Commons Sitting of 28 April 1954

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  SHREWSBURY ESTATE BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  CYPRUS (ENOSIS MOVEMENT)
  Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any statement to make about the Enosis movement in Cyprus; and what interventions there have been by the Greek and Turkish Governments in this matter.
  The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs (Mr. Henry Hopkinson): I have no general statement to make on this matter at present. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the Enosis movement has been made clear on a number of occasions and remains unchanged.
  As regards the second part of the Question, the Turkish Foreign Minister has recently made his Government's attitude clear in a statement published on 2nd April, in which he said that Turkey is of the opinion that there is no Cyprus question and that no modification of the status of this island is necessary. The Greek Government, for their part, have explained that they wish to hold bilateral discussions about Cyprus with Her Majesty's Government, and have intimated that in the absence of such discussions they might wish to bring the matter before the United Nations.
  Mr. Reid: Under what clause of the United Nations Charter could this matter be brought before the United Nations?
  Mr. Hopkinson: That would be a matter requiring careful consideration. I think it is a question which the hon. Gentleman should put down to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. At first Slight, I find it difficult to see under which clause it could be raised.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Do Her Majesty's Government reaffirm the offer, made by more than one Government and more than one Secretary of State to the people of Cyprus, that we are ready to consider their further constitutional advance towards self-government, and has that offer been made by the new Governor?
  Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, Sir. It has not been announced by the new Governor in particular, but it was made clear by my reply to a Parliamentary Question from the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) on 26th January.
  Mr. E. Wakefield: Can my right hon. Friend say what reply has been given by Her Majesty's Government to the suggestion of the Greek Government about bilateral discussions?
  Mr. Hopkinson: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Fenner Brockway: May I ask if the people of Cyprus could have self-determination to decide their association?
  Mr. Hopkinson: We made our position perfectly clear, and we are prepared to consider any suggestion with regard to the constitutional offer.

  COLONIAL TERRITORIES (SELF-GOVERNMENT)
  Mr. T. Reidasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps he is taking to establish a two-tier system in British Colonies.
  Mr. Hopkinson: I understand the hon. Member as meaning to suggest that there are, broadly, two kinds of Colonial Territory: those which can look forward to eventual independence either on their own account or in association with others, and those which for one reason or another must, so far as can be foreseen, continue to be in some measure dependent upon the United Kingdom. With this proposition my right hon. Friend, of course, agrees, but he does-not think it would be possible now to

  1595
  assign every Territory finally to one category or the other. There are too many differences in local circumstances, and too many uncertain factors.
  Mr. Reid: Are the Government adhering to the former policy that those Colonies should be advanced gradually to self-government, and that no Colony will become a Dominion without consultation with the existing Dominions?
  Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, Sir. It is certainly our aim to promote every Territory to the fullest practical degree of self-government within the Commonwealth.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Following that answer from the Minister, may I make it clear that it has been laid down by successive Governments that the degree of self-government granted to Colonial Territories is a matter for Her Majesty's Government and for our Parliament? May I ask further whether it is still the policy—as I suppose it is—that when a Colony reaches Dominion status it will enjoy equal status with other members of the Commonwealth who have already reached Dominion status?
  Mr. Hopkinson: As regards the first part of the question, it is certainly our view that it is a decision for Her Majesty's Government and this Parliament as to the way in which Territories should progress towards self-government. When in due course the question of becoming a full member of the Common wealth arises, of course other members of the Commonwealth are concerned and have to be consulted.

  TRINIDAD

    Gomes Commission Report
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what legal proceedings have been taken, or are to be taken, as the result of the Gomes Report on Corruption in Trinidad.
    Mr. Hopkinson: None, Sir. The responsibility in such matters rests with the Attorney-General of Trinidad, and he decided against prosecution.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Minister satisfied that in all cases there are no grounds for prosecution in view of what is contained in the Gomes Report?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I have nothing to add to my reply. I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the reply given to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) on 22nd April, 1953, which has further information on the point.

    Caura Dam
    Mr. D. Jonesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with the construction of the Caura Dam in Trinidad; how much work still remains to be done; when it will be completed; and what is the cost to date.
    Mr. Hopkinson: There has been no progress since 1948 when, as my right hon. Friend explained on the 29th April, 1953, the dam was placed on care and maintenance. The completion of the dam, which it is estimated will cost about £1½ million and take about four years, is included in the Colony's development proposals for the period 1956–60. The cost so far has been about £600,000.
    Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with all the delay that has taken place in the construction of this dam and, in view of the economic advantages which would derive from its completion, will he ask his right hon. Friend to have another look at the matter to see whether the work can be speeded up?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I am very well aware of the importance of completing the dam. It was at one time hoped to complete it in the Colony's five-year economic programme ending in 1955, but owing to the urgent need for water it has been decided to concentrate on other schemes giving a quicker return for the money expended, and it is in the programme for the period 1956–60.
    Mr. Jones: But surely the Minister recognises that the completion of this and other schemes in this territory would do far more to satisfy the inhabitants than the actions recently taken by his right hon. Friend in British Honduras and British Guiana?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I do not know what the reference is to British Honduras. In all these territories we must put first things first.

  KENYA

    Detained Persons (Care of Families)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the hardship caused to families in Kenya when the breadwinner is detained indefinitely; and what steps are being taken to deal with a problem which is causing bitterness of feeling among, those concerned.
    Mr. Hopkinson: I would refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave on 14th April to the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings). My right hon. Friend is not aware of any general hardship among families of detained persons, but there are arrangements for relief to be given in cases of need.
    Mrs. White: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these measures are fully known to the people concerned? While it is admitted that the great majority can go back to the reserve, there are individuals who cannot. What steps are taken to make it clear to those who are not able to find other means of subsistence that some welfare arrangements are available?
    Mr. Hopkinson: I hope that the publicity given to this matter by Parliamentary Questions will help to make it better known in Kenya, but I will see that the attention of the Government is drawn to this point and that it is made as clear as possible to everybody what arrangements there are for relief.
    Mr. Dugdale: Can the Minister of State tell us the numbers detained in connection with operation "Anvil" and the conditions under which they are detained?
    Mr. Hopkinson: That is another question.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Cannot the Minister tell us what he is doing about those detainees who have been in camps since as far back as December, 1952? Does he intend to review their sentences at any time and possibly, especially with trade union leaders, release them to return once more to their normal life and activities among their own people?
    Mr. Hopkinson: That is a different question. The hon. Gentleman had better put it down.

    Screening Teams (African Leaders)
    Mrs. Whiteasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the request by Mr. Ohanga that senior chiefs and senior African leaders should be included in screening teams in Kenya; and what response has been made to it.
    Mr. Hopkinson: Senior African leaders and loyalists have been included in screening teams since their inception. Senior chiefs have not been included, however, as they are fully occupied in administering their locations, but their advice is sought when team members are being selected.
    Mrs. White: Is the Minister aware that Mr. Ohanga is presumably also fully informed of this fact but nevertheless feels that in certain circumstances senior chiefs, through their great knowledge of the background of people being screened, might be able to obtain more information through the screening process than can be obtained by the European officers who are normally employed?
    Mr. Hopkinson: Of course, I am aware of Mr. Ohanga's suggestion, but I do not know whether he really considered its implications when he made it in that it might mean taking senior chiefs away from their locations. African leaders who are very carefully selected are members of the screening teams.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: While appreciating that, may I ask the Minister if he will consult with his right hon. Friend? This is a very important suggestion. I think that it ought to be considered and not turned down. If the chiefs can be spared for the work that will give clearer proof that the work is being done fairly.
    Mr. Hopkinson: I thought that I had made it clear that we are associating picked African leaders and loyalists with these teams. The most important thing is to allow the chiefs to do their own work of running the locations.

    Anti-Mau Mau Operations
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    10. Mr. SORENSEN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies the present position in respect of the suppression of Mau Mau in Kenya; what further arrests

    1599
    have been made; if he is satisfied that no further irregularities have been committed by the Police Reserve or other forces under British authority; and to what extent the rehabilitation of arrested suspects or prisoners is succeeding.
    Mr. Dugdale: On a point of order. My hon. Friend has not been here to ask this Question. I put down a Private Notice Question yesterday which was not accepted because my hon. Friend intended to ask this Question. I realise that unavoidable circumstances have made it impossible for him to be here. This is a matter of importance to people on both sides of the House, and I should have thought that the Minister of State himself would have liked to volunteer a statement so that he might show what is being done in this important matter.
    Mr. Speaker: I have to assume that when an hon. Member puts a Question on the Order Paper he will be here to ask it. As the Question covered the same ground as the right hon. Gentleman's Question, I had to disallow his Private Notice Question.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: May we, through you, ask the Minister whether, on a matter of this importance, he does not think it wise to ask for your permission to make a statement at the end of Questions?
    Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact, I anticipated that from a Question put to me by the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) as to what would happen if he were not present, and I have already given my approval to the Minister to answer this Question at the end of Questions if he so desires.

    Banned Book
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds the Governor of Kenya has forbidden the circulation of the book entitled, "Struggle for Kenya," by D. H. Rawcliffe.
    Mr. Hopkinson: I am informed that the circulation of this book has been prohibited in the public interest. This is within the Governor's powers, and I do not propose to intervene.
    Mr. Swingler: Can the Minister of State tell us the objection to this book? Is it regarded as seditious, and, if so, why was the author not prosecuted? If
    1600
    it is not seditious, are we to take it that it is the policy of the Kenya Government to ban the circulation of any books that are not favourable to the Kenya Government?
    Mr. Hopkinson: Under the Kenya Penal Code, the Governor in Council, if he is of opinion that the importation of any publication would be contrary to the public interest, may in his absolute discretion by order prohibit the importation of that publication. I have looked through this book myself and I am certain that there are passages in it, indeed chapters, which would be calculated to inflame public opinion and racial relations in Kenya under present circumstances.
    Mr. Swingler: Are we to take it, then, that the Minister of State is saying that, because this book contains a considerable and well-documented criticism of the colour bar in Kenya, the Kenya Government are justified in banning the book?
    Mr. Hopkinson: The hon. Gentleman has no right to make any such assumption.
    Mr. Baldwin: Is my hon. Friend aware that all right-minded people will be only too glad to know that the Kenya Government are stopping the circulation of subversive literature which is adding to the bloodshed in Kenya?
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is the Minister of State also proposing to ban the recent report of the Parliamentary delegation to Kenya which takes the same view as many sections of this book?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Swingler: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

  FALKLAND ISLANDS DEPENDENCIES
  Sir C. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about the present position in the Falkland Islands Dependencies; and how many unauthorised foreign settlements are still there.
  Mr. Hopkinson: At the settlement and whaling station in South Georgia, a number of improvements have been made to buildings and communications. In other parts of the Dependencies, work has continued at the six established scientific bases on an extensive programme of scientific and meteorological work planned by the Falkland Islands Dependencies Survey. The Royal Research ship "John Biscoe" is just completing her annual relief of these bases. The number of unauthorised foreign settlements is eleven.
  Sir C. Taylor: Is not it quite intolerable that such a state of affairs should be allowed to continue? May I ask what the Government propose to do about these unauthorised settlements?
  Mr. Hopkinson: My hon. Friend will be aware that steps have been taken and protests have been made in the past to the Governments concerned. As regards any future action in this matter, that is a question which ought to be put to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
  Sir C. Taylor: Surely this cannot be a matter for the Foreign Secretary. This is a case of unauthorised people on British territory. Surely the Colonial Office can do something about it.
  Mr. Hopkinson: We take the necessary action as the occasion arises, as my hon. Friend will remember that we did last year; but any question about diplomatic action is one for my right hon. Friend.
  Sir C. Taylor: I beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory answer, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Shipbuilding Costs (Royal Dockyards and Private Yards)
    Mr. Albuasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of ships at present undergoing conversion in the Royal dockyards and private yards.
    The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): I assume that the hon. Member has in mind the conversions of destroyers to antisubmarine frigates, of which four are at present in hand in the Royal dockyards and nine in private yards.
    Mr. Albu: While congratulating the Royal Naval dockyards on their obvious success in these difficult conversions, may I ask whether the attention of the First Lord has been drawn to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the cost of the work carried out in private yards, and will he in future take steps to increase the amount of conversions carried out in Royal Naval dockyards instead of giving the work to private yards?
    Mr. Thomas: I have read the Report and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we always give the work to the Royal dock yards as far as possible, but they are extremely busy with the refit of ships and are fully employed at the moment. Our policy is to see that the Royal dockyards are fully employed, and when they have room for work of this kind, it will be given to them.
    Mr. Callaghan: What is the First Lord doing to get the price in the private yards down to the price in the Royal yards?
    Mr. Thomas: That is a point which really arises on the following Question. As the Parliamentary Secretary informed the House a fortnight ago, we are in constant and full consultation with the Ship Repairers Council to see if we can get these prices down, but I must say that the Royal dockyards have had some advantage in that they were able to buy materials in bulk earlier. [HON. MEM BERS: "Hear, hear."] Since then, owing to the rise in the cost of coal and other commodities, the price of materials has gone up.
    Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least express pleasure that the Royal dockyards have done so much better than private dockyards?
    Mr. Thomas: I accept gladly that tribute, and later on, on the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke), I have my own tribute to pay to the work done by the Royal dockyards.
    Mr. Albuasked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what proportion of the work of conversion of ships in private yards a price has been, or will be, fixed not later than halfway through the conversion.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: In no instance has it yet been possible to fix a price by the halfway stage of the job. It will, how ever, remain the Admiralty's policy to endeavour to agree a price at the earliest possible stage in the progress of the work.
    Mr. Albu: In view of the fact that according to the Comptroller and Auditor General the work carried out in private yards costs anything up to 50 per cent, more than that carried out in the Royal dockyards, and in view of the fact that the Royal Naval dockyards have always been used as a check on the cost of work done in private yards, why is it that it is not now possible to fix prices for work done in private yards based on the cost of that carried out in the Royal Naval dockyards?
    Mr. Thomas: While a fixed price would be desirable from the point of view of the Admiralty, it is not easy to arrange because, until a ship is opened up, it is difficult for the yards to see how great will be the amount of repair work needed. As I said in answer to the previous Question, I am in constant consultation with the Ship Repairers Council to see if we can get these prices fixed at an earlier stage than they are fixed today.
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider granting a bonus to the workers in Her Majesty's dockyard, in view of the fact that the Auditor General reports that the work carried out in Her Majesty's dockyard was 50 per cent, cheaper than work carried out by civilian contractors.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The Comptroller and Auditor General's recent report on the comparative cost of certain work per formed in the dockyards and similar work done by private contractors is greatly to the credit of the management and men of the Royal Yards. But I do not think it could appropriately be made the occasion for a bonus to the Admiralty employees concerned.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that one civilian 'firm, Messrs. Cammell Laird, gave one week's extra pay to all their employees, and will he do something for the workers in H.M. dockyards for their very fine work in saving 50 per cent, of the cost?
    Mr. Thomas: The conditions of employment in the Royal dockyards and in shipyards are really somewhat different, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, and I have already given and will not now repeat some of the reasons for these differences. If I repeat my congratulations to the Royal dockyards, that does not call for the step which my hon. and gallant Friend suggests.
    Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the Socialistic question of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, West (Brigadier Clarke) and the Socialistic statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty, cannot the right hon. Gentle man come to the rescue of his hon. and gallant Friend and help him to hold the seat in the interests of anti-Socialism?
    Mr. Burden: As my right hon. Friend wants to give the dockyard workers credit, would he consider the possibility of put ting more work in the Royal dockyards and so give the workers there the opportunity of earning more money, because it would appear that, even with overtime rates, the Royal dockyards will still be cheaper than some private firms?
    Mr. Thomas: I do not know if my hon. Friend was in the Chamber when I answered an earlier Question, but I made it clear that the Royal dockyards have been used to full capacity and are likely to be used to full capacity for many years to come.
    Mr. Albu: In view of the fact that the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General states:
    "Admiralty inquiries have established that materials costs were not a major cause of the higher cost of contract work,"
    and in view of the fact that a large number of similar conversions have already taken place, does not the First Lord think that a fixed price might now be made for work done in private yards?
    Mr. Thomas: We are investigating, in consultation with the Ship Repairers Council, the possibility of getting a price at an earlier stage, but, for the reasons given in my answer to a previous Question, a fixed price for repairs is very difficult for this Government, as it was for our predecessors, to secure.

    Aircraft Carrier "Melbourne"
    Mr. Callaghanasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Aircraft Carrier "Melbourne" will be completed; and if he will give an assurance that the cost of building will be fully borne by the Australian Government, and that it is still their intention to take her over on completion.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I expect that this ship will be completed and handed over to the Royal Australian Navy in the latter half of next year. No change has been made or suggested in the general financial arrangements agreed by the previous Administration and described in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Navy Appropriation Account, 1948–49.
    Mr. Callaghan: Has the First Lord had any approaches made to him by the Australian Government in view of the change in their Defence policy, under which they are to abolish the Fleet Air Arm?
    Mr. Thomas: None whatsoever. As far as I know, the matter rests exactly as it did.

    Australian Naval Policy
    Mr. Callaghanasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what consultations he had with the Australian Government before their announcement of a radical change in naval policy.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The composition of the Royal Australian Navy is a matter for Her Majesty's Government in Australia to determine. There is, of course, the closest consultation between the Admiralty and the Australian Commonwealth Navy Board regarding the employment of the two Navies.
    Mr. Callaghan: Does not the change in the naval policy of Australia affect Commonwealth defence policy, and has not the First Lord made representations to the Australian Government? Has he had no contact with them on this matter?
    Mr. Thomas: As I said in my original reply to the hon. Gentleman, we are in constant consultation with the Royal Australian Navy on the question of the employment of the Navy. I repeat that, so far as this decision is concerned, it is
    1606
    not really a radical change in naval policy but one of adjustment in their general defence policy. It is the constitutional right of Her Majesty's Government in Australia to take such a decision.
    Mr. Callaghan: Whilst recognising that it is the right of the Australian Government, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has considered what additional impact this will have upon British defence policy if, indeed, the Australian Government are changing the shape of their own defence policy, and what conclusions has he come to?
    Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the full statement he will see that it is a general statement on defence from the Australian point of view. It is not really a radical change. I do not think it will make a very great difference to the Commonwealth policy in general and, as I have said, the Australian Government have a constitutional right to make this change.
    Mr. Callaghan: Can we take it, then, that if a proposal is made to abolish the Fleet Air Ann in that country, the First Lord will not regard it as a radical change?
    Mr. Thomas: It is not abolition; it is the building up of their Air Force and the cutting down of their Naval Air Arm. That does not justify the statement of the hon. Gentleman that this is a radical change.

    Ratings (Discharge by Purchase)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state, to any convenient date, how many ratings have applied for discharge by purchase as a result of the concessions recently announced by his Department; and how many in consequence have since been granted their discharge.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Forty-two applications under the revised orders have been received. I should point out that it will not be possible to approve the first applications immediately; it has been made clear to the Fleet that we must give time for applications to come in from the whole Fleet in order that they may be put in a fair order of priority. Compassionate cases continue, of course, to be dealt with immediately as before and

    1607
    61 ratings have been granted compassionate discharge during the period under review.

    Officers (Retirements)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state, to any convenient date, how many officers have applied for premature retirement as a result of the concessions recently announced by his Department; and how many in consequence have been given permission to retire.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Eighteen applications have been made since the recent announcement, of which so far five have been granted.

  TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, WEST AYTON
  Mr. Spearmanasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will take steps to expedite the additions to the telephone exchange at West Ayton, near Scarborough, in view of the fact that there are several applicants for a telephone who have been told that under the present arrangements they will not get one until the middle of 1955 or later.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): Additional equipment for the West Ayton exchange is now being manufactured, but, owing to the many urgent calls on our resources, I am afraid it will not be possible to complete installation earlier than the middle of 1955.
  Mr. Spearman: Can my hon. Friend explain why there need be such a long delay in providing an essential service, and would he say whether it is due to work on television, which surely is more of a luxury?
  Mr. Gammans: It has nothing what ever to do with television. The trouble is that the West Ayton exchange is not very high in the priority list.

  STAMP BOOKS (ADVERTISEMENTS)
  Mr. Hurdasked the Assistant Postmaster-General when interleaved advertisements will be re-introduced into books of stamps; and what is the estimated revenue that will be obtained.
  Mr. Gammans: Interleaved advertisements on a restricted scale were reintroduced in September, 1953. It has now been decided to introduce full interleaving in all stamp books as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. It would be very difficult for me at this stage to give any reliable estimate of probable revenue.
  Mr. Hurd: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his decision, which will be for the convenience of the public using these books of stamps, because today so often the sheets of stamps stick together, and because this suggestion will also help the revenue of the Post Office?
  Mr. Fenner Brockway: Would the hon. Gentleman consider using more of these interleaves for information about the Post Office which is little known, such as, for example, the fact that there is no compensation for loss of money in registered envelopes unless the envelopes are those which the Post Office supplies?
  Mr. Gammans: Leaves are now used for certain Post Office information.

  COMMERCIAL TELEVISION
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Assistant Postmaster-General what representations he has received in favour of the establishment of a monopoly of commercial television in the London area; and what reply he has given.
  Mr. Gammans: Two, Sir: no reply has been given other than that this is a matter for the Authority when it is set up.
  Mr. Mayhew: Is it not ironical that, according to the hon. Gentleman's answer, the same commercial interests which until recently were demanding competitive television are now demanding a monopoly of commercial television for themselves in the London area?
  Mr. Gammans: Neither of these two people to whom I have referred are commercial interests at all.
  Mr. Mayhew: Will the hon. Gentle man give an assurance that there will be competition between commercial broad casters in the London area?
  Mr. Gammans: The Authority is under an obligation under the Bill to ensure competition, so far as it is practicably possible.
  Mr. Mayhewasked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications to operate as television programme contractors he has received; and how many he still has under consideration.
  Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend has had preliminary discussions with 46 individuals or bodies who are interested. As I have already informed the House, it will be for the Authority, when it is set up, to make definite arrangements with programme contractors.
  Mr. Mayhew: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously envisaging a situation in which a single commercial concern shall have a monopoly of stations in the London area? Will he give the House an assurance that such an eventuality cannot take place?
  Mr. Gammans: I am not envisaging anything particular at the moment as far as the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised is concerned. The selection of programme companies must rest with the authority.

  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Gravesend Airport (Requisitioned Land)
    Sir R. Aclandasked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement about the derequisitioning of land at Gravesend Airport.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): Action is going ahead in accordance with the letter my noble Friend sent the hon. Member last month.
    Sir R. Acland: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there was not very much action going ahead? Can we have some idea of when this land will be free from the grip of the Air Ministry, which has held on to it in dog-in-the-manger fashion since the end of the war?
    Mr. Ward: The hon. Member will know that there is on this land a hangar, which we have now put up for competitive tender. Directly that has been disposed of, the land can be derequisitioned.

    Jet Aircraft (Accidents)
    Mr. Beswickasked the Under secretary of State for Air how many Royal Air Force jet aircraft have been
    1610
    totally damaged by accident over the two years to the most recent convenient date; if he will state the number of accidents in each of the three main categories of accidents; and how many accidents are held to have been caused by the disintegration of the engine.
    Mr. Ward: In the two years ended 28th February, 1954, 416 Royal Air Force jet aircraft were totally destroyed in crashes. It would be contrary to the established practice of successive Governments over a long period to publish an analysis of the causes of these accidents, but I can say that only a very few were caused by disintegration of the engine.
    Mr. de Freitas: Can the Under-Secretary say how this rate compares with that for piston-engined aircraft of a comparable type?
    Mr. Ward: I think I gave the figures to the House recently, and, of course, they compare very favourably indeed, but the question of the disintegration of the engine does not come into it.
    Mr. Beswick: As the hon. Gentleman is now saying that he gave some figures a short time ago, why cannot he give some closer idea of the number of these accidents caused by engine disintegration?
    Mr. Ward: What I gave was a comparison between the fatal accident rates for jet aircraft and piston-engined air craft. The House will remember that I said then that the fatal jet accident rate was about half the fatal accident rate of the Spitfire.
    Mr. Hobson: The Question deals with the disintegration of engines. Will the Under-Secretary give instructions to the Royal Air Force establishment at Farnborough for research on disintegration of jet engines to have priority?
    Mr. Ward: As I have said, the number of accidents caused by disintegration of jet engines is very small indeed.

    Detention Barracks, Wahnerheide
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Under secretary of State for Air whether the court of inquiry into conditions at Wahnerheide is being held in public; whether the result will be made public; whether evidence will be heard from

    1611
    former Royal Air Force personnel who served at the camp; and by whom and where the inquiry is being conducted.
    Mr. Ward: Courts of inquiry under the Air Force Act are not held in public, nor are their proceedings published. This is to ensure that all concerned can speak freely and, if need be, criticise fearlessly. This particular court of inquiry is being held in Germany. The President is a group captain, and the members a wing commander and a flight lieutenant. Evidence is being taken from members of the Royal Air Force who are, or have been, responsible for the unit or on duty there. I propose to make a statement on this whole matter when it is no longer sub judice.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the conditions which have given rise to this inquiry have been going on at this place for a number of years, and will he try to take evidence from people who were present at this detention barracks when they were in the Services but who are now civilians and can there fore speak freely, and who may be able to make a contribution to this matter?
    Mr. Ward: Of course, we took evidence from members of the staff and others who were there at the time, but evidence from ex-prisoners was covered by the courts-martial which were recently held.
    Mr. Chetwynd: If I send the hon. Gentleman evidence from a person who is now a civilian but who was on the staff at that station two years ago, will be give it consideration?
    Mr. Ward: Certainly.

  ROADS

    Accidents
    Lieut-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number and percentage of accidents on zebra crossings for the quarter ended 31st March last.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): The information required by the hon. and gallant Member is not yet available; I will send it to him as soon as I can.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the general figures giving the accidents for the quarter ended 31st March are already available? Have they yet been analysed, and if so can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not the degree of security for pedestrians on zebra crossings is improved or is getting worse?
    Mr. Molson: I have already said that the figures have not yet been analysed. They will be analysed in the middle of May. I will send the hon. and gallant Gentleman the analysis.
    Mr. Orbachasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what has been the number and type of accidents on the North Circular Road, from Staples Corner to Neasden Circus, since the installation of traffic lights along that road; and if he will give similar information with regard to accidents on the same road for the corresponding previous period.
    Mr. Molson: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Orbach: Do the figures disclose a diminution in the number of accidents?
    Mr. Molson: Yes, Sir. The figures are extremely satisfactory. From 23rd September, 1952, to 22nd March, 1953, the number of accidents was 22. In the subsequent comparable period the figure fell to nine.
    Following is the answer:
    The last set of these signals came into operation on 23rd September, 1953, and excluding accidents at the junctions at either end of this length of road, the figures of accidents to 22nd March, 1954, compared with the figures for the same period a year earlier are as follows:

    23rd Sept., 1952–22nd March, 1953

    23rd Sept., 1953–22nd March, 1954

    Fatal

    …

    …

    …

    2

    0

    Serious

    …

    …

    …

    1

    1

    Slight

    …

    …

    …

    19

    8

    Total

    …

    …

    …

    22

    9

    The accidents are analysed as:

    23rd Sept., 1952–22nd March, 1953

    23rd Sept., 1953–22nd March, 1954

    Passengers alighting from Public Service Vehicles.

    2

    1

    Collisions between private cars Collisions between goods

    6

    2

    and other vehicles Collisions involving motor

    1

    2

    cyclists

    5

    2

    [Collisions with other vehicles]

    2

    2

    Collisions with grass verge

    1

    0

    Skids)

    2

    0

    Collisions involving pedal cyclists

    5

    2

    [Collisions with vehicles

    4

    2

    Illness]

    1

    0

    Collisions involving pedestrians

    3

    0

    Total

    22

    9

    Of the two persons killed in the period before the installation of the traffic lights, one was a pedestrian and one a cyclist.

    Traffic Congestion, London
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what has been the result of his consideration of proposals to relieve congestion in London.
    Mr. Molson: I dealt with this matter rather fully in my speech in the Adjournment debate on 15th April, and I have nothing further to add.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that he had nothing to state on that occasion? The hon. Gentleman has not given the House any information of what is being done to relieve traffic congestion in London. He said that consideration was being given to it. Can he tell us the nature of the consideration? Did not the Easter traffic indicate the urgency that something should be done?
    Mr. Molson: I made as full a statement as it was possible for me to do in the somewhat limited time available. The hon. Member will remember that he himself made the longest speech in that debate.
    Mr. Burden: Will my hon. Friend communicate with the British Transport Commission and ask them if they will suggest to bus drivers and to drivers of other public service vehicles that they should not close up on zebra crossings and so become stationary, impeding the natural flow of pedestrians? That is happening at many places in London.
    Mr. Molson: I will certainly consider the suggestion of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. H. Morrison: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether his right hon. Friend is taking the London traffic problem at all seriously? Is he aware that when I asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider outstanding London cases, for example Hyde Park Corner, all he did was to make a contemptuous reference to London as if it deserved no consideration at all? Will he try to reconcile his right hon. Friend to the fact that London exists and does require attention?
    Mr. Molson: The right hon. Gentle man has been Minister of Transport and is aware that my right hon. Friend is the Traffic Authority. My right hon. Friend gives a great deal of time to this matter, which requires very careful consideration. He is trying to deal with a problem which none of his predecessors have been able to deal with. With regard to Hyde Park Corner, I answered a Question on that subject recently and said that I did not think it was one of the cases in London which required priority treatment.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that within a week of the Minister's scorning of the Hyde Park Corner suggestion there was a terrible bus accident at Hyde Park Corner?
    Mr. Molson: That accident was not due to Hyde Park Corner but to the negligence of the driver.*

    Traffic Lights, Willesden
    Mr. Orbachasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will consider the installation of traffic lights at Chichele Road, N.W.2, where it is crossed by Anson Road.
    Mr. Molson: Those roads are the responsibility of the Willesden Borough
    * See Question No. 45, 5th May, 1954, Vol. 527, c. 362

    1615
    Council who have made no application to us for the erection of traffic lights. I understand, however, that warning signs are to be erected on the approaches to this junction.
    Mr. Orbach: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this crossing, which was already very dangerous, has been made more dangerous as the result of the provision of a school at one side and of a municipal public hall on the other in the last three years? Without representations being made to him by Willesden Borough Council, will the hon. Gentleman accept the representations that are now made to him by the hon. Member for Willesden, East?
    Mr. Molson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman realises that the local authority has statutory responsibility for putting up these signs.

  SOUTH-EAST ASIA (DEFENCE)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether he will propose to the United States and other interested governments that the independent countries of South-East Asia represented at the Premiers' Conference at Ceylon on 28th April shall be invited to participate in any discussions on the establishment of a collective security organisation in South-East Asia;
  (2) whether he will propose to the countries represented at the Geneva Conference that in the consideration of questions affecting South-East Asia they shall take into account the decisions of the Conference of Premiers of South-East Asian countries, meeting at Ceylon on 28th April.
  The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): Her Majesty's Government are anxious that the views of the Asian countries in conference at Colombo should be taken fully into account on all questions affecting peace and security in South-East Asia. Any expression of these views which may emerge from the conference in Colombo will be carefully and sympathetically considered.
  Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Prime Minister's statement yesterday means that
  1616
  further discussions on the proposed South-East Asia Regional Security Pact have been postponed pending the outcome of the Geneva Conference? Secondly, will he give an assurance that this country will not enter into such a pact without the agreement of India and the other South-East Asian countries who are directly concerned with the area?
  Mr. Lloyd: The answer to the first supplementary question is that general conversations regarding the composition of any security system have not been initiated. In regard to the second supplementary question, the attitude of India will, of course, be a matter for very careful consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the attitude of India with regard to Kashmir is bedevilling the whole of this situation and does not leave much hope that India's attitude will be much better on other things?
  Sir H. Williams: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say, in answering Question No. 34, how he is interpreting the word "independent"? Does it mean independent of Soviet Russia?

  UNITED NATIONS (RESTRICTED VISAS)
  Mrs. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the terms of the visa granted to Mrs. Dora Russell when she attended the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in New York; what protest his Department has made at the restriction of Mrs. Russell to a 70-block area in Manhattan; and to what extent similarly restricted visas are being issued to other British subjects.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I understand that Mrs. Russell, who represented the Women's International Democratic Federation, was granted a visa to give her access to the United Nations Headquarters at New York to enable her to attend the Commission on the Status of Women. Restriction of movement to the immediate vicinity of the headquarters is permissible under the Agreement between

  1617
  the United States Government and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, approved by the General Assembly in 1947. Her Majesty's Government therefore have no reason to protest. I am not aware of any other cases involving British subjects.

  GERMANY (SPANDAU PRISONERS)
  Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he and the Western Powers have made to the Soviet Union on the temporary release of one or more of the Spandau prisoners for hospital treatment and the proposed measures to ease the conditions under which these prisoners are confined; what was the nature of the reply from the Soviet Government; and if he will make a statement on these Four-Power talks.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Certain proposals, in particular proposals to cover cases of sickness, have been put forward, for discussion by representatives of the four Powers. The question of the disposal of the bodies of those who die in prison is also under discussion. Final agreement has not yet been reached, although the negotiations have made progress on certain matters.
  Mr. Lewis: On the latter point, concerning the disposal of the bodies, can the Minister of State give us an assurance that the Government will adopt the same practice for these mass murderers as is adopted in this country with those who murder individually? Can he give an assurance that in no instance these criminals will be treated better or worse than people convicted in this country for less crimes against fewer persons'?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think that the purpose of these negotiations, so far as the conditions of detention are concerned, is that these people should be treated with no more and no less humanity than is given to people who have been convicted of such crimes. With regard to the disposal of bodies, that is a matter on which various views can be held on the question of possible martyrdom, and so on. I Cannot give the undertaking for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

  AUSTRALIAN MEAT AGREEMENT
  Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food the extent of the price guarantees agreed with the Australian meat producers and the estimated liability of the United Kingdom Exchequer; and whether it is proposed to offer similar guarantees to New Zealand and other Empire producers selling meat in the United Kingdom.
  The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): The guarantees are to the Australian Government in return for specific obligations undertaken by them. They provide for a deficiency payment related to the difference between the average prices realised on the United Kingdom market during the year from 1st October, 1954, and the current bulk contract prices discounted by agreed percentages. I cannot yet say how these two sets of prices will compare in a free market. There are no similar agreements with other Empire producers, but the meat trade with New Zealand is governed by the joint declaration of the two Governments of which I informed my hon. Friend on 7th April.
  Mr. Hurd: While this arrangement with Australia seems very satisfactory, would it not be well to offer similar terms to other Empire countries, bearing in mind that the world is short of meat and that the Conservative Party believes in Empire Preference?
  Major Lloyd George: I would remind my hon. Friend that the joint declaration to which I referred in my answer was made at the request of New Zealand. It leaves New Zealand free to sell any quantity of meat elsewhere, whereas Australia is confined to the percentage agreed every year.
  Mr. T. Williams: Am I to understand that the guaranteed price has been guaranteed by the Government and not by private importers?
  Major Lloyd George: This is an agreement made between the Australian Government and Her Majesty's Government. If it is of any help to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House generally, I will put a copy of that agreement in the Library.

  POLAND AND HUNGARY (TRADE NEGOTIATIONS)
  Sir J. Lucasasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the course of the official trade negotiations with Poland and Hungary, and the negotiations for the settlement of mutual debts.
  The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): The negotiations are still in progress, and I would prefer to wait until they are concluded.
  Sir J. Lucas: Would it be possible for at least some of the people who are waiting for the money to get a payment on account? Have we not more assets in this country than they have in theirs?
  Mr. Amory: These negotiations cover both trade and debts, but debts are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and not for me. Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a further Question to one of my right hon. Friends.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does the same negative report apply to negotiations with Bulgaria and Rumania?
  Mr. Amory: No negotiations are at present taking place with either of those two countries.

  KENYA (ANTI-MAU MAU OPERATIONS)
  Mr. Hopkinson: I will now, with per mission, answer Question No. 10.
  The latest important development is the large-scale operation to remedy conditions in Nairobi Which the recent Report of the Parliamentary Delegation pointed out "strike at the roots of public security and of respect for law and order." Nairobi has for some time been a major source of support, in recruits, supplies, money and refuge, to the Mau Mau gangs.
  Control of the African locations, never easy to secure by ordinary police methods, has been made more difficult, in places almost impossible, by a great rise in the African population, mainly Kikuyu, in the past few years. In 1953 alone the Kikuyu male working population of Nairobi went up by 40 per cent.
  1620
  Mau Mau have achieved almost complete domination of Africans of all tribes in Nairobi by murder, armed robbery, intimidation and the levying of protection money on shopkeepers and tradesmen.
  The object of the present operation is to remove the active and passive supporters of Mau Mau from Nairobi to holding camps where a thorough screening will take place on an individual basis. This is bound to take a little time, but will be carried out as speedily as possible. Those who as a result of screening can safely be released will be allowed to go back to their homes. Those who cannot at present be released without endangering peace and good order will continue to be detained but will receive training to enable them to become useful citizens again.
  From the night of 23rd-24th April, when the Nairobi operation began, until yesterday morning, some 10,000 Africans were detained for further screening. Since then there has been virtually no crime in the city.
  I regret to report that on Saturday last, through a serious error, a party of British soldiers commanded by a captain in the Kenya Regiment entered the India Commissioner's Office in Nairobi in the course of their operations. As soon as this was known the Acting Governor and the Commander-in-Chief apologised to the Indian Acting Commissioner. I should like to take this opportunity to express Her Majesty's Government's deep regret at this unfortunate occurrence.
  My right hon. Friend is satisfied that, apart from the incident to which I have just referred, no major irregularities have been committed by security forces in the past few weeks. Minor complaints continue to be received, and are investigated by a committee set up by the Acting-Governor; disciplinary action is taken where complaints are substantiated.
  Existing rehabilitation schemes continue, but it is early yet to make a comprehensive estimate of their success. Some progress has been made and many detainees have shown themselves willing to co-operate.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Minister devote attention to one problem which arises, as on previous occasions, out of

  1621
  this matter, that is, the practice of sending some of these people back to the reserve? From information we receive, the position in the reserve is becoming really chronic. They have gone from the farms and now they are going back from Nairobi. Even if this cures the problem in Nairobi itself, it is creating fertile soil for Mau Mau there. Is there not a better way of dealing with these people than by pushing them back to the reserve?
  Mr. Hopkinson: I am very aware of the problem to which the right hon. Gentle man refers, and I can certainly assure him that that aspect of it will be care fully considered in dealing with this operation.
  Mr. Dugdale: Can the Minister tell us the conditions under which these men are detained, and can he give any estimate of the length of time which is likely to elapse before they are brought to trial?
  Mr. Hopkinson: These persons are detained under the Emergency Regulations. I will not describe in detail the camps in which they are being held, but, as I say, the intention is that they shall be screened one by one. Some are already being screened and some have been released, but it is bound to take a certain amount of time. I cannot say how long it will take. They will be screened as quickly as possible, and will then be held. It is not a question of their going for trial. They will be held under the Emergency Regulations in precisely the same way as detainees were held under Emergency Regulations in Malaya.
  Mr. Stokes: Arising out of the first part of the Question and in relation to the scheme which the Minister and the House will recognise as the "General" China surrender scheme, which was so much supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) at the time, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that sufficient use is being made of aeroplane loudspeakers over the forest in order to convince the 1,500 or so people who were about to surrender on 10th April that the un fortunate incident on 7th April had nothing whatever to do with that surrender, and that their surrender under the conditions then proposed is highly desirable?
  Mr. Hopkinson: I know that, in general, loudspeakers have been used by the Royal Air Force to appeal to the Mau Mali terrorists to surrender, but I do not know whether, in fact, they were employed on the dates mentioned at these particular places. It was not something that we could foresee.
  Mr. Stokes: That is not quite the point, and I am sorry if I did not make it clear. The Minister will be aware that 1,500 or so people were on the point of surrender when, unfortunately, a day or two before there was an action in the Mau Mau neighbourhood with the result that they again dispersed. What I am asking is whether the Minister is satisfied that sufficient use has been made of loudspeakers over the forest in order to convince those people that the incident on 7th April had nothing whatever to do with them and that their surrender is expected and is still desirable under the terms then proposed.
  Mr. Hopkinson: I replied very fully to this on 14th April when, I think, the right hon. Gentleman was not here.
  Mr. Stokes: I was there.
  Mr. Hopkinson: But the point to which he has drawn attention will be brought to the notice of the authorities. As I explained then, the particular plan for general mass surrender—the "General" China plan as it was called—has been dropped, but the arrangements for the surrender of individuals under the original plan of last August will continue.
  Mr. Baldwin: In view of the success of the recent operation in Nairobi, will my right hon. Friend urge the Government to offer encouragement to the Kenya Government to continue their present steps?
  Mr. Hobson: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, as a result of this long overdue round up in Nairobi, the boycott on the 'buses, and the non-smoking ban in Nairobi still continue?
  Mr. Hopkinson: The operation still continues. I cannot report to the House on this sort of detail yet, but I will do so on the first occasion possible.
  Mr. J. Johnson: Can the Minister say what numbers of Kikuyu have so far been screened and how many remain to be screened? When I was there I met

  1623
  a great deal of scepticism amongst the camp staffs as to whether they were sufficient in number or were competent to do this immense task. Will the Minister now answer the question during Question time? What is he doing about those detainees who have been immured in the camps since December, 1952, and when is he going to release some of those people again to normal life?
  Mr. Hopkinson: Apart from the present operation—of which I have not got exact particulars, except that 10,000 have been arrested—arrests in connection with Mau Mau numbered 191,587 up to 10th April. Of these, 35,380 were released after preliminary inquiry, 156,207 were screened, and 78,413 were released after screening. Governor's detention orders numbered 1,801. That is the present position, but those numbers, of course, are now going up as a result of the present operation. In general, as I said in reply to the Question, measures for rehabilitation are going on fairly well although it is rather an early stage to be able to report.
  Mr. Sorensen: I apologise for my earlier absence. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is done to the detainees when they have been through the process of rehabilitation? Are they given useful work, or land so that they can recover themselves in that way?
  Mr. Hopkinson: In my original reply I said that every effort would be made to give them training so that they would become useful citizens again. That, of course, would include work in the camps where they now are—work, generally speaking, connected with the emergency but work which, we hope, will help to restore them to useful citizenship.

GOLD COAST (NEW CONSTITUTION)
Mr. Hopkinson: With permission, I wish to make a statement on the future constitution of the Gold Coast.
I am glad to inform the House that the exchanges on constitutional reform with the Gold Coast Government to which my right hon. Friend referred on the 21st October have been successfully concluded. The drafts of new constitutional instruments will shortly be submitted to the Privy Council and
1624
despatches are being published. These draft instruments will provide for an enlarged Legislative Assembly, chosen by direct election, and for a Cabinet of Representative Ministers drawn from the Assembly, with the Prime Minister normally presiding.
Subject to the continuing reserved powers of the Governor and his responsibilities for external affairs, Togoland, defence and in certain matters concerning the police, they provide that the Cabinet, as the principal instrument of policy, is to be responsible for the internal self-government of the country. The intention is that the Governor will be assisted in the discharge of his responsibilities by a Deputy Governor and advised by a Committee of which the Prime Minister and other Representative Ministers will be members.
The Gold Coast Government have been equally concerned with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that suitable arrangements should be made in the Constitution to preserve the independence of the Judiciary and the Public Service. It has now been agreed that a Judicial Service Commission should be set up to advise on, and later to be responsible for, judicial appointments, other than that of the Chief Justice.
It has also been agreed that for the present the Governor should continue to be responsible for the Public Service but that at a later stage the Public Service Commission, which has already gained valuable experience as an advisory body, should itself become responsible for Public Service appointments. In recognition of these successive changes in the conditions of service of the Public Service the draft constitutional instruments provide for an agreed scheme of compensation in two stages on the lines proposed in Dr. Nkrumah's statement of the 8th July, 1953, which was welcomed in this House.
As one of the measures decided on to preserve the confidence of overseas investors, the Gold Coast Government have proposed that, although they have no plans for nationalising industry, provision should be made in the constitution guaranteeing fair compensation should a successor Government ever consider an act of nationalisation essential. Her Majesty's Government have welcomed this proposal. There was not time to

1625
insert the necessary clause in the draft instruments, but it will be included in an amending Order which will be submitted to Her Majesty in due course.
With the passing of the present Gold Coast Constitution I should like to pay a warm tribute to the part played in this important development of self-government in the Gold Coast by the Governor, the ex-officio Ministers who will now vacate their posts and the officers both overseas and African of the Gold Coast Public Service as a whole.
The discussions which have led to the satisfactory settlement now reached have been cordial and constructive. It is proposed that a General Election should be held under the new Constitution in June. I am confident that when there is an All-African Government it will prove as friendly, co-operative and responsible as the present one.
Under these changes, the powers retained by Her Majesty's Government are the minimum which they must retain so long as they have any responsibility for the Gold Coast. These changes must therefore be regarded as the last stage before the Gold Coast assumes full responsibility for its own affairs. The grant of such responsibility within the Commonwealth is a matter for the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and I can say that at the appropriate time Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will be prepared to take such steps as may be necessary for that purpose.
Full membership of the Commonwealth, is, of course, a different question which as was made clear by the then Commonwealth Secretary on 7th June, 1951, and by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16th June, 1952, would be a matter for consultation between all existing members of the Commonwealth.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Minister to convey our thanks to the Secretary of State and to everyone in the Gold Coast responsible for this very successful outcome of the discussions? As one who had the privilege of conducting the final stages—which were begun by my friend Mr. Creech Jones—by inaugurating the Hussey Constitution in 1951, may I join in expressing our deep debt of gratitude to the Governor and to everyone concerned in the Gold Coast, including the African Ministers, on the
1626
responsible way in which they undertook their tasks, quite clearly indicating their competence to undertake the responsibilities for operating democratic Government.
I have two questions. First, do I understand that under the new Constitution, after the elections the responsibility for the Gold Coast will continue to be that of the Colonial Secretary and the Colonial Office? Secondly, while I appreciate that the next stage will be the final stage towards what is usually called Dominion status, and that admission into the Commonwealth is a matter for Commonwealth countries generally, at the same time I hope that the Government and the House as a whole will say that they look forward to the day when the first all-African State will become a full member of the British Commonwealth.
Mr. Hopkinson: In reply to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I confirm that under the new Constitution the Gold Coast affairs will still remain under the Colonial Office. As to the second part of the right hon. Gentle man's question, of course it is primarily a matter for my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. But, as I said in reply to an earlier Question, it is a matter for consultation among all members of the Commonwealth, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has said on several occasions in this House.
Mr. C. Davies: May I also be allowed to congratulate, as I do most warmly, not only the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but all in Africa and in his Department concerned in bringing about this reform? May I ask if he is aware that this constitutional reform will not only be noted but is bound to have an effect far beyond the boundaries of the territory of the Gold Coast and, indeed, throughout Africa?
Mr. Hopkinson: Yes, Sir, I will certainly convey the congratulations and the message of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) and of the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to all the persons concerned.
Mr. Elliot: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Secretary of State the hearty congratulations of all of us on the

1627
fortunate outcome of this long and still rapidly developing story? May I also ask him to convey to the Government of the Gold Coast the fact that our confidence in their competence has been increased and not diminished by the vigorous investigation which took place there into the charges of corruption and the vigorous steps which they have taken to deal with the matter?
Mr. Hopkinson: Certainly.
Mrs. White: As during this last stage but one towards full independence, certain powers concerning foreign affairs and defence are properly reserved to the Governor and Deputy Governor, may we understand that nevertheless some opportunity for training and experience in these branches of government will be given to members of the Gold Coast service so that they may be ready to take over full responsibility when the time comes?
Mr. Hopkinson: As I mentioned in the statement, there will be a special committee set up to advise the Governor in these matters, and this committee will comprise the Prime Minister and other Ministers as well as the Deputy Governor and others, so that at the highest level they will have an opportunity of taking part in these affairs.
As regards the question of a Gold Coast foreign service, of course that will come along in due course, but with the appointment of an African from the Gold Coast as Commissioner here in London, that will at least be a beginning.
Sir H. Williams: While congratulating everybody, may I ask when we are going to have a proper debate on this subject?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Minister. There is no Question now before the House.

GOLD COAST (NEW CONSTITUTION)
  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
    TELEPHONE SERVICE
    Mr. G. Williams: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 14th May, I shall call attention to the need to improve the telephone service, and move a Resolution.
    DERELICT COMMON LAND
    Mr. Baldwin: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 14th May, I shall call attention to the need for taking steps to see that all common land which is at present derelict shall be brought into cultivation for the benefit of commoners and the national economy, and move a Resolution.
    COLONIES (DEPORTATION)
    Mr. Fenner Brockway: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 14th May, I shall call attention to the practice of deportation in the Colonies, and move a Resolution.
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.46 p.m.
  The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  I think it might be of some assistance to the House in its consideration of this Ball if I were to say a word or two about the previous enactments on this subject. Prior to 1938, slaughterhouses were subject to licensing regulations, but the previous conditions under which licences were issued varied considerably. The 1890 Act introduced a system of annual licensing alongside other licensing arrangements of an earlier date, and this situation remained until 1938.
  In that year the Food and Drugs Act was passed, and Section 57 of that Act made it an offence to use a slaughterhouse without a local authority licence, and that licence was issued for a period of not more than 13 months at a time. There were minor differences in the licensing arrangements for the three categories of slaughterhouses, but, without going into any of the details, one can say that, broadly speaking, they all became the subject of annual licensing. The 1938 Act became operative on 1st October, 1939. By that time, as the House is aware, we were at war, and because of the meat and livestock control scheme which came into operation in January, 1940, the licensing provisions of the 1938 Act have not been generally applied.
  At that time—that is, before the war— the slaughterhouses that were actually functioning in England and Wales numbered 12,000, but the war-time control scheme introduced great and significant changes in the slaughtering arrangements. For the past 14 years it has been illegal to slaughter livestock except under licence from the Ministry of Food. Because of its complete control of the meat and livestock industry, and because the consumer was limited in his consumption by the rationing system, it has been possible in these years for the Ministry to manage with some 600 slaughterhouses, as opposed to the 12,000 in existence before the war. Of these 600, about 200 were originally provided by the local authorities. This is the situation which
  1630
  applied all through the war and still obtains today.
  Since the war, and whilst the present control arrangements have been in operation, both this Government and their predecessor have decided upon a policy of moderate concentration of slaughtering facilities as a long-term objective. There is no disagreement between us on that policy. In February, 1953, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I appointed two committees to prepare a plan for implementing this policy of moderate concentration, and the preparation of this plan is well under way at the moment.
  As hon. Members will appreciate, the task is necessarily a long and fairly complicated one, as it involves consultations with a large number of interests, including local authorities. But I want to emphasise that that is the policy to which we are committed, and we shall work steadily towards that goal. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that the policy of moderate concentration cannot be achieved except over a period of many years. Even when the siting plans have been agreed to, it will take some considerable time for them to be implemented, and this can only be done piecemeal.
  In the meantime, we have to provide for the new situation Which will arise when meat is derationed and decontrolled. The House already knows that it is the Government's intention to decontrol in July. We have now decided that rationing, price control and Ministry distribution of meat, and also of bacon, will end at midnight on Saturday, 3rd July next. The war-time controls over the purchase and slaughter of fatstock will be withdrawn shortly before to allow the trade to resume its activities without any interruption in supplies to the public. Meat importers, also, will be free to resume their former business, and private importation of meat will begin as soon as the Ministry's contracts are completed. In the meantime, importers will get their supplies from the Ministry's stocks.
  I aim sure the House would not wish me to burden it with all the details of this arrangement, but they are of tremendous importance to the trade and we shall shortly be publishing leaflets giving in great detail, for the information of farmers and others, the arrangements for marketing of home-produced livestock

  1631
  and the working of the new fatstock guarantees. The Farmers' Fatstock Marketing Corporation, which I am very glad to see, from the Press announcement, is being established by the National Farmers' Union, will be entitled to the guarantees just as any other seller presenting animals or carcasses for certification.
  I am satisfied that early July is the right time for this very considerable operation. We need a little time for the running in of the new marketing machinery before the livestock entries begin to rise rapidly to the peak, which comes a little later. By "machinery," I do not mean so much the ordinary machinery of paying the guarantees—although that is certainly a not inconsiderable job of work—but rather the whole business of marketing, the organisation of the fatstock markets, the grading arrangements and the organisation of an adequate slaughtering system.
  It may be that a few months' postponement would have enabled a local authority to make more detailed preparations, but any such local advantage would be far outweighed by the general inconvenience to the auctioneers, the farmers and the meat trade generally, not to mention the consumers, if the introduction of the new system were delayed for a few months when the presentation of livestock had become much heavier than it will be in early July. Moreover, I doubt very much whether the existing system of control, with its rigidities of allocations and distribution, could go successfully through another peak-kill season.
  Therefore, last December my right hon. Friend and I asked the two inter-Departmental committees to which I have just referred to consider what interim arrangements would be necessary to ensure that meat distribution could be satisfactorily carried out on decontrol next summer. The committees, which have taken evidence from local authorities, producers and other trade interests, reported in January this year, and on 17th February the Government announced their acceptance of the committees' reports in all except one particular.
  To make sure that local authorities were aware of the situation, circular letters were sent to them all on 24th February and, in more detail, on 24th March,
  1632
  advising them of their proposed duties and responsibilities, and urging them to enter into immediate consultation with the trade interests concerned in their own areas. In addition, I met their representatives on 3rd March and I further took the opportunity, on the occasion of the annual conference of the Association of Municipal Corporations on 1st April, at Bournemouth, to address them on the problems and difficulties with which they were faced.
  I have also had consultations with the trade interests, and only yesterday I addressed the annual conference of the National Federation of Retail Meat Traders on this and other related matters. I am perfectly satisfied that by now all the interests concerned are well aware of the position which will obtain on 3rd July, and I am satisfied that they are getting on with their arrangements.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Can the Minister give us some indication why he has not yet met any representatives of the trade unions—the workers in the industry? While he rightly refers to his meetings with the trade interests, I should not like it to be thought that they included the workers concerned, whom he has not yet met, so far as I am aware.
  Major Lloyd George: I need hardly say that consultations have taken place with my Department, though not with me, personally. I should be glad at any time to meet a deputation of that sort if I thought it would be of any value.
  It may be argued that this Bill should not have been brought forward at this stage, and that we should delay decontrol until the policy of moderate concentration could be carried out. As I have already pointed out, this policy is bound to take some years to implement, and the Government cannot possibly contemplate continuing the control of the meat and livestock industry throughout the whole of that time. I do not think that the system in its present form could continue to operate successfully with increasing supplies; nor would the public tolerate control devised for years of rationing and scarcity once supplies became more plentiful.
  What we have to do, therefore, and what this Bill sets out to do, is to enable local authorities and other interested parties to make suitable arrangements for

  1633
  slaughtering on decontrol. We are endeavouring to establish a modus vivendi which will enable decontrol to operate successfully while at the same time not doing anything to prejudice the long-term policy, for it must be recognised that conditions in the marketing and slaughtering of livestock on decontrol will differ very considerably from those that have been known to us for the last 14 years.
  The private trader, for example, will have to study the needs of his customers, the type and quality of the meat his customers want, far more than was possible under a scheme of rationing and allocation. Stock will not be bought and allocated by one central authority, as it has been over the last 14 years, but by private traders buying competitively, and for this reason it is absolutely necessary to have available considerably more premises than the 600 or so the Ministry has used in England and in Wales. The situation in Scotland, by the way, is rather different. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] Six hundred, but the situation in Scotland is different.
  Mr. George Brown: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not quite got the point. I understood him to say that his view is that we shall need more than 600. What we are asking is how many more?
  Major Lloyd George: I did not understand. I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. It is not easy to give an accurate figure for the reason that much depends on the size of those which will be licensed, but I should say that the figure will be about 2,500. I should think so.
  Mr. Alfred Robens: Does this mean that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is denying the statement made in another place by the Minister of State, Scottish Office, that it would be between 3,000 and 3,500?
  Major Lloyd George: It is not a question of denying anything. I am not sure to what statement of my noble Friend the right hon. Gentleman is alluding. The figure I have given is the nearest I can give, and there is no question of my denying anything. In the nature of things the number is bound to depend on the size of the slaughterhouses. That will make an enormous difference, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate.
  1634
  Because of the need for more than the 600, many slaughterhouses which have not been used since 1939 will have to be brought back into operation. It may be expected that the needs of farmers and butchers will be to a large extent met by the provision of public slaughtering facilities by local authorities either in premises now used by the Ministry or in other premises acquired or appropriated for this purpose. The demand for slaughterhouse accommodation, however, will not be fully met by this means and private slaughtering will have a considerable part to play in meeting the nation's requirements for meat of the right type and quality at the right place and time.
  As for the Bill itself, the House will see that it is divided into three Parts. The first Part relates to England and Wales, the second Part relates to Scotland, and the third contains some general provisions. It has been necessary to legislate separately for England and Wales and for Scotland partly because in many respects the position in Scotland is less unsatisfactory than it is, as far as slaughterhouses are concerned, in England and Wales.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Why not follow that trend?
  Major Lloyd George: We have to face the situation as it is. In Scotland there is just about the necessary number to carry out the scheme.
  Mr. David J. Pryde: I should not like the House to believe that everyone in Scotland is of the same way of thinking as the Minister.
  Major Lloyd George: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by that. I should be very surprised if they all were. However, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the situation in Scotland, as far as the necessary numbers are concerned, is very much more satisfactory than it is in England.
  Mr. Pryde: Not in the south-east of Scotland.
  Sir Robert Boothby: It is in the north-east.
  Major Lloyd George: Taking Scotland as a whole, the number is pretty near what will be wanted, according to the best advice I can get. Probably my hon.

  1635
  Friend will be able to confirm that. Apart from the fact that in this respect the situation is better in Scotland than in England and Wales, the law relating to slaughterhouses was consolidated in England and Wales in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, which does not in this respect apply to Scotland. Accordingly, the Scottish Clauses of the Bill contain a complete code for the provision of slaughterhouses by local authorities, the registration of private slaughterhouses, their closure, and the payment of compensation; whereas in England we have had to proceed by way of an amendment of an existing Act which was not designed to cope with the situation I have outlined.
  The 1938 Act covered a situation in which there were widespread slaughtering facilities in England and Wales, some 12,000 premises. The new situation comes 14 years after the commencement of the operation of that Act, after 14 years when, under a rigid control system, there have been only some 600 premises in use; and now it is desired as an interim measure to open some, but by no means all, of the previously existing slaughterhouses. The essential requirement is to ensure that sufficient slaughterhouse accommodation will be available on 3rd July. This is of paramount importance, and Clauses 1 to 7 impose on local authorities the duty of exercising the powers conferred on them by the Bill to secure the provision of such additional facilities as may be required.
  Mr. F. Blackburn: Must the local authority's slaughterhouses be within its area?
  Major Lloyd George: Not necessarily. If the local authority so wishes, the slaughterhouse need not be within its own area. Clause 1 sets out the means whereby local authorities can provide public slaughterhouses under the powers they already have under the Food and Drugs Act. Clause 2 enables them, with the consent of the Minister of Food, to revise the maximum charges prescribed by local legislation for the use of public slaughterhouses, for in many cases these charges are entirely out of line with present-day costs.
  As far as licences in England and Wales are concerned, these have at present to be renewed annually Clause 3. which
  1636
  deals with the granting of licences, gives the local authorities discretion in certain cases to grant licences up to the end of July, 1959. This should induce occupiers of slaughterhouses to make the necessary improvements to their premises to render them fit for use. All these measures are designed to ensure that there will be sufficient facilities on decontrol.
  However, at this stage—and this is very important—we do not regard it as desirable that either local authorities or private interests should build new slaughterhouses which might conflict with the long-term siting plan which is now being prepared. We have to take care that we do not reproduce in a different and in a more costly form the unorganised pattern of the pre-war years. The House will note that, therefore, Clause 3 (2) prohibits the granting of a licence for premises which have not been used as a slaughterhouse during the last 20 years, unless the consent of the Minister is first obtained. The remaining subsections of Clause 3 provide for the refusal of licences where hygiene regulations are not complied with, and in this respect they also bring all slaughterhouses under the same licensing system.
  Mr. Arthur Moyle: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to the hygienic conditions of the slaughterhouses. Is he thinking of the slaughtermen as well as of the slaughterhouses? If not, will he exercise any powers he may have under the 1938 Act to see that welfare conditions are provided in the slaughterhouses for the men?
  Major Lloyd George: This refers purely to premises, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. Regulations made under the 1938 Act will not be interfered with by this Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I hope to get through an amended form of the Act which may cover this point.
  Under Clause 4 of the Bill, local authorities are empowered to close private slaughterhouses where they are satisfied that adequate public slaughtering accommodation is available in the same or in neighbouring districts. They can also refuse fresh licences under those conditions. Compensation is provided for in Clause 5, which extends the provision of the Food and Drugs Act, where it is laid down that compensation is payable only

  1637
  when slaughterhouses are closed because of the provision of public facilities. Under this Clause compensation is payable where the local authority passes a resolution before the end of this year refusing to grant a further licence, resulting in the rejection of an application for a licence for premises which were being used at the outbreak of war.
  The basis of compensation is the reduction in the value of any person's interest in the premises or in any land held therewith as a result of the resolution. Doubts as to whether compensation is payable or as to the amount thereof are to be determined by the Lands Tribunal. The Government propose to contribute 50 per cent, towards the compensation paid by local authorities in the exercise of these powers. This is a charge which will become due as a result of improvements made over a period of years, and these improvements will in many ways be in the interests of the public health requirements of the local authorities. It is a charge which we consider should be borne equally by local authorities and by the Government and should not fall completely on either party. As the law now stands, the whole of the compensation bill falls on the local authorities.
  Turning to the Scottish part of the Bill, Clauses 7 and 8 deal with the provision of public slaughterhouses by local authorities, and the making of charges for their use. Clauses 9 and 10 deal with the registration of private slaughterhouses and the refusal and cancellation of registrations. The system proposed for Scotland differs from that in England, where we have an annual licensing system. The local authority can refuse to renew a licence if hygiene regulations are not complied with, subject to an appeal to the court, and the court can cancel a licence if local byelaws are not complied with. In Scotland a permanent registration will be granted, but the local authority can cancel a registration if the slaughterhouse is no longer required or if the premises or the occupier are unsuitable. There is a right of appeal in those cases to the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Clause 11 provides for compensation on the same basis as in England and Wales. Cause 12 enables local authorities to make byelaws for the hygienic conduct and proper management of
  1638
  slaughterhouses, a power which already exists under Section 58 of the Food and Drugs Act for England and Wales. Clause 13 confers rights of entry similar to those available in England and Wales under Section 77 of the Act, and Clause 14 deals with the compulsory purchase of land. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will deal with the Scottish provisions more fully should the House require more detailed information during the debate.
  This is a somewhat technical Bill and I hope I have not wearied the House unduly with matters of a complex and technical character. I can assure the House that the aim of the Bill is to provide adequate slaughtering facilities for 3rd July, when meat is decontrolled, while at the same time leaving the way clear for the long-term concentration plan which will be implemented in the years to come. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Rubens): We have listened with great interest to the Minister dealing with what he says is a technical Bill. He suggested that it may well be that hon. Members on this side of the House may have come to the conclusion that there was no need for this Bill at this time. I have no doubt that many of my hon. Friends will develop that argument, but we are anxious that this part of the Parliamentary day should finish a little earlier than scheduled, so I shall deal rather broadly with the Bill itself; although I am sure the Minister will hear from my hon. Friends about the necessity of the Bill at all.
  The Minister is correct when he says that the previous Government adopted a policy of moderate concentration, and we are glad to know that the present Government have agreed to carry on that policy and that it is their determination to have moderate concentration for the future. We are having this Bill because of new circumstances which have arisen, due to the policy of the Government to decontrol in July. The main result of that is that there must be a much greater number of slaughterhouses available at that time, otherwise decontrol cannot take place.
  I am sure that most hon. Members on this side were disappointed that the

  1639
  Minister did not appear to know the number of slaughterhouses that will be required. I turned up the Official Report of the proceedings in another place and in answer to a specific question the Minister of State, Scottish Office, said:
  "It is difficult to estimate but the figure is put at somewhere about 3,000 to 3,500."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 25th March, 1954; Vol. 186, c. 754.]
  There is a big difference between that figure and the figure of 2,500 which the Minister now gives us and a very big difference between that and the present number of slaughterhouses in use, which I think he said was about 600. I had a figure of 482, but perhaps I did not include the Scottish slaughterhouses. However, we need not quarrel too much about the exact figure. What has emerged is that the Ministry is embarking on a policy not knowing the facts. It may well be that, because it does not know the facts, there will be absolute chaos when decontrol takes place in July.
  Later, I wish to say something about the people working in this industry in order to show what difficulties lie before the Ministry and about which no steps have been taken to obviate them. When the Minister told us that he had met all the interests concerned, my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) asked why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not personally met the trade union representatives. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman frankly admitted that he had not personally met the representatives of the trade unions although it is perfectly true that officers of his Department did meet representatives of the trade union movement.
  As always, they were very courteous and helpful in every way, but, as the records of the discussion will show, it is a fact that on a number of occasions the officers had to say, "That is a political question, and, obviously, we cannot deal with political questions." But the Minister can, and it is his responsibility to do so. Many people involved in this are very important, because they are the people who are actually to do the slaughtering. Until the beasts are slaughtered there is not much chance of consumers getting their meat from the butchers' shops. I think that ought to be looked at very much more closely.
  1640
  I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that when he sent out his circular to the local authorities on 24th February he asked them to start.
  "without delay consultations with the organisations representing farmers and meat traders in their districts to ascertain what slaughtering facilities will be required to enable the distribution of home-killed meat to proceed smoothly on decontrol."
  There is no mention of the local authorities taking0 into consultation the local trade union officers whose members are engaged in the actual slaughtering of the cattle. The Minister's attention was drawn to that point, and on 24th March he sent out another circular which stated:
  "The Minister hopes that local authorities have already had or have arranged for consultations with the organisations representing the local interests concerned, and, where appropriate, for such consultations to be undertaken jointly with other authorities."
  A local authority would not gather that that circular was intended to implement the previous circular; and, in fact, the workers' representatives had been left out of the previous circular. I think that it would have been wise if the Minister, when he asked the local authorities to contact the farmers and meat traders, had said quite specifically, "and we want the people representing the workers in this industry."
  I hope that, at this stage, the Minister will feel that it is possible to make it perfectly clear, either in a statement or by the Parliamentary Secretary when he replies to the debate, that it is the desire of the Minister that the local authorities should consult not only the farmers and the meat traders but the representatives of the local trade unions which have in their membership a number of those who are actually engaged in the important task of slaughtering.
  Some of us feel that it would have been better if we could have had the final report of the inter-Departmental committee. But I take the Minister's point that even if we had had that report on the siting of the new abattoirs, or what is to be the building programme, that it would take some years in the present economic circumstances actually to build the new abattoirs to look after this moderate concentration, and in order that there should be decontrol it is necessary right away to have this Measure. I take it that it is a purely

  1641
  temporary measure which will disappear when a final Bill is brought to this House to deal with the whole question of slaughtering, after we have had the report of the inter-Departmental committee.
  We are anxious that nothing should be done by this Bill to prejudice the future implementation of the policy which the present Government accept, and the Labour Government previously agreed to, of a moderate concentration of slaughtering. We shall have to examine this question in Committee very carefully, in a constructive way, to make sure that we do not produce a Bill which will mitigate against the policy laid down by this Government and by the previous Administration.
  I believe—and I am sure my hon. Friends share this view—that it is highly-undesirable to have any substantial increase in the number of slaughterhouses. I think that before the war there were about 11,500 slaughterhouses which were inadequate. I need not go into a description of the conditions in those slaughterhouses which, I think, is well-known. I do not think that there is any difference between the two sides of the House when I say that we do not want to return to the slaughterhouses in existence in those days. Therefore, it is important that in the administration of this Bill, when it becomes an Act, we should insist that the local authorities which now have the onus of providing slaughtering facilities should not licence more slaughterhouses than are really necessary for this job.
  It will need all the efforts of the Ministry in the regions to make sure that is not done. I can well understand that, in view of the difficulties which face the local authorities because of this big task which is put on their shoulders, the easiest way will be to licence a whole number of slaughterhouses. They may find, subsequently, that they are not all necessary, and in that case the whole problem of compensation would come back. I hope that the Ministry's regional officials will work closely with the local authorities, giving them the best advice based on 14 or 15 years' experience of running the meat scheme, and that the Minister will see that his officials render all assistance to the local authorities.
  The question of slaughterhouses brings us to the problem of clean food and the
  1642
  clean food campaign with which we are all associated in this House. Mr. Priestley, who is the Chief Sanitary Inspector of Blackpool Corporation, said, in 1943, at a conference of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association:
  "It is generally considered that the ideal slaughterhouse should consist of (1) suitable lairage; (2) slaughter halls for cattle, sheep and pigs; (3) cooling rooms; (4) detention room and inspection room with lavatory equipment; (5) condemned meat room; (6) facilities for the treatment of edible offals and by-products and condemned meat; (7) inspectors' room; (8) staff room with cooking and washing facilities; (9) adequate boiler plant."
  These were the conditions laid down by a very experienced meat inspector, and I think they are the minimum required in slaughterhouses. I am equally sure that we shall not get that minimum in all slaughterhouses now to be licensed by the local authorities. They do not exist and it would take some time to bring them up to anything like that standard; it is doubtful whether, in many cases, local authorities would want to bring them up to that standard because of the scheme which is to come later.
  They are not anxious to build up a bigger compensation account for them to settle or to use money at this stage for a temporary period. Therefore, we are saying to the local authorities, "You must now provide sufficient slaughterhouses to meet the necessity of the trade on 3rd July in your area, and, at the same time, you must also make absolutely certain that meat inspection is as efficient and as well-done as it was before."
  In 1954, we are much more concerned about hygiene and cleanliness in relation to food than we were 15 years ago. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary, who is a member of the medical profession, could say a good deal more about that than many of us who are lay people and who perhaps do not appreciate to the same extent the grave danger of dirt and unhygienic methods associated with food preparation.
  It is important that we should be certain that the local authorities have sufficient inspectors now to do this job of inspecting adequately, efficiently and thoroughly. We are asking, if we take even the small number mentioned by the Minister, the present inspectors and local authorities to do five times the amount of work—it is really more than five times,

  1643
  because if they are working in a large abattoir they can get a lot of meat inspected, but if they have to run about to half a dozen abattoirs a great deal of time is taken up in travelling.
  I understand that in Stockport, for example, there are two slaughterhouses which have been doing this work during the past 14 or 15 years and the local authority have already licensed, or agreed to license, a further five. It is, therefore, obvious that if there are to be seven slaughterhouses in Stockport, the present number of meat inspectors will be quite inadequate to do this job of inspecting. It will be physically impossible for them to do so. I hope that the Minister, who, I know, is as anxious about this matter as any of us, will make certain that there is no diminution in the standard of inspection by the local authorities.
  If ever, as a result of the Bill, T.B. cattle were slaughtered and the meat got on to the market and public disquiet was aroused, it would be a tragedy and a very bad thing for public morale, besides being dangerous for the health of the country. Therefore, it is very important that steps should be taken—the Minister may have to consult his colleague the Minister of Health, who is responsible in this matter—to ensure that the standard of inspection must be no less than it is at present. We should hope to improve it as far as we can.
  Turning to the Bill, I share the appreciation expressed by the Minister of the way in which our Scottish friends have looked after their affairs in relation to slaughterhouses. I understand that the majority are owned by local authorities and that by and large not many more slaughterhouses will be required. The problem is, therefore, fairly well solved as far as Scotland is concerned. It is greatly to their credit that they have the machinery already. It is a pity that we have not taken a leaf from their book and had something like it in England and Wales.
  In Clause 2 power is taken to substitute
  "a reference to the Minister of Food for the reference to the Minister of Housing and Local Government."
  I may be wrong, but my impression is that the Minister has for some time been coming to the House and making
  1644
  speeches in the country, also, in which he has been the joyful mourner of the funeral of his own Department. From time to time he has indicated what a joyful day it will be for him when his Department is closed and he has given the impression that it will not be long before this is done.
  Does the substitution in Clause 2 of the Minister of Food for the Minister of Housing and Local Government mean that the Minister has, in his jocular way, been "pulling our legs" and that his Department is not to close? Have the expectations of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends about closing the Ministry of Food failed to materialist? If his Department is not to continue, it would be strange that the Ministry of Food would want to take power when, very shortly, it will close and the Government must come back to the House for further legislation to put the power back with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about this when he winds up the debate.
  Clause 5 deals with compensation for closure or refusal of licence. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say exactly what he and the Minister intend in this matter. From my reading of the Clause, it appears that when a licence is refused or a slaughterhouse is closed, the amount of compensation would be the difference between the value of the land and buildings and of the fixtures thereon as between a willing buyer and a willing seller, but not as a going; so that the margin of compensation would be the difference between the value of the business as a going concern and the value of the lands and buildings. I should like the hon. Gentleman to amplify that. We must be extremely careful that the House is not over-generous in compensation, although, at the same time, one always wants to be fair.
  During the last 14 or 15 years the Ministry of Food has provided in many of the slaughterhouses which will now go back to private ownership equipment such as electric saws. It may be that provision is not necessary in the Bill and it is purely an administrative matter, but will arrangements be made by the Ministry to ensure that all equipment which has been paid for by the Ministry equally will

  1645
  be either sold or in some way taken into consideration when slaughterhouses revert to private ownership? It is important that public money should not be given away in the form of capital goods. However, this may well be an administrative matter outside the Bill.
  Mr. J. T. Price: The Government are doing it with transport.
  Mr. Robens: It was because of that recollection that I should hesitate to introduce a contentious matter like that on such a pleasant afternoon; but I draw the matter to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention and I ask him to note it.
  I come next to the workers in the industry. There is likely to be a great deal of difficulty, unless the Ministry takes steps immediately to do one or two things. When the Bill finally becomes law—it has to become law so that decontrol can take place on 3rd July—the ownership of the slaughterhouses will change hands and the employers of the men who are now slaughtering might easily be changed. During the first few weeks, a man might be employed by a local authority as a slaughterman, he might be employed by a contractor or by a private butcher, but certainly he can find himself with a different employer.
  Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin): Or unemployed.
  Mr. Robens: No, I do not think there will be unemployment.
  The Minister's problem will be to get sufficient slaughtermen to do the job. A butcher with, perhaps, five or 10 shops may want a good slaughterman and might draw him away at possibly a better rate of pay to do slaughtering in another slaughterhouse that has been opened up. When the skilled slaughterman, of whom there are only 3,000 in the country, are dissipated a little, they may not be sufficient to do the whole job of slaughtering. This is one of the problems with which the Minister will be faced and which he must meet. I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety, but he need not worry that any slaughtermen will be out of work. The reverse is likely to be the case.
  Mr. Thomas: I had in mind more than one possibility. The unemployment might arise even though there is urgent need for the services of these people in different
  1646
  parts of the country. In many cases it may not be convenient for these men to take other employment where it is available elsewhere, and as a result they may be employed in their own areas.
  Mr. Robens: I do not think that that will happen.
  The important thing is that at present area agreements for wages and conditions cover all these people, and they cover them with their present employers. There is nothing in the Bill at all to protect the wages and conditions of those people who at present know who their employer is, but who do not know who their employer will be in the first week in July, nor what are the arrangements for carrying on the agreements which have been freely reached between workmen and employers.
  This is not a matter we want to write into the Bill. It is something on which the employers and the trade union concerned can reach agreement. What is important is that there should be an arrangement before 3rd July about the new agreements on wages and conditions that have already been laid down and how they should continue. Unless that is done the Minister might be faced with the fact that on 3rd July men not covered by their trade union agreements would feel that they could not go on doing their job if those agreements were not continued.
  I do not think that many people in the trade would dream of holding a pistol at anybody's head about this, but it is a fair point. The men have been covered for long periods by trade union agreements which are satisfactory to themselves, and there should be some protection for those agreements. A Bill should not be put through this House without the necessary steps being taken to see that the men are no worse off under the new agreements than they were under the old.
  I hope that the Minister, having listened to what I have said in this respect, will take the necessary steps. I regret very much that he personally did not see on one occasion the trade union representatives who went to the Ministry. They mot officials and they were well and courteously received. They were giver all the answers to their questions in a very friendly way. But there was no one to discuss the political matters they

  1647
  raised, and I hope that even now the Minister will find it possible to invite representatives of the T.U.C. to see him on these matters.
  Major Lloyd George: I need hardly assure the right hon. Gentleman that at any time I shall be only too glad to see any members of trade unions. In various Ministries I have had long and happy contacts with trade union leaders, and I am only too happy to see them if that is desired.
  Mr. Robens: I am indebted to the Minister for saying that, because it will allay some of the anxieties that were felt in certain quarters. It may be that by this time the officials of his Department have done all that is necessary, but the fact that these trade union representatives will be able to see the Minister, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has now stated, will be helpful.
  My hon. Friends will have many detailed matters to raise, as well as some technical questions, and I conclude by urging the Minister to recommend clearly, to the local authorities that they should consult the local representatives of the trade unions catering for slaughterhouse employees. I hope that further consideration will be given to the question of who the slaughterhouse facilities will be provided for, because this raises the important question about which I have been talking. I hope that the Minister will ensure that there are no more slaughterhouses than are really needed, which would mean a waste of financial and material resources, and an increase in distribution costs.
  I hope that the Minister will ensure that leaving this task to the local authorities will not result in the duplication of facilities in adjacent districts. What I mean is that local authorities, because of pride in their area, will desire a slaughterhouse of their own despite the fact that in an adjacent area there are facilities which could adequately cover both districts. I want to see joint consultation in such cases. I hope that the Minister will soundly advise local authorities against the reopening of private slaughterhouses on any large scale, which would prejudice the policy of moderate concentration.
  1648
  We shall listen carefully to what is said in the debate, and particularly to the winding-up speech by the Parliamentary Secretary. On his reply, and how he answers the points raised on the Bill, will depend whether we shall divide against the Bill later in the day.
  4.45 p.m.
  Captain J. A. L. Duncan: As has already been stated, the situation is different in Scotland; and as I have met local authorities and other interests concerned in my constituency and as I think that it is fairly representative of the general situation in Scotland, I should like to intervene for a few minutes in this debate.
  Incidentally, I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) for his congratulations to Scotland. I would add that I do not disagree, broadly speaking, with what he said today. I do not think that at the end of this debate there will be any reason for him to cause a Division to be called, because both sides of the House agree in general outline that we want a policy of moderate concentration. Any difference that there is between one set of interests and another is on the meaning of the word "moderate"
  In Scotland, in pre-war days, we had 737 slaughterhouses, 147 of which belonged to local authorities and 590 of which were privately owned. Today we have 88, of which only two are private. The reduction in the number of slaughterhouses has been enormous, and we, as a cattle exporting area, are just a little bit doubtful whether 88 slaughterhouses are going to be adequate, in spite of what the inter-departmental committee has stated. In the end we, as an exporting area, in our own interest would like to kill the cattle and hand over the carcasses to the consuming areas, and it is on that ground that we are worried about these 88 slaughterhouses.
  In my own area we would prefer the cattle to go out of our part of the country as meat, provided the railway could carry the meat in such a way that it would arrive in the same condition as it was when it left the farmers, that is to say, in a super-special order. What we are frightened of is that, owing to the shortage of slaughter men and the inexperience of many of them, the meat might

  1649
  deteriorate not only in the first 24 hours after slaughter, which is the critical time, but that it would deteriorate if the railways did not handle it quickly enough or in an efficient manner.
  The local authorities have two other difficulties. They are not going to ask for a subsidy or grant except for the payment of compensation. They want to operate the slaughterhouses without recourse to the rates, but they do not know what their share is going to be under this new system. They are, therefore, in a difficulty about knowing how much space will be required in each slaughterhouse for the private butchers' cattle and for the Farmers' Marketing Corporation's cattle respectively. They do not know what charges to make, nor will they know until they have had some experience of the new system.
  Most of the local authorities I have consulted are prepared to play their part and run the slaughterhouses as they are without making too many alterations or improvements. They realise that the situation is temporary. However, they are in a difficulty about knowing what their throughput will be and, on this, what their charges are to be.
  Then we come to the question of charges. Some people think that there should be uniform charges throughout Scotland in order to avoid one local authority slaughterhouse from competing with another and therefore drawing the trade. I would regret it if in this Bill we laid down a uniform charge or allowed the Secretary of State for Scotland to do so for all Scotland. I would much prefer that, regionally, local authorities would agree not to compete with each other by fixing charges which would cover them and so in the end not be a burden on the rates. That is important because it may well be that the trade will go to certain slaughterhouses and the others will have to be a charge on the local rates.
  Now we come to the conflict between the butchers and the National Farmers' Union. The butchers want local slaughtering and they have a right to get it under the conditions of freedom. None of them wants to operate his own slaughterhouse. In my county there will be no claim for compensation because not one did it in 1939; they all
  1650
  used the local authority slaughterhouse. It is quite different from England.
  Sir R. Boothby: And much more intelligent.
  Mr. I. O. Thomas: Tell the Minister that.
  Captain Duncan: I have said that already, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth has also said it, so I shall not pay any more attention to such an obvious truth. The butchers, however, in many cases still want to use the stalls in the local authority slaughterhouses, whereas the National Farmers' Union have said that they want centralised slaughterhouses. In other words, here there is a conflict between the meaning of the word "moderate," and the future seems to lie in a further small restriction in the number of slaughterhouses but certainly modernised and improved.
  Here we come up against a further local authority difficulty. The final report of the inter-Departmental committee is not yet out and I want to ask my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland when we can get it, because, until we can get the siting plan, no local authority can make a reasonable forward plan. Angus has adequate facilities and it wants business. It is prepared to modernise—indeed, one of my towns is prepared to build a new slaughterhouse if it is selected on the site plan, and so we are waiting for that plan to see what can be done.
  As I have said, we would like our exporting areas to slaughter on the spot and to transport in carcass form to the consuming markets. Forfar Town is an instance of the size of our exporting areas. In one grading station there last year 8,000 fat cattle and 33,000 fat sheep were graded, and, as there are probably 10 grading centres in the region, the House will get some idea of the enormous number of cattle and sheep going through on the hoof at present to the Midlands and the south of England— indeed, all the way to London in many cases. So this is a big trade of great importance and we must not make a mistake.
  Therefore, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth that we must not expect too much raising of

  1651
  hygienic standards, too much spending of money or licensing of new slaughterhouses, in case we upset the final plan. This is a temporary Bill. The right hon. Gentleman ragged the Minister of Food about having his name on the Bill, but my right hon. and gallant Friend is also the temporary Minister of Food. For the time being, therefore, let us take the Bill on its merits, get on with the job, and tell the local authorities to get on with their jobs, and as soon as we can get the final report, we can formulate the policy for the far-distant future.
  4.56 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Willey: In case later on I am tempted to be unduly critical, may I begin in a congratulatory tone? First, I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, who has apparently fully recovered from his indisposition. Secondly I congratulate the inter-Departmental committee on the speed with which it worked and then produced this report in 16 days. I also congratulate it on the report, which is excellent. It is a pity that the committee's speed and excellent work on that occasion has not been a precedent to other committees or indeed to itself, because it has not been able to proceed so expeditiously with the siting plan.
  I also congratulate the Government on accepting this Report with the exception that local authorities are not given the power, as recommended by the committee, to take over compulsorily premises on lease. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will deal with that when he replies to the debate, because so far the Government have not said why they feel unable to accept the report of the committee in that regard. And I congratulate the Government on accepting the many reasonable Amendments, made in another place, which will expedite the progress of the Bill through this House and lighten our labours. And it is about as far as I can go.
  Now to be critical—and I am being critical of the Government at large, not especially of the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary, or their Department. Indeed, I want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion when we were discussing the Private Member's Bill on slaughtering which implemented the Northumberland Report. It ought to be
  1652
  more widely known that the Department has done an excellent job in improving conditions in our slaughterhouses and has gone about as far as it is possible to go under present conditions. The Department has certainly made a big change in the conditions obtaining in our slaughterhouses.
  My first general criticism of the Government is that they have failed to face the essential fundamental problem. It is simply this, that the slaughterhouses of this country are a national disgrace. The Government have failed to tackle this problem, and of course they are aware of it They have failed to do so because any real solution demands a considerable capital expenditure. I would urge, however, that we have now reached the position when we can no longer tolerate this situation and we must give a high priority to the physical improvement of our slaughterhouses.
  I would remind the House of another excellent report, that of the inter-Departmental committee on meat inspection which was presented in 1951. The difficulty which faced that committee was that it was compelled to realise that we cannot provide for adequate meat inspection with our present unsatisfactory premises. I shall quote only one paragraph from the report:
  "In general, therefore, in many of the slaughterhouses used at the present time physical conditions fall far short of the minimum standard necessary for the effective inspection of meat and for the observance of reasonable standards of cleanliness."
  The really alarming thing is that this report refers only to the 600 or so slaughterhouses at present in use; nevertheless, the majority even of those are sufficiently unsatisfactory to impair meat inspection.
  The second major criticism I have of the Government is that, apart from failing to tackle the real problem, they have been guilty of being inexcusably dilatory in doing anything at all. It was on 1st August, 1951 when, after considerable consultation and inquiry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, Central (Mr. Webb) told the House that seven new slaughterhouses in addition to Fare-ham and Guildford were to be built, and he then gave the House an assurance that we would extend this emergency programme as fast as we could. What has the Minister done about that? I know

  1653
  the difficulties and I am criticising the Government more than the Department. What has been done to extend this programme? My right hon. Friend further said that he recognised the need to extend the capacity for dealing with pigs. There has been an enormous increase in the number of pigs since that statement was made. What has been done to extend the capacity to deal with them?
  Finally, he announced a policy of moderate concentration. What have the present Government done about that? They have reconsidered the problem. One cannot complain about that. They were entitled to do so, but it was not until 5th November, 1952, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman announced the Government's decision to continue the policy of moderate concentration announced by the previous Government. I really think that the Government might have been more expeditious about reaffirming that decision. The Minister then announced that the Government would proceed to the drawing up of the siting plan. That was 18 months ago, and we are still told that that is being dealt with. I concede at once that that involves very real difficulties, but I emphasise again that it is a matter that we must now treat as one of urgency.
  It seems to me that this consideration is of basic, fundamental importance, because all the time that we are considering this Bill we must realise that these steps are being taken against a background of a policy of moderate concentration, now agreed by both parties. I remind the House that the present Government have said what moderate concentration means. The Minister said specifically that it means "some 300 or 400 slaughterhouses throughout Britain "; that is against the 600 at present in use and against the 16,000 in existence in 1932 and the 12,000 which the Minister has said were in existence immediately before the war.
  Sir R. Boothby: This is very interesting. I should doubt whether the Minister would confirm that, though I would rather hope that he would. Is it his long-term objective to reduce the number to somewhere between 300 and 400 only over the whole country?
  Mr. Willey: I remind the hon. Member that I am quoting a statement made
  1654
  by the Minister in the House and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not chosen to correct it. Therefore, I assume that, as it remains a statement of Government policy, it is the Government's policy.
  Sir R. Boothby: Very good hews.
  Mr. Willey: If we are to deal with this problem in that way, I should have thought that it would be clear to both sides of the House that it could only be tackled by a public authority. That was agreed in principle by the De La Warr Committee in 1932. However, whether we are agreed or not about the machinery, it is clear that this programme will involve a considerable amount of reconstruction and new building and, as the Minister has indicated, it will take a considerable time to implement.
  May I give an illustration? Sunder-land was in the original emergency programme, but in the case of Sunderland we have still not got a single brick laid. I do not throw any criticism at the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary or the Department or anyone else. Everyone has tried his hardest to get this scheme going, but the difficulty is that even when the location is decided, siting is a very difficult problem when one is dealing with slaughterhouses. Here we have a case where the location is decided and where the scheme is not yet begun.
  When Mr. Pascoe, the President of the National Federation of Meat Traders, came to Sunderland the other day, he toured the slaughterhouses and said that the provision of the new slaughterhouse was a matter of urgency. We agree with him, and it is for that reason that we should get on with the essential, fundamental job of tackling the real problem.
  I emphasise that, after all, the question of the re-opening of slaughterhouses has been before the Ministry for a considerable number of years. The Ministry has had seven area advisory committees representative of the meat trade, farmers and the slaughtering industry but, as the Minister told the House on 25th April. 1952:
  "It has been found that less than a dozen could effectively be brought into use."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1952; Vol.499. c. 41.]
  That is the result of the Ministry's effort over the past few years.

  1655
  It is quite clear from that—though some may argue that it is unavoidable— that we are taking a retrograde step today. Indeed the Association of Municipal Corporations in a memorandum to the inter-Departmental committee stated:
  "The Association regret that it should be necessary to re-open private slaughterhouses which have been out of use since the early days of the war. They regard this as a most retrograde step and consider that its scope should be limited as far as possible."
  Whilst, generally speaking, the Government appear to have been dilatory in dealing with the essential problem, in particular their conduct in facing the specific problem of decontrol seems to me to be quite inexplicable.
  On 7th December last, as though by revelation, the Minister of Food first realised that decontrol would mean the opening of a large number of new slaughterhouses. He realised for the first time that the impact of decontrol would affect the slaughterhouse policy considerably, and here we are today within nine weeks of decontrol without any greater foresight having been shown with regard of this problem. That is quite inexplicable. I always understood that the Govment were committed to decontrol. We heard a great deal about it at the General Election, and subsequently they made the point that they intended to decontrol as soon as they felt able to do so. Moreover, I give the Minister the point that as the Government progressively decontrolled it became increasingly obvious that the present system of control with heavy overheads could not continue in the case of meat, but why should it have been as late as December last before the Minister realised that this would bring him considerable problems?
  In the light of experience of the disastrous handling of decontrol of eggs and cereals, why should we be taking these steps so late in the day? I have every sympathy with the Association of Municipal Corporations. The Association made a practical point when it said:
  "…before the termination of Government control and the reopening of private slaughterhouses there should be a survey in every area of the slaughtering accommodation needed to satisfy the local demand and the local authority should be authorised to limit the number of licences granted to what the survey reveals to be necessary."
  Surely the Minister does not believe that the local authorities have a large number
  1656
  of redundant officials who can be called upon the minute he wants something done. All these officials are heavily overworked people who should have been given greater notice to enable them to carry out the survey which the Association believes to be absolutely essential.
  There have been all sorts of different interpretations of the Minister's advice. An examination of the "Meat Trade Journal" shows that different authorities are interpreting this advice in different ways, and it is obvious that there will be a great deal of confusion. I do not want to overstate the case, but in fairness I should call the attention of the House to a statement made in Sunderland by Mr. Pascoe who, addressing Sunderland butchers, said:
  "As I see it, unless immediate progress is made we shall arrive at derationing day in a state of chaos. If that happens it may mean that the price of meat will increase tremendously and it is your duty to make it widely known that the fault is not that of the retail trader but the Government's."
  On Monday, at the conference to which reference has been made, Mr. Pascoe and the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) made it quite clear that inadequate slaughtering facilities, in circumstances of decontrol, may lead to dearer meat and, indeed, to the breakdown of the Government's scheme during July or August.
  That is a serious warning. I believe and I hope it is unduly pessimistic, because I assure the House that no one wants a breakdown in the supply of an essential commodity such as meat. It is for these compelling reasons that, however critical we may be of the Government—we are not criticising their decision today; we can do that on another occasion—and of the way they have handled the situation, we should now give every assistance to them in expediting the passage of this Bill, because the sooner this Bill passes into law the better for everyone concerned.
  The estimate of the Government a few weeks ago was that the Bill would mean 3,000 or 3,500 additional slaughterhouses being opened. The Minister says today that his present estimate is 2,000 to 2,500 and I hope he is right about that. In any case, however, obviously it will present a very real problem this summer. We have to realise that no slaughtermen will have been in those premises since

  1657
  1939. Those premises have been used for other purposes since 1939 and equipment will have been removed from them to enable their use for other purposes. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) said, there are only 3,000 qualified slaughtermen. If we had even 2,500 slaughterhouses they would be very thin on the ground.
  I am sure that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that this is a retrograde step in view of the progress we have made, although they would say it was unavoidable. The Parliamentary Secretary looks rather surprised, but it is obvious that in many of these slaughterhouses men engaged in slaughtering will have had no practice since 1939. I should have thought it needed little imagination to realise that this will bring a whole host of difficulties.
  We have to accept the decision of the Government and, in face of these difficulties, we should do everything we can to assist them in getting over those difficulties. We should expedite the passage of the Bill and do all that we can to encourage the local authorities to cooperate with one another and with the trade and to try to make things work as smoothly as possible in this very difficult situation.
  The Bill has some advantages. As the Minister said, it improves the position regarding licences. It makes it quite clear that public responsibility lies on the local authorities for ensuring that sufficient and satisfactory slaughterhouse accommodation is provided. The inter-Departmental committee concluded its report by saying:
  "The private slaughterhouses must not be allowed to slip back into the condition of the pre-war disorders and numbers. Traders must, however, be given early notification whether they are to be permitted to resume private slaughtering or whether their needs will be met by the provision of public slaughtering facilities."
  Accepting the decision of the Government, I think the committee gave us excellent advice, and we have no alternative in present circumstances but to implement that advice as speedily as we can. As far as we are able to do so, we should give assistance to see that any difficulties that can be avoided shall be avoided. We have had the assurance of the Minister that, notwithstanding the Bill, he is determined to implement his
  1658
  policy of moderate concentration as soon as possible. We are agreed on that in all parts of the House. I hope that when we pass this Bill and get the further report of the committee, the House will join in securing the implementation of the committee's recommendations at the earliest possible moment.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. J. B. Godber: I wish to give my blessing to this Bill, which I think a valuable one as far as it goes. I have listened to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on many occasions when he was speaking on questions about food and today I heard him use the word "moderate" many times. I think that described his speech this afternoon as it was much more moderate than his speeches on previous occasions. I was glad to hear the qualified support he gave to the Bill.
  As long as we all realise that it is an interim Measure, dealing with an interim Report and a short step along the road—a backward step from some points of view—we shall keep the matter in the right perspective. I want to make quite sure that we all remember what the perspective is. What we have to look to in the future is the question of how our home-grown meat supplies are to be dealt with. Here we come up against the question of whether the farmers' plans or the butchers' plans are to be given priority.
  The hon. Member for Sunderland, North spoke of the lateness of decision, but it was not until we got the White Paper on the future of livestock policy last November that we could hope to have any picture of the future. We have to date it from then. Although we all naturally hoped that there would be decontrol of meat in the early future, it comes a little odd from the hon. Member to charge the Government with not being prepared. When we came to office there was not much hope of decontrol. What is remarkable is that we have advanced so quickly, not that we have been dilatory.
  Mr. Thomas Williams: I hope the hon. Member is not suggesting, or implying, that since this Government came into office, and through the activities of this Government, we have had more meat to deal with so that it can now be derationed?
  Mr. Godber: Yes.
  Mr. Williams: If that is so, may I inform the hon. Member and the Parliamentary Secretary that there has not been a pound of meat consumed in this country since this Government took office that was bred, fed and reared since they were returned?
  Mr. Godber: This seems to be becoming a rather general debate. If I may continue and disregard the interchanges between the two front Benches, may I say that I accept the remark of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) with regard to beef, but, of course, not in regard to pig meat. In any case, imports have gone up and the fact is that there is far more meat about. The point is how the future marketing of meat is to be assured.
  I do hope that in pursuing this policy of moderate concentration we shall do so in such a way that if the farmers are successful in their plans for co-operative marketing the new slaughterhouses envisaged for the future will fit in with those plans. I regard that as most important. This interim Measure is dealing only with the immediate present by providing sufficient slaughterhouses so that we can overcome the difficulties that inevitably follow decontrol, the difficulties of freedom which are bound to follow after all these years. But it is to the further future that we must look if we are to make a success of this job.
  That is why I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will think very carefully about the whole question of the siting of these slaughterhouses and whether they are better placed in the producing or consuming areas. I do not think that that question has yet been adequately tackled. I hope that when we get the final report of the inter-Departmental committee we shall receive more guidance on this point; and also whether we are to include adequate provision or indeed any provision for the cold storage of home-produced meat. We shall have to face up to that question in the near future.
  Furthermore, we o have to face up to the question of dealing with the byproducts, which are so important. That, I should have thought, is one of the major advantages of moderate concentration, if we are to pursue that policy
  1660
  at all we must also look at the humanitarian point of improving the conditions; that goes without saying, All these matters tie up together. I realise that they do not perhaps enter into the discussion of this particular Bill, but if we are to succeed, as a long-term measure, in seeing that we have adequate provision of slaughtering facilities to assist our housewives, our butchers and farmers to do their job properly, we must look, in the next report, for some real guidance on these matters.
  I hope that we shall go right ahead from there without further delay in building these new slaughterhouses as rapidly as we possibly can. Therefore, in giving my approval and blessing to the Ministry for this Bill, I wish to make it quite clear that I do so on the basis of regarding it merely as an interim, necessary Measure for the immediate present. I hope that we shall go a long way further in not too long a time.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. David J. Pryde: I have no intention of being severely critical of the Measure, but some clarification is required, especially with regard to Scotland, and there are questions to be asked. It irritates and annoys me to listen to the casual way in which Scotland is referred to. One would imagine from the remarks of the Minister that everything in the garden was lovely in Scotland. I wish to correct that impression. We must look at the facts and take this Bill to pieces to examine it in order to make sure that it will work correctly.
  We are told that there is adequate slaughterhouse provision in Scotland. I do not want any of the old private slaughterhouses reopened. They should never have been created. In my burgh we had one and we were glad when a labour town council arrived on the scene and disposed of it. From the City of Edinburgh, to North Berwick, however, there are only three slaughterhouses, one at Gorgie, in Edinburgh, which supplies a large part of South-East Scotland, one in Midlothian, at Dalkeith, and one in East Lothian and Berwickshire. I challenge anyone with any knowledge of the topography of the south bank on the River Forth to say that this is adequate provision. Even the Minister will agree, I think, that the slaughterhouses which

  1661
  are in operation today, especially in Scotland, are most unhygienic and require reconstruction.
  The county of Midlothian alone has a population of 100,000, and one old-fashioned slaughterhouse, in Dalkeith, is not sufficient to meet our requirements. The nearest slaughterhouse to Dalkeith is 30 miles east or 30 miles south. The method of transporting the meat—[Interruption.] I said 30 miles east or 30 miles south. I did also mention that there was one at Gorgie, a very fine slaughterhouse but it serves a very large community.
  There is no mention in the Bill of the hygienic transport of meat. The Minister will no doubt tell me that that is dealt with under the Food and Drugs Act, but let us remember that what is taking place today in this respect is dangerous. 1 have seen, in my own constituency, lorry loads of meat standing in a narrow street, inadequately covered, with the public passing close by. I do not require to emphasise the danger in summer-time, when insects are numerous. The Minister should take cognisance of these matters and see that ample and adequate provision is made for the transport of food.
  The Bill tells us that the local authorities will build and reconstruct the slaughterhouses. Let us see what that means in Scotland. We have in Scotland a Convention of Royal Burghs, which has 196 constituent units. There are four counties of cities, and, so far as expenditure for slaughterhouses is concerned, in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, or Glasgow it means absolutely nothing. There are 20 large burghs with a population of more than 20,000. but many of them today have rates of over £1. There are 172 small burghs whose populations range from 750 to 20,000. Many of them have a population of between 1,000 and 5,000, with a rateable value that means an additional 3d. or 6d. on the rates if a £2,000 bill has to be met.
  The House will readily understand the delicate edge on which the local government economy in Scotland is balanced. It is all very well for the Government, with the assistance of their Welsh and Irish allies, to inflict upon Scotland Measures which practically make chaos of the local government economy there; just as they did, for example, quite
  1662
  recently in the case of the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill. If the Government had kept the Irish and the Welsh away we should have beaten the Government completely, and that Bill would never have got any further—[Interruption.] I am not saying that I am not blaming the English, but that it is because of the Irish and Welsh supporters of the Government that they were not defeated.
  That is the position so far as the Scottish local government economy is concerned, and that aspect must be taken into consideration if Scotland's slaughterhouse requirements are to be adequately met. Local authorities in Scotland will never be in a position to tackle the building of slaughterhouses unless they receive ample assistance. In my own constituency one small burgh has a rate of 26s. l0d. in the £. In one area in the county of Peebles the rate is 25s. 6d. in the £.
  We feel that this Bill will impose another strain on the economy of our small burghs because in those small burghs the sanitary inspector is usually a man who has several jobs—he is several officials rolled into one: he is the sanitary inspector, he is the inspector of food, the borough engineer and the borough surveyor. That is the position in the small burghs in Scotland, and it simply means that if more duties—
  Mr. Charles Royle: What a country.
  Mr. Pryde: Yes, unfortunately for Scotland the position has been greatly determined by what she has had to give to England, both in men and money; it is not going too far to say that.
  The Government must bring the Bill under very close review in order to see that Scotland's requirements for slaughterhouses are amply met.
  5.30 p.m.
  Sir Robert Boothby: I shall say only a few words. We are all agreed on both sides of the House, I think, that this Bill is indispensable, and that the sooner it is rushed through the better.
  Mr. George Darling: No.
  Sir R. Boothby: I think we are nearly all agreed on that point, and are agreed

  1663
  that if it is not passed quickly there is no doubt that the chaos in the marketing of meat after the beginning of July will be very great indeed. [HON. MEMBERS: "There will be chaos."] Well, it will be greater if the Bill is not passed.
  We are also agreed that, in a sense, the Bill is a step backwards because the Minister has announced that the long-term policy of the Government is a moderate concentration of slaughterhouses, which we know to be right; whereas the Bill inevitably provides for a temporary dispersal or enlargement, rather than a concentration, of slaughterhouses. I do not know what word is the precise opposite of concentration; perhaps it is "scattering." We are to have about 2,500 slaughterhouses in the immediate future instead of the ideal, which the Minister has stated to be about 500.
  Mr. C. N. Thornton-Kemsley: No.
  Sir R. Boothby: We have already had this matter out on the Floor. One hon. Member stated that that was the figure given by the Minister, and the Minister did not contradict him. I think that is the ultimate objective; and it is the right objective, from the long-term point of view.
  What I fear, and what we must all fear a little, is a kind of rash of second-rate slaughterhouses all over the country, with unhygienic conditions, and with a possible danger of food contamination, among other things. There is some anxiety on that count, because we have to set up what might be called an improvised slaughterhouse system.
  As has been said, the methods of slaughtering in this country have never been very satisfactory. Before the war they were not satisfactory; they were certainly below the standard which ought to have been reached. I believe the Minister will agree that many of the 600 slaughterhouses we have today are below standard; they do not achieve the conditions which we should reach ideally, and which we should all like to see in our slaughterhouses. These slaughterhouses certainly do not provide the cold storage facilities or the facilities for dealing with by-products on the spot, which I believe to be essential if we are ever to have an efficient marketing system for meat.
  1664
  There is one question I want to put to the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is to reply. One hon. Member congratulated the inter-Departmental Committee on the speed with which it had produced its Interim Report. I think we must now ask the Committee to exercise even greater speed in producing its Final Report, because it is time we knew what the ultimate objective is, and what the final siting plan is to be. Until we know that I do not see that any of us can do very much. I do not see how the Minister can do very much. He must tell these practical and intelligent and very able gentlemen—I know one or two on the Scottish Committee and they are first-class—that they must sit and sit, and work very hard indeed, to get these plans produced in their final form at the earliest possible moment.
  It will take years to implement the programme in full. We want a first-class slaughterhouse system, without which we can never have a first-rate marketing system for meat; and until we get the final plan we cannot even make a start I therefore ask my hon. Friend to give an undertaking that he will bring great pressure to bear on the inter-Departmental Committees, both in England and in Scotland, to produce their final reports as early as possible, so that we all know where we stand.
  This morning, the farmers produced their proposal to establish a fatstock marketing corporation. I have always thought that my right hon. Friend underestimated the determination of the farmers to sell their meat on dead-weight and grade according to the quality of the carcass, and not through fiddling little auction marts all over the country. They are quite determined to do it; and, as far as I am concerned, they will get all the encouragement I can possibly give them. They are going right ahead with it, and they are right.
  I agree that my right hon. Friend has said in all his White Papers that he will do nothing to discourage the farmers from getting on with it; but I believe he has always thought that, in the end, they would be unable to do it. I am not absolutely sure about the English farmers, who are always rather behindhand. [How. MEMBERS: "No."] They mean very well, but they are not so bright in the head as the Scottish farmers. However, now that so many Scotsmen are

  1665
  becoming English farmers, I am much more optimistic about the prospects.
  Not so long ago I attended a meeting, curiously enough in the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and afterwards several farmers said they would like to stay and have a talk; and I was astonished and delighted to find that so many of them came from Angus and Forfar and Aberdeenshire. They were farming very well at Saffron Walden, and were making a very good job of it. They had the right ideas about meat. I think the gospel is spreading; and I beg the Government to believe that the farmers of Scotland really do mean business about meat marketing, and mean to sell their meat on dead-weight and grade, on the hook.
  This means not only the moderate concentration of slaughterhouses to which the Minister has referred; it also means provision, in the long-term plan, of adequate cold storage facilities. These facilities are totally lacking at present, and I believe that they are perhaps more important than anything else. We must also provide facilities for processing on the spot, as I have already said.
  These things will have to come; but what can we do in the interim period? I ask for an assurance that the Government will insist on as high a standard at the slaughterhouses which are to be reopened as is practical. We must not let the standard slip lower than we can help. It should not be impossible to maintain a reasonably high standard, certainly at many of the slaughterhouses which are to be reopened in Scotland, or are to be continued under different auspices.
  Here again we are a little more fortunate in Scotland than the people in England, and we should be able to maintain a reasonably high standard. It will require competent inspectors, and I should like some assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary about adequate inspection. Another point on which I particularly want an assurance from my hon. Friend is this: it will also require Government graders, so that farmers who sell on the hook will be able to qualify for the individual subsidy under the Government scheme.
  As a kind of subsidiary organization to the Farmers' Fatstock Marketing Corporation, there has been a movement in my constituency, at Buchan, which I
  1666
  have done my best to foster, for a cooperative marketing organisation for sales of meat on dead-weight. It has made most encouraging progress. In the first phase, I believe, the meat will go to the abattoirs at Fraserburgh and Peterhead; and there will probably be two more slaughterhouses established, certainly one at Turriff, and I hope another at Huntly.
  I want to be sure that there will be Government graders to see that the meat is properly marked and graded, so that farmers who prefer to sell on dead weight and grade may have an opportunity of doing so, and of qualifying for the individual subsidy. My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that already farmers in the North-East have established contact with some of the big distributors in the South for sales of meat on the hook, graded and marked by these distributors, who will consign it direct to the centres of the South, as the market dictates and requires.
  We have. talked a lot—and at moments I myself have talked a lot—of hot air about marketing; but in so far as marketing means getting the stuff from the producer on to the butcher's counter with the least possible delay and at the least possible cost, surely direct contracts between the farmers themselves and the big distributors who are, in turn, in close touch with the butchers, must be the most economical and efficient way of doing it. If it is done first on a regional basis it can be enlarged later.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Bulk buying.
  Sir R. Boothby: If hon. Gentlemen get me on to bulk buying I shall be talking until twenty past six.
  My final words are these. Why are we making such progress in Buchan with this marketing scheme, and with the whole idea of co-operative sales organisation? Why are the big butchers coming up to us from England? Why are the dead meat salesmen and the distributors coming up from the south? Why are we negotiating direct contracts? Why am I asking for an adequate staff of graders to grade our meat? There is one simple answer, which will not be challenged from any quarter.
  It is that Buchan has for years produced incomparably the best beef in the

  1667
  world. That is the reason why they all come. I do not put it any higher than that. Aberdeen Angus is the best beef in the world, and we are the centre of the Aberdeen Angus breed. There is nothing more to be said; but it should, and will I hope, be an encouragement to other farmers and especially the farmers of England to copy us—to go and do likewise. It is possible to produce very good Aberdeen Angus cattle in England, as well as in Scotland. When they are crossed with shorthorn, they still make good beef.
  This is the example we give. My main concern is simply to see that, in our praiseworthy efforts, nothing will be done by the Government to hinder us, and everything will be done to encourage us.
  5.42 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): I hope that the House will forgive me if I intervene now to deal with some of the points raised by Scottish Members, because the Bill is of considerable importance to our country. Perhaps I might make a few general observations to try to show the difference between our part of the Bill and the English part. The most obvious difference between England and Scotland in terms of the Bill is one of form. Part I amends the Food and Drugs Act, whereas Part II enacts for Scotland an entirely new code, because the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, did not apply to slaughterhouses in Scotland.
  For that reason, Part II deals rather more fully with a number of matters, such as the power of local authorities to provide slaughterhouses; conditions under which registration of private slaughterhouses may be held; power to make byelaws as to slaughterhouses; and various other administrative provisions which are not paralleled in the English part of the Bill.
  The second difference is one of emphasis. Whereas in England and Wales the chief purpose of Part I is to ensure that enough slaughterhouses are brought into operation when we enter decontrol, by giving encouragement to private owners of slaughterhouses to come forward, we in Scotland are in a different position. Our position is exactly the opposite. Our main concern is to
  1668
  avoid the unnecessary opening of slaughterhouses on decontrol.
  The reason is that of the 88 general slaughterhouses in Scotland all but two are owned by the local authorities. Our information from the inter-Departmental Committee, presided over by Sir John Handford, was that the slaughterhouses under control are coping, and with something to spare, with the existing killing operations in Scotland. Having regard to our long-term aim to effect a moderate concentration we are taking steps to allow new slaughterhouses to come into being only if circumstances fully justify them.
  Hon. Members may be interested to know the present position. Today, we have 88 slaughterhouses in use, of which 86 are owned by local authorities, private slaughterhouses having almost disappeared. Only two are in existence, but we must remember that because of the geographical nature of our country we have a large number of what are called sheep-killing stations and of privately owned slaughterhouses mostly at the back of butchers' shops, in the remote parts of the Highlands and Islands. Anyone who is worried about the operation of those facilities will be pleased to have the assurance that normally, unless there is something very far wrong—which I do not anticipate—we intend to carry on in the Highlands and Islands with these small slaughterhouses, because, obviously, we must deal with local needs in those areas.
  The only other general point I wish to make is that when the Ministry of Food return the slaughterhouses to the full control of the local authorities we in Scotland see no reason at all to anticipate that we shall not be able to operate them through the local authorities as economically as they have been operated under my right hon. and gallant Friend's Ministry. In this respect we had valuable experience during the war and the 14 years of control, and we shall do our utmost to take the best out of the old sytsem and the new, and to produce the most satisfactory answer. I should also mention that, when we get decontrol, in no case can a slaughterhouse be opened without the permission of the Secretary of State.
  I should like to deal with some of the arguments which have been put forward.

  1669
  My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) was worried about the adequacy or otherwise of the 88 slaughterhouses that we have. No one can be absolutely certain what the position will be under decontrol, but the Bill actually lays a duty upon the local authorities to satisfy themselves that they are, in fact, producing proper facilities to meet the reasonable requirements of the area. Therefore, it is a duty on the local authorities which never before existed.
  My hon. and gallant Friend was worried about charges under control and whether there should be a uniform rate. That is a matter for the local authorities. It will be necessary for them to consult all the interests concerned before coming to decisions on charges, but they will not require to refer to the Minister.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: One of my hon. Friends referred to the most efficient slaughterhouse in Edinburgh. That will revert to Edinburgh as a local authority. May I take it that there is no intention that the work of that slaughterhouse should be confined to butchers in Edinburgh? With modern transport facilities and the efficiency of that slaughterhouse, there is no reason why it should not serve a very wide area round about Edinburgh. I take it that there is no purpose in making local authorities monopolise their own slaughterhouses for their own purposes. They will still be open to general slaughtering by people who are prepared to use them?
  Mr. Snadden: That is true. The local authorities will provide facilities designed to meet the reasonable requirements of the area. The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct.
  My hon. and gallant Friend also raised a question about the conflict of opinion between farmers who want a dead-weight and grade system and the meat trade, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) also raised the rather technical point. I should like to tell him that in this matter of private centres the question whether deadweight and grade guarantees will be made under decontrol has not been lost sight of, but the initiative must be with the producers. It is not with the Government, although the Government have said in the White Paper that they will facilitate
  1670
  dead-weight and grade guarantees where the producers put up proper schemes.
  I can tell my hon. Friend that the National Farmers' Union is closely in touch with us at present. The unions concerned are taking into account not only the requirements which will come immediately after decontrol but longerterm requirements as well. We hope that in conjunction with them we shall come to satisfactory conclusions. They will no doubt choose slaughterhouses where the facilities best suit the dead-weight and grading system, and I imagine that they will be slaughterhouses where there is sufficient hanging space and facilities of that character.
  I was asked several times about the inter-Departmental Report and when it will be published. I am sorry to say that I have no authority from my right hon. Friend to give the date. I can however, say that we hope it will be soon. I am prepared to do everything I can to expedite it, but I do not want the Report to be spoilt. We must remember that the Committee has been receiving a great deal of evidence. As far as I know, the oral evidence is now complete, and the Committee is getting down to the job of producing its Report.
  As to my hon. Friend's other inquiry about the farmers' new company, it will operate in the free market in competitive buying, and will, therefore, have the same facilities as any other person would have when entering the market.
  I have no reason to believe that we shall have any difficulty about inspectors and graders. All I would say about graders is that they will, of course, have to be approved by the Secretary of State when appointed. We shall also take good care to ensure that the guarantee system gives the maximum result and helps everybody. In the Highland and Islands we have a very tricky problem. There are a large number of islands where there are local killing stations but no collecting centres. It will be very difficult indeed to provide guarantees to those farmers, but the Scottish Office is taking special steps to meet the needs of the Highlands and Islands, and there, again, we hope to have a satisfactory answer by the time decontrol arrives.
  I think I have now briefly covered all the points which have been raised. I

  1671
  did not want to detain the House too long because I realise that many other hon. Members wish to speak.
  5.53 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Royle: A mere Sassenach cannot hope to follow the Joint Under-Secretary in what he has been saying, but I should like to thank the hon. Gentleman for putting what he had to say so briefly. I was rather perturbed when I learnt that three Ministers were to participate in a debate which is supposed to finish about seven o'clock.
  Every time the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby) intervenes in a debate we are completely refreshed. He has again helped to enlighten the debate. I agree with almost everything that he said, even to the extent of believing that there are no cattle like the cattle which come from his part of the country, and I speak with some authority on that matter.
  However, I completely disagreed with his opening sentence. I take him and the Government to task in that respect because I do not believe that the Bill is necessary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) have spoken hi restrained terms, but I hope that I shall not be restrained about the Bill. To introduce the Bill at this time is a scandal and a very big mistake. The Bill would not be before the House today if it had not been for the unjustified haste of the Government in returning to the pre-war methods of trading. Before supply meets demand, a demand commensurate with reasonable prices, we are having the Bill forced down our throats for the purpose of helping the Government to carry through their pernicious idea of reverting to the pre-war system of trading.
  The reversion to pre-war trading is made possible only by the Government's interference with consumer subsidies. We all know—particularly hon. Members on this side of the House, in view of the constituencies from which we come—that very many of our people, particularly those in industrial areas, will certainly not be able to afford meat after 3rd July as a result of the Government's policy. They are finding it hard enough now, but I tremble to think what the situation will be after July.
  1672
  The Bill becomes necessary because of that policy, and it destroys any possibility of an immediate progressive policy for our slaughtering system which, since the war, many of us have hoped would be brought to modern desirable conditions in an economical manner. We regret that full advantage is not being taken of the existing situation. When thousands of miserable slaughterhouses were closed at the beginning of the war an opportunity was presented for rationalising the whole system.
  I regret that the Government are now taking the line of least resistance. We have been told that in 1939 there were about 12,000 slaughterhouses in the country and that the number has been reduced to about 600. We have had the Minister's estimate that as a result of the Bill 2,500 more slaughterhouses will be opened. I do not call that "moderate concentration," whatever the term may mean, hi the long run.
  I have been a member of the meat trade for many years. I am probably the only hon. Member who has ever worked in a slaughterhouse, although it is a long time since I did so. I am beginning to wonder whether I ought not to try to help out my Parliamentary salary in future by going back to the slaughterhouse, in view of the fact that there are only 3,000 slaughtermen in the country. Few members of the meat trade ever anticipated that the small slaughterhouses which none of us want opened would be reopened.
  As the Minister pointed out, the inter-Departmental Committee was set up in February, 1953, to produce a plan of moderate concentration. Yet the Government have now come along with their pernicious policy of going back to the system which prevailed before the war. The Minister has gone to the Committee and said, "Look, boys, we have changed our minds. We are going to get on with the scrapping of controls much quicker than we had anticipated. We must forget for the time being all that we have ever dreamt about a better set-up for our slaughterhouse system. You must suddenly produce a scheme which will make us ready for July, 1954."
  Sure enough, they did it, in 16 days. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North congratulated the Minister. I do not do so. I think it is shocking

  1673
  that the Committee spent only 16 days in determining what should be the interim policy for slaughterhouses, that after 16 days it should come forward with this scheme, which the Government accept, except for one phrase, with open arms.
  What does it do? In effect, it passes the buck to the local authorities to make sure that they do something about it, and the Government sit back behind the local authorities and fervently hope that chaos will be prevented. I do not think that chaos can possibly be avoided. I believe that, in July of this year, we shall see the worst chaos which the meat trade and the slaughterhouses have ever seen. Every local authority has different ideas about what it will do. All of them are worried. Some are determined to preserve or to obtain the highest possible standard in the slaughtering of animals, but others, with some justification in the rural areas, will not be as concerned about the standards that will be obtained in the municipal abattoirs of the larger areas.
  I have heard in the last few days of one local authority which has determined that no other slaughterhouse will be allowed to open within 40 miles of a public slaughterhouse, and, when I think about the transportation of meat from that slaughterhouse to a shop perhaps 40 miles away, I dread what may happen in warm weather.
  One of my chief anxieties is that there shall be adequate inspection. My thoughts go back over a good many years. When I was a boy in a slaughterhouse, it was our duty to inform the inspectors if we had any diseased meat when we had killed the beasts. The onus was on us, but that was all we ever saw of a meat inspector in our private slaughterhouse. I know that things have improved since, but I suggest to the Government that the supply of fully-qualified meat inspectors at this time is totally inadequate to deal with the situation which will arise resulting from this Bill. I am very concerned indeed about the health of our people, and I want to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards in that respect. On those grounds alone, I do not believe that the Government were justified in bringing in this Bill today.
  1674
  There are one or two small points to which I should like to refer. Clause 3 (2) provides that those slaughterhouses which held licences between 1933 and 1939 shall now be reopened if the local authority agrees. I should like confirmation of that from the Parliamentary Secretary. What slaughterhouses they were between 1933 and 1939. One could paint some lurid pictures of the conditions which prevailed then, but those slaughterhouses are now small warehouse, garages, dumps for all kinds of junk.
  Yet we shall have applications by the owners of these old slaughterhouses to reopen them under the terms of this Bill, and I am afraid that in some areas those applications will be granted. Those slaughterhouses in 1939 represented the country's need at that time, but millions of pounds will have to be spent to make them suitable for modern circumstances. We are only nine weeks away from zero day. What signs are there that everything will be ready when the time comes to carry out what the Bill lays down?
  I understand that we have about 1,000 local authorities, which must be ready by 3rd July. We have yet to have the Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading of this Bill. Have the local authorities any right to anticipate the will of Parliament? Are they sure that this Bill will reach the Statute Book? I know that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has sent out his form M.F./54 instructing them what to do in preparation, but have they any right to act? On a previous Bill which was before the House not very long ago—the Cotton Bill—we remember that the President of the Board of Trade had to apologise to the House for action which had been taken before the Bill became law.
  Mr. I. O. Thomas: To illustrate the point which my hon. Friend is making, may I mention that only today I have taken up with the Ministry the case of a local authority in my own constituency, at its request? It says that it made definite proposals on 5th April, but that, so far, it has had no word from the Minister. The authority concerned is the Wellington Urban District Council, in Shropshire.
  Mr. Royle: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his support. That is the position, and that is why I am asking

  1675
  now whether the local authorities have the right to anticipate the decision of this House.
  What my hon. Friend has just said only emphasises the point I made earlier, that the Government are indecent in their haste to carry out their policy with regard to meat marketing. I think in terms of the present position. Co-operative societies owned slaughterhouses throughout the period of control, and in them the meat of private traders is now being slaughtered. On the other hand, private traders' premises are being used for the slaughtering of meat for cooperative societies. Are the Co-operative societies going to agree to private traders using the floor space of their slaughterhouses? Are private traders going to agree to Co-operative societies using their slaughterhouses? I very much doubt it, and I see confusion becoming more confounded as a result of this Bill. I dread to think of what will happen after 3rd July.
  Now I want to put one or two questions to the Minister. Compensation for closure or for refusal of a licence is dealt with in Clause 5. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary will say something more about this compensation question when he winds up the debate, because I have the recollection, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hills-borough (Mr. G. Darling) will remember with me, that when the great new abattoir was opened in Sheffield, the compensation paid to one firm in Sheffield amounted to £9,000.
  We do not know where this will end, and I can see the ratepayers making considerable protest when asked to meet large sums for compensation for some of these slaughterhouses, in spite of the fact that the Minister is giving them a grant of 50 per cent. In cases of registered slaughterhouses which date back to before 1872, there will have to be compensation in every case where the slaughterhouse is not reopened.
  There is another question which I want to raise on the Schedule. I noticed that the Schedule, in repealing various enactments, repeals paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and I should like to know whether that means that all registered slaughter-
  1676
  houses will be abolished, and that, for the future, there will only be licensed slaughterhouses.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill)indicated assent.
  Mr. Royle: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman; I think that is a very good move.
  Dr. Hill: To get it clear on the record, may I point out that it does eliminate these distinctions which have existed in the past in the periods of licensing.
  Mr. Royle: I am much obliged. I think it is very wise indeed.
  I suppose that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, as ex-Ministers of the Crown, were speaking with a certain amount of responsibility, which I cannot possibly hope to emulate as a mere Whip, but they said that this Bill was not a bad Bill. I suppose they are right. It is not a bad Bill for what it seeks to do, considered in the light of the lack of Government policy.
  If slaughterhouses are to be handed back, probably the Bill is the best for that purpose. My criticism is that the circumstances which make the Bill necessary should never have arisen. We are going back 15 years in slaughterhouse policy. This is being done to satisfy the supporters of the party opposite.
  The alternative I would put forward is that of an animal commodity commission which would have the job of purchasing all our meat, both home-killed and imported. It would direct the sale to the retailer and would deal with by-products and with everything that applies to slaughtering. That would mean waiting for modern buildings and building up our herds and flocks faster than we are doing at the moment, and subsidies would have to be continued.
  Nevertheless, in a few years we should have a slaughtering and marketing system which would be a credit to the nation. Instead of that, we shall go back to chaotic conditions without any preparation, with no one knowing what cattle will cost or what price meat will be in the butchers' shops and with unknown millions of pounds being squandered in deficiency payments, while animals will be slaughtered in all manner of places.

  1677
  The Government will regret this day and this Bill. They will regret the system which they are reintroducing. Unfortunately, it will fall to the lot of the next Labour Government to sort out the ruins and to rebuild.
  6.13 p.m.
  Mr. Denys Bullard: I could not possibly agree with the proposals for a great livestock commission put forward by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) in his peroration. I think we all agree that it would have been far better had it been possible to avoid re-opening large numbers of the slaughterhouses closed all during the war.
  We know that the hon. Member speaks with great authority on these matters and that he has had personal experience, having been concerned in the trade. He rather avoided the real practical issue, which surely is that in order to get a better system we have for the time being to carry out this reopening. The hon. Gentleman attributed the fact that more slaughterhouses have to be reopened to the Government's decision to discontinue consumer subsidies. I should have thought a more potent reason was the decision to discontinue rationing on 3rd July. I believe, contrary to the point of view of the hon. Gentleman, that the local authorities will discharge the rather difficult duty placed on them. I know they are giving a great deal of thought to it.
  I want to speak about the long-term side of this matter, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and subsequently by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby). It is essential to remember that the marketing policy for fatstock has to be decided before we can decide our slaughterhouse policy. That was the reason and the ample justification why the Government could not announce their slaughterhouse policy until after they issued the White Paper last November.
  I am firmly of the opinion that a very important step in livestock marketing in this country was made yesterday when the farmers' unions of Great Britain announced their plans for selling on the deadweight basis. I have always believed that that system, and sales by auction, on a liveweight basis, can operate side by side. This is an extremely difficult matter
  1678
  to get organised, and I congratulate the farmers on their proposals. I shall certainly await developments with the very greatest interest.
  I would like to address one or two questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. I am not clear how the deadweight system will operate under the interim arrangements covered by the Bill. This is most important. Will the deadweight system be carried out in the same premises as are being licensed under the Bill and as are being used by other sellers of meat, or will there be some segregation, certain slaughterhouses being reserved for this deadweight system? This matter does not merely arise when eventually the policy of moderate concentration comes into operation, but will actually come into prominence in July when derationing takes place.
  I reinforce the plea made for the earliest possible decision on the siting of more permanent slaughterhouses. It will be rather difficult for individual owners of slaughterhouses to know what work they ought to undertake on their premises, because they do not know how long they will be able to operate them. They cannot foresee when the slaughterhouses on the new siting plan will be opened in their areas. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will listen to the pleas which have been made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire for a speeding up of the report. I say this, though I realise that it is a most important decision that the committee has to make and that it should not be rushed.
  I welcome the Bill as an interim Measure and I hope that the interim period will not be too long. I do not think anyone can claim that our pre-war slaughterhouse system was satisfactory. We are not returning to that system as it was, because there are very considerable differences. The difference of numbers alone—2,500 as against 12,000 —is a very big one. I hope that the interim period can be made as short as possible, and that we shall go straight ahead with a more worthy and modern system.
  6.19 p.m.
  Mr. W. E. Padley: It is with very great pleasure that I follow the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Bullard). I had come to the conclusion

  1679
  that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen-shire (Sir R. Boothby) was the only hon. Gentleman on the Government side who knew anything about this subject.
  I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman put his finger on one of the fatal weaknesses of the Government's scheme. Perhaps I can anticipate the answer of the Parliamentary Secretary to the question asked by the hon. Member as to how the sale of meat on a deadweight basis fits into the scheme. The short answer is that the Minister and the Government have not the faintest idea. The Government have not the slightest idea how the proposed system will work out in the weeks following 3rd July. It is remarkable that a month ago the Government spokesman in another place gave the probable number of slaughterhouses as 3,500. Today the Minister has cut the figure almost by half. It reminds me of the old game which we used to play as children—think of a number, divide it by two, multiply it by six, and the answer is a lemon.
  The hon. Member for Norfolk. South-West was also right when he recognised that this Bill cannot be considered in isolation. If we consider it in isolation, then it is not a particularly bad Bill. But it must be read in conjunction with the whole of the Government's policy on agricultural marketing, and the fact remains that that policy is a retrogressive policy.
  There can be no question whatever that the system of public control of slaughtering, importing and wholesaling benefited the farmer, the consumer and the distributing and slaughtering workers alike. It achieved substantial economies, and, in addition, raised standards of hygiene in the handling of the nation's foodstuffs.
  I agree with the Minister that, given an increase in home killing, some adaptation of the system would have been necessary effectively to meet the peak period. Since one of my duties in the trade union field is to preside over the annual trade union conference of slaughtering workers, I know some of the problems which have arisen in recent years with regard to the peak kill. But the answer is not to abolish the whole system of public control; it is to create a more flexible form of public ownership and control, the kind of public commission to which my hon.
  1680
  Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) referred in his speech.
  If there is one field in which a national and regional approach is required, it is the question of the siting and ownership of slaughterhouses. I do not believe that 1,000 local authorities with no formal machinery of consultation and policy-making can be the most effective instruments as regards slaughterhouse policy, but at the same time I am prepared to recognise that if we cannot have public ownership on a national basis, then public ownership on a local authority basis is a second best.
  It is to be regretted that the Government have not only ignored the advice of the practical people in the meat industry, the farmers and the trade unionists, but have in addition, ignored a good deal of the advice tendered to them by the Association of Municipal Corporations. Reference has already been made to its statement of policy, and I must draw the attention of the House to three points in it. First, the Association agrees with hon. Members on this side of the House in regretting
  "that it is necessary to reopen private slaughterhouses which have been out of use since the early days of the war."
  It goes on to say:
  "It is important that the period of transition should be as short as possible."
  I may have misunderstood the Minister earlier this afternoon. When declaring his belief in a policy of moderate concentration, he implored the House to remember that it would take many years to carry out that policy. Certainly the problem of providing adequate new slaughterhouse facilities will take a considerable period of time, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks do not mean that we shall have to wait a very long time before we get the final report of the inter-Departmental committee and that thereafter we shall proceed slowly by degrees.
  I wish to emphasise a third point made by the Association of Municipal Corporations. It emphasises the need for what is done in the coming months and years being linked with the long-term policy of moderate concentration, and it affirms its belief that the compulsory lease is an affective method by which local authorities can not only do their job under the Bill of securing adequate

  1681
  slaughtering facilities in the localities, but can also link up the transitional plans with long-term plans for a moderate concentration of slaughterhouses.
  I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will at long last give us a convincing answer as to why the Government have rejected the recommendation of the inter-Departmental committee in favour of local authorities having the power to take a compulsory lease, as distinct from purchase, of existing slaughterhouse facilities, because in the discussions which have gone on up till now we have had no answer of any consequence from the Government as to why that recommendation was rejected.
  I have already referred to the guess of one member of the Government that the number of slaughterhouses will be between 3,000 and 3,500 and to the guess of the Minister today that it may be 2,000 or 2,500. I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary—and, in view of his association with the medical profession, I am sure that he is deeply interested in this issue—what provisions in this Bill give any guarantee that there will not be a relapse into the abominable conditions that existed before the war.
  A month ago, when I was presiding over the slaughtermen's conference of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, representatives from the localities expressed the gravest concern about provisional arrangements being made in rural parts of the country with regard to the opening of slaughterhouses. One delegate from Gloucestershire said that he had been informed that steps had been taken to licence a slaughterhouse without a drainage system and which would have to rely on a cesspit. We informed that delegate and others that if there were any local authorities which were so careless of the public health as to commit deeds of that kind, then, on the report of the matter to the central office of the union, we would certainly press the Minister to intervene, and would create a first-class public scandal.
  If we look at the inter-Departmental committee's report we see that the danger is apparent. In its conclusion, it says:
  "It would not be practicable on decontrol to apply a national uniform code of hygiene in regard to the structure and design of private slaughterhouses."
  1682
  I want an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the least efficient rural district council is not going to be allowed to endanger public health, as happened in the pre-war period.
  While on this point, I wish to refer to the rather puzzling situation in which we find ourselves. At the present time there are three Bills going through this House dealing with slaughterhouses. There is the Private Member's Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) entitled Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his initiative in the matter. Among other things, it provides that the Minister can issue regulations governing the licensing of slaughtermen.
  Again, I ask the Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to facilitate the passage of that Private Member's Bill, and if not, whether they are prepared to include a new Clause in the Bill which we are now discussing governing a proper system for licensing slaughtermen. Make no mistake—if two, three, four or more thousand slaughterhouses are to be opened, with the backyard slaughterhouse reappearing, when there are only 3,000 or so skilled slaughtermen in Britain, there is a real danger of quite unskilled people being employed, thereby inflicting unnecessary suffering on animals and not doing the job as the public, the consumers, require.
  Second, we have the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill. In Committee on the Private Member's Bill to which I have referred, it was pointed out that under the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill the Minister would have the power to issue regulations governing the provision of proper washing and sterilising facilities and so on in slaughterhouses. When I look first at the draft of the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill and then at the Slaughterhouses Bill, I am left wondering. Clause 6 (2) of the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill says:
  "…regulations made by the Ministers may make provision—
  (a) for imposing requirements as to the construction, layout, equipment, maintenance, cleanliness, ventilation, lighting, and use of premises in, at or from which food is sold…"
  I find that that is repeated verbatim in the Slaughterhouses Bill, but if we refer back to the Food and Drugs Amendment

  1683
  Bill we find that Clause 6 (2, b) talks about regulations:
  "for imposing requirements as to the provision, maintenance and cleanliness of sanitary and washing facilities in connection with such premises, and the maintenance and cleanliness of apparatus, furnishings and utensils used in such premises."
  That that is omitted from the Slaughterhouses Bill may be an accident, but I confess that the inference I draw is that the Government do not, in fact, intend to apply the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill provision for regulations for washing and sterilising facilities and so on to slaughterhouses. It must be remembered that in the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill the provision is general and covers the whole of the food trades, whereas the Slaughterhouses Bill deals with slaughterhouses only.
  I would ask for an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that it is the Government's intention to bring forward regulations regarding washing and other welfare facilities in the slaughtering industry similar to those issued under the Factories Act. I emphasise that though this issue seriously affects slaughtermen, it is also a vital public interest. If hon. Members will refer to the inter-Departmental committee's report on meat inspection, they will see that my union gave massive evidence to that committee and was so successful in convincing the members of the committee that very stringent recommendations are made in that respect.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) referred to the expenditure of public money on private slaughterhouses. During the past few months I have put down a number of Questions on this issue to the Minister of Food. It has emerged that £150,000 has been spent on the provision of electric winches and electric saws. So far from criticising the Ministry about that, I congratulate it. I am strongly in favour of that and believe it should be carried further. In reply to another Question, it came out that the annual expenditure on maintenance, structural alterations and extensions to the 300 to 400 private slaughterhouses has been £125.000 over the past five years.
  In view of this Government's record in regard to road haulage and other indus-
  1684
  tries, we are entitled tonight to a firm assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the electric winches and saws will be sold at fair market prices to any private owners who take back slaughterhouses into their possession. We are entitled also to an assurance that where structural alterations, improvements and extensions have been made, there too a payment should be made by the private owners to whom the slaughterhouses are returned.
  Finally, I would say that this Bill is not the ideal solution of the slaughterhouse problem. What is needed is public ownership on a national basis with regional devolution of authority. Since local public ownership is a second-best, the Bill needs strengthening first as regards the right of local authorities compulsorily to acquire leases of private slaughterhouses, and secondly regarding the working conditions of slaughtermen, which is of great importance not only to the slaughtermen but to the consuming public.
  6.36 p.m.
  Mr. C. N. Thomton-Kemsley: In a debate which has, on the whole, been comparatively non-controversial, one fact of very great importance has passed unnoticed, or at any rate without comment. The Minister has stated that we are coming off the ration and that meat is to be decontrolled, on Saturday, 3rd July. If that is not welcomed by all hon. Members, I am sure that it will at least receive a wide and very great welcome throughout the country.
  There has been some sort of suggestion, although I do not think that it has been widely made in this debate, that because the present slaughterhouse capacity has been sufficient it will therefore be sufficient for the immediate requirements after decontrol. I think that there is a fallacy there. If one is controlling the whole of the killing of meat, it is possible to direct stock which has to be graded and slaughtered to this or that slaughterhouse and to see that the through-put is even throughout the week.
  Under decontrol the trade will want to carry through most of the slaughtering in the early part of the week in order that the meat may be in condition for sale at the weekend. There will therefore be

  1685
  a greater demand, as I understand it. for slaughterhouse capacity in the earlier part of the week and a lower demand towards the end of the week. For that reason alone, more slaughterhouses will be required than under the present tightly-controlled system. The immediate plan, of course, is to have rather more slaughterhouses than we have at present.
  Mr. I. O. Thomas: How many?
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The hon. Member asks how many. I do not know. The Minister does not know. No one can know. Any hon. Member who talks about so many slaughterhouses—2,500 or 3,500—is talking out of relation to facts if he does not specify the size and capacity of the slaughterhouses. One might have 3,500 very small slaughterhouses with less capacity than 2.000 large, centralised slaughterhouses.
  Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman scouts the idea of any estimating in regard to the necessary number of slaughterhouses. I would respectfully point out that even the Minister has to bring forward a number, which is something in the region of 2,500 to 3,000, as compared with over 12,000 slaughterhouses before the war. I am only asking what is the hon. Gentleman's own guess in regard to that.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: My guess is not of importance to anyone. I did not say that it is impossible for the Minister to make an estimate.
  Mr. Thomas: He has made an estimate.
  Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Certainly. 1 did not say that it was impossible for him to do so. Of course, a responsible Minister must make an estimate, but it is only an estimate. Nobody can do more than make an estimate, without knowing what the size of slaughterhouses are to be, or, to take another example, what is the future shape of marketing in this country.
  We are anxious to know how successful the National Farmers Unions' Fatstock Marketing Corporation is going to be. If that is successful, it will obviously have an effect on the number of slaughterhouses required. My hon. and gallant Friend and neighbour the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) is
  1686
  anxious, as I think most of us who come from what I would call "exporting areas" are anxious, that the slaughtering should be done within our own areas so far as it is reasonably practicable. We do not like to see our fine cattle moving long distances by road or rail to slaughterhouses. Therefore, so far as it is reasonably practicable, we want to have adequate local slaughterhouses.
  Having said that, let me enter this caveat. Local slaughterhouses are, in my view, no real substitute for the modern, fully-equipped and adequate centralised slaughterhouses, and I want to see more of those. I think that the requirements which were listed, from an authoritative source, by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) can only be met in the modern centralised slaughterhouse. We could not expect to find those facilities in the local abattoir owned perhaps by a small local authority.
  I have just spent a very interesting morning in the modern slaughterhouse in Guildford. I went unheralded. I did not announce that I was going. I did not divulge that I was a Member of Parliament, but I was shown round with great courtesy. I was given a very interesting morning. One of the things that impressed me greatly was the very full use that is made of all by-products. I saw there the glands from the beasts immediately after slaughter being carefully removed, some of them preserved in liquids and kept in different places. The adrenal, thyroid, pituitary and pancreas glands—the latter, I believe, being in great demand for making insulin for the treatment of diabetes and so on—were all removed and carefully preserved.
  In addition, I had no idea that the spinal cords were used. I understand that an average sized beast will have a spinal cord which weighs from six to eight ounces. These are used for medical purposes. There is no waste at all, neither of any offal nor of any of the glands which are an important by-product from the slaughter of cattle. In these centralised slaughterhouses it is possible to make full use of all these valuable by-products.
  There is only one question that I want to direct to the Parliamentary Secretary. If as a result of the reports of the two inter-Departmental committees we are to have more of these modern centralised slaughterhouses built in the country, are

  1687
  the Government going to give any financial help towards their ejection? With the cost of building as it is at present, the expense that would fall upon a local authority is very heavy indeed. I am not suggesting that there should be any grants of money, but I do suggest that it might be desirable for Government loans to toe made to facilitate the erection of the slaughterhouses, repayable as the dues fall in from the letting of the slaughterhouse facilities by the local authorities.
  I believe that the problems to be faced as we move into a free system of decontrol are such that the Government ought not to want to administer the whole scheme. I have been seeking an opportunity of advancing my view that the time is ripe for the reappointment of a livestock commission to carry out all the administrative details of fatstock marketing under a free system. If we had something like a fatstock commission, one of the advantages would be the proper control of slaughtering, and we would be sure that there would be full utilisation of all the by-products from the slaughtering of animals.
  6.47 p.m.
  Mr. George Darling: I shall be as brief as I possibly can, having thrown most of my notes away.
  I think it is desirable that the Parliamentary Secretary should know that there is a rather larger volume of opinion on this side of the House that the Bill is unnecessary than he may have imagined from the course that the debate has taken. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) said that rather more slaughterhouses than we have at present will be opened. Something like five or six times as many slaughterhouses will be available, and, so far as we can see, most of them will be small, wasteful, inefficient and unhealthy, and, what is worse, a handicap to a proper system of meat marketing which ought to develop from the Government's proposals.
  I do not know where to apportion the blame. I do not know whether to say that the blame rests with the previous Government who failed to bring forward proposals for the opening of new slaughterhouses and abattoirs after the
  1688
  war, or with the present Government who are now rushing along too quickly. I do not know where the blame lies, but it seems to me that any Government ought to be condemned if they miss this opportunity of bringing forward quickly, before they do anything about opening slaughterhouses of any kind, a properly planned scheme for dealing with meat marketing, slaughtering and meat processing in this country.
  There has been agreement on both sides of the House about the virtues of having a proper system of public abattoirs, factory abattoirs or centralised slaughterhouses as the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns has called them. We know what substantial savings would come from having the job done in a big and organised way. We know that at each centralised abattoir there could be adequate cold stores, the absence of which is part of the present problem. I am sure that we shall not have cold stores at these fiddling little slaughterhouses which are to be opened under this Bill. There will be a considerable amount of wastage of byproducts because of the failure to make savings by doing the job in a big way. The appalling waste of by-products, which will be a great burden upon the community, could have been avoided if a proper plan had been brought forward. We are going back to an uneconomic, costly and unhealthy system, and I regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) is supporting the Bill. I believe that we ought to oppose it.
  In opening the debate, the Minister tried to paint a picture of all the difficulties with which the Ministry has to contend. He said that this is a difficult job, which will take a great deal of time, and will mean employing people to go round the country finding out where abattoirs should be situated, and so on. But this is not a new problem. The decontrol of meat was anticipated hi 1940, and people should have been working on this problem ever since. I am not saying this as a matter of hindsight; I wrote a book on the subject in 1940, and suggested that the job should be started then. I do not suggest that anybody should take a great deal of notice of what I write, but I had the right point of view at that time.

  1689
  We have to remember that this problem does not date merely from 1940. The first committee was set up to deal with this matter in 1929, and reports on the subject have been made from 1930 onwards. It is completely untrue to suggest that this is a new problem, which it will take a lot of time to sort out. The job could have been done a long time ago, and it can still be done quickly, with the information which is already available. With a proper plan we should know where the new centralised abattoirs are needed. The experience we gained in the war wild help considerably, and we could now go ahead with a proper system to deal not only with the slaughtering of cattle but with the problem of livestock marketing, by helping the fanners to institute a system of meat marketing on a deadweight basis, such as will be brought into operation by the new Farmers' Fatstock Marketing Corporation.
  This Corporation will deal with one-fifth of our cattle and livestock. We now have 200 public abattoirs which, with the new fatstock organisation which the farmers are proposing to set up, will be dealing with nearly half of the home-produced meat. To carry our plans forward to deal with the other half should not be very difficult, without setting up fiddling little abattoirs which should not be brought into existence again. I hope that in Committee we can make the Bill a little more workable by putting a handicap on the slaughter-houses the building of which it will facilitate.
  The Government should take back the Bill and look at the practical problem once again. It is not as difficult as the Minister tried to make out. A practical plan could be evolved to cover the country with centralised abattoirs, not necessarily exclusively public ones. There could be co-operative ones, operated by private traders working together. We could have about 200, 300 or 400 centralised abattoirs to cover the whole country.
  Let us get all the economies we can from that kind of large-scale operation. Let us get all the by-products we can, and have an adequate system of cold storage and processing of meat which is now wasted but which could go on the market in one form or another. That could be done quite easily, without a
  1690
  great waste of time. It would be far better to delay the decontrol of meat, by throwing out this Bill for the time being and going ahead with the job, than to go on in the chaotic way which is now proposed.
  6.57 p.m.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I am very much in agreement with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling). In spite of the fact that this Bill is only an interim Measure until the final report of the inter-Departmental committee is published, it is merely tinkering with the problem. In spite of the two circulars which have already been issued by the Ministry, and the instructions which have been given to the municipalities, there will be chaos in the industry on 3rd July, when decontrol becomes an established fact, because none of the municipalities, especially the rural authorities, knows what it has to do.
  This Bill is now in course of its Second Reading. It has to go through the Committee, Report and Third Reading stages, and, in view of the opinions expressed by my hon. Friends, I can visualise that there will be some energetic attempts to amend it. It will take some time for the Bill to pass through all its stages and become law. With the best will in the world, I question whether the Government can organise the slaughtering industry in a matter of four or five weeks after decontrol takes place. Therefore, can the Minister give an assurance that he will do something as quickly as possible to bring together the interested parties, so that the slaughtermen, who are as confused as the municipalities— and possibly the Minister himself—will know precisely what will take place in respect of their employment? At the present time no one in the trade unions knows who is to negotiate with whom if the Bill becomes law.
  If the Bill goes through there will be such chaos and confusion in the slaughtering industry in July that the service to the consumer will be curtailed. The Minister will have to do something for those people who will be responsible for wages and conditions in the industry and for the trade unions, in order that the chaos in which the municipalities find

  1691
  themselves does not become extended into the world of labour. I hope that we shall have a reply to that point tonight.
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: Everything I have heard in the course of this debate has increased the apprehensions I had before it began. In support of my argument, I take as an example my own home, the urban district of Camborne and Redruth, in Cornwall, with a population of 36,000. On reading the local newspaper today, I found that two nights ago the urban district council decided to grant 17 out of the 24 requests for licences which have been made. I know that before the war only between 10 and 15 per cent, of the meat coming from slaughtered beasts was inspected. What are the difficulties going to be with the small staff of sanitary inspectors? I believe there is great difficulty now in recruiting staff, as well as difficulty in retaining the sanitary inspectors we have.
  I am appalled at the state of affairs that is likely to arise when decontrol takes place in July. I blame the Government for the indecent haste with which they have pursued a doctrinaire policy. Everyone who is concerned about clean meat and the possibilities of food poisoning cannot but be alarmed by the state of affairs. If the number of additional licences that are to be granted in my home town is any indication of the state of affairs in the country generally, the estimate of 2,500 slaughterhouses that has been given today is very much below what the true figure is likely to be.
  7.1 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens)—I hope he will forgive me for saying so—made a helpful and constructive speech.
  Mr. G. Darling: Shame.
  Dr. Hill: He did not think it worth while to repeat the views that we know he holds on the general issues, but accepted the debate as an opportunity for practical consideration of certain steps that need to be taken within the ambit of the Government's policy. My right, hon. and gallant Friend, in an intervention, dealt with consultation with the
  1692
  trade unions. I want to stress that if the T.U.C. wants to see my right hon. and gallant Friend at any time, he will be glad to see its representatives. As for the unions particularly concerned, as my right hon. and gallant Friend said, there have been useful discussions between them and officials of the Ministry. If at any time in the future they ask to see my right hon. and gallant Friend, he will be glad to see them, as he would have been had they asked to see him.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that nothing should be done to prejudice moderate concentration. An hon. Friend of mine asked, "What is moderate concentration?" I hesitate to define the word "moderate"—unless it is a word we apply to the self-approbation of certain Scottish members in the debate. I would say emphatically to the right hon. Gentleman and others who mentioned the matter that we are firmly attached to the policy of moderate concentration, and we shall do our utmost to see that the interim arrangements do not in any way prejudice the policy of moderate concentration.
  As my right hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, by the Bill itself certain steps are taken towards moderate concentration, for certain of the problems arise in relation to the new slaughterhouses built in the last two or three years The Bill empowers the Minister in certain circumstances to prevent the opening of new. slaughterhouses, and it extends to areas not themselves provided with public slaughterhouses the power, subject to certain safeguards, to close redundant slaughterhouses.
  The right hon. Gentleman expressed the fear that there would be a substantial increase in the number of slaughterhouses. I am hazarding a guess, but we fear that there may be too few rather than too many, judging from the angle of meat distribution. Neither of us, I think, would wish to engage in the dangerous art of prophecy. He may well be right, but our view is that, because of the use of what were formerly slaughterhouses for other purposes, because of the hygienic standards properly applied by local authorities, we may find ourselves with too few rather than too many. In any case, we are seeking by the Bill to take the moderate course of certainly not opening too many, for that would, perhaps, prejudice the moderate

  1693
  concentration, and of not opening too few, for that would endanger meat distribution.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to deal with the question of clean food. Another hon. Member also did so. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) raised a separate matter with which I shall deal separately. Even in this modest Bill there is an advance in the matter of clean food. The Act of 1938 did not specify hygienic standards as a reason for refusing to grant a licence or to continue a licence. In Clause 3 (3) a beginning is made with putting teeth into the rather general provisions of the 1938 Act. I yield to no one in my belief that a good deal remains to be done and that a great deal must be done in this field of clean food, and I will give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall do our utmost to see that this rather awkward, inconvenient but necessary phase is not one in which the standards of hygiene are lowered.
  Mr. J. T. Price: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to give assurances, and we are grateful even for the limited assurance he is now giving, but what we are more interested in is what practical methods will be taken to ensure proper inspection of the unsatisfactory premises which, by the Bill, will be put back into commission? The inspectors simply are not there.
  Dr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself with fortitude for a little while, he will find that I shall come to the question of inspectors. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the additional burden on local authorities. Clearly, there must be an additional burden. One hon. Member seemed to cast doubt on the wisdom of returning these functions to local authorities. He used the phrase, "Passing the buck to the local authorities."I am certain the whole House is with me when I say that this responsibility properly belongs to local authorities, should remain with local authorities, and that even in this intervening period nothing should be done to interfere with the local authorities' responsibility. I agree that this means more meat inspectors, and I agree that there is a very real problem there, a problem that we may well have an opportunity of discussing further at a later stage. I do not disguise for one moment the fact that some very
  1694
  awkward problems are raised by this Bill, which is itself an attempt to deal with a very awkward problem.
  Then the right hon. Gentleman passed to Clause 2, and in skittish fashion drew attention to the future of the Minister of Food. There is a Minister of Food at this moment, and with him the responsibility will lie. Whatever happens to the Minister or the Ministry of Food in the future, this responsibility will remain on the Government, in the Ministry of Food or elsewhere. This responsibility is one of a number of responsibilities of the Department. I listed them in a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) about a fortnight ago. We are now dealing with the position as it is today, and the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will not read into the mention of the Minister of Food either the realisation of his own fears or the achievement of the hopes of my right hon. and gallant Friend, or any other conditions superfluous and irrelevant to the argument. It means that the responsibility must belong to the Minister of Food now, and as to its future destination, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be content to wait.
  Next, what is the principle of compensation? Under the 1938 Act—perhaps I should use the exact words—compensation in respect of both "owner and occupier" was payable for any loss sustained by them by reason of it being no longer lawful to use these premises as a slaughterhouse. That has been the legal basis of the position so far. Under the Bill, let it be admitted, compensation takes a different and narrower form. There will be no compensation for goodwill. Compensation will be based on the difference between the value of the property as a slaughterhouse and its value when not being used as a slaughterhouse. Compensation for goodwill is specifically excluded. There are some words to which I should draw the attention of the House—
  "(no regard being had to any matter not directly based on the value of the land);"
  Compensation is deliberately restricted and closely defined. There is the further difference that in case of doubt or dispute the compensation will be fixed by the Lands Tribunal.
  Mr. Royle: Will the hon. Gentleman say how we are to decide its value as a slaughterhouse?
  Dr. Hill: Although this matter can perhaps be more appropriately discussed in Committee, it is laid down in the Bill that
  "Rule 2 of the Rules set out … in the Acquisition of Land … Act, 1919, shall apply …"
  That means the sale between a willing seller and a wiling buyer. I do not pretend to be expert enough to delve further into this question, but it will be on that basis and it will be restricted in the terms which I have described to the House.
  Mr. Robens: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that. There were about 11,500 slaughterhouses in use before 1940. Presumably every one of them would be entitled to apply for a licence. Whether the final figure is 2,000 or 2,500, that is a very big difference from 11,500. If all those people apply, 7,000 or 8,000 will automatically be turned down. Will all those people be compensated?
  Mr. Archer Baldwin: Before my hon. Friend replies, may I point out to him that many of the slaughterhouses which have been closed are now in more profitable use than was the case when they were slaughterhouses?
  Mr. Robens: That does not prevent them from applying.
  Dr. Hill: It will be appreciated that if there is a closure of a failure to renew a licence on the ground of hygiene, that does not come within the scope of compensation. That is excluded. We are considering only redundancy, to use the simpler term. Where a local authority providing a slaughterhouse in its own area, having provided such a slaughterhouse, passes a resolution approved by the Minister, then there will be eligible for this limited compensation any slaughterhouse which was licensed and working and any slaughterhouse which was not being licensed and working and which applies before the end of this year, within seven days of the passing of the resolution, to the local authority. We are considering a limited field of compensation.
  Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: What of the slaughterhouse not now in use and not having been in use since 1939 but which has continued to be licensed for its own purposes? What of such a slaughterhouse which is being used at the moment for other purposes? Will compensation apply to that type of case?
  Dr. Hill: If we consider that very small group, then, following decontrol on 3rd July, the owner of such a slaughterhouse may make application for licensing. If he does and the application is turned down on grounds of hygiene, no claim for compensation will lie. If, on the other hand, he is accepted as a slaughterer— and the hon. Member will recall that only those who have been open in the last 20 years can be candidates—if a licence is given and a resolution is passed by the local authority, and if that slaughterhouse is open and working, then he will be eligible to claim compensation. If, on the other hand, he has not made application by the end of this year, his claim falls to the ground. If he has not made application, but between July and the end of the year the local authority passes a resolution, then within seven days he can make application, and, if there is no objection on grounds of hygiene, in return for refusal to licence he can obtain compensation.
  Mr. Winterbottom: I was thinking of those who continued to be licensed even though the slaughterhouse was not used. Will there not be some inclination on the part of the municipality to continue to license, because the slaughterhouse has been licensed for many years, and then to be faced with the problem of compensation?
  Dr. Hill: That is a matter for local authorities. If a local authority, even though the premises have not been used, has kept the licence in active existence year by year, and if in fact those premises are then used, it is right and proper that there should be a claim for compensation, as with those premises which have been used by the Ministry of Food throughout.
  Mr. Winterbottom: Even though they have been used for other purposes?
  Dr. HILL: I must not weary the House. I have gone into this fairly fully and I suggest that I should now turn to other points.

  1697
  One point raised by the right hon. Gentleman concerned the question of equipment. The equipment will be sold for the best price which can be obtained. It will be sold to those who take over the slaughterhouses, be they local authorities or otherwise. I cannot guarantee that each piece of specialised equipment will be purchased by the particular slaughterhouse authority, but it may be taken that we shall pass on at an appropriate and proper price to those who are responsible for slaughterhouses in the future the excellent equipment which has been installed in recent years.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to a difficult issue but one of considerable moment to him—the conditions of the workers. The hon. Member for Bright-side (Mr. R. E. Winterbottom) raised the same point. We shall be happy to discuss with them ways and means of meeting the situation which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. We are in considerable difficulty; we do not employ the slaughtermen, who are employed by contractors, and we have not hitherto been involved in their terms and conditions of service. If there can be thought out some way in which we can properly help and intervene, we shall be glad to consider it. I cannot go beyond that at the moment, for I am impressed by the practical difficulties of our intervening.
  I turn next to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey). I knew when he began with his complimentary observations that we were in for a little trouble, but it was surprising how soon he extracted himself from his usual rhetorical swiping and returned to constructive suggestions at the end of his speech. The hon. Member suggested that we wore dilatory. He will forgive me for saying: Yes, I suppose we were dilatory. When we came in there was no siting plan being prepared. We had to set up a siting committee. There were six years in which that preparatory work could have been done. I do not want to raise the temperature, but I think that I should remind the House that seven Government slaughterhouses have been built. No doubt a great deal of planning went on before, but they were all built after the present Government came into office. I know that there can be an argument about who laid the first brick. I am trying, like the hon. Member for
  1698
  Sunderland, North, to be on my best behaviour, and I am not in the belligerent mood in which I tussle with him late at night.
  The hon. Member went on to refer to confusion, and so on. He raised the question of compulsory leasing, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore. He asked why the Government do not accept this particular recommendation that local authorities should have the power compulsorily to lease premises. The local authorities are enabled to hold premises requisitioned under the Defence Regulations for this purpose. A proportion of the slaughterhouses are leased to us. Where we are not precluded from assigning these to local authorities, we propose to do so. We do not think it necessary, and we do not like the idea of unnecessarily extending compulsory powers of this kind when existing powers suffice for the purpose.
  Mr. J. T. Price: The powers to which the Minister now refers as being vested in the local authorities are subject to the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, which has to be renewed annually. Is that a satisfactory basis on which these powers are to be used?
  Dr. Hill: It was an unsatisfactory basis for the previous Administration and for this Administration. I can assure the House that such powers are there, and I think that in such circumstances even the hon. Member for Sunderland, North might have thought it unnecessary to indulge in this additional and rather dangerous form of compulsory leasing.
  Mr. F. Willey: I raised this matter to get an explanation from the Government, which we have now obtained. I feel that there is still this difficulty that the inter-Departmental committee of experts felt it necessary to make this recommendation. In view of that, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should deal with the matter a little more seriously.
  Dr. Hill: I have dealt with it, I hope, with full seriousness. Even an inter-Departmental committee can have a recommendation revised by the Government in the light of further consideration. This is considered in this case as being unnecessary, and on the whole undesirable. The hon. Member said something

  1699
  with which I warmly agree. He congratulated the inter-Departmental committee on the character and speed of its work. Another hon. Member criticised it for having done the job in 16 days. I do not know which line to accept—to congratulate it on being so speedy or to commiserate with it on having taken so short a time.
  Then I come to the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle). He was disturbed about the constructive line adopted by his right hon. Friend, and he determined "to have a go." The line he took was: "The Bill is unnecessary and it only becomes necessary because of decontrol." He went on to say that circumstances should never have arisen which made this Bill necessary. The circumstances are a sufficient supply of meat enabling rationing to be brought to an end. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh. yes. I would put it in this way. Perhaps it will touch a chord of memory on the past of hon. Members.
  In the second half of last year it was remarkably difficult to sustain a system of rationing and distribution devised for a period of scarcity. It became almost unworkable in that period of plenty, and, whichever Government bad been in office in the second half of last year, it would have experienced that difficulty—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."]—for that particular reason, and for the general reason that this dilatory Government delights in making possible the derationing of foodstuffs. Those were the reasons which made this Bill necessary.
  The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. G. Darling) was very frank with the House. He quite frankly said, "I would rather wait until a vast and comprehensive new scheme could be brought into being, and until the new slaughterhouses are here, in two, three or four years, before derationing meat." We cannot wait to decontrol and deration meat. We must do it now, for now is the appropriate time. If it is said to me, "I want to wait until the new slaughterhouses are up and until new marketing schemes and premises have been arranged," I say that if we wait until then, what do we do in the meantime—carry on with the present system or do what is here proposed and decontrol the distribution of meat?
  Mr. G. Darling: I was reckoning on the new slaughterhouses coming along gradually, and that there was no need to wait two, three or four years for them to be put up. We could have a decontrol system working while the slaughterhouses were being built up, because there will be a gradual easing of the situation. I was not suggesting that it would take so much time. I think that the Government have exaggerated the problem with which they are dealing.
  Dr. Hill: Clearly we cannot decontrol in geograpical areas and stages as new slaughterhouses become available. We must reach a decision as to whether, there being now a sufficiency of meat in prospect, the Government are ready to discontinue the rationing of meat. The Government have decided that they cannot continue the rationing and control of meat in the present supply situation. They are glad to be able to reach that decision, and this Bill follows inevitably from that decision.
  Mr. Robens: Is it not a fact, as 1 am advised by my practical friends in the trade, that it is possible to deration without upsetting the present distribution system?
  Dr. Hill: If we deration and so leave people entitled to buy what quantity of meat they like, they will naturally want to express consumer choice in buying the kinds of meat they like, and we cannot maintain the system of allocation under which the Ministry, buying the meat, home and imported, divides it up among the wholesalers. We cannot have a system of Government allocation of meat —
  Mr. Padley: We do not want allocation.
  Dr. Hill: If he does not want rationing and he does not want allocation, then the hon. Gentleman wants the decontrol which is coming after 3rd July.
  I will pass to the question raised by the hon. Member for Ogmore concerning standards in relation to premises and utensils. Clause 3 (3), to which the hon. Member referred, is, as I have said, a Clause which gives teeth to the 1938 Act. I would say to the hon. Member further that the answer to his question is in the first few words:
  "Where under any enactment regulations are in force.…"

  1701
  The hon. Member will realise that when the amending Bill, to which he referred, passes into law, there will reside in the Minister the power to make the regulations covering both the sets of circumstances to which he referred in his question.
  Mr. Padley: The workers as well as the slaughterhouses?
  Dr. Hill: Yes; the power will reside there for that purpose. The hon. Member for Hillsborough referred to his general planning proposals. I regret that I had not read his book, but I think he will agree that I have sought to cover the general points that he has raised.
  In short, the Bill deals with an interim situation. It has to -be dealt with in a way that will secure that a sufficient number of slaughterhouses are available for the killing of animals and so for the distribution of meat. It has at the same time not to prejudice the policy of moderate concentration in the future. It raises a number of problems which, in the atmosphere created by the right hon. Member for Blyth, who spoke for the Opposition, we can consider more fully in Committee, but it gives us an opportunity to do swiftly something that is really necessary if decontrol is to work smoothly on 3rd July.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Standing Committee.

  SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL [Lords]

    SLAUGHTERHOUSES [MONEY]
    Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees). —[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
    [Sir RHYS HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make local authorities responsible for the time being for securing that adequate slaughterhouse facilities are available locally; to explain and amend the law with respect to the provision by local authorities of public slaughterhouses, the making of charges in respect of such slaughterhouses and the grant and renewal of licences under section fifty-seven of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938; to make further provision with respect to the regulation and restriction of private slaughterhouses and the payment of compensation where a licence or registration in respect of such a slaughterhouse is refused or ceases to be in force; and for purposes
    1702
    connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

    (a) any sums required by the Minister of Food or the Secretary of State for making grants to local authorities of amounts not exceeding one-half of any sums payable by them by way of compensation where—

    (i) a slaughterhouse licence ceases to have effect in consequence of a resolution under section sixty-one of the said Act of 1938 passed by a local authority in England or Wales, or an application to such a local authority for the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence has been refused, or

    (ii) (in Scotland) the registration of a slaughterhouse has been cancelled or refused;

    (b) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, being an increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session.—[Major Lloyd George.]

    Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  TRANSPORT CHARGES, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.33 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  It is sometimes possible, in moving the Second Reading of a Bill, to begin with a brief and yet comprehensive explanation of the general purpose and scope of the Bill before dealing with the Clauses one by one. That is not usually so with a miscellaneous provisions Bill, and it is certainly not the case with this Bill, which is a very mixed bag. Most of the Bill is, I hope, uncontroversial, but I cannot claim that in respect of Clauses 1 and 2 and, perhaps, Clause 9.
  The chief and urgent need for legislation on these subjects is the Government's wish to get rid of wartime emergency legislation and to replace it by Acts of Parliament constitutionally passed. It is this which obliges us to legislate on matters which cannot be other than controversial. I have been surprised, since I have been in the Ministry of Transport, to find how diverse are the rules of law governing different forms of transport

  1703
  which compete for the same passengers. This has usually arisen out of the history of different periods when different kinds of vehicles were introduced and the different ways in which they were managed and owned.
  While I should never advocate uniformity for its own sake, believing, as I do, that variety can result in competition and is extremely valuable, there are cases where such diversity is inconvenient and apt to result in injustice. I hope to show that Clauses 1 and 2 deal with the case where a common system of control of charges is desirable.
  Motor buses—or, to use the legal phrase used in the Bill, "public service vehicles"—are now the most common form of public passenger transport. Some are owned by the British Transport Commission, some by non-statutory undertakers, and some by statutory undertakers. Clause 1 deals only with these statutory undertakers: that is, those who operate under a private Act of Parliament; a great many of them are local authorities.
  Usually, these private Acts fixed maximum charges, either so many pence per mile or whatever might be approved by the Minister of Transport. So long as prices were relatively stable before the war, there was seldom need to vary these maxima. Since 1939, however, costs of transport, like the costs of everything else, have risen, and the Minister has increased the maximum permitted charges under Defence Regulation 56.
  Apart from the statutory authority under which they operate, these motor bus operators were also required, like all other bus operators, to obtain licences from the licensing authorities, and these licences fixed the fares that were to be charged. Because of this dual control, successive Ministers of Transport made a practice of referring the issue for advice to the chairmen of the licensing authorities. The revised charges which the licensing authorities were prepared to put into their licences were those which they recommended the Minister to approve, and he almost invariably did so. This dual control is cumbersome and unnecessary.
  We wish to take the opportunity of ending wartime regulations to repeal all the provisions of private Acts of Parlia-
  1704
  ment which restrict fares or fare stages, and give to the licensing authorities the sole jurisdiction in this matter. This is done by Clauses 1 and 14. It has the further advantage of putting statutory undertakers in exactly the same position as non-statutory undertakers running buses who may be in competition with them. That seems to us to be fair and, at the same time, it simplifies the whole matter.
  Trams, generally speaking, are an older form of transport than buses, and there has been a general conversion from trams to trolley buses. There are at present 42 statutory undertakers, of whom only 10 still run trams. Of these 42 statutory undertakers, 38 are local authorities and four are companies. These undertakings are not required to obtain road service licences under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in respect of trams and trolley buses. Therefore, the licensing authorities have no jurisdiction over their charges which, until 1939, were limited only by the statute under which the statutory undertakings operated. There was not, therefore, that dual control which existed in the case of buses and which we seek to end under Clause 1.
  This system of statutory limitation worked all right in the pre-inflationary age, but when costs began to rise the procedure for obtaining an increase in fares by private Act of Parliament was cumbersome, slow and costly. Since 1939 the Minister of Transport has had power under Defence Regulation 56 to authorise increases. Successive Ministers have thought it wise, before authorising these increases, to arrange for a public inquiry into each application.
  Many of these statutory operators also run buses, and they applied simultaneously for increased bus fares which, as I have already explained, had to be approved by the licensing authority. It was obviously convenient for the two applications to be heard at the same time and by the same individuals, or at any rate by one of them. It was, therefore, the custom of successive Ministers of Transport to ask the chairman of the licensing authority to inquire into the tram and trolley bus applications and to advise him on what action he should take.
  In this way the practice has grown up under Defence Regulation 56 of the public—that is, the local authorities, the ratepayers' associations, the trade unions and

  1705
  the rest—having an opportunity of appearing at a public inquiry and being heard if it wished to object to the proposed increase in fares. Since we are now proposing to end the operation of Regulation 56, the House will have to decide whether to go back to the pre-1939 system or not.
  I am only too conscious that this is a rather complicated matter, so perhaps I may recapitulate what I have said about the meaning of Clauses 1 and 2 and, in so doing, give an imaginary example. Let us suppose—and there are many cases of this kind—that Blacktown municipality is a statutory undertaker and provides bus, tram and trolley bus services for that town and neighbourhood. It finds it necessary to increase its fares. The licence under which it runs its buses is conditional upon charging the fares laid down by the licensing authority so that Blacktown must apply to the licensing authority for permission to charge higher fares. It is also precluded by a private Act of Parliament from charging more than so much a mile, which was probably fixed in pre-war days. It must apply, therefore, to the Minister for his authority under Regulation 56 to increase its charges.
  When the licensing authority is considering what increase to authorise under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, its chairman is invited by the Minister to advise him what increase he should authorise under Regulation 56. At the same time, he is asked to advise the Minister separately what increase for trams and trolley buses the Minister should authorise under the Regulation.
  The House will see that the legislation is somewhat confusing and deals with these competitive types of vehicles, or should I say co-ordinated types of transport? I am most anxious, ft I can, to carry the Opposition with me on this particular point. Indeed, I will make a further concession if I may in the interests of conciliation. I would describe this as being integrated even though the integration is dependent upon this ingenious contrivance by the Minister of Transport in having three separate inquiries conducted at the same time by almost the same people.
  Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin): And passed by pre-war Tory Governments.
  Mr. Molson: This procedure has been practised by all Ministers of Transport, including the Minister in the late Socialist Government.
  The licensing authority has, in fact, become an expert authority for coordinating charges. After careful consideration we have come to the conclusion that this Bill ought to give statutory authority to that simple procedure. Clause 2 makes the licensing authority the authority for fixing tram and trolley bus fares just as Clause 1 makes it the authority for fixing fares in the case of buses.
  I am sorry that this simple solution does not wholly commend itself to all the statutory undertakers. The Association of Municipal Corporations originally suggested that the licensing authority should make a once-for-all review of the existing statutory maximum and that, thereafter, any operator wishing for an increase should promote a private Bill in Parliament. Such a procedure would be, as I have said, cumbersome, slow and costly. Other local authority associations recognise that and agree with us that tram and trolley bus fares should be dealt with by the same authority as deals with bus fares.
  They say, however, that the licensing authority should fix only a maxima and not the actual fares. We carefully considered this proposal, because we should like this to be a non-controversial and agreed Measure. We also considered most sympathetically a somewhat similar suggestion made by the Scottish Counties of Cities Association that the licensing authorities should determine only a maxima for buses run by municipalities within their own boundaries as well as trams and trolley buses.
  I have had a message today from the Association to say that it has abandoned its proposal in respect of buses, so it no longer opposes Clause 1 of this Bill. It maintains its view about trams and trolley buses, and, consequently, remains critical of Clause 2. I should like to say how much I appreciate its kindness and consideration in letting me know this afternoon exactly what its attitude was.
  My right hon. Friend received a deputation from that body and gave very close personal consideration to the proposal because he hoped to find that this would be a compromise which would, at the

  1707
  same time, reconcile the interests of the travelling public and of private enterprise undertakers with the freedom to the greatest possible extent of the local authorities. We regretfully came to the conclusion that such limited control would not adequately protect the public interest, nor would it necessarily prevent unfair competition. Fare stages vary much in length, and a downward taper in the fares per mile almost invariably operates in the case of the longer journeys. This means that a maximum fare of so many pence per mile leaves the operator a wide scope for discrimination.
  To the argument that local authorities are popularly elected and will, therefore, necessarily consult their ratepayers' interests, I have to point out that these municipally-owned and managed transport undertakings often go far outside the boundaries of the local authority concerned, and they are also often in competition with private bus companies which are subject to the much more rigid control of the licensing authorities.
  It is an unworkable proposal that the control of services should be terminated at a geographical boundary where the service itself does not, in fact, end. In taking this view we are fortified by the Report of the Thesiger Committee. I hope that, after due consideration, the House will come to the conclusion that the proposals in Clause 2 of the Bill are fair and reasonable to the local authorities, will preserve a fair balance between them and their private enterprise competitors and will protect the interests of the travelling public whether inside those boundaries or outside.
  Mr. A. Woodburn: It would seem that great injustice might be done to get uniformity. For example, Glasgow has tried to prevent too much use of buses because of congestion and danger in the city, and has tried to encourage the greatest possible use of the trams. It has been public policy in Glasgow to encourage tramways traffic and to keep the buses for longdistance and speedier transport purposes. The Minister states that he intends to ensure some degree of uniformity. That may mean that the local policy to which I have referred may have to be completely upset because the tramways will have to charge the same fares as the buses do,
  1708
  and this will drive thousands of people to the buses, which will make the roads of Glasgow impossible for traffic. That makes the move for uniformity a desperate measure.
  Mr. Molson: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I am saying. I am asking the House to agree to uniformity to this extent, and this extent only; I am asking that the licensing authority, after a public inquiry at which all interested parties will be able to appear, should fix what fares are to be charged in respect of buses, trams and trolley-buses.
  I am not in the least asking that there should necessarily be uniformity as between the fares of these different forms of transport. What I am proposing is that this matter should rest with the licensing authority, an authority which was originally set up by a Socialist Government, the powers of which were greatly extended by a Conservative Government, and which was found by the Thesiger Committee to have worked extremely satisfactorily over the last 24 years.
  The example given by the right hon. Gentleman shows how very wide the discretion of the local authorities is at present. The fact that many of those who use the transport system provided by the Glasgow Corporation are not ratepayers in Glasgow and that they are trying to plan in this way the use of different kinds of transport shows how desirable it is that an independent and expert body should be able to decide what fares should be charged. What the right hon. Gentleman has said sounds to me very reasonable, in which case I am sure it would appear equally reasonable to the licensing authority. All that the right hon. Gentleman has said tends to confirm the argument that I have put before the House, that in these very difficult and complicated matters it is desirable that the licensing authority should fix the fares.
  I now come to the other Clauses on which I hope to be able to go much faster and which, I hope, will be very much less tedious to listen to.
  The House will remember that in the Transport Acts of 1947 and 1953 full provision was made for future charges on the British Transport Commission's railways and inland waterways. The

  1709
  procedure was for schemes to be prepared by the Commission and submitted to the Transport Tribunal, which would then hold a public inquiry and approve the schemes with or without amendment if it thought fit. Clause 3 applies the same charges schemes to the independent railways and inland waterways, which I am sure the House will regard as being only fair. Clause 4 provides, in terms, that these schemes may at a later date be amended.
  As to Clause 5, the House will remember that one of the great reforms of the 1953 Act was that the railways were freed from the statutory provisions relating to equality of charges, undue preference, and so on, which dated back to the legislation of early Victorian times. For reasons which I need not repeat, the House decided to free the railways owned by the Transport Commission from those restrictions. Clause 5 extends a similar freedom, subject to the same restrictions, to the independent railway and inland waterway undertakings.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: The House would be interested to know what these independent railways are. Do the remarks of the hon. Gentleman refer simply to the Mumbles Railway? What independent railways are there today?
  Mr. Molson: There are a few independent undertakings, and my right hon. Friend will later answer the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Davies: Do they include the Emmet railway at the Festival Gardens?
  Mr. Molson: Clause 6 establishes a general procedure for the revision of charges made by statutory independent undertakers of special kinds, such as the harbours, ferries, bridges, and so on.
  Clause 7 confers upon all independent statutory harbour undertakings which are included under Clause 6 the power to make charges in respect of seaplanes which use their property. Clause 8 revokes Regulation 56 of the Defence (General) Regulations as soon as the Bill becomes law, but it gives validity to all charges in existence at that time which have been authorised by the Minister under the Regulation.
  I now come to Clause 9, and I ought to mention that some local authorities have expressed their opposition to the
  1710
  proposal in this Clause. In the regulation of standing passengers there is at present much the same diversity between buses, trams and trolley-buses which I had complained about in the case of fares. Under the 1930 Act my right hon. Friend has power to regulate the number of standing passengers in buses. He has general temporary powers under Defence Regulation 70, which is due to expire on 10th December this year. He has exercised these temporary powers in respect of trolley-buses, but not in respect of trams. We propose that the Minister should have the same power over trams and trolley-buses as he has had over buses since 1930. This also follows the recommendation of the Thesiger Committee.
  Clause 10 enables the Minister to simplify the annual accounts and returns which the independent railway undertakers are now required to present and prepare under the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911. Clause 11 requires a little more explanation. When the railways were derated in 1929 to the extent of 75 per cent, it was the intention of Parliament that they should pass on this relief to certain kinds of traffic, particularly coal, milk and livestock, by which British industry and agriculture would obtain a measure of relief.
  This matter has a long and extremely complicated history into which I hope I shall not be expected to go. The British Transport Commission has been freed from the obligation to pass on the benefit in respect of its undertakings as from 1st January, 1951. It is obviously only fair that the same terms should now be accorded to the independent railway companies and canals.
  Clause 12 deals with expenses. It makes the usual provision that any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament and any fees received by a licensing authority shall be paid into the Exchequer. This is virtually common form, but we do not expect that the operation of the Bill will require any increase in the staff of my right hon. Friend's Department or any increase in administrative expenditure.
  Clause 13 is the usual interpretation Clause. Clause 14 provides for the repeal of various statutory provisions which have

  1711
  to go to clear the way for the provisions of this Bill. The enactments repealed are set out in the Second Schedule. I am afraid that the First Schedule is long and apparently rather complicated. It sets out the procedure which the licensing authorities are to follow when dealing with tram and trolley-bus fares. It prescribes as nearly as possible the same procedure as is followed at present by licensing authorities in respect of buses.
  We had hoped at one time to avoid this long Schedule and to provide that the procedure should be the same as under Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, but since tram and trolley-bus services do not require road service licences, the fares could not be attached to a licence as conditions to be observed under the provisions of that licence. For that technical reason it has been necessary to prescribe the procedure in full.
  Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman made the point that this would not involve the Minister in any extra cost for staff. Will that apply to the Commissioners? Presumably they will have to have a staff to deal with all these details. Will it apply to the local authorities who, in turn, will have to deal with all these details? If there are to be maxima for trams somebody will have to deal with the charges. The local authorities and the Commissioners will have to go into the figures to make their judgment. Has the Minister estimated what increased staffs will be involved, and whether all this is necessary?
  Mr. Molson: I should not like to make a prophecy. I can only make a forecast. We do not think it is likely to add in any way to the cost or complication of the procedure.
  As I tried to explain, at what I fear was almost wearisome length, my right hon. Friend has been obliged to authorise higher maxima and successive Ministers of Transport have invited the chairman of the licensing authority to hold a public inquiry on their behalf and then to advise them. Public bodies of all kinds, incorporating local authorities, trade unions, ratepayers' associations, and so on, have appeared at these public inquiries and under the Bill we intend to incorporate in permanent legislation a slightly simplified form of the procedure which has been in operation since 1939.
  Mr. Woodburn: May I clear up one point to avoid a good deal of discussion? Am I to understand that a Commissioner is simply to decide the maxima, as he has done up to now, or is it the intention of the Bill that he must go into the details of fare charges at all stages in connection with trams just as he does at the moment in the case of buses? Will not that be a more complicated procedure?
  Mr. Molson: He will go into the matter in detail under the proposals of this Bill. He will not merely prescribe maxima, but fares. That has been done under wartime procedure and, therefore, there will be no additional complicated procedure as a result of the passing of this Bill.
  I apologise for the length and tedium of my speech, but I thought that it would be for the convenience of the House if I set out in detail what these somewhat complicated procedures involved.
  8.9 p.m.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: I think that the House should congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on sticking so closely to his brief and reading it so well, but I was a little shocked when he was unable to inform us to what three of the Clauses of the Bill apply. Clauses 3, 4 and 5 are rather long Clauses dealing with the independent railways and inland waterway undertakings, but the hon. Gentleman was unable to tell us what independent railways still exist. I hope that his right hon. Friend the Minister will succeed in being briefed between now and his closing speech, so that we can be informed on that point.
  The case which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has made is one which can certainly be considered as legitimate and one which will probably commend itself to the House, but we have a certain doubt about the reason for introducing this legislation at this juncture. The only reason which, in effect, the Parliamentary Secretary gave for introducing this minor legislation at this stage was that it is proposed to get rid of war-time regulations of which we all desire to dispose as opportunity arises, but there is a question of priorities. When legislation of this nature comes to us from the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, we wonder why certain other legislation, which has been promised over a long

  1713
  period and which in our view deserves priority, has not yet appeared. I refer, for instance, to the road safety legislation, for which we have been waiting for the last two years. There is also the new Highway Code which also we have been pressing the Minister to produce, but which is still held back. I think the Minister will be faced with further legislation to amend some of his past legislation, notably the 1953 Act.
  I should like to ask the Minister why, after the appearance of the Thesiger Report with its large number of recommendations, many of which are uncon-troversial and acceptable to both sides of the House, he should decide to introduce this particular legislation. It deals with only one aspect of that Report, and why does he not wait until he can bring in a general Measure dealing with all the matters on which legislation will be required to implement those recommendations of the Report which the Government propose to carry out? It would have been better, and would have saved the time of the House and enabled more important legislation to be produced, had the Government waited until the larger Bill was ready.
  The Thesiger Report appeared only last November and, no doubt, there has not been a very long time in which to prepare all the legislation, but this has been rushed forward for some reason which is not quite clear to us, and I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary was sufficiently convincing about it. I agree with him fully that the Thesiger Report did give a complete endorsement to the licensing system. That is very gratifying to us on this side of the House, as it was the minority Labour Government, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) as Minister of Transport, which introduced the 1930 Act. It is satisfying to find that the Thesiger Committee not only endorsed that, but also did not make the political recommendations which the Minister had been hoping it would make and which we suspected were the reasons for appointing the Committee.
  The present system, with which Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill deal—which obviously are the most important Clauses— was explained by the Parliamentary Secretary. As he stated, it is reasonable
  1714
  to seek uniformity in dealing with municipal buses, trolley-buses and trams. It can be argued it should be the same for all public service vehicles, whether operated by public or private undertakings and all should be brought into a uniform system. On the face of it, that is acceptable and desirable, but one has to take into account the fact that not exactly the same conditions of control prevail in the case of municipalities as in private undertakings. It is necessary to take their susceptibilities into account.
  As the Parliamentary Secretary admitted, local authority undertakings are controlled by democratically elected councillors, as a rule through their transport committees. There is, therefore, a control over those undertakings and checks upon the fares which they charge which do not exist in the case of private undertakings, or would not but for the licensing authority. I do not think that aspect can be swept aside quite as lightly as was attempted by the Parliamentary Secretary.
  I hope that if this Measure goes through the licensing authorities, when considering applications by municipalities, will remember that those applications come from the democratic bodies answerable to their ratepayers, who are the consumers, as it were. The applications are not made until there has been full discussion in the appropriate committee and in the council itself. They have to take the utmost care, for political reasons if for no other, not to demand higher fares than are absolutely necessary. Otherwise, ratepayers and users of the transport undertaking would take action in regard to the councillors, who are answerable to them.
  Mr. David Renton: Is not the danger also that local authorities, for those same political reasons which the hon. Member mentioned, might fail to demand high enough fares to run a service economically?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, but there is a limit to the extent to which a municipality can accumulate a deficit and draw on the rates. Under various statutes it is not possible to draw on the rates to meet a deficit on transport undertakings. Admittedly, on occasion that safeguard has been got round, but by and large transport undertakings over a period must

  1715
  make ends meet. I suggest that if this Bill goes through the licensing authorities must realise that the applications have been fully sifted before reaching them. Therefore, they should not have to go into the matter in so much detail, or give the local authorities so much trouble in regard to detailed information as in the case of private undertakings.
  When we reach the Committee stage, it might be as well to give a little more consideration to the proposals put up by the municipalities. The Minister has been very courteous to those who made representations to him. The municipalities, as far as I understand, favour the method of the licensing authorities fixing maximum fares chargeable per mile and, within those maxima, they wish to be free to fix their own fares and thus to have greater flexibility than is proposed by the Bill. There is something to be said for that. I am not saying that we on this side of the House have necessarily made up our minds finally on this. I see all the arguments in favour of uniformity, but I also see the case which the municipalities have made and their desire for flexibility. I suggest that between now and the Committee stage the Minister might give further consideration to this matter and we might have further discussion on it then.
  In this connection, I suggest that Scotland is in a special position. The conditions which apply to the operation of their transport undertakings—I am now referring to trams and trolley-buses in Glasgow and the three other Scottish cities—are different from those which apply in England; and it may be that there is a case there for special consideration. I feel that we might discuss that in much greater detail during the Committee stage.
  Before leaving Clauses 1 and 2, I wish to say that I like the idea of eliminating the Minister from the fixing of these fares. I am not referring particularly to the present Minister, although in many ways we should, in any event, like to eliminate him. One of the faults of the 1930 Act is that it leaves too much power in the hands of the Minister, irrespective of what party he represents, in the matter of appeals. I understand from these two Clauses that the right of appeal to the Minister and the same appeal machinery
  1716
  still exists, that the Minister still has the final say.
  I am not sure that I agree with the findings of the Thesiger Report on this matter, from which there was one dissentient. I am not sure that an alternative system of a transport tribunal or some other arrangement to eliminate the present system whereby the final decision rests with the Minister might not be desirable. I suggest that because I suspect that on occasion decisions have been made by the Minister, in regard to appeals after he has used the machinery provided. He appoints an inspector for the purpose, receives his recommendation, which he has a perfect right to accept or reject. His decision as to whether to accept or reject it has sometimes been based on political consideration.
  I should be perfectly content to admit that that has applied to Ministers from 1930 onwards, that a Minister has that flexibility. He is in a certain position and it may well be that he is not able to act in an entirely judicial capacity. Since this Government came into power there has been the Northern Roadways case, which I should be out of order in going into at this stage. That is a case in which one suspects that such considerations entered into the decisions which were finally taken.
  The only other Clause with which 1 propose to deal is Clause 9. The Parliamentary Secretary quite rightly hurried over the other Clauses because there is nothing controversial in them; they are merely machinery Clauses, and we have no comment to make on them at this stage. On this side of the House, however, we have serious doubts about whether Clause 9 is necessary and desirable. In the first place, I do not know why it is in the Bill. The Bill deals with fares and charges and the like, and the subject matter of Clause 9 is really extraneous to it. It is true that the Title of the Bill is the Transport Charges, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and that that can cover a multitude of sins. Why control of the number of persons permitted to stand in vehicles should be included in the Bill is something which I do not understand.
  The Clause empowers the Minister to make regulations regarding standing passengers. The Parliamentary Secretary explained that the position is at present

  1717
  that the numbers are regulated under Defence Regulations, but I understand that if those were repealed we should revert to the pre-war position whereby the number was fixed under other regulations made under other legislation. The maximum number of persons permitted to stand in buses pre-war was five on the lower deck of a double-deck bus, whereas under the war-time regulations which now operate the maximum number permitted is eight. If (he Defence Regulations were repealed the permitted number would be five.
  Mr. Molson: I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman. I think he failed to notice that I said that in the case of buses the Minister of Transport has power under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and that it is only in respect of trams and trolley-buses that he has not power at present under permanent legislation.
  Mr. Davies: This Clause applies to
  "public service vehicles, tramcars and trolley vehicles."
  Therefore, the Clause is introduced for the purpose of controlling those types of vehicles. If the Parliamentary Secretary is correct, that is an added reason why this Clause need not be included in the Bill, because I understand that he has the power to make regulations under certain other legislation with regard to buses. But if this Clause were not included, he would not be able to increase the maximum number from five to eight, eight being the maximum number now. I think he will find that that is correct.
  I do not see why we should not revert to the pre-war maximum figure. Why is it necessary to have any standing passengers in buses today? So long as standing passengers are permitted, there is a temptation to the operators not to provide services of sufficient frequency or an adequate number of vehicles to cope with the additional traffic which offers at certain periods of the day. It is the obligation of the undertaker to provide sufficient equipment to carry the traffic which desires to be carried, but so long as there is provision for the undertaker to carry that traffic without providing the necessary vehicles, he is tempted not to provide them. It is a known fact that because of this ability to increase the numbers of passengers carried on buses at certain times the frequency on certain unremunerative
  1718
  services is not as great as it could be or as great as the existing rolling stock permits. After all, the permission to carry standing passengers was introduced for an emergency. That emergency has now passed, a greater amount of equipment is now available, and there are other ways in which this problem of the peak traffic can be tackled.
  Just before the Easter Recess, we had a short debate on this matter, and I do not propose to repeat the arguments put forward on that occasion, but, unless the traffic congestion is relieved and there is an increased staggering of hours and an increased road programme, it will be necessary to carry large numbers of standing passengers. It is not fair to the drivers and the conductors to overload their buses in this way. It increases the danger of travelling—the road safety factor comes into it—and it should be brought to an end as soon as possible. Then, again, there is the suffering which the traveller has to endure at the end of his working day.
  Clause 9 also provides for what have become known by the rather horrible-designation of "standee buses." A standee bus is specially constructed to provide a large amount of standing room in addition to a certain amount of seating capacity. I believe that it is the: Minister's intention that a standee bus shall provide for 50 per cent, seated passengers and 50 per cent, standing passengers.
  We on this side of the House disapprove of the introduction of standee buses. We do not consider that they are necessary. What is the justification for their introduction? Why must the travelling public put up with increased discomfort when going to and from work and on other occasions? Why must those employed on these buses, particularly the conductors, have their working conditions made more difficult, because with standing passengers in a bus it is obviously much more difficult to collect fares and to cope with the other responsibilities inherent in the job? It is inevitable that, with the jolting and jerking of these buses when they change direction or stop or start suddenly, standing passengers will be thrown hither and thither.
  Who is going to certify these vehicles, and what is going to be the protection against increased danger? How are the

  1719
  passengers going to be protected, and how can we ensure that an excess number of passengers are not carried? Are the conductors' responsibilities going to be looked after? These buses will certainly add to their troubles.
  What are the Minister's intentions regarding the regulations provided for in Clause 9? I understand that at one stage of the consultations which the Minister had before this Bill was introduced the intention was to revert to the pre-war situation and to allow only five standing passengers. But in reply to an hon. Member on 13th November last, the Minister said that the regulations would provide for eight standing passengers. Is the Minister going back on the assurance given to those whom he consulted, and particularly to the trades unions? If so. why, and what are his intentions in this connection?
  When we come to the Committee stage, we shall probably put down some Amendments to this Clause with the purpose of limiting the number of standing passengers which can be carried. We shall also ask the Government to accept an Amendment requiring the regulations to be subject to an affirmative Resolution and not to a negative Resolution.
  We are not proposing to divide against this Bill tonight. As I have stated, it is largely a non-controversial Measure. I have referred to the few Clauses of the Bill with which we are not in entire agreement, and I hope that, following today's debate, the Minister will look at some of the points that have been raised, and will consider whether some Amendments cannot be made when we come to the Committee stage. I ask him particularly to consider again the position of the municipalities, to see whether, in Scotland, some special exemptions cannot be made, to consider whether this Bill is the right place for this Clause 9 or whether further consultations should take place before such a Clause is included—and if not, whether he will consider amending it.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I welcome this Bill, which, in the main, implements the recommendations of chapter 11 of the Thesiger Committee's Report. As the hon. Member for Enfield East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has said, certain recommendations of that Committee
  1720
  and certain things it did not recommend were controversial, but I do not think that chapter 11 contained anything controversial or to which either side of the House could raise any objection.
  Notwithstanding the objections made by the Municipal Passenger Transport Association, the Committee's recommendations were very moderate. As was pointed out in the Report, trams are a declining form of transport, and trolleybuses are also to some extent declining— or at any rate are not likely to expand. While no strong justification may arise to reverse the decision made in 1930 by bringing such services wholly within the licensing system for public service vehicles, there is undoubtedly a case for certain specific matters relating to trams and trolley-buses to be treated in the same way as public service vehicles.
  As the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated, the present position is very complicated. This has, of course, all arisen out of the long history of trams and trolley-buses. Trams, when originally introduced, followed the precedent of the railways by being established under private Acts. Each Act empowered the statutory undertaking to charge up to some maximum amount. Incidentally, many of these private Acts also contained a provision enabling the Minister to enforce some revision of charges within the maximum. That was all very well in pre-war days, when costs were fairly steady, but rising costs during and since the war have made all these maxima entirely obsolete. At present, in almost every case, the Minister has authorised fares in excess of the maximum under Defence Regulation 56
  If a statutory undertaker wishes to increase fares for buses, trams and trolley-buses he must apply to several authorities. He must apply to the licensing authority with regard to buses and to the Minister in respect of trams and trolley-buses. If, however, the buses are also subject to a maximum under an Act which has been exempted by Section 72 (7) of the 1930 Act he again has to go to the Minister for permission to go beyond the maximum charge. As the general policy of Her Majesty's Government is obviously to do away with Defence Regulations, this position really cannot continue.

  1721
  The Thesiger Committee has also given very good reasons why Section 72 (7) of the 1930 Act should be repealed, but if nothing else is done the statutory undertakers will find themselves thrown back on the very cumbersome procedure of the Private Bill. I do not think anyone really wants that situation to arise. Everyone agrees that a change is necessary. I understand that at the moment the municipalities would like the licensing authority to lay down the maximum and to give them flexibility under that maximum.
  That would perpetuate the difference between buses and trams in favour of trams—which are a declining industry. If it is not intended—as the hon. Member for Enfield, East says it is not—that the municipalities should subsidise the trams at the expense of the ratepayers then I do not see what the object of such a distinction is. If they do not propose to do that I do not see why they are anxious to maintain a distinction between buses and trams.
  Mr. Woodburn: Is it not possible that the cost of petrol might rise, whereas, if I may again take Glasgow as an instance, where an electricity station was built before the war, electricity costs might not rise. Is there any reason why ratepayers should be called upon to pay more merely to bring about uniformity between the trams and the buses?
  Mr. Wilson: There is nothing to make the licensing authorities insist that the same charges should be paid for different forms of transport. If electricity is cheaper, presumably the licensing authorities will bear that in mind in deciding what charges are appropriate to electric trams rather than buses which are dependent upon petrol. At any rate, it seems to me that the provisions of this Bill carry out two of the three main provisions of chapter 11 of the Thesiger Committee. We can understand why the third one is not in the Bill. The proposal is of rather a different nature and might be more appropriate in another Bill But, at any rate, it seems to me quite reasonable to carry out two of the three proposals in that chapter.
  There is only one other point that I want to raise, and that relates to the exact significances of Clauses 3, 4, 5 and 14 (4). Those are all the Clauses relating
  1722
  to the independent railways and the inland waterways. I understand that these Clauses are intended to apply the benefits of the Transport Act, 1953, as to the greater flexibility of charging, and so on, to the independent statutory inland waterways and to the independent statutory railway undertakings.
  I should like to endorse the question of the hon. Member for Enfield, East as to what is an independent statutory railway undertaking. He suggested that it was the Mumbles Railway. I submit that it could not possibly be the Mumbles Railway. It does not seem to me that the Mumbles Railway is affected by this Bill at all. The Mumbles Railway is certainly not
  "a railway of the nature of a tramway"
  within the definition of this Bill, because the Mumbles Railway, although it may look like a tramway and has a double decker car, is not
  "a light railway laid wholly or mainly along a public carriageway"
  which is the main definition of the railway, and I doubt whether it can be said to be
  "used wholly or mainly for the carriage of passengers "
  because it carries a large amount of goods traffic, or at least it used to.
  I doubt whether the Mumbles Railway is an independent railway within the meaning of Clause 3 (1) of this Bill because it defines an independent railway in this way:
  "This section shall apply to—
  (a) any independent railway undertaking, being a statutory undertaking and not being an undertaking carrying on only…"
  and then it gives a list of other things. My recollection is that at the time of the passing of the 1947 Act there was some difficulty about the Mumbles Railway with regard to charges, because it was found that the 1947 Act did not apply to the Mumbles Railway, and neither did the Act of 1921.
  The Mumbles Railway is a very interesting historical case because it is one of the oldest railways, if not the oldest railway, in the country and it preceded the Stockton and Darlington railway by many years. As far as I can recollect it came into being by reason of a series of private transactions and not a statute. I just wondered whether the effect of these

  1723
  Clauses could be looked at and whether we could be told what they apply to. If they do not apply to everything that they are intended to apply to, perhaps they could be revised at a later date.
  I think those are all the points that I wish to raise. All the other points are entirely non-controversial. It is perhaps useful that there are provisions in the Bill which relate to planes landing on the water in harbours. It is a curious little point, which might be useful in certain cases. On the whole, both sides of the House should welcome the Bill.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. William Hannan: The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) said that it was the policy of Her Majesty's Government to abolish the Defence Regulations, but I would remind him that it is also their policy, judging from the speeches they made when they were in opposition, to endeavour to give greater autonomy to local authorities, especially in matters of local government.
  The hon. Member said that the maxima were outmoded and outdated, but I wonder whether he was confusing the issue, and really wanted a steady figure. The maxima must surely alter from tune to time, and when local authorities seek to secure the right to raise their own fare stages under those maxima—
  Mr. G. Wilson: The hon. Member must have misunderstood my remarks. I said that the maxima already laid down in the large number of private Acts are obsolete because they were all brought into force a very long time ago. They can be changed by other private Acts, but that is a slow and cumbrous procedure. If we are thrown back upon the private Acts it will take the municipalities much time and money to get them altered.
  Mr. Hannan: I do not deny that they have the right to ask for an alteration of the maxima.
  I want to deal particularly with Glasgow and the Scottish position. In 1952, Glasgow Corporation sought and received permission from Parliament to raise the maximum fare from Id. to 2d. The Parliamentary Secretary said that private and provisional order procedure was slow, costly and cumbersome, but it is part of the case of local authorities that if they
  1724
  wanted to raise or adjust fares they could do it in a matter of weeks at present, whereas if, as is contemplated by the Bill, they have to apply to a licensing authority it may be six or nine months before such permission is granted, by which time they may incur a deficit running into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
  The Parliamentary Secretary quite rightly began by saying that he wanted to be conciliatory, and made special reference to the attitude adopted by the Scottish Counties of Cities Association in its discussions with the Minister. He was good enough to say that he was grateful for the information which had been conveyed to him this afternoon, but he did not go on to say whether he was now prepared, in return for the Association's agreeing to leave buses under the control of licensing authorities, to give further consideration to its point that although trams and trolley-buses should remain under the control of licensing authorities in respect of the maxima, local authorities should nevertheless be allowed, locally, to arrange their own stage fares.
  It has gone some way to try to meet the Minister's point of view in this matter and it agrees, on the whole, with the purpose of the Bill. It is according to the ordinary course of negotiations that when one side gives way it expects a quid pro quo. We have not had that from the Minister so far, and I hope that he will actively consider the possibilities of giving it before the Committee stage. No doubt he will.
  I hope now to be allowed to develop the case as the Association has it. First of all, we appreciate the purposes of the Bill, the tidying up, and so forth. However, both sides recognise that in achieving uniformity we may be inclined to go too far. Therefore, we have to ensure that, in tidying up, we avoid the tendency to over-centralise and do more than necessary. The Scottish Counties of Cities Association made strenuous representations to the Minister, especially about tramways and trolley-buses. The existing position regarding the fares and the licensing of transport vehicles operated by local authorities is that the bus services are controlled by the licensing authorities for public service vehicles, whereas the tramways and the trolley-bus undertakings are authorised and governed by local Acts which themselves prescribe the maximum fares. The Parliamentary

  1725
  Secretary did not pay sufficient regard to that point.
  The Bill proposes that the tram and trolley-bus fares shall be such as are authorised by the appropriate licensing authority. Glasgow and the other Scottish cities, while agreeing to that feature, that it should decide the maximum, want the right, which has been their right for certainly 30 years—
  Mr. Woodburn: Sixty years.
  Mr. Hannan: But it was modified by the 1930 Act. They want the right to raise fares. The Association, when first considering the Bill, was decidedly of opinion that there should 'be no restriction on their existing powers in regard to transport undertakings, and thought the proposals ought to be opposed, but it was faced with the fact that the Minister wanted all three forms of transport to be under the licensing authority. It agreed that should be so regarding the buses, but expected that the other two forms should be left to the local authorities.
  I come to the position as it is in Scotland. There are special features there relating to local authority transport undertakings that do not exist in England and Wales. For example, there is not the same element of competitive transport within Scottish cities that exists in most English and Welsh boroughs. Glasgow, by statutory right, has almost a complete monopoly of passenger transport services within the city boundaries.
  Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Dundee have virtually a monopoly as a result of agreements between the local authorities and the private operators, and the agreements exist even with the nationalised undertakings. The main purpose behind the agreements is to ensure that the public using a private or national service are not prejudiced by those vehicles being filled by short-distance travellers, who are adequately provided for by the local authority transport. That is the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) endeavoured to make earlier.
  Three forms of transport are being dealt with here. In Glasgow, we have all three. In the other three cities there are only the two forms. The existing machinery for fixing the fares for the three forms of transport is, very briefly, as follows. First, the Scottish local
  1726
  authorities operate within a maximum rate per mile as laid down in local Acts. That was a penny per mile before the war and as recently as 1952, by provisional order, was increased to twopence. If they desire an increase beyond that statutory maximum they obtain power from the Government to promote a provisional order. This arrangement has worked satisfactorily over many years.
  I remind the Minister that the discretion enjoyed by local authorities in the matter of fixing tramway fares has existed since the inception of tramways over 50 years ago. The Glasgow tramway service is famous throughout the world. It is true that the tramway systems in this country are diminishing in numbers. Certainly, the figures suggest that. But a power station has been built at Pinkston and £11/2 million is being spent on developing it and if the Bill is passed and the local authority is deprived of its rights in these fares, it can be prejudiced in other directions.
  Moreover, the matter has been examined from time to time in the past, and in 1936 a Select Committee recommended that trams should be brought under a licensing authority, but Parliament decided to make no alteration. Why do the Government now wish to exercise this authority in a form of transport undertaking which is tending to diminish —in a type of transport which may be non-existent in the country in a few years' time?
  Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that Glasgow also has an underground and the Cathcart circle, within Glasgow, also in competition with these other forms of transport? Is that not also a part of the transport system which will require co-ordination?
  Mr. Hannan: It is true that there is a Glasgow underground which is managed by the local authority—its most recent acquisition—and that there is the "Cathcart circle" of British Railways. Either the Bill is not going far enough in this respect or it would be better to leave the tramways and trolley-buses alone. The arrangement has worked satisfactorily for the trams for the past 50 or 60 years.
  Turning to the buses, before the war the traffic commissioner did not have a clearly defined right to fix a scale of fares.

  1727
  All he did was to take steps to ensure that there was no abuse and that fare scales were co-ordinated where competitive systems or services existed.
  In response to representations, the Minister was good enough to send a very full reply to the Association, and in that reply he indicated that, as to Clause 2,
  "I have given anxious thought to the views expressed to me so strongly by the various associations representing tram and trolley operators and I have been impressed by the strength of the arguments put forward."
  He said that nevertheless strong arguments had also been advanced in favour of the proposals and he said,
  "It seems to me that the best course is to proceed.…"
  He said that in the course of this debate he will give certain reasons. We are very anxious to hear the counter reasons which dissuade him from accepting the admittedly strong arguments of the operators in Scotland.
  So far as trolley-buses and trams are concerned, the local authorities argue that these are local services which are administered by the locally elected representatives who know the local circumstances best, that they are acting within the confines of the city, and, moreover, that to achieve uniformity and simplification is one thing, but when it is proposed to encroach on what are, after all, democratic processes, further consideration might be given to that point of view.
  Since Parliament itself has all along, by means of the provisional order procedure, accepted the principle of a mileage rate for tramways and that powers have to be vested in the licensing authority, surely that might be restricted to the fixing of a mileage rate instead of a scale of fares, and as trolley-buses are largely replacing tramcars, the same form of fare fixing should apply. That would mean that instead of the local authority applying under the local government procedure to the Minister to fix the maximum mileage rate, the licensing authority would do it.
  I conclude by again asking the Minister further to consider the Scottish County of Cities Association's representations. He may not be aware of it, but I am informed that there are only about 3,000 tramcars left in the whole of Great Britain. The figure some time ago was 9,000. Of that 3,000, one-half are in
  1728
  Scotland and one-third in the City of Glasgow. With that deterioration and slowing up—there is certainly no development taking place in tramcars—is it worth while, in the time that is left, to go to all the trouble in this Bill of adopting a new procedure, when the tramways and the local authorities concerned will have to make up their minds—and they are evidently doing so—that trams have to go? I think that this is a matter for further consideration.
  If the Minister must proceed with the Bill, will he, on the question of moving them into the licensing authority, consider the point that while the three may be subject to the licensing authority in respect of maximum fares, in regard to trolley-buses and trams, which are still one of Glasgow's proudest possessions, authority to arrange for local stage fares will be left with them? This may appear to be a Committee point, but we feel so strongly about it that I hope that the House will forgive the insistence with which the local aspect has been put.
  9.4 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Cole: I intervene to deal particularly with Clause 2. I am sure that every Member of the House has very great respect for the local authorities and their transport undertakings and would not wish to do anything to detract from their autonomy in this respect. There are, however, two things to be remembered in considering this Clause. The first is that there are many other undertakings in this country which are not owned by the local authorities but which are, in fact, subject to the fixed rate procedure of the licensing authority. The other point is that it seems in fairness the same rule should apply to all.
  On the point that local authorities would like the maximum fare settled instead of the actual fixed rate, it seems to me that there are two dangers about this. One, which has already been mentioned, is that some local authorities might be tempted artificially to lower their fares within the maximum and for the time being at least to draw upon any reserves or upon the rates, thereby constituting unfair competition with private enterprise. That suggestion has already been made.
  There is another danger also. Consider the opposite extreme. A local

  1729
  authority which has a monopoly in its area—this applies to all kinds of undertakings—is tempted to go to the maximum, not necessarily justifiably, but because it can be obtained, in order to keep the transport undertaking in good order and to be of assistance to the rates.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: A local authority is not allowed to subsidise the rates from its transport undertaking.
  Mr. Cole: It would not be a question of subsidising rates. It may be for other purposes—perhaps the rebuilding of garages, for example. At any rate, the danger is there. I admit that the greater danger of the two is that of charging less than the maximum, but when a maximum is fixed there is a temptation for anybody who has the service available to make use of the maximum if he so desires.
  There is another awkwardness in what the local authorities are suggesting. Let us visualise an authority which has been working under the maximum procedure for some time and then desires a further increase, having already reached the maximum which it can charge under the licensing procedure.' It applies to the licensing authority for a new maximum. The licensing authority is likely to look much more carefully before agreeing a new maximum—not a new fixed rate— for which a local authority is asking, and for this reason.
  If a local authority makes a case for a fixed rate, the evidence either will or will not support the case. But a maximum must always be something in the nature of a prophecy. The local authority has to make out a case that in the next two or three years it will be necessary for the fares to rise to the suggested maximum rate. Any member of such a licensing authority would look very carefully, and, therefore, would look far longer, at such an application, and the whole procedure would be much more involved in fixing a new maximum as distinct from a fixed rate.
  The point which has been made in regard to Glasgow applies, presumably, to other places also. My hon. Friend made it plain that there is no suggestion in the Bill that differential rates for different transport services run by a local authority could not continue as at present. Nothing in the Bill says that a local
  1730
  authority's tramway fare stages must be the same as its bus fare stages. Therefore, the point about the cheapness of electricity vis-à-vis petrol does not apply. I am sure that licensing authorities would have regard not only to the policy of a local authority, such as Glasgow, which we respect, but also to the necessary factors—the age of trams, the amount of capital still outstanding, and all the rest —in deciding upon the fixed rates which the tramway and the bus undertaking run by the one local authority could obtain. On the whole, the procedure for fixing this rate would be better and more desirable than that for the maximum rate.
  We are, perhaps, making rather heavy weather of this issue, in all the arguments there have been both on previous occasions and again today. I do not believe there is any case for treating buses owned by local authorities differently from trams and trolley-buses. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) said that the tramways were on their way out. As we know, with the possible exception of London, the trolley bus certainly is not on the way out, and still forms a large volume of public transport. Leaving aside for the moment the argument about Clause 2, I am sure that no Member of the House would wish to perpetuate a system embodying at least two different methods of fixing, for the same travelling public, the rates which a tramway or a bus operator could charge for carrying passengers. For that reason, I hope that the Bill will be acceptable to the House and will be given a Second Reading.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: I venture to intervene in this debate, after a somewhat prolonged absence from the House, because Edinburgh, part of which I have the privilege to represent, is very much opposed to bringing trams under the procedure proposed in this Bill. I am rather surprised that the Minister has introduced this scheme and has failed to take into consideration the suggestions made to him by the Counties of Cities Association.
  The matter is rather confused, and the Government want to use the opportunity of dispensing with Regulation 56 to sort out this confusion and try to introduce some uniformity. That is a very desirable aim, but surely if uniformity is to

  1731
  be introduced into the procedure it should be democratic, and if it is not it is a bad thing to do. So far as I know, in Scotland there has never been any objection to 'the procedure under which local authorities decide their own fares for the different tram stages.
  There is no demand for this scheme. Why, then, should we take from the local authorities powers which they possess? I should have thought that to be bad from a democratic point of view. The Joint Under-Secretary of State used the argument that this method would prevent unfair competition, but that problem does not exist in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) explained, there are already satisfactory arrangements in all the Scottish cities to avoid that kind of thing. The arrangements have been working for a very long time, and the difficulty to which the Minister referred has never arisen in any of the Scottish cities.
  The Joint Parliamentary Undersecretary used as his second argument that it gave better protection to the travelling public. In Edinburgh we have had some experience in recent years of trying to make representations to the licensing authorities against increased charges. Our experience has been that there has not been very great satisfaction about that. The Minister said that it was possible for representative organisations to approach the licensing authority to present their case. But it is possible to do that with the local authorities. It is possible to send a deputation to a sub-committee of the transport committee and to put the case against higher fares. I believe that the members of the transport committee are far more likely to give greater consideration to such a case because they have to go to the electorate in the following May, whereas the licensing authority is not directly responsible to the electorate. That safeguard is a much better one than the safeguard proposed under this procedure.
  The local authority has far more information about fare stages than has any licensing authority. It knows the local difficulties, the type of district to be served, and the desirability of introducing fares to meet the needs of its own citizens. That expert knowledge lies with the local authorities in a much
  1732
  greater degree than it does with any licensing authority.
  For these reasons, I appeal to the Minister again to consider the Scottish position. Not a single argument can be adduced in favour of changing it. Nobody wants a change, so why should it be changed, particularly if a change will damage present democratic processes? I urge the Minister to give very serious consideration to the representations by the Counties of Cities Association and to see whether he cannot make some provision in the Bill in Committee in order to exclude at least trams from the provisions of Clause 2.
  9.16 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: It was not my intention to make any observations on the Second Reading of the Bill until I heard the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) about Clause 9. I welcome the Bill as a whole, and I particularly welcome Clause 9 because of the progressive effect which it may have generally on the state of traffic in this country. If the Clause passes into law, from now on the Minister will have power to
  "… make regulations with respect to public service vehicles.…"—
  the tram-cars and the trolley-buses— as to
  "… the number of the seated passengers and standing passengers respectively whom any vehicle is constructed or adapted and fit to carry.…"
  The assumption of the hon. Member for Enfield, East is reactionary in relation to traffic policy in this country. He assumed that henceforth every vehicle was to be permitted to have only five standing passengers. In other words, he wanted there to be only five standing passengers, and he stated that it was his hope that in the near future there would be no standing passengers of any kind in any public service vehicle. He was, therefore, advocating a future in which in trams, trolley-buses and buses and on the underground we would no longer have any standing passengers at all.
  Owing to the needs of the public in different parts of England and Scotland, it may well be that we shall desire to have more standing passengers and not fewer. We may desire to have vehicles which are adapted solely for standing

  1733
  passengers. I want the House, the Minister and the Minister's advisers very carefully to consider the proposal which I now put forward briefly for a wide use of other vehicles designed to carry people who wish to stand.
  We have, first of all, to bear in mind that a large part of the community, when their working hours are over, are bent on one intent only, and that is to get home as quickly as possible. I do not for a moment accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion; I do not think that they would all necessarily want to travel in comfort sitting down if they could get quicker and cheaper transport by standing up. That is manifest to any of us who travel in the rush hour and see the people going home; if they can get on the underground trains at all, they will cram themselves in the doorways in order to get home a minute or two earlier.
  The second point we have to consider is the need to reduce the number of buses, trams and trolley-buses running at peak hours. If we can get more people into a smaller number of buses and trams during that period, the better it will be.
  Thirdly, we have to consider whether, if people are prepared to stand and we can introduce transport in which they can stand, they could not be carried more cheaply if they were prepared to put up with a certain degree of discomfort in order to get home quicker.
  I invite the Minister and the House to look at the position, in France, for example. There practically the whole of the provision in the underground system is for standing only. If one travels in Paris in the Metro one finds there is practically no seating accommodation and a great majority of the people stand. It is also interesting to note that everybody pays the same fare however far the journey, and as a result of that very considerable transport costs are saved because there is no need for a conductor. Also in the tramways in France there is a special platform designed for standing passengers only.
  It seems to me that it might be possible to design or adapt public vehicles in this country to enable part of the vehicle to be reserved for standing passengers. I commend these suggestions, and for this reason it seems to me that it is important that there should be discretionary power in the Minister, where there are
  1734
  vehicles adapted for that purpose, to enable him to make recommendations that there shall be certain vehicles in which a greater number of people than five or eight are able to stand, if that class of vehicle is expedient or desirable.
  I therefore strongly protest against the argument which was adduced by the hon. Member for Enfield, East, who was asking us to say that we should have complete uniformity, that there should be only one sort of bus, trolley-bus or tram and only one type of vehicle should be permitted to have five standing passengers. I think that that is reactionary. Now that new means of transport are evolved almost every day, we must look to the future and we must consider whether it is not possible to save transport costs by having a vehicle which one enters at the front, paying the fare on entry before taking a seat, and of which a suitable part is reserved to provide for standing passengers only.
  These things must come. They may or may not be opposed by certain sections, including conductors, but there will be always room for a class of bus without a conductor. For all these reasons it is eminently right that this matter should be invested in the Minister, to give him full scope to do what he thinks right in accordance with the Clause. Very much for that same class of reasons, the balance of the rest of the Bill is admirable in its effect.
  9.24 p.m.
  Mr. A. Hargreaves: It is important that the points which have just been made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rhys-Davies) should be answered at once. The hon. Member referred to a statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). In dealing with the point of enabling transport undertakers to use vehicles which provide half of their space for standing passengers, the hon. Member dragged in the question of the Metro and the underground system to bolster up his argument. He will see how patently absurd that is when he reflects on the fact that in the underground railway system we are assured of certain safety considerations.
  It surely must be accepted that here we are dealing with an entirely different form of transport from the point of view

  1735
  of safety. If one attempts to relate to that subject the Clause in this Bill which deals specifically with public service vehicles on the road and one attempts to permit 50 per cent, of the passengers to stand, obviously entirely different safety considerations enter into the matter. It is very important that the Minister should bear that in mind.
  I have brought with me a summary of the reports of the licensing authorities. The Minister will have noted that in the report for 1952-53 this trend seems to be creeping in. It is authorised by the licensing authorities, possibly without reference to the Minister, but I do not think that is provided for in present legislation. This trend from various areas for licensing authorities to permit the use of vehicles which, I believe, do not provide the safety which I think ought to be the concern of the authority responsible for permitting these vehicles to use the roads, is being introduced to reduce costs in certain areas. The question of the "standing buses," as they are termed, comes up again and again in these summaries.
  I agree that in many areas where undertakers are suggesting to licensing authorities that they are dealing with routes which are not productive of very great profit there is a case for examining means whereby their costs may be reduced. But this suggestion is surely not the only one by which costs might be reduced. The summary of the various licensing authorities is full of suggestions from various areas which would lead to economy without sacrificing the enormously important factor of safety. I suggest that when the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet contrasted standing on the Metro or the Underground with the type of service we have come to demand from people operating road vehicles in this country was to a considerable extent disregarding that factor of safety.
  I wish to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend in relation to the question of undertakings operated by municipalities. In opening the debate the Parliamentary Secretary dealt with the position in regard to trams and trolleybuses today. He and other hon. Members have completely ignored the fact that the powers of operating a maximum fare per mile have been used quite satis-
  1736
  factorily for a long period by local authorities in widespread areas when their costs were on a fairly stable basis.
  I took note of the objections raised by hon. Members opposite that if we gave too much flexibility to a local transport authority in these matters it might mean that their fares might be driven so low by the transport committee that ratepayers might be subsidising a transport undertaking. That is possible, but transport committees have made very large contributions to rates all over the country from the profit of their undertakings. This cuts both ways and, certainly where competition exists within the local authorities' areas, I cannot imagine that the fares would be driven to an uneconomic basis.
  A point which has been raised in the debate is the difficulty which is encountered by a local authority which has to face an application to a licensing authority, and possibly a public inquiry. I wish to make it clear that such applications by such undertakers who are responsible for trams and trolley-buses would never have come about at all, as most of them were operating within the maxima laid down by private Acts, but for the fact that costs and prices rose enormously and those maxima were exceeded. Until that time arrived, however, those undertakers were operating within a flexible schedule of fares and charges which enabled them to give a service to the public without there being a need for the making of applications such as I envisage under the Bill.
  I would direct the attention of the House to the undoubted fact that many of the public inquiries demanded by present legislation, and called for by local authorities, have concerned application for increases in bus, trolley-bus and tram fares, and I know cases of such inquiries having occupied 10 months and, on one occasion, even 14 months. I know of another case which went on for 10 months during which time the local authority undertaking was getting further and further into financial difficulties. That is surely a consideration to which the Minister should attach some weight.
  I have a very long experience, extending over 20 years, of local authority control of transport undertakings working within a maximum laid down. Those with experience of that procedure recognised its usefulness, and the fact that it

  1737
  enabled a transport authority to make its fares and charges flexible within the area for which it was responsible. As a general rule, publicly-owned motor buses, trolley-buses and tramways, did not compete with one another on the same routes. They were operating on different routes and at different fares.
  That was certainly the case over a long period, and I do not see why that flexibility should not continue. Even within small towns operating costs in various districts may vary very considerably. There is therefore, a case for permitting a local authority to continue to operate within a maximum fare per mile, enabling it to operate a flexible system of fare charges which will meet the convenience and purse of the people which the local authority represents.
  9.34 p.m.
  Mr. James Harrison: I wish to draw attention to a local point which has a rather significant national bearing. The city boundary of Nottingham has recently been extended because of new housing estates. With that extension, we have also had the intrusion into the new city perimeter of quite a number of private road operators, who have been permitted to pick up passengers in what were previously non-permitted areas. These private bus companies are permitted to pick up passengers within the city limits, and because of that we found that when the city corporation requested permission to reduce the fares on its trolley-buses and other buses operating on those routes, it was denied that permission because, it was claimed, of unfair competition with the private operators.
  We visualise that when the provisions of this Bill become law and there is an increasing incursion of private operators within city limits, and the power to determine fares is transferred from the city authority to the licensing authority, every time the city desires to reduce its fares the private operators will oppose the application. As I have said, on each occasion that we applied to lower our fares we found the private operators opposing the application.
  Mr. Rees-Davies: Surely the hon. Gentleman appreciates that if they do that and if the matter comes before the licensing authority, there would be no
  1738
  factor more paramount in the mind of the licensing authority than the one he has just mentioned.
  Mr. Harrison: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that that is what would happen, but my complaint is, in point of fact, that on each occasion that we have requested permission to lower fares the licensing authority has refused that permission. That is just the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman thought might have occurred and just the opposite of what we thought would be the position. On each occasion the licensing authority turned down our application. I wanted to bring these local facts to the attention of the House and particularly to the attention of the Minister.
  We in the transport industry feel that Clause 9 is designed to limit the number of standing passengers and not to make that number unlimited as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. We believe that it is intended to limit, to regularise and control the number of standing passengers, and we shall be very interested to hear the Minister's comments on the Clause.
  9.38 p.m.
  The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): We have had a short, but very helpful, debate, and I think it would be consistent with the wish of both sides of the House if I confined my remarks to a very few words. I will not go again over the ground that has already been covered, but will confine my few observations to one or two points that remain comparatively unanswered. I need hardly add that when this Bill gets to Committee upstairs, I shall be very ready to explain in greater detail any outstanding points that hon. Members may raise.
  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made plain, this Bill is part of the programme of getting rid of our emergency legislation and, where necessary, of substituting some permanent legislation in its place. That is the main answer to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). Where, in fact, we have the benefit of the advice of the Thesiger Committee on some of the aspects dealt with by the Defence Regulation which is being abandoned, it is surely only common sense to profit by the Thesiger Report. That does not mean

  1739
  that we do not attach equal importance to other aspects of that Report with which at the moment it is not appropriate to deal.
  Secondly, we are of course anxious, both in the interest of Parliament and the proper discharge of our business and in the interest of local authorities, not to force people into the promotion of private legislation when the same objects can be achieved in another way.
  I should like again to join with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in thanking the local authorities associations for the understanding and co-operation which they have shown. If I mention in particular the Scottish Counties' of Cities' Association, it is not that other bodies such as the Association of Municipal Corporations and others have not been equally 'helpful, but that I had the benefit of a long and interesting talk with the Scottish Counties on a memorandum prepared by them, which was very novel, and obviously designed to try to arrange a co-operative solution.
  Various hon. Members, such as the hon. Gentleman for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves), have spoken as if the consequence of this Bill will be a long delay in regard to increasing fares —or indeed of reducing fares—on tram and trolley-bus undertakings. They have suggested that the provisions of Clause 2 of this Bill would necessarily take a great deal longer than any alternative procedure. To revert, however, to the pre-war procedure of obliging 42 statutory undertakers to come to Parliament every time they want a fares increase authorised would indeed involve not only very costly but very prolonged legislation.
  Mr. Woodburn: But the Minister will agree that that is not the only alternative.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is not the only alternative but it is one of the likely alternatives.
  I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) on what, though not a maiden speech, is the first he has made since his return to the House following an accident. He did mot seem to realise, however, that some change is in any case made necessary by the impending lapsing of the Defence Regulation. When he says that, in
  1740
  Edinburgh they say, "Why should we have a change?" the answer is that there is bound to be a change of a kind because of the lapsing of the Defence Regulation.
  The hon. Member for Maryhiil made a very persuasive speech, and I must confess that he is an admirable advocate. His speech was very impressive but when he spoke nostalgically of the tram undertakings in Glasgow having had about 50 years of complete local autonomy in this field, I think that he overlooked the fact that for the last 15 years it has in fact been the Minister in Whitehall who has had the final word in regard to tram and trolley bus operation. The old pre-war system of private Acts and maximum fares worked very well indeed and enabled operators to work successfully within their maxima during a period of what the hon. Member for Carlisle described as a period of stable prices, and when quite often—impossible though it may appear today—there were actual downward fare changes.
  But the old system of private legislation is no longer so suitable now that we live in less certain days. As I have already pointed out, we have, over the last 15 years, been dependent on the Minister and the use of Defence Regulation 56. I think that we are all agreed that we cannot revert entirely to the pre-war situation. No one, I believe, would argue that that would be desirable.
  It has been suggested to me that we should have the same authority—the licensing authority—controlling all fares on buses, trams and trolley vehicles, but that in the case of trams and trolley vehicles the fares they should authorise should be maximum fares. At the moment, under the Defence Regulation, I fix maximum fares on tram and trolley bus undertakings, but in practice, as we all know, these maxima are actual fares. In London, on the advice of the Transport Tribunal, maximum fares are fixed, We all remember the phrase "fares not exceeding," but these are expressed as, for example, "for two stages 2d., for four stages 31/2d."In practice, though those are the maximum fares, they are the actual fares charged.
  What I have been asked to authorise is an entirely different matter. I have been asked to fix the maximum rate of pence per mile. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained very

  1741
  clearly to the House the consequence of the wide differences in stages and the consequence of a tapering system on long distances, and why such a maximum control would not really give the licensing authority adequate control over the fares. It would give what I think we are all anxious to avoid—the illusion of control without the practice, and over a large part of the undertaking there would be virtually no control.
  I have been very interested in the arguments which have been put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I have been particularly impressed by some of the arguments advanced from Scotland. I am quite prepared to deal with this subject in Committee and to listen sympathetically to all the arguments which may be put forward, and in the interval between now and the Committee stage to have certain consultations on that one aspect of the problem. I hope that hon. Members will be satisfied with that assurance.
  As I was about to speak a moment or two ago, the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. J. Harrison) raised a point which, he said, though mainly of local importance, was of national importance as well. He was in part, I think, effectively answered by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies). I cannot but believe that there must have been other considerations in the minds of the licensing authorities on this point. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that if he turns to, I think, paragraph 313 of the Thesiger Report, he will find the situation dealt with there where an extension of city boundaries bring within the city area a district that may well have been served by a private operator in previous years.
  When the hon. Gentleman talks about the incursion of operators into the city limits, it may be—I do not know the details of these cases—that the city has itself been forced to an incursion into an area hitherto served by private operators. The conclusion of the Thesiger Report on that aspect is that, while recognising the desire of local authorities to provide people with transport services in new estates, the area concerned has frequently been served for years by another operator. Where such a conflict of interest arises, it appears to us that the public interest is best served if the rival
  1742
  claims are fully argued before the licensing authority which will decide each case on its merits.
  I think that perhaps as it is primarily a matter of local concern, the hon. Gentleman might be prepared to wait until the Committee stage and then deal with it in detail. If he likes to send me certain details in advance. I shall come better equipped to deal with the matter.
  Mr. J. Harrison: I will get in touch with the Minister on that point.
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Enfield, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) both asked about the independent railway and waterway undertakings. Neither of them, despite the fact that this Bill was published some weeks ago, can have looked at Clause 13, the interpretation Clause. Clause 13 states that "independent" in this connection
  "means not forming part of the undertaking of the Commission."
  I will send both hon. Members a long list of the railways and inland waterways to which Clauses 3, 4 and 5 would apply and, though this list includes the Mumbles Railway, it is not by any means limited to that historic railway, the very dramatic celebration of which I hope to attend in a few weeks' time when I visit South Wales.
  I have been asked a number of questions about Clause 9. I shall be very ready to go into greater detail on the merits of this Clause in the Committee stage, but it would be as well to remember, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet reminded us, that the travelling public also have their rights in regard to the convenience of standing passengers.
  Mr. Ernest Davies: Is the Minister going to answer the question I put to him about five or eight standing passengers?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was just going to refer to it. It is to deal with the convenience of the travelling public, especially at peak periods, that experiments are being made with the construction of a special type of bus designed to carry far more standing passengers than at present. It seems to me highly desirable that this should be done. I join with my hon. Friend in the belief that many people would prefer to get home faster standing

  1743
  up than be long delayed for the pleasure of sitting down. If these experiments are to be successful, it is desirable that I should have authority to allow for a greater number of standing passengers than I am disposed to allow in other public service, tram or trolley vehicles.
  The procedure in regard to these new experimental vehicles will be for my technical officers to say what, in their view, the vehicles are qualified to carry, and for the licensing authorities to determine the circumstances in which standing passengers may be carried. In regard to the more conventional types of vehicles—trams, trolley vehicles and omnibuses—I must, however, remind the House of my statement of 13th November last, when I said that I proposed to make fresh permanent regulations with respect to public service vehicles which would continue the present limit of eight standing passengers on motor buses, and I went on to say something about the proposed special construction vehicles.
  Mr. Davies: Is it not a fact that when the consultations took place with the trade unions the former Parliamentary Secretary gave them an assurance that the number of standing passengers permitted was to revert to five?
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think there was a genuine misunderstanding at that time as to the intentions of the Government in this field, and it was in order to make the position quite plain that I made my statement in November last.
  I hold to the view that though this was a war-time requirement, introduced in order to improve transport facilities during the period of the blitz, there are still very strong reasons why it should be continued. As the House will know, the 1930 Act gave me power to fix the number of standing passengers in buses. I have no permanent power in regard to trolley-buses or trams. Defence Regulation 70, which will lapse in December, has been used to give certain powers in the field of trolley-buses. We propose that this regulation shall not be renewed, and under the Bill we are taking power to amend the 1930 Act so that the new regulation will deal with all forms of passenger conveyance—buses, trolley vehicles and trams. It is my intention that we should continue the maximum limit of eight to which Defence Regula-
  1744
  tion 70 raised the previous limit of five in 1948. I hope that that statement also answers the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, East.
  It is a maximum which is proposed, but in all these things we must see how we go along, and allow for changed circumstances. With these observations, and the undertaking I have given, I commend the Bill to the House with all the more confidence because I think I can say with conviction that it is very unlikely to put a serious charge either upon public or local funds.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Committed to a Standing Committee.

  TRANSPORT CHARGES, &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL

    TRANSPORT CHARGES &c. (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]
    Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).— [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
    Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair.]
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to the charges of certain undertakings connected with transport and to provide for certain other matters, it is expedient to authorise—

    (a) the payment out of moneys pro vided by Parliament, of—

    (i) any administrative expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in the execution of the said Act of the present Session (including any charges and expenses of licensing authorities for public service vehicles attributable to the provisions of the said Act); and

    (ii) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums required under any other enactment to be paid out of moneys so provided;

    (b) the payment into the Exchequer of—

    (i) any fees received by licensing authorities for public service vehicles by virtue of regulations made under the said Act of the present Session; and

    1745

    (ii) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums required under any other enactment to 'be paid into the Exchequer. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

    Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

    SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
    Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Penarth, [copy presented 8th April] approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]
    Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Knottingley, [copy presented 8th April] approved. —[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

  HOMOSEXUALITY (TREATMENT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Studholme.]
  9.57 p.m.
  Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I wish to raise the question of the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the law relating to and the medical treatment of homosexuality. It is only my good fortune in the Ballot that enables me to do this, and much of the credit for focusing public attention and the attention of this House on this matter belongs to the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby), whose courage and political integrity make this House a better place for his presence here.
  I have only a short time in which to speak, so I should like to make two things clear at the outset. As I am speaking on the Adjournment it would be improper of me to advocate new legislation, so if I appear to be criticising existing legislation it is simply because I am telescoping my argument. I am seeking to ask for a Royal Commission and to establish a prima facie case for that Royal Commission.
  Secondly, any criticism I may make of the existing operation of these laws is in
  1746
  so far only as they apply to people who are above the age of consent. It applies only to people who perform these acts by mutual consent and who do them in the privacy of their homes. I accept at once, and, indeed, would stress, the need for the normal laws of protecting society, the normal laws of public decency, and the normal laws of protecting young people of either sex.
  For the convenience of the House I would explain what is exactly the present law, because many people are in doubt about it. The two governing statutes in this matter are the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, and the Criminal Law (Amendment), Act, 1885. The Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, applies only to certain cases, and the majority of cases are brought under the 1885 Act, and particularly under Section 11, which reached the Statute Book in a rather curious set of circumstances.
  There is a very interesting preface by Sir Travers Humphreys to "The Trials of Oscar Wilde," edited by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Belfast, North (Lieut.-Colonel Hyde) that I should like to quote, because it tells how that law reached the Statute Book:
  "Until that Act came into force, on 1st January, 18S6, the criminal law was not concerned with alleged indecencies between grownup men committed in private. Everyone knew that such things took place, but the law only punished acts against public decency and conduct tending to the corruption of youth. The Bill in question, entitled 'A Bill to make further provision for the protection of women and girls, the suppression of brothels and other purposes,' was introduced and passed by the House of Lords without any reference to indecency between males.
  In the Commons, after a second reading without a comment, it was referred to a committee of the whole House. In committee Mr. Labouchere moved to insert in the Bill the clause which ultimately became Section 11 of the Act, creating the new offence on indecency between male persons in public or private. Such conduct in public was, and always has been, punishable at common law. There was no discussion except that one member asked the Speaker whether it was in order to intro duce at that stage a clause dealing with a totally different class of offence"—
  It being Ten o'Clock the Motion lor the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. R. Thompson.]
  Mr. Donnelly: As I was saying, the quotation reads:
  "There was no discussion except that one member asked the Speaker whether it was in order to introduce at that stage a clause dealing with a totally different class of offence to that against which the Bill was directed. The Speaker having ruled that anything could be introduced by leave of the House, the clause was agreed to without further discussion, the only amendment moved being one by Sir Henry James with the object of increasing the maximum punishment from 12 to 24 months, which was also agreed to without discussion."
  The book goes on to say:
  "A learned Recorder dubbed it 'The Blackmailers' Charter'."
  The book from which I am quoting, by Mr. Gordon Westwood, ends that section by saying:
  "So that the Bill that has provided thousands of pounds for hundreds of blackmailers in the last fifty years and inflicted the acutest agony of mind on millions of people was passed without forethought and without discussion, and it is still the law of the land today."
  There are several anomalies under the present situation. The first is that the laws applying to men do not apply to women. Although I know that the practice is not as prevalent among women as among men, nevertheless that anomaly exists and it ought to be looked at; and if a Royal Commission goes into the matter it should look at that point.
  Secondly, I think it is most important that if a Royal Commission is appointed it should look into this matter with a view to seeing what medical treatment can be provided. I am advised that this is not mainly a glandular problem; it is a psychiatric problem and the answer can very often be found in psychiatric treatment in cases where this is possible, or, more particularly, in studying the problem of the treatment of young people in their nursery years, because this is the crux of the whole matter. A Royal Commission should go into this aspect and see that there is a widespread public knowledge of how this sort of thing can be avoided.
  The next point is the obviously serious matter that if we are to treat people for this sort of offence, prison is the very worst way in which to treat them. I believe it only makes the situation much worse. Sensitive people are taken there and placed with criminals guilty of a completely different orime against society
  1748
  —if one is to call this a crime against society; and this action by itself creates an additional social problem, because people who would not otherwise come into contact with homosexuality are thus indoctrinated.
  Homosexuals who go there are brought into contact with normal criminals against society and are indoctrinated with their kind of criminal life. An additional problem is created in that way. We are not facing the problem created by the fact that we are pushing people into gaols, and up to now crowded gaols, and in circumstances which go a long way towards making the whole thing worse.
  Thirdly, I want to warn the Joint Under-Secretary of State of the great public disquiet which exists in the country at some of the police methods which have come to light in recent litigation, and I say this in passing simply to warn him and, through him, the various police forces in Britain that some Members of the House are watching this matter very carefully and will not hesitate to expose any case in which they think that the methods of the police have been improper.
  Fourthly, I think it is quite unsual for the law to interfere in what is essentially a moral issue. The Church of England Moral Welfare Society makes this clear in a wise, sane and sober pamphlet published the other day. The pamphlet states:
  "In no other department of life does the State hold itself competent to interfere with the private actions of consenting adults."
  It goes on to say:
  "A man and woman may commit the grave sin of fornication with legal impunity, but a corresponding act between man and man is liable to life imprisonment, and not infrequently is punished by very long sentences, five, 10 or even more years."
  Those are the sort of anomalies which exist and which should be considered, and the Home Secretary and the Joint Undersecretary ought to be aware of the disquiet which exists. It is not enough to say that this is an issue which can be investigated simply by a Departmental inquiry. It is a great public issue affecting a major law of human society.
  I consider that the best way of dealing with it is by a strong Royal Commission which I argue for and support most

  1749
  strongly. In this I think that I am supported by most of the responsible journals of today. If the Under-Secretary agrees to this plea, he will be supported by most of the present-day enlightened public opinion. To stand by at this moment and do nothing about this matter is a grave indictment of our existing society, and I hope that some action will arise out of the short debate that we are having tonight.
  10.6 p.m.
  Sir Robert Boothby: I promised the Under-Secretary of State that I would give him a quarter of an hour in which to answer this debate, and I undertake now to do so. This is a very short time in which to make any serious attempt to put a case. I shall therefore put it telegraphically, in nine minutes.
  I think that homosexuality in this country is more prevalent than we are apt to admit and that it is tending to increase at the present time. In most of our great cities, there is a homosexual underground which is a constant menace to youth; and we ought to bear that always in mind. The sporadic campaigns of the police against homosexuality were referred to by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) in opening this debate. They are often accompanied, as he said, by methods of great dubiety; and do nothing, in my opinion, towards its eradication. On the contrary, they intensify the squalor by which it is surrounded, and widen the areas in which the underground flourishes.
  For these methods I do not blame the police, but the existing law. In cases involving alleged acts of indecency committed in private, where there is no injured party, witnesses are almost invariably tainted; which means that they are accomplices actuated by motives of avarice, jealousy or fear. That is what makes the field of homosexuality a happy hunting ground for the blackmailer.
  The basic laws dealing with this problem are enshrined in the ecclesiastical doctrines of the Middle Ages, and are really derived directly from Jewish law with the inevitable emphasis on reproduction of a race struggling for survival many centuries ago. Solomon could have a thousand wives, but homosexuality was punishable by death. It is significant that no laws, however savage, have in fact
  1750
  succeeded in stamping out homosexuality; and that in France, where they have the Napoleonic Code, which is far less severe than the laws of this country, there can be no doubt at all that the problem of homosexuality is far less intense than it is in this country. Indeed, it is arguable that heavy penalties have increased the morbidity, sensationalism and exhibitionism by which it is so often characterised.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke mentioned the famous, or, shall I say, notorious "Labouchere" Amendment— the new Clause 11—to the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1886. This was moved in the middle of the night, and passed without discussion at all in this House. There is another sentence of Sir Travers Humphreys in his introduction to the book to which the hon. Member referred, which I think he did not quote, and which is very significant. Sir Travers wrote:
  "It is doubtful whether the House fully appreciated that the words in public or private' in the new Clause had completely altered the law.…"
  This was in fact a Bill for the protection of women and girls, and was an excellent Bill for that purpose. It had nothing to do with this subject whatever; and this new Clause was moved by permission of Mr. Speaker, without any warning, in an empty House at 2.30 in the morning. I looked up hansard the other day and all that was said by Sir Travers Humphreys is borne out by the report of the debate, which lasted about a quarter of an hour.
  All the laws relating to this subject were enacted before any of the discoveries of modern psychology. I do not rate modern psychology too high, but I think it has significance. I am not at all sure that, with all his bias and with all his defects, Professor Freud will not go down in history as a very considerable figure: and be regarded as one of the great men of our time in centuries to come. I believe, in any event, that the existing laws are outmoded and that they do not achieve the objective of all of us, which is to limit the incidence of homosexuality and to mitigate its evil effects.
  The duty of the State, as I see it, is to protect youth from corruption and the public from indecency and nuisance. What consenting adults do in privacy may be a moral issue between them and their

  1751
  Maker, but in my submission it is not a legal issue between them and the State. The law must make adequate provision for the appropriate punishment of seduction or attempted seduction of youth— perhaps more appropriate punishment than exists today—of violence in any shape or form, of importuning and of acts of indecency committed in public. But there, in my opinion, the law should stop; and I believe that if it did, we would at once get a vast improvement in the existing situation, which to anybody who knows anything about it must give cause for the gravest anxiety and apprehension.
  I turn, in conclusion, to the question of treatment, having dealt briefly with the law. We are all agreed that what are called infanto-homosexuals should be segregated unless and until they are cured; as, indeed, must all those who commit offences against children and young people of either sex. But to send confirmed adult homosexuals to prison for long sentences is, in my opinion, not only dangerous, but madness. As Dr. Stanley Jones wrote, several years ago, in the British Medical Journal,
  "It is as futile from the point of view of treatment as to hope to rehabilitate a chronic alcoholic by giving him occupational therapy in a brewery."
  My hon. Friend the Joint Undersecretary of State may take exception to what I am going to say, but I shall still say it. Our prisons today, in their present overcrowded condition, are factories for the manufacture of homosexuality. Anybody who knows anything about them will confirm this. It is absolute madness to send these people to our ordinary overcrowded prisons, and put them quite frequently in a cell with others, and sometimes even in a dormitory together. Everybody who knows what happens in our prisons will realise the effect on ordinary criminals, and that the thing spreads. I cannot believe this is the right way to handle the problem.
  Recent cases which have caused distress to the country as a whole, recent discussion in responsible newspapers, and the facts as we have tried to put them —it is not an easy case to put to the House—establish the need for an authoritative inquiry to furnish Parliament with the necessary expert knowledge and guidance for appropriate legislative and
  1752
  administrative action. That is all we are asking for tonight; and I submit that on the face of it, on the facts as we know them, the case for such an inquiry is overwhelming.
  10.14 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): The House will have heard with much interest the speeches of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) and of my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir R. Boothby). They have raised one or two points on which I cannot feel complete agreement with what they have said, but with which I do not propose to deal this evening because time is limited.
  Apart from what has been said here this evening, a number of hon. Members have previously expressed views on this subject by means of Questions in the House, and responsible opinions have been expressed outside the House. In particular, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has had representations from the Howard League and from the Church of England Moral Welfare Council. From this consideration of the subject three main questions have emerged. First, what is the prevalence of homosexual activities in the country; secondly, what is the impact of the law upon such activities and is any amendment of that law desirable; and, thirdly, what can be done by way of curative treatment, apart from punishment, for those who offend in this respect? I shall try to say a word or two about each of these questions.
  The first question is far from easy to answer. There are no reliable means available for assessing the prevalence of homosexual practices in our society as a whole. The only statistical information available is that relating to the number of offences which come to the notice of the police and the number of persons convicted for such offences. Those statistics must be misleading to some considerable extent. In the nature of things the proportion of these particular offences which do not come to light is very high. On the other hand, the statistics are more reliable as a guide to what is happening than mere emotion or subjective impressions.
  I think it is right to say, as has been suggested by hon. Members, that there has been a serious increase in this activity

  1753
  in the country. I would remind the House of the increase of cases known to the police in England and Wales between 1938 and 1952. Unnatural offences of the gravest kind—sodomy and 'bestiality— have increased from 134 in 1938 to 670 in 1952. The number of attempts to commit unnatural offences, including indecent assaults, has increased from 822 to 3,087. The offences of gross indecency have increased from 320 to 1,686. I have no corresponding figures for importuning by male persons, but in 1952 proceedings were taken in 373 cases in the Metropolitan police district, a very large number.
  Sir R. Boothby: Alone?
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Yes, alone. Over this period indictable offences of this kind have increased between fourfold and fivefold and there is some correspondence, therefore, between the rate of increase in this particular kind of offence and offences generally. As I have said, owing to the nature of the offences it is true that a smaller proportion comes to light, but the increase in known oases is greater than that for offences generally. From the figures which I have mentioned, I think it is clear that there has been a considerable increase in the number of offences actually committed.
  I cannot give the House any opinion as to the reasons for that increase, and I think I can say with complete truth that the reasons are simply not known. Quite clearly, this is a problem which calls for very careful consideration on the part of those responsible for the welfare of the nation.
  Lieut-Colonel Marcus Lipton: And inquiry.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The second question, that of the adequacy of the existing law, is one of very great complexity. The view has been expressed—indeed, my hon. Friend expressed it this evening— that the existing law is antiquated and out of harmony with modern knowledge and ideas. I believe that that was the gist of my hon. Friend's remarks, and that was, indeed, the effect of what the hon. Member for Pembroke said.
  I think there will be general agreement among hon. Members in all parts of the House that the criminal law in this respect ought to provide effectively, at all events, for the protection of the young and for the preservation of public order
  1754
  and decency. I am sure there will be unanimous agreement on that score. The question is whether the law should confine itself to securing these two objects, or whether it should be amended so as to permit unnatural relations between consenting adults in private. That is the problem which (has been posed this evening, and, I think, fairly posed. It must be remembered that such activities are no crime in many countries in the world today.
  The House may be interested to have some figures in this connection. The Cambridge Department of Criminal Science has been carrying out an exhaustive inquiry into sexual offences, and my right hon. and learned Friend has recently received a preliminary report of the result of that inquiry. The survey covered all sexual offences reported to the police in 1947 in 14 police areas. It shows that 986 persons were convicted of homosexual and unnatural offences. Of those, 257 were indictable offences involving 402 male victims or accomplices, as the case may be. The great majority of those victims or accomplices were under the age of 16. Only 11 per cent, of the whole were over 21, and there was only one conviction involving the case of an adult with an adult in private. Virtually the whole of the non-indictable offences occurred in public places, and, again, only one offender in the non-indictable class was convicted for acts committed in private.
  Mr. John Hynd Mr. John Hynd (Sheffield, Attercliffe)rose—
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I have no time to give way.
  These figures show that the result of the law, whatever its intention may be, is not so very different from what my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire has eloquently pleaded, but I must leave to hon. Members the arguments which could be based upon that result.
  The third question is that of the treatment of homosexual offenders and, particularly, prisoners. I must repeat what I have already said in this House; what medical science can do for those prisoners who are willing and able to be helped by psychological treatment is done today. I will recapitulate very briefly the main headings of what we are trying

  1755
  to do. Visiting psychotherapists have been appointed at certain prisons. Prison medical officers elsewhere submit to the Prison Commissioners the names of any prisoners serving substantial sentences whom they think are likely to benefit by treatment from such psychotherapists with a view to transferring the prisoner to a prison where the treatment will be available.
  There is a scheme for prisoners who are serving sentences which are too short for transfer to be effective, to be seen by visiting psychiatrists from regional hospital boards, and treatment is often started with a view to continuation after release from prison. Finally, the Prison Commissioners propose to build a special establishment for mentally abnormal prisoners, and sexual cases and homosexual cases would certainly be included among those.
  We do what we can for those who can benefit, but those who can benefit are a minority. Psychotherapy cannot be imposed upon an unwilling person. It is essential, if it is to be effective, that the person should have a good intelligence and a genuine desire for a cure. Where these conditions exist great benefits can result from treatment and if complete normalcy cannot be restored at any event a considerable measure of adjustment can be achieved. But there are many offenders who are unwilling or not sincere in their desire to be cured, and for them psychological treatment is useless. My right hon. and learned Friend has taken great interest in this problem and he and all those concerned will take every advantage of progress in medical knowledge to improve the means of treatment.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has been giving careful and anxious consideration to the various representations on homosexual offences which have been made to him and he has also been giving close attention to the parallel problem of
  1756
  the law relating to prostitution and solicitation generally. He has authorised me to inform the House that he and the Secretary of State for Scotland have decided to appoint a committee to examine both these questions. He feels that a committee would be more appropriate in this connection than a Royal Commission. But he is anxious to secure the services of able and experienced men and women to serve upon this committee and, therefore, it may be some little time before he is in a position to announce its membership and terms of reference. He believes that a thorough investigation by a well-qualified body will throw useful light on the scope and nature of these difficult and controversial problems and that an investigation by such a committee may make a valuable contribution to the problem of how the criminal law should deal with them.
  10.27p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: As one of those hon. Members who have been urging the Home Secretary for some time to take some action in this matter, I should like to say that I am sure that most of us will welcome the statement which has just been made. Some inquiry into this serious problem has been long overdue. We express the hope that at the earliest possible moment suitable people will be found to serve on the proposed committee so that a full and well-informed report may be available on which the Government will be able to take appropriate action.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Smithers: Is my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State aware that the hon. Member for Winchester has been devoting much thought to this matter and is very pleased that this long-overdue inquiry will take place?
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'clock.