1786, when an Act of Parliament was passed; at that time the House was not concerned with securing that matters of hygiene were observed but that there was adequate police supervision. The powers of licensing knackers' yards, it was thought, could properly be left to local justices; that was in the days before the local authorities existed.

The matter was again dealt with by legislation in 1844 and subsequently in 1847. It then found its place in the Public Health Acts of 1875 and 1890. The subject was again reviewed by Parliament as recently as 1938 in the Food and Drugs Act which contains at the moment the express will of Parliament as to how knackers' yards throughout the country should be licensed. Parliament, in its wisdom, has sought to leave the matter to the control and discretion of local authorities, subject to an appeal to the courts. If there is any doubt whether there has been any failure on the part of local authorities to discharge the function given to them by Parliament or whether there has been any attempt to evade the licensing system laid down by Parliament, it is only necessary to remind hon. Mem- bers of the reply given in this House as recently as 25th November when, in answer to a Question put by an hon. Member opposite asking the Minister of Health what steps had been taken to ensure that every knacker's yard was licensed by the local authority concerned, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health said: I have no reason to think that the Food and Drugs Act is not being enforced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948: Vol. 458, c. 132.] Thus the Minister of Health, who is the responsible Minister in this matter, to whom the functions devolve from Parliament, is perfectly satisfied at the moment with the proper administration of the Food and Drugs Act.

It is perfectly true that since the passing of that Act the Bodinnar Committee has been appointed to consider the subject of knackers' yards and their supervision and that the Bodinnar Committee has made certain recommendations. If the matter were properly presented to this House by a Bill, I am sure this House would desire to implement the recommendations of that Committee. I am sure that the House would then wish to consider very seriously whether the final discretion of licensing a knacker's yard should be left to the Minister or whether the traditional right of appeal to the courts, which has existed for over 150 years, should be abolished.

The object, as I understand it, of this Prayer, and certainly my object in supporting it, is to draw the attention of the House and the country to the fact that this seems to be an attempt to exercise legislative authority through delegated legislation which is an abuse of the powers which have been devolved on the Minister for certain purposes. In my view the scrutiny Committee has properly reported, because this is a totally unexpected and a totally unjustifiable exercise of Ministerial power by delegated legislation. May I indicate to the House what the effect would be if this kind of thing were allowed to pass unchallenged in this House?

We are dealing today with knackers' yards. Hitherto everybody who has wanted to open a knacker's yard has had to obtain his licence from the local authority and has had a right of appeal. In future no one will be able to run a knacker's yard unless he has a licence from the Minister of Food; that is to say, a new direct interference with the freedom of the subject to run that particular kind of business is being introduced by a Statutory Instrument. If that can be done by this order of the Ministry of Food, it will be equally competent for the Minister of Food tomorrow to issue an order saying, for example, that no one shall have a licensed premises without his personal sanction. At the present time the owners of licensed houses follow the well-known procedure of making application to the licensing justices, with the procedure of appeal, and so on.

There are various other matters which are licensed by local authorities in accordance with proper plans discussed in Parliament and laid down in Acts of Parliament. If this kind of thing can be introduced by Statutory Instrument it would be equally competent—it might be a very good thing; I am not arguing the merits of it—for a Minister of the Crown to say tomorrow that nobody may open or conduct a public house without the consent of the Ministry of Food. I mention that analogy because I think it is clear that there is a limit beyond which Ministers ought not to exercise powers given under the Defence Regulations, even though they are technically entitled to do so.

For those reasons, and in the interests of Parliamentary justice, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food ought to reconsider this matter before opposing this Prayer today. I do not think it is merely a Departmental matter. I do not know whether the Attorney-General has been consulted. I know he has many other preoccupations. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General has been consulted about the desirability of doing this kind of thing. I know he happens to be abroad representing the interests of the British Government at The Hague. I do not know whether it has been put before the Lord President of the Council, the Leader of the House. But I do sincerely and certainly think that this order raises a matter of considerable constitutional importance, and therefore I urge the representative of the Ministry of Food to reconsider this matter today before asking the House to resist this Prayer.

1.48 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)

May I start by assuring the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) that I shall not speak on this subject on party lines. I intend merely to say a few words from the point of view of one of those who unfortunately have sometimes to make use of a knacker's yard. I make no objection to the order as a whole. Any steps that can be taken by the Ministry of Food to stop black market or illegal operations would have my wholehearted support, but I view with concern the dictatorial powers sought in this order.

I entirely endorse what was said by the hon. Member for East Islington. I think in this case it should be possible to challenge the decision, if necessary. First of all, the decision as to whether a knacker's yard was necessary or not should be made by the local authority. They are the people who best know the needs of the district. They know whether an extra knacker's yard is necessary or not, and I think their recommendations should have prior consideration. It is entirely wrong that the Ministry of Food should take it upon themselves to make this decision, against any decision of the local authority.

I support what is contained in the order in connection with humane slaughtering. We all agree that humane slaughtering should be adopted to the very fullest extent, and I do not agree that there should be too rigid a limitation on the number of slaughterhouses, because it is necessary, in many cases, that one should be able to get to a knacker's yard quite quickly in order to prevent suffering by the animal. It would also avoid the loss of what might he turned to use if taken to the knacker's yard quickly.

Therefore, I suggest to the hon. Lady that she should accept the views put forward very clearly by my hon. Friends on this side of the House and supported by the hon. Member for East Islington, that the Ministry of Food should reconsider the decision and hold up the order pending reconsideration, and bring in a fresh order omitting what is objectionable in this one. I think that the power the Ministry has taken upon itself to enforce any conditions is much too drastic, and that should be looked into. In the memorandum sent out by the Ministry it is stated that the order is made lest the arrangements should be protracted or their completion should not eventually be secured. I can see no reason why they should be protracted or why their completion should not eventually be secured.

1.52 p.m.

Mr. John McKay (Wallsend)

I make no apology for taking part in this Debate. Ordinarily I should have expected to be in Newcastle at this time, but, fortunately or otherwise, the Whips told me yesterday that we were to discuss this order today, and asked me to be so kind as to stay in the House. Being a loyal member of the Labour Party I thought I would do so, and I am quite surprised to find such a great number of people here today. But this is an important question.

The order has been made, and what we have to do is to determine whether it is justified. While there may be some weaknesses in the order itself, the point has been raised that it institutes some new principle and debars opportunity for appeal. I had expected before coming here that there would be something more than that in the case against the order. I did not know what a knacker's yard was. I made inquiry, and was told that a knacker's yard is simply a place where old horses that can scarcely walk and whose bones rattle are taken to be destroyed. I thought that I had better look into the matter. I did so, and I came to the conclusion, after reading some of the evidence, that there was some urgency about it. I looked up the previous discussion on this subject in the House on 28th October. Hon. Members opposite had developed the point that there was urgency for doing something about the matter and I think that the Minister is putting this order into force on the ground that it is urgently necessary.

Is there any urgency? Let me quote some of the things said by the hon. Member for Royton (Mr. Sutcliffe) on 28th October in the Adjournment Debate. He drew attention to the alarming position arising in this country at the present time owing to the ever-increasing slaughter for food of young horses. He went on to say that if the public knew about this they would rise in their wrath and demand that action be taken to stop it. He said further: A horse…was fetching in the region of£50 whereas it should now be in the region of£20.… The vast majority of this meat is, of course, sold in the black market—I should say 80 per cent. Indeed, he went further, and said: I would say that from 80 to 90 per cent. is sold in the black market.…The majority of it is destined for human consumption.…The truth is that this trade is now in the hands of a small number of men who are making very large profits.…They have their own slaughterhouses.…Apparently anybody can obtain a licence.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 378, 382] He also said that a horse could be slaughtered and skinned and cut up all in 20 minutes, thus making the task of catching people engaged in the trade very difficult. Does that not indicate that the position is such as to call for stringent regulation? The Ministry of Food believes that this is urgent. I thought that the Conservative Party recognised this urgency. The question the Minister had to ask himself was, "How can I speed the matter up? How can I obtain authority to deal with this urgent case?"

Sir J. Mellor

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? He suggests that the Ministry regards this as a matter of the utmost urgency. Let me point out by reference to the order itself, that it was made on 25th October and does not come into force until 19th December. It does not look from the timing of the order as though it were a matter to be dealt with in the most urgent way.

Mr. McKay

It was the way to do the job, I suppose. There ought to be at least some form of appeal. As a layman I take it that the Minister calculated the matter in this way—that if he did not put this order into force the job would not be done with the right speed, and that if he left the matter to the local authorities it might not be treated as a matter of urgency and that nothing would be done, or. at any rate, nothing would be done quickly enough. Therefore, the order provides that a licence from the Minister must be obtained.

There may be a reasoned case to support the need for an appeal, but I am with the Minister on this because of that urgency which has been called for from both sides of the House. The form in which this order has been made will ensure speed of action. If experience shows a necessity to amend the order on the lines suggested to allow some form of appeal, that can be dealt with later. The need at the moment is for speed of action, which this order secures.

What had the Bodinnar Committee to say when they investigated this very problem? That sensible and reasonable committee of investigation, knowing all the factors involved, accepted the view that the number of knackers' yards should be fewer. To their surprise, however, they found on investigation that instead of the number of knacker's yard, and the problem has had increased 100 per cent.—from 200 to 400. The question arises: How has that happened? Was it because of the weaknesses which then existed? It does not really need to be argued. The mere fact that it happened indicates that there was some weakness. It has been too easy to get a licence to carry on a knacker's yard, and the problem has been aggravated by the conditions in which we live, with the scarcity of food. Advantage has been taken of this laxity in licensing, so creating the "black market," which in turn causes friction throughout the country. A large body of opinion against "black marketeering," not only in meat but in many other things, has grown in the country.

Investigation of the problem shows the need for speedy and determined action, and that is why this order has been introduced. If ever a case was developed and supported by evidence, it was that put forward by the Bodinnar Committee. Then the Minister of Food had to consider the question in conjunction with the Minister of Health, and they came to the conclusion that this order was the only means of achieving speedy action in developing machinery for supervision, and for testing whether the existing knackers' yards were sufficient to fulfil the proper needs of the country for this kind of food.

Sir J. Mellor

May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. McKay

No. I want to go on with my speech. Because of the laxity in licensing, a "black market" has developed, and is becoming stronger every day. Both sides of the House want action taken to deal with that problem. Yet when an order is made to achieve that speed of action, we have this opposition to the order. To me that is ridiculous. Let us test the order by experience. Even accepting the order as it is, with all its stringency, I cannot imagine that the Ministry of Food will refuse to licence knackers' yards where the need for them exists. If in future it can be shown from experience that this order operates unfairly the matter can again be raised, and perhaps an amendment made.

Taking all these factors into consideration, I believe the order to be worth while. It is something we want, and something we can commend. When an effort is made to deal with what is universally recognised as an evil, let us not decry speedy and effective means to deal with it. Let us wait awhile to see if there are any weaknesses in the order. The problem is admittedly important, and I deprecate this attempt to annul an order designed to deal with it. I hope that when Government officials, not only in the Ministry of Food but in other Ministries, discover abuses they will take action similar to this. If they do so, if they tackle the problem in earnest, even if there are weaknesses in their instrument of attack, they can rest assured that hon. Members, on this side of the House at least, will give them wholehearted support.

2.8 p.m.

Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cockermouth)

First, let me say that I sincerely regret the absence of the Minister of Food. I do not mean to cast any aspersion on the Parliamentary Secretary, who. I am sure is most efficient, conscientious and painstaking at her job and at dealing with Prayers from time to time, but the absence of the Minister produces a feeling of unreality in the Debate. Supposing all hon. Members agree that this order is not at all acceptable, it will be extremely difficult for the hon. Lady to say: "I will look into it further," or "I will withdraw it," and then go to the Minister—who, I am told is at this moment in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster—and say: "So astonishing and convincing was the Debate that I have decided to make substantial concessions." If the Minister is not engaged elsewhere on more important work, he should be sitting on the Government Front Bench answering the arguments adduced when the House is considering an order of this importance.

The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) made a most genuine and earnest speech. He obviously believed in what he was saying. It is not because his arguments and mine are in agreement that I say so, but I felt he was speaking according to his convictions, and, unlike the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), not speaking to a brief. I am sorry to say that not a single word uttered by the hon. Member for Wallsend weighed with me, because he began his speech by saying: "I have been asked by my party Whip to come down here. I was told to make a speech." Before that he did not even know what the order was; indeed, he did not know what a knacker's yard was. That shows that the hon. Member did not read the order so as to make up his own mind of his own free will whether he was in favour of the Prayer or not. He carried out the instructions of the party Whip. I presume that if he had decided that the order was not good, he would have been in the unfortunate position of saying that he was not going to carry out his Chief Whip's instructions. I am sorry to have to say it, but I say honestly that it would have been very much better from the point of view of his own Minister if the hon. Member had not spoken at all.

I do not want to make this subject into a party matter. I hope that hon. Members opposite will support the mover and seconder of the Prayer. I do not intend to put forward the argument, on which we on this side of the House feel strongly, about further controls and restrictions, abuses of licensing and favouritism which occur from time to time. The matter resolves itself into the one question whether this power should be left in the hands of local authorities or be taken over by the Minister. I agree with one of my hon. Friends who said that this is a matter which should be left to the discretion and action of local authorities, who know local conditions.

How can a Ministry overburdened with work in London possibly know the local conditions that exist in outlying places where somebody wishes to open a knacker's yard or to have one licensed. If local authorities are slow, surely the Minister can get on to them and tell them to proceed with greater quickness in regard to knackers' yards. This is not a matter for centralisation. It should remain decentralised and if the Minister is not satisfied that local authorities are carrying out their job properly, he should ginger them up.

I do not know whether or not there is any means under the Act of 1938 by which an appeal can be granted. I have been informed that there is that possibility, but we want to have it in the order. If it is necessary to introduce amending legislation, I can assure the Minister that we should be in complete agreement with it. I sincerely appeal to the Minister to recognise the arguments which have been put forward on both sides of the House and seriously to consider whether for once the Ministry can show a degree of reasonableness by their approach to what is obviously desired by the majority of Members.

2.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summer-skill)

When the mover of the Prayer opened his speech, he said that he wanted the House to realise fully that he and the seconder and their supporters were only too anxious to eradicate the evil of black marketing from knackers' yards. Then he approached the whole problem by arguing in legalistic fashion. I think the House will agree that it was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) to point out that this was a human problem and that immediate action must be taken if we are to restrict the racketeers who engage in this immoral trade.

Now I must remind the House of the Bodinnar Committee's Report. We asked Sir John Bodinnar to examine reports which had been made to us concerning the consumption of certain foodstuffs which had by-passed the controlled channels. In order to do this, Sir John realised that he had to examine the licensing and control of knackers' yards. He discovered that the knackers' yards had increased in number from 200 to 400, and that although one might expect that meat would be required during wartime from knackers' yards for feeding pets, one would not have expected that increase in view of the general shortage of meat, even horse meat. In fact, one would have expected a decrease, in view of the fact that certain low-grade cattle which had been killed in knackers' yards in pre-war days were being killed in slaughterhouses. Sir John investigated the matter and came to the conclusion that it was very necessary for the Ministry of Food to exercise some control over knackers' yards. There was no doubt that meat was going into knackers' yards and was being sold at more than controlled prices and was being dispersed illegally for human consumption.

This is an important point, which all hon. Members who have spoken have failed to grasp, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) who traced the history of knackers' yards. I agree with him that Act after Act has been passed to control knackers' yards. He will remember that they were looked upon before the war as places where aged horses were taken and destroyed and the meat was generally used for feeding pets. Now the position has changed. We find knackers' yards being used as a source of food for human consumption. I want the hon. Gentleman to realise that that is why we come into the picture and why the House has given us power under Defence Regulation 55 to control all food industries concerned with the production and distribution of food.

Hon. Members have never for one moment dissented from the view that we should exercise our powers to the full, they have never come to me and said that if a butcher misbehaves himself the Ministry should not revoke his licence, and that the butcher should have an appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. Hon. Members know that, in the public interest, the butcher must be dealt with forthwith. Now we come to the House and say that we have found that a new industry in procuring food for human consumption is being carried on in knackers' yards. We say that that matter is very much a concern of the Ministry of Food and that it is essential that we should exercise control. With all due respect to the scrutiny Committee, I would say that they did not fully appreciate that position. In examining the order they wondered why the Ministry of Food were encroaching on the preserves of other Departments. They thought that we were acting in an arbitraty fashion. They said, and some hon. Members have repeated the argument: "This is quite unjust. In the past, a knacker who was refused a licence has been able to appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. Now the Ministry of Food come along and say that they will decide whether or not the licence shall be revoked."

I want to emphasise to the House that the position has altered because now we are dealing with meat which is being handled by the knacker improperly and used for human consumption. Therefore, we decided to take action and we consulted with the Department of Health for Scotland and the Ministry of Health, but having regard to Section 57 of the Food and Drugs Act, which the hon. Member rightly quoted, it was decided that the Ministry of Food should have further powers. The hon. Member will see that the powers under Section 57 are very limited. The Section empowers a local authority to license a slaughterhouse. Provided the slaughterhouse is in the proper spot and conducted in a decent fashion, the local authority has no power to refuse a licence, but there are no powers under Section 57 to enable the local authority to insist upon records being kept. Hon. Members will agree that it is of vital importance that records should be kept.

Sir J. Mellor

Is not that provided for under Section 58?

Dr. Summerskill

I am coming to that. Hon. Members will agree that we cannot possibly trace the ancient horses and cows which are going into the knackers' yards unless we have records, and in the past records have not been kept. Section 58 of the Act gives local authorities power to make by-laws requiring records to be kept. That power has been in existence for many years. It is a permissive power and not obligatory. I have examined the position today and I find that only 15 out of over 400 local authorities which have licensed knackers' yards have exercised that power. Hon. Members will recognise that we cannot exer- cise the kind of control we want unless records are kept, and yet only 15 out of over 400 authorities have exercised the power to have records kept.

Colonel Dower

Surely that applies only to cases where the knackers have refused to keep records?

Dr. Summerskill

The hon. and gallant Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Colonel Dower) gives me my case. He says that only 15 out of 400 have kept records and therefore 385 knackers have refused to keep records.

Colonel Dower

No.

Dr. Summerskill

Surely if these people are dealing with food which is being used for human consumption, our Department, as the guardian of the people's food, should come along and say to these unscrupulous men—I say, these black-hearted black marketeers—who are prepared to make profits——

Colonel Dower

The hon. Lady is twisting my interruption, though, I am sure, not intentionally. Surely in the other cases they have agreed voluntarily and there has been no need for compulsory powers to force them to keep records?

Dr. Summerskill

The hon. and gallant Gentleman really ought to learn his case. He must know that powers which can be exercised by local authorities can be permissive or obligatory. These powers are permissive. Fifteen local authorities have exercised those powers, but we have no power to compel them to exercise them. It is time we came along and insisted on these records being kept, and that is what we are seeking to do here.

The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor)—I always treat his legal views with respect—asked why we did not amend the Food and Drugs Act. I have just pointed out to him the size of the problem. There are a great many local authorities involved, and we want compulsory powers. So far only 15 have shown that they are prepared to persuade knackers to keep records. The hon. Member will agree that the Act could not be amended under a few months. He asked why if we were in such a hurry, we had delayed the operation of the Order. The answer is that we have delayed it for a couple of months in order to give the knackers an opportunity to make application for licences in order that we shall be quite fair to all the knackers operating now.

If it is thought that there is not this urgency, I would like to bring the House back to the problem we are discussing. I would remind hon. Members of the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) raised in this House the other day. In that case a man made potted head brawn and pressed beef and sold his products—infected products, by the way—in some 24 neighbouring towns. Our inspectors visited his premises on a routine inquiry. The premises where the manufacture took place and the meat store were filthy. The chief veterinary officer and meat inspector were called in and about half a ton of meat and some manufactured products were seized. The meat, mostly beef with some horseflesh, was condemned. The examination of some utensils, particularly a household bath, showed the presence of the bacilli of dysentery and other diseases. Seven and a half cwt. of the meat seized proved to have come from the knackers yards of John Holt Ltd.

This is the problem with which we are dealing. This is the measure of the urgency. Before I came out I asked my secretary to collect some other cases for me. In one case a butcher was found in possession of diseased meat obtained from a knacker's yard. In another, a firm, owning both a knacker's yard and a butcher's shop were transferring meat from the yard to the shop for sale for human consumption. A person was buying dressed knacker's meat from the knacker and disposing of it to butchers. Another one was disposing of knacker's meat which was unstained, and so on.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Is the hon. Lady suggesting that in those manifestly serious cases she has no powers under existing legislation?

Dr. Summerskill

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that no records have ever been kept except by the knackers in the area of 15 authorities.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

They ought to have been prosecuted.

Dr. Summerskill

When my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley raised this question, the House was very alarmed. The House was full at Question Time. It was then that I said that we were going to make the order. I explained to the House that these people had been prosecuted under the Food and Drugs Act and had been fined something like£2,000, but our powers are not extensive enough to catch them in the early stages because we have no records of the meat which is going into the yards.

As regards the suggestion that the order may constitute unusual use of the powers that we have hitherto exercised by reason of Defence Regulation 55, I would re-emphasise that the position has changed. Here is a new enterprise which is being regarded by many unscrupulous men as a food enterprise. That is why we decided to exercise our powers under Regulation 55.

I am asked why these people are no longer allowed to appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. For exactly the same reason as all these other people we control do not appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. They are being treated in exactly the same way as any others engaged in food enterprises, and they will be treated as fairly as other people who offend against our orders. In this case our Meat and Livestock Division in the first place will consider an application for the licence. When it comes to a question of revoking, the complaints made will be carefully considered by my Department, and finally my right hon. Friend will either revoke the licence or agree to allow the man to have another chance.

I feel that, since I have explained to the House what is our purpose, hon. Members will appreciate that probably they have not fully understood the purpose of this order and I hope, therefore, that the House will resist the Prayer.

2.31 p.m.

Sir J. Mellor

The hon. Lady has not given us a satisfactory answer, although I am grateful for the care she has taken to express it. She began by saying that this was a human problem but that I had dealt with it in a legalistic manner. Surely our business in Parliament is to legislate in a proper way to deal with human problems? Therefore, I do not think she should reject what I said as merely legalistic. Indeed, I had the most powerful support from her side of the House from the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) in a speech that put the matter in proper perspective.

If the hon. Lady has been 100 per cent. right in the facts she has presented to the House, she has made out a good case for the Amendment of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. What she has been doing is to make a fierce attack upon the local authorities. Therefore, I would hesitate to accept all the facts she has presented, or to believe that all the local authorities except 15 have been unwilling to assist, and have, indeed, been obstructing the efforts of her Ministry.

My case was that the proper course, if the Ministry are dissatisfied with the way in which the Act is being administered, or if they are of opinion—as apparently they are according to the memorandum which they presented to the Select Committee—that the local authorities have not sufficient powers under the 1938 Act, is to amend that Act. The hon. Lady suggested that it would take too long, yet since the beginning of this Session the Government have put forward all sorts of little Bills, many of a non-controversial character, to correct anomalies. This might have been one of them, and it would probably have been through by now.

It really is not fair for the hon. Lady to attack the local authorities when the Minister of Health, in reply to a recent Question, expressed himself as entirely satisfied with their administration of the Food and Drugs Act. There must be a conflict of opinion between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Food on this, and I am sorry she did not deal with the point. The suggestion all through has been that time is of the essence, and that was the one argument put forward against an attempt to deal with the matter by amending the 1938 Act.

I should be quite agreeable if this order were to be treated as a purely temporary order, which would remain in force only until the appropriate amendment was introduced to the 1938 Act, provided that an amending Bill was introduced forthwith. Then I could agree that this order should remain in force for that temporary period, but we have had no such assurance, and the hon. Lady promised nothing about amending the 1938 Act. Meanwhile this order has been tacked on, providing concurrent administration, the Ministry of Food and the local authorities both having jurisdiction in this matter. That is a most unsatisfactory and extraordinary position.

The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) said, "Let us give the order a trial," but this is the last day upon which it is possible to pray in this House against the order. Therefore, when today is past, this House will no longer have any control, and if we consider later on that the order is working unsatisfactorily, this House will have no remedy. That is a point which, on some other occasion, I should like to pursue further. It is, at any rate, a complete answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend.

I regret that the hon. Lady has given us no satisfaction. She really only repeated what was in the memorandum which was before the Select Committee upon Statutory Instruments, after careful study of which they reported to this House that the order made an unexpected use of powers. In those circumstances I am afraid we cannot accept as satisfactory the reply of the hon. Lady.

Question put, and negatived.