Clause 1.—(LICENSING OF SLAUGHTER-HOUSES—GENERAL.)

HC Deb 23 April 1958 vol 586 cc1003-59

Mr. Godber

I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out lines 17 to 20 and to insert "then".

It might be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we were to consider at the same time the later Amendment in page 2, line 35, at the end to insert: and section sixty-five of the principal Act shall not apply in any case to which this subsection applies". to which the present Amendment is a paving Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Certainly.

Mr. Godber

I have been grateful for some of the remarks made earlier by hon. Members opposite. They have been much too kind with me. It is a considerable embarrassment to me with my own hon. Friends to have remarks of this sort made, but I am none the less appreciative.

This is the first of a number of Amendments which have been introduced with a view to meeting what was a constant theme of criticism running through our Committee stage debates, concerning the drafting of the Bill. We have taken those criticisms very seriously and have tried to do our utmost to clarify the Bill and to help hon. Members opposite, and, in particular, the diligent slaughterman, whom we shall never forget. The first Amendment deletes a reference to Section 65. It deletes it from this point in subsection (2) and reinserts it at the end of subsection (2). It is a simple, drafting Amendment which we think will add clarification to the Bill.

Mr. Willey

The Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary has moved is acceptable because it deletes part of the Bill, and we can only hope that many more such Amendments will be acceptable to the Government and that this part of the Bill will be completely deleted. I am, however, in some personal difficulty. I appreciate that the Amendment merely alters the order in which this appears in the Bill, but we shall shortly be discussing Amendments to parts of the Bill which lie between the words where they are now and where they will be when we reach the Amendment in line 35.

This is a paving Amendment, and we think that it should be accepted because it deletes part of the Bill, but my view about the Amendment in line 35 will depend upon what happens to other Amendments which we consider before we reach it. I therefore hope that if we accept this Amendment we shall have an opportunity of discussing the other Amendment for which the Parliamentary Secretary states that this Amendment paves the way. Subject to that, we have no objection to this Amendment.

Mr. Godber

It is entirely for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to rule how we shall deal with this matter, but I thought that we were discussing the two Amendments together. Presumably there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to vote on the second Amendment when it arises, after these other matters have been considered.

Mr. Wiley

With great respect, it is not as simple as that. The Amendment for which this paves the way refers to Section 65, which refers to byelaws made under Section 68. An Amendment which we are about to reach deals with byelaws under Section 68. We are in an extraordinarily difficult position if we are told that we can discuss this matter in advance of that Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It is quite usual to do it in this way. If the paving Amendment were defeated the substantive Amendment would not be called. Generally, we discuss them together. If the House so wishes, I am willing to call a Division straight away on the first Amendment and to discuss the question when we reach the second Amendment.

Mr. Wiley

We do not propose to divide on the first Amendment, because we agree that these words should be deleted. I am trying to safeguard the debate which will arise on the Amendment to line 35.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I hoped we should have that debate now, but if the hon. Member prefers to have it later that will be satisfactory.

Mr. Willey

It would be much more convenient and would expedite consideration of the Bill if we took the Amendments in order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Very well.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Godber

I beg to move, in page 2. line 9, after "slaughterhouse", to insert: under the licence or renewed licence". This is a very small drafting Amendment designed to make the matter absolutely clear, and there is no point in my elaborating it.

Amendment agreed to.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Godber

I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "and".

This Amendment goes with the next Amendment in line 13, after "two", to insert: and of all byelaws, if any, made by the authority and for the time being in force under section sixty-eight of the principal Act".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Very well.

Mr. Godber

These two Amendments provide for a matter which we discussed in some detail in Committee and accepts a point of view advanced by hon. Members opposite, who contended that it would be wrong to take away powers under byelaws where the byelaw was more restrictive than the powers which we provide in the Bill. We in no way wish the Bill to detract from the restrictive powers in relation to the slaughterhouses where byelaws are already in existence. We want to maintain standards. Indeed, the general purpose of the Bill is to improve standards. Hon. Members had a valid point that we might unintentionally in some areas delete powers which ought not to be deleted. We are grateful to them for raising it.

Mr. Willey

I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for meeting us on this point. In Committee, he met us about the model byelaws—our Amendment was unnecessary for that purpose—and he agreed to look again into the question of other byelaws, which he has kindly done. We are glad that he has put down the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 13, after "two", insert and of all byelaws, if any, made by the authority and for the time being in force under section sixty-eight of the principal Act".—[Mr. Godber.]

Mr. Godber

I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out from "by" to "this" in line 30 and to insert: section two, four, five or section (Isolation of slaughterhalls from dwellings) of this Act; or

1. (iii) in a case to which subsection (3) of Section 2 of this Act applies, the Minister has consented to the refusal;
2. and".

This is the first of the more substantial drafting Amendments. We are trying to tidy up the Bill in the way hon. Members suggested, and this Amendment deletes, among other things, paragraph (d), which caused a great deal of comment in Committee. I am sorry to see it go, because I spent a lot of time learning what it meant and now, I fear, all that knowledge is wasted. Nevertheless, in view of the comments made, and always with the "diligent slaughterman" in our minds, we have tried to deal with this point. Later, in Clause 2 (3), we shall rewrite Section 75 (4) of the 1955 Act into the Bill, and we think that that will help to clarify the position. It enables us to delete some very abstruse passages from the Bill.

There is also a small addition earlier which is consequential upon my right hon. Friend's new Clause, which he moved earlier. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to hon. Members. I leave paragraph (d) with some regret, but I hope that hon. Members will find the Amendment an improvement in the Bill.

Mr. Willey

I am delighted to see that paragraph go. I confess that I doubt whether I fully understood it. My difficulty, however, is that of receiving Amendments on this scale at this stage in our proceedings and of being satisfied whether or not they are an improvement. It is extraordinary that at this stage of the Bill we should have all these very substantial Amendments. In spite of that, however, it is a relief to know that paragraph (d) has been deleted. I concede in this case that the words to be inserted seem clearer and more easily understood.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Godber

I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out "they apply" and insert "it applies".

I am sure that this Amendment commends itself to the House, and I trust that it will not be necessary for me to explain it at length. It is a purely drafting Amendment and is consequential upon the Amendment that we have just agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Godber

I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end to insert: and section sixty-five of the principal Act shall not apply in any case to which this subsection applies". I had already sought to explain this Amendment at an earlier stage. It is a reinsertion of the reference to Section 65 of the principal Act—which we deleted only a moment ago—in another spot. It is with the intention of meeting points put forward by hon. Members opposite that we seek to do this. I want to make it clear that we think it is necessary to retain the reference to Section 65; we are merely changing its position. I gather that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is not happy about the position, and I shall endeavour to deal with any points that he may raise.

Mr. Winterbottom

I apologise to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for laughing at him a moment ago. I am so glad that the Government have now made up their minds.

Mr. Willey

My difficulty is that although the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, "All we have done is to alter the place in which this provision occurs", he has paid no attention to the fact that he has amended the provisions as they occur. One of the Amendments that we have made refers to all byelaws, if any, made by the authority and for the time being in force under section sixty-eight of the principal Act but when we turn to Section 65 of the principal Act we find a reference to any byelaws made by the authority in force under section sixty-eight of this Act. By reinserting these words we are now saying that Section 65 of the principal Act shall not apply.

I do not apologise for being obscure, because I complain once again that it is extraordinarily difficult to understand the Bill, and on the face of it this appears to be a contradiction. There may be an explanation: we are certainly entitled to one before we allow the Amendment to pass, otherwise we might find that we have been given a concession by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in all good faith, but by a little pedantic draftsmanship he has taken it away again. The House is entitled to hear his explanation why this provision reappears when, in Section 65 of the principal Act, it already exists.

Mr. Godber

There is no intention to take away what we have just given in relation to byelaws. As I understand it, by inserting the reference to byelaws in this subsection all that we have said is that Section 65 shall not apply where this subsection applies. If the subsection does not apply Section 65 applies, and the reference to the byelaws is retained there. There is a reference to the byelaws in Section 65 for certain cases, and we now have new words in relation to byelaws written into the Bill in this subsection, for other cases. We now cover both kinds of case.

Mr. Wiley

If, by leave, I may speak again, I do not wish to pursue this point unduly, and I accept the explanation given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but I am not sure that a court would accept it. The point should be looked at again. We are here providing that Section 65 shall not apply, and that Section provides for a local authority refusing an application on certain specific grounds. It is quite true that we can say that the subsection itself makes a provision in regard to byelaws, and that provision therefore remains, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to assure us that he will consider the point again. It might be open to another construction.

Mr. Godber

If, by leave, I may speak again, I must say that I find it difficult to accept the hon. Member's point, but I will examine it again. We are saying that this subsection (2) shall apply to new slaughterhouses and Section 65 shall be retained only in relation to old slaughterhouses. The two provisions are independent of each other. Byelaws are provided in Section 65 and we have now written them into subsection (2). In the case of old slaughterhouses, the provisions of Section 65 remain in force until the appointed day for the area when the old slaughterhouses will come under the provisions of subsection (2). I feel confident that the matter is in order, but I will look into it again in view of the hon. Member's doubts.

Mr. Hayman

The House would like an assurance from the Minister that he fully understands the explanation given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. John Hare

I think that my hon. Friend has been very clear.

Mr. Robens

Most hon. Members are now clear about this matter, but I am not. The reason why I am not clear is that we have to read the Bill now before us together with the Amendments passed a few moments ago. If we do that it begins to make sense, but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it may well be that his brief has already put these words in. To those of us who are reading the Bill, plus the Amendments, and trying to make out what the new Bill says, the position is not clear, and needs some explaining.

My only purpose in rising is to ask the hon. Gentleman whether I understand him correctly. As I understand it, the words that we have just inserted provide all that we wanted in relation to byelaws, and if we agree to the present Amendment we shall not prejudice the position in regard to the byelaws by reason of the Amendment that we have just passed.

Mr. Godber indicated assent.

Mr. Robens

I think that that makes it much clearer, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am sure that you have got the point. It is very important, because byelaws are important, and we certainly do not want to create a situation where we think that we have made sure that local authority byelaws in relation to slaughterhouses have been satisfied while, at the same time, we unwittingly take away the advantages of the main Act in which we sought to preserve the powers of local authorities. But I am satisfied, now that the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated his assent to what I have said, that it is the words we have previously put in which we have to read as well, and that makes sense of this Amendment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Godber

That is the position, but I wish to make clear that these two things are quite separate. Section 65 of the 1955 Act, and subsection (2) of this Bill, are separate. Section 65 refers to the old slaughterhouses and in it we have written a reference to the byelaws. The criticism on Committee stage was that we had no reference in subsection (2) relating to the new slaughterhouses. That has been put right and the subsection will eventually overtake Section 65. So this Bill covers both cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hare

I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, to leave out "in certain circumstances" and to insert: where the authority are satisfied that the slaughterhouse facilities available in their district are adequate for the time being". All hon. Members will agree that certain aspects of this Bill are rather complicated. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that we should make the Bill as clear as possible, considering the complication of the subject, and as clear as our friends in the legal profession will allow.

We may perhaps consider this Amendment with the Amendment in my name, in page 2, line 44. These two Amendments go together.

Without in any way changing the sense of what is in the Bill, I think that we have made it a little easier to understand. As it stands, it is legislation by reference pure and simple. We all dislike that and avoid it if possible. By spelling out what are the certain circumstances, and, later, the other circumstances which are referred to, I hope that we make it reasonably clear to the ordinary reader—which applies to me as well as anyone else—what this reference to Section 76 of the principal Act is about.

Mr. Willey

We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation——

Mr. Darling

Lucid explanation.

Mr. Wiley

My hon. Friend wishes we to say "lucid explanation". This provides a better description for the benefit of the "diligent slaughterman". Again, this illustrates the difficulty of this Bill and emphasises the criticism we made about legislation by reference. It is a great pity that we have not had a Bill more easy to understand.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 44, leave out, "in other circumstances" and insert: by reason of the provision of slaughterhouse facilities by that or another local authority."—[Mr. Hare.]

Mr. Godber

I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out "alternative".

This is purely a paving Amendment for the next Amendment. Perhaps we might discuss them together.

The Chairman

Yes.

Mr. Godber

The second Amendment is in line 18, on the same page.

The Amendment takes up a rather important point made by hon. Members opposite during the Committee stage discussions. We are here rewriting Section 75 (1, b) of the 1955 Act. The purpose of this rather involved form of words is to provide for a case referred to in the Committee stage discussions where a local authority wished to prevent the erection of new slaughterhouses and to operate under a Section 75 resolution based on a public slaughterhouse in the area of an adjoining authority.

This position was referred to particularly in the Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). To bring in such a resolution a local authority would have to abolish or reduce the slaughterhouses in its area. The point was made that a local authority might not wish to abolish existing slaughterhouses, but might wish to prevent the erection of further slaughterhouses. In order to achieve that we have found it necessary to rewrite Section 75 (1, b) of the principal Act.

This Amendment should commend itself to the House in that it will put local authorities in a better position to deal with that problem. I hope hon. Members opposite will feel that it is of assistance.

Mr. Willey

I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation; I am obliged to him for his endeavour to meet us, and I am obliged to him for the Amendment which, with a little research, is more intelligible than what we have in the Bill. My difficulty is that if we look at part of Section 75, to which we are referred, it provides that the local authority may determine that there shall be no fresh slaughterhouse licence where it is of opinion: that slaughterhouse facilities in their district ought to be abolished or reduced having regard to the existence of adequate alternative slaughterhouse facilities provided by another authority. In place of that, we have the words: are of opinion that, having regard to the availability of slaughterhouse facilities provided by another authority, slaughterhouse facilities within their district ought to be abolished or reduced, or ought not to be increased, or are not required. I hesitate to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation without being assured that the effect of this change will not be more than he states. We have written into this provision the words: … having regard to the availability of slaughterhouse facilities provided by another authority … This is another good illustration of the difficulty of legislation by reference. To satisfy myself about this I should have to make a more exhaustive examination of the provisions of the principal Act and the effect of this Amendment upon that Act. For that reason I should prefer to avoid providing such provisions by legislation by reference. Why could not the Parliamentary Secretary make provision here without going back to the principal Act? Why not make a provision which we could have understood instead of having to go back to this part of the Section of the principal Act which is being amended? We should be given a fuller and better explanation. We should have the Law Officers of the Crown present this afternoon. This is not a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary. It is a matter of considerable importance. It is purely a question of putting the proper legal construction upon the matter.

We know that the Government put down five and a half pages of Amendments on one day, and three or four pages of Amendments the next day amending the Amendments that they had already put down. We had another Amendment or two on the third day. We have had Amendments on the Order Paper for a few days. That is why I am hesitant about this Amendment. We are discussing a complicated and difficult matter. I quite see that the Parliamentary Secretary is endeavouring to meet the point which we raised, but I am afraid that the Amendment may go further than that. It may limit the effect of Clause 75. With reluctance, we shall return to the matter in another place. We shall have this matter in tidier form and pursue it there, if necessary, although we shall not be there to do so.

This is most objectionable. Not only is the Bill almost entirely rewritten, but there are Amendments of this complicated character and the persistence of legislation by reference, even after the complaints that we have made about it. I feel embarrassed in criticising this Amendment when the Parliamentary Secretary is apparently trying to meet us, but the Amendment does not endear us any more towards the Bill. This provision will not make the Bill easier to comprehend, but it will be some comfort to those who heard the Parliamentary Secretary to know that he was endeavouring to be kind to us.

There will not be an opportunity in this House of looking at the matter again, but I hope that this is one of the provisions that will be reconsidered. We shall be considering Amendments to amend Amendments we agreed to in Committee. Large chunks of the Bill were taken out in Committee. We are shortly to consider new chunks to take the place of the chunks that they put in during the Committee. It is very difficult to be sure about this Amendment. I hope that by the time the Bill leaves another place the Parliamentary Secretary will be satisfied that what he is endeavouring to do is, in fact, done by this provision.

Mr. Dye

While I appreciate all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about the difficulties raised by these wards, I must confess that I do not know exactly what they mean. I have heard the Parliamentary Secretary explain their intention, and I can agree with the intention. I thank him for trying to meet us on the matter, in which I believe the Government are departing from their fundamental principle.

The main purpose of the Bill was to give the weight of attention to privately-owned slaughterhouses. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary's intention here is to enable two local authorities, one of which may own a slaughterhouse adequate for the area, to refuse to license the building of new slaughter? houses. If that is the intention of the Amendment it is good. New slaughterhouses have been opened in areas adjacent to boroughs with adequate facilities, and because of those new slaughterhouses those owned by the local authority have been working uneconomically. The local authority has to provide adequate inspection to cover the work done in its area, but when new slaughterhouses were opened in adjoining districts there were not enough inspectors.

The Government are making good some of the damage which they previously did and are now attempting to do good work. I wish they had not done the damage previously. I would like them to fortify the efficient local authority which is providing adequate slaughtering facilities and inspection as well. In so far as the Government are taking a small step to protect the properly-managed municipal slaughterhouse from uneconomical working they are taking a step in the right direction.

6.15 p.m.

Dr. Stross

Am I correct in my reading of the Amendment and in thinking that it does not differ very much from our own Amendment? The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that in Committee some of us gave an illustration of what we were afraid might happen.

My own local authority manages a city with a population of 270,000 people, and it had a very sad experience before the war. Although we were equipped with a very good municipal slaughterhouse capable of providing for all our own needs, and, indeed, of exporting to London and elsewhere, we found that meat was being sent in from small abattoirs outside the city boundaries. We had no control over them and the meat entered in devious ways and was sold in the markets and shops. We were suspicious of the quality. It was bad meat, and we were sure that it was not inspected properly.

Am I right in assuming that an authority like that of the city which I have the honour to represent can be considered as of the type which provides facilities to neighbouring authorities? If the neighbouring authorities are satisfied that this is the case—it will be upon those outside authorities that the decision will rest whether that is so—they will be able to prevent the emergence of new slaughterhouses because their needs are well provided for by the city to which I am referring. If that is the meaning of the Amendment, I shall be very happy to support it. The obligation is upon outside authorities, but, none the less, this is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Godber The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) seems anxious about the Amendment. The trouble is that I am not a member of his legal profession and so I cannot convince him, but I will do my best. I agree that the words are somewhat involved and difficult to follow. All that we are doing in these massive Amendments is trying to meet the criticisms which the hon. Member made. While I agree that it is difficult to follow, that is the reason.

In this Amendment, although it appears somewhat imposing at first sight, all we have done is that we have extended the provisions of paragraph (d) of Section 75 (1), which refer to abolishing or reducing slaughterhouse facilities, by adding the words: or ought not to be increased, or are not required. We are trying to add these two simple extra provisos. We are, therefore, somewhat extending the power of a local authority which wants a Section 75 resolution in force in relation to the slaughterhouse facilities provided by another authority. We are just providing it with the right that it can, if it has a Section 75 resolution approved, not merely reduce or abolish, but prevent an increase, or, in fact, prevent any slaughterhouse being constructed. That is what we are seeking to do, and I assure the hon. Gentleman, in spite of what he has said about other Amendments and the difficulties, that it is fairly clear when we examine it that this is the sole extent of the alteration we are making.

I cannot see that it can have any effect on other Sections of the principal Act. Naturally, in view of what the hon. Gentleman said, I will recheck that with pleasure, but, as far as I can see, it cannot have any serious effects of that kind. I give him the assurance that I have already looked at the matter fairly carefully and that I feel quite safe in commending it to the House. We have no intention other than merely to meet the points raised in the Committee.

I was most grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), who does not always give me bouquets, so that I am all the more pleased when I get them. I would say to him and to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) that the local authority in question must have a Section 75 resolution approved in order to take advantage of the alteration we are making. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was quite right in his interpretation, in that it is for the outlying authority to have a Section 75 resolution based on the local authority abattoir in the central area. I hope that that explanation meets the point put to me by the hon. Members, and that the House will now be ready to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willey

The point I was putting to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was that this imports the question of availability into these considerations. It is extraordinarily difficult on Report to consider these points, which really ought to be considered in Standing Committee. I will not endeavour to debate a Standing Committee point here, but I think it is unfortunate, and for that reason I think the Government ought to look at the matter again in another place.

Mr. Godber

In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, we will gladly do that, but I feel confident that in the form in which it now is it will meet the case.

Mr. Robens

May I ask the hon. Gentleman what is the significance of the change in these words in the Amendment, as compared with the words in paragraph (d) in Section 75 (1) of the principal Act? Section 75 (1, b) refers to adequate alternative slaughterhouse facilities and the Amendment speaks of the availability of slaughterhouse facilities". Would that mean that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has in mind the fact that there may be in existence adequate alternative slaughterhouse facilities, but that those facilities may not be available to a neighbouring local authority? Is that the reason why, in his Amendment, he speaks of the availability of slaughterhouse facilities? If that is not the correct interpretation, why did the Joint Parliamentary Secretary find it necessary to depart to that extent in these words from what appeared in Section 75 (1) of the principal Act?

Mr. Godber

As the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has rightly assumed, the word "availability" makes it more clear that there must be slaughterhouse facilities actually available to an adjoining authority.

Mr. Robens

Surplus capacity?

Mr. Godber

Surplus capacity is, in fact, what it must be. As to whether "adequate" or "availability" is the most appropriate word, that is a matter that I leave to the legal gentlemen, hut, as far as I can see, this question of availability covers that point. Obviously, if the facilities were not adequate, then certainly there would not be the availability for the neighbouring authorities to use them. It is a rather fine point, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having raised it, and, though that is, in fact, what is the intention here, I shall be glad to look at it again.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 18, at end insert:

(4) Without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection, in the said section seventy-five, for paragraph (b) of subsection (1) (which authorises the passing of a resolution under that section where the local authority are of opinion that slaughterhouse facilities in their district ought to be abolished or reduced having regard to such facilities provided by another authority) there shall be substituted the following paragraph— (b) are of the opinion that, having regard to the availability of slaughterhouse facilities provided by another authority, slaughterhouse facilities within their district ought to be abolished or reduced, or ought not to be increased, or are not required"; and, accordingly, after the word "and", in the first place where it occurs in the said subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words "any such resolution may also provide".—[Mr. Godber.]

Mr. Godber

I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 19 to 22.

This is really a paving Amendment, providing for something that we are to do in Clause 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Godber

I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, after "particulars", to insert: of all premises to which the licence or application relates". Perhaps it would be convenient to consider with this Amendment the one to line 31, at the end to insert: Provided that such licences, applications, records, and information shall contain a description of the premises and the area of the lairage, slaughterhall, cooling room and other essential particulars clearly to identify the whole of the premises to which they relate. in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), which deals with a very similar point.

Mr. Speaker

They cover the same matter, and, if the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) agrees, certainly.

Mr. Willey

I quite agree, Sir.

Mr. Godber

By this Amendment we seek to meet, in part at least, the point which the hon. Member has in mind here. We have sought more particularly to make sure that the description shall be of all premises to which the licence or application relates. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, in his Amendment, seeks to go wider. We have looked at it most carefully, but we feel that this was as far as it is necessary to go in cases of this sort, provided that we make quite clear what is intended, and that the particulars should be, to that extent, more precise than they are in the Bill at present.

To cover the whole of the premises to which reference is made, we felt that that was all that was necessary, and it is for that reason that we ask the House to accept this Amendment. It was because of the hon. Member's suggestion that something should be done that we have tried to meet this point, and I hope he will feel that we have gone far enough in that respect.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Wiley

We are obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for going part of the way to meet us. Of course, he cannot assume that we think he has gone sufficiently far, because we have left our Amendment on the Notice Paper. I claim no particular proprietary right in my Amendment and say at once that the wording is taken from the Report of the inter-departmental Committee, which said, in paragraph 141: Existing legislation does not prescribe a statutory form of licence for issue to the occupier of a slaughterhouse. We recommend that this should be done in the new legislation and that the form of licence should contain a description of the premises and the area of the lairage, slaughterhall, cooling room and other essential particulars clearly to identify the whole of the premises to which the licence relates. These particulars should also be recorded by the local authority in a register of licensed slaughterhouses. The burden is on the Parliamentary Secretary, not on me and my hon. Friends. All we did was to call his attention to what his own interdepartmental Committee had recommended. On a technical matter such as this I should have thought that we had every reason to make such an Amendment.

We are much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for going so far to meet us, but he has not discharged the obligation placed upon him by the Report. We would all agree that unless there are any real technical difficulties, of the two Amendments, that in my name is preferable. It is supported by the inter-departmental Committee's Report. To say that the Government have gone as far as they can and would like to have gone further, but there are practical reasons why they could not, is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman should tell us why the particulars we suggest should not be provided. I confess at once to an ulterior motive; we want these particulars to be widely known.

Mr. Godber

It always gladdens my heart to find the hon. Member calling the Report of the inter-departmental Committee in aid after the rather unkind strictures we had from him, both in relation to the Report and the gentlemen who made it. It is rather interesting that he is always astute enough to call it in aid when it suits him.

Mr. Willey

The hon. Gentleman knows that I recognised the technical expertise of the Committee. What I complained about was the Government placing upon the Committee responsibilities which ought to be left on the shoulders of the Government, in other words, questions of policy.

Mr. Godber

That is quite true and the hon. Member on occasion talked about a "slavish following". This is a minor point and we felt that this way of dealing with it was probably adequate. I agree that we do not go quite so far as the hon. Member, but there is a later Amendment in his name on the Notice Paper which takes up one of the points and refers to the making of records. Of course, I cannot anticipate what will happen to that Amendment when we come to it, but if so be that it is accepted it will deal with that part of the matter.

We do not want to make this too elaborate and difficult. We feel that these particulars, provided they are sufficiently clear to identify the premises, are all that is required. We do not want to have extremely elaborate particulars laid down. We felt this was a fair and reasonable way in which to meet the point made by the hon. Member. As he has said, it is not a very large matter one way or the other. We have accepted that there was some merit in the case he put forward and have sought to meet it to some extent. I do not think that it would be right to make these particulars in the detail which he suggests. That would require a lot of effort. Clearly, to identify the premises is the main point at issue. I hope, therefore, that the House will be willing to accept the Amendment I have moved in place of that in the name of the hon. Member.

Mr. Robens

As we move through this Clause we tend to forget what we are doing in relation to Clause 1 as a whole, because we are dealing in great detail with Amendments to small parts of the Clause. You, Mr. Speaker, have had to peruse this Notice Paper. You will have had to refer to the Bill, but it might be for the convenience of the House if I remind hon. Members that in Clause 1 we are repealing Section 64 of the principal Act. We must look at Section 64 of that Act to see what we are repealing and then examine some of these Amendments, and this Amendment, in particular.

That Section deals with restriction on licences for new slaughterhouses. I shall not quote the whole of it. It prevents any slaughterhouse being opened except with the consent of the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary said that in his Amendment he was meeting all we said in the Standing Committee, but I wish to put this to him. Having decided to repeal Section 64 we have now to rely entirely on the new Clause we are putting into this Bill, by a very large number of Amendments, to provide under what circumstances any slaughterhouse shall be opened. The Parliamentary Secretary chided my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about relying on the inter-departmental Committee's Report when it suited him. The answer to that is that it is highly important for the Minister to have a proper record of all details in relation to slaughterhouses which are to be opened under the provisions of this Bill and which would not be permitted to be opened under Section 64 of the principal Act.

The inter-departmental Committee was a Committee of experts. Having examined all the circumstances as to the conditions under which new slaughterhouses should be opened, they said that the particulars included in the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend should be in the licence. Section 64 of the principal Act has been discussed in the House and has been the basis on which at one time the House decided that slaughterhouses should or should not be opened. Having dismissed that Section and decided to write something new into the provisions for the opening of slaughterhouses, who are we to say to an expert Committee, which felt it highly essential to the proper provision of slaughterhouses, taking into account not only the welfare of the animals to be slaughtered, but also public health, that the particulars that that Committee thought necessary should be excluded?

For the sake of a few extra lines of print, and perhaps a little more trouble on the part of those who have to deal with the licences, why should we not have in the archives of the Ministry all this detailed information, without which it is quite impossible to provide a proper slaughterhouse programme when the purposes of the Bill have been concluded? It is not really sufficient for the hon. Gentleman to suggest the wording in his Amendment. It is important that we should have in the licence the information dealt with in great detail in the Amendment we put forward, which, to save the time of the House, I shall not bother to read.

If the Parliamentary Secretary says that the inter-departmental Committee, experts though its members may have been, was wasting its time in coming to this conclusion, I would understand that; but the hon. Gentleman has not said that. He has not said that this information is of no use to him or to the Ministry as a Department of State. He merely says that these words are adequate for the purpose. They may be adequate for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but we have to remember that the Government and we on this side are committed to a fairly generally agreed policy on slaughterhouses and that this is only a move towards the final decision on slaughterhouses which will have to be taken in due course, perhaps a few years hence.

What prevents the Parliamentary Secretary from adopting the recommendation of the inter-departmental Committee concerning these licences? How can he say that the words which he proposes are adequate in view of the fact that what the Clause does is to wipe out Section 64 of the principal Act, which lays down the conditions under which slaughterhouses shall be opened?

It seems to me that when we wipe out a Section of that character, we are providing, instead, quite different conditions for the opening of slaughterhouses. We ought to take into consideration all the knowledge and information that is available and, in my view, the information and recommendation from the interdepartmental Committee was the best available. That is why my hon. Friend put down the Amendment and I am a little surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary has not accepted it. We shall have to press this one, because we propose, as far as we are able, to put the inter-departmental Committee recommendations into the Bill.

Mr. Godber

I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) feels so strongly that we are not going far enough for him. I should, perhaps, clarify the position concerning Section 64 of the 1955 Act. At an earlier stage today, my right hon. Friend reminded the House that Section 64 applied only to new slaughterhouses and not to any which had licences pre-war. It was, therefore, of limited application. I agree that it could prevent any widespread development, but it covers few indeed of the slaughterhouses that are operating today. Therefore, the fact that we are deleting Section 64 does not have as much force as the right hon. Gentleman claims.

In relation to the specific point, however, although I certainly do not want to labour it, I felt that there was little between us. We have tried to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite to some extent. I am advised that the existing wording of the Clause is already sufficiently wide to permit regulations to require the particulars which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) wants us to provide. The description of these particulars is not, perhaps, as full as the inter-departmental Committee recommended, but so long as the powers and intentions are clear from the Bill the details can be left to the regulations themselves.

It would be wrong to write the details into the Bill more specifically than we have sought to do in our Amendment, which clearly ties the licence to the premises. Our feeling was that that was sufficient and that the regulations can then provide for any further particulars as the Minister at the time may think fit. He can state what actual detailed particulars he wants. That sort of thing is better left for the regulations than written into the Bill. The normal procedure is to provide for matters of detail in the regulations rather than in the Bill.

6.45 p.m.

I give the House the assurance that it is our desire to ensure that adequate provision is made in the regulations to see that we get all the information in that respect that we require. I should have thought that with this assurance, the right hon. Gentleman might feel that what we have done takes the matter far enough. Later, we shall come to Clause 3, by which the reports that come in from local areas will come in to the Ministry and we shall have fairly substantial information from this source. Taking everything together, our stand is not unreasonable. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman might feel disposed to accept our Amendment.

Mr. Willey

To refer to my Amendment in line 31, I am in the sorry position that the more helpful the Parliamentary Secretary endeavours to appear the more depressed I become, because the limits of his helpfulness are so narrow. When we discussed the earlier matter in which, apparently, he was trying to be helpful, I pointed out that he had placed me in difficulty and was causing a lot of work for lawyers. Now, the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to do something quite simple and straightforward. While, however, he is willing to make a little advance, he is not prepared to do something which is not without difficulty. No obscurantist legislation by reference is demanded. Our Amendment defines clearly and succinctly what information we think should be provided.

Nobody can deny that our proposal is what the inter-departmental Committee—the experts—thought should be provided. The last argument by the Parliamentary Secretary was that the Minister can make regulations to provide for these details anyway; but the hon. Gentleman cannot expect the House to leave it at that. If he was prepared to do this anyway, he would have indicated that he would accept my Amendment.

This is a matter of substance and I am glad that the Minister has come back just at the appropriate time. As I complained with force some time ago, all the information regarding slaughterhouses is at the Ministry. We must not forget that the Ministry was responsible for slaughtering during the wartime years and during the post-war years until 1954. There ought to be a repository of information about slaughterhouses there. It is for that reason that we express indignation about the Government's present action. When I said that I had an ulterior motive in putting forward the Amendment, it was that people must know the appalling state of our slaughterhouses. Our proposal is one of the ways in which people will get to know.

What is equally important is that this action is to be taken by public officials. Public officials have consciences just as much as anyone else. If in the compilation and preparation of such records they realise what the condition of slaughterhouses is, so much the quicker will we get some reform.

I regret having to say this, because the Parliamentary Secretary, in his limited way, is trying to be helpful, but I regard his action with suspicion. There is some covering up here. This has been behind the whole of our consideration of the Bill. I remember saying on Second Reading that I would challenge any newspaper to expose the condition of our slaughterhouses. All we are asking is that these particulars which the inter-departmental Committee said should be made available, shall be made available. Why cannot the Parliamentary Secretary agree and advise his hon. Friends that our Amendment is a right and proper Amendment which ought to be accepted.

Dr. Stross

At first sight, we do not seem to be widely divided on this matter and I therefore urge the Minister to whisper to his hon. Friend to give way. If I put it in this way it is because we recognise that the Minister was not present during the Committee stage, that the Parliamentary Secretary listened to everything said and that between us there was a great deal of interchange of views on the matter.

We cannot possibly do something which we should all like to do—put the whole matter on the best possible footing—unless we obtain all possible information and, having obtained it, sift it, classify it and make it clear to everyone. I have never known a Government prepared to take the initiative to rectify anything which is wrong; they wait until they are pushed into action by public opinion. Because of that we have our great voluntary organisations and individual citizens who make a clamour about things which are wrong and pursue an objective which they think ought to be pursued by the Government.

Without this information codified and analysed, I do not see how we can be sure to solve the problem adequately or on correct lines. The information for which we ask would be of tremendous value if we are to move forward to further legislation. I beg the Minister not to be afraid to give us the Amendment. It does not seem far from that which is proffered to us, but there is a separation in principle and we have a right to press for our Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker

The next two Amendments are those in line 28 and in line 31. Is it possible for the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to agree to take them together? It would save time.

Mr. Willey

I am sure that that would be for the convenience of the House, Sir.

Mr. Robens

On a point of order. When you put the Question on the Amendment in page 3, line 26, Mr. Speaker, we said, "No". You went on to the point about the next two Amendments, but our intention was to vote against the Amendment in line 26. I said, "No" on two occasions and I thought that you intended to collect the voices. We should then not discuss the second Amendment in page 3, line 31, but merely take a Division on it.

Mr. Speaker

I had not intended to select the second Amendment, in line 31.

Mr. Robens

We have already discussed it.

Mr. Speaker

I allowed a discussion on it to see which Amendment the House preferred, but I thought they were alternatives.

Mr. Robens

May I put the position more clearly? When you put the Question on the Amendment in line 26, we said "No". Either you did not hear, or you did not collect the voices. Sir. The next two Amendments are those which you have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to agree to take together. We shall agree to that. They need not take much time. Then we come to the second Amendment, in line 31, which we have already discussed, and the intention was to divide upon it. Or would you prefer us to take two Divisions together—one, from our point of view, against the Amendment in line 26, and one for the insertion of those words in line 31?.

Mr. Speaker

I heard both the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) say "No", but they said it with a smile on their faces. Perhaps the smile came from an inward glow of happiness. To put the matter in order, I will put the Question again.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 194.

Mr. Willey

I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, after "records", to insert: of all saughterhouse licences granted by them, including the particulars aforesaid". It would probably meet the convenience of the House if this and the next Amendment in line 31 were taken together.

These two Amendments are designed to improve the Bill, and I hope that they will be accepted by the Government. We are now dealing with the power of the Minister to make regulations to require local authorities to keep records; we are improving the definition of such records, and we are also making provision by means of the second Amendment that a local authority should make such records available at reasonable hours and without charge.

As we have already indicated, we believe that the information relating to slaughterhouses should be made widely available, and I hope that, at any rate in this respect, we shall not be frustrated by the Government, but that they will indicate that they are prepared to accept these Amendments.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools)

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Godber

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I think he is a little ungracious in what he has said about our other Amendments. We have tried to meet him, and then when he and his hon. Friends vote against us it is somewhat discouraging to a Government who seek to meet the Opposition half way. Nevertheless, we on these benches are very generous; we always seek to assist hon. Members opposite in any way that we possibly can. I think that these two Amendments might well be helpful in the Bill.

Division No. 92.]	AYES	[7.8 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W.	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Ledger, R. J.
Albu, A. H.	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Fernyhough, E.	Lewis, Arthur
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Finch, H. J.	Lindgren, G. S.
Awbery, S. S.	Fletcher, Eric	Logan, D. G.
Balfour, A.	Forman, J. C.	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)	Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Benson, Sir George	Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	McCann, J.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	MacColl, J. E.
Blackburn, F.	Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	McGhee, H. G.
Boardman, H.	Grey, C. F.	McInnes, J.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Griffiths. Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	McKay, John (Wallsend)
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)	Hale, Leslie	McLeavy, Frank
Bowles, F. G.	Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Boyd, T. C.	Hamilton, W. W.	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Hannan, W.	Mahon, Simon
Brockway, A. F.	Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)	Mainwaring, W. H.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Hastings, S.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Hayman, F. H.	Mann, Mrs. Jean
Burke, W. A.	Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)	Marquand, R. Hon. H. A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Herbison, Miss M.	Mason, Roy
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Holman, P.	Mitchison, G. R.
Carmichael, J.	Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)	Monslow, W.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Howell, Denis (All Saints)	Moody, A. S.
Champion, A. J.	Hoy, J. H.	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Chapman, W. D.	Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Mort, D. L.
Clunie, J.	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Moss, R.
Coldrick, W.	Hunter, A. E.	Moyle, A.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Cove, W. G.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)	Irving, Sydney (Dartford)	Oliver, G. H.
Cronin, J. D.	Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Oram, A. E.
Cullen, Mrs. A.	Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Orbach, M.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.	Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn&St.Pncs,S.)	Oswald, T.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)	Johnson, James (Rugby)	Owen, W. J.
Davis, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Padley, W. E.
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Jones, David (The Hartlepools)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Deer, G.	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Palmer, A. M. F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey	Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Diamond, John	Kenyon, C.	Parkin, B. T.
Dodds, N. N.	Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.	Paton, John
Donnelly, D. L.	King, Dr. H. M.	Pearson, A.
Dye, S.	Lawson, G. M.	Peart, T. F.

For that reason, and without wishing to waste the time of the House, I would say that the Government will be happy to accept both of the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 31, at end insert: and each local authority shall make any such records as aforesaid or copies thereof available during reasonable hours at some convenient place or places in their district for inspection by any person without charge."—[Mr. Willey.]

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 31, at end insert: Provided that such licences, applications, records, and information shall contain a description of the premises and the area of the lairage, slaughterhall, cooling room and other essential particulars clearly to identify the whole of the premises to which they relate.—[Mr. Willey.]

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 227.

Pentland, N.	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)	Weitzman, D.
Popplewell, E.	Sorensen, R. W.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Prentice, R. E.	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank	Wheeldon, W. E.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	Steele, T.	White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Probert, A. R.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)	Willey, Frederick
Proctor, W. T.	Stones, W. (Consett)	Williams, David (Neath)
Rankin, John	Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Redhead, E. C.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.	Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Reeves, J.	Sylvester, G. O.	Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Rhodes, H.	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)	Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Taylor, John (West Lothian)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Thomas, George (Cardiff)	Winterbottom, Richard
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)	Woof, R. E.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Thornton, E.	Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Ross, William	Timmons, J.	Zilliacus, K.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)	Tomney, F.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Viant, S. P.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Watkins, T. E.	Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price

NOES
Aitken, W. T.	Fisher, Nigel	Lambton, Viscount
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Alport, C. J. M.	Fort, R.	Langford-Holt, J. A.
Arbuthnot, John	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Leavey, J. A.
Armstrong, C. W.	Garner-Evans, E. H.	Leburn, W. G.
Ashton, H.	George, J. C. (Pollok)	Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Atkins, H. E.	Gibson-Watt, D.	Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Glover, D.	Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Baldwin, A. E.	Glyn, Col. Richard H.	Linstead, Sir H. N.
Balniel, Lord	Godber, J. B.	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Barber, Anthony	Goodhart, Philip	Longden, Gilbert
Barlow, Sir John	Gower, H. R.	Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Barter, John	Graham, Sir Fergus	Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Grant, W. (Woodside)	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Beamish, Col. Tufton	Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr.R. (Nantwich)	Macdonald, Sir Peter
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Green, A.	McKibbin, Alan
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Grimond, J.	Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)	McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel	Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Bishop, F. P.	Gurden, Harold	McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Black, G. W.	Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.	MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Body, R. F.	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Bonham-Carter, Capt. M. R.	Harris, Reader (Heston)	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)	Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)	Maddan, Martin
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Boyle, Sir Edward	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)	Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Braine, B. R.	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)	Marshall, Douglas
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Hay, John	Mathew, R.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel	Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)	Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.	Mawby, R. L.
Bryan, P.	Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Burden, F. F. A.	Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)	Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)	Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Cary, Sir Robert	Hirst, Geoffrey	Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Channon, Sir Henry	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)	Holt, A. F.	Nairn, D. L. S.
Cooke, Robert	Hornby, R. P.	Nicholls, Harmar
Cooper-Key, E. M.	Horobin, Sir Ian	Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence	Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th,E. & Chr'ch)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)	Nugent, G. R. H.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)	Oakshot, H. D.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Howard, John (Test)	O'Neill, Hn. Phelim(Co. Antrim, N.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Cunningham, Knox	Hughes-Young, M. H. C.	Osborne, C.
Currie, G. B. H.	Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh,S.)	Page, R. G.
Dance, J. C. G.	Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)	Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Davidson, Viscountess	Hyde, Montgomery	Partridge, E.
Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)	Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry	Peel, W. J.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Iremonger, T. L.	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Deedes, W. F.	Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Pitman, I. J.
Doughty, C. J. A.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Pitt, Miss E. M.
du cann, E. D. L.	Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)	Powell, J. Enoch
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Duncan, Sir James	Keegan, D.	Ramsden, J. E.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Kerby, Capt. H. B.	Rawlinson, Peter
Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne,N.)	Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Redmayne, M.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Kershaw, J. A.	Remnant, Hon. P.
Errington, Sir Eric	Kimball, M.	Renton, D. L. M.
Farey-Jones, F. W.	Kirk, P. M.	Ridsdale, J. E.
Finlay, Graeme	Lagden, G. W.	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Robertson, Sir David	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Teeling, W.	Wall, Patrick
Russell, R. S.	Temple, John M.	Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)	Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Sharples, R. C.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)	Webbe, Sir H.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)	Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Spearman, Sir Alexander	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Speir, R. M.	Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)	Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)	Tilney, John (Wavertree)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.	Wood, Hon. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm	Vane, W. M. F.	Woollam, John Victor
Storey, S.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)	Vickers, Miss Joan	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Studholme, Sir Henry	Wade, D. W.	Mr. Brooman-White and
Summers, Sir Spencer	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)	Mr. Chichester-Clark.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Willey

I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, at the end to insert: (6) Before making any construction regulations the Minister shall consult with such organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by the regulations and such interests shall include the interests of the public generally in relation to slaughterhouses and related matters, of persons carrying on slaughterhouse trade or business, of local authorities of public health inspectors, of veterinary surgeons, of animal welfare societies, of workers employed in slaughterhouses and of producers of livestock. We now touch upon a matter which had a good deal of attention in Standing Committee, that is to say, the construction regulations, which, after all, are the keystone of this part of the Bill. The Government's case is that, if effective regulations are made under this part of the Bill, they will lead to a radical improvement of our slaughterhouses. We do not share that optimism. We have indicated throughout that we believe that the approach which Viscount Tenby declared that the Government would take was the right one, and we very much regret that the Government are not taking those steps now. But, be that as it may, the effectiveness of this part of the Bill depends upon the construction regulations.

We had the good fortune, and we thank the Government for affording us the opportunity, to see the draft construction regulations during our consideration of the Bill. Although that brought in its train a good deal of trouble for the Government, I think they should be congratulated for having the courage to indicate what they had in mind in that way.

Although I do not wish to refer to the regulations in detail. I want to make one broad point about them. We have made is clear that we do not regard these regulations as sufficient. We think that they are open to a good deal of evasion. I mention this because it is a very good reason for expressly providing for consultation. Again, I concede that I do not think that the Government are allergic to consultation. I agree at once that there has been a reference to the Food Hygiene Advisory Council. But, having seen what the Government had in mind, we are particularly anxious to provide by legislation for consultation with the representative bodies affected.

Any hon. Member in the Standing Committee would agree that we made out our case that the regulations are inadequate. That being so, as we are unable to impress our views upon the Government, I hope that hon. Members will also agree with us when we suggest that another course to take is to place upon the Government the obligation of consultation with the interested parties. If we cannot persuade the Government radically to amend the Bill, and if we cannot obtain from them satisfactory assurances that they will consider these regulations again, then, surely, the course to take is to impose an obligation for consultation upon the Government.

Even if the Government think that we have been unduly critical, we have only been speaking up for the public. I hope that they accept the fact that, in their own interests, they ought to provide for such consultation, at any rate to satisfy the public that they are endeavouring to do everything possible.

Apart from these considerations, I should like to put before the House this broad consideration. I make no apology for emphasising this point. It is a point that I invariably take on Bills of this kind. We have continually to consider the way in which our complex democracy is developing at the moment. We are discussing regulations of great importance. We know that there is provision for supervision by the House, but there is no provision for amendment of the regulations. I do not think that anyone regards this as a satisfactory form of legislation. All sorts of ways have been suggested in which it could be improved, but those of us who work in this workshop know that it is extraordinarily difficult ourselves to do much about indirect legislation. This bears particularly upon matters such as this, when we make regulations about something which will be of considerable public importance. We must also frankly confess that this Measure will drastically affect private interests.

What do the Government suggest we should do? Do they suggest that we should leave the matter to the bureaucrats and say that Parliament, through the procedure with regard to regulations, should cast an eye upon it? I do not think that we can accept this proposal as sufficient. I congratulate the Minister's Department on generally being forthcoming. But we have to accept the fact that if we resort to indirect legislation on matters such as this, then we should provide for consultation. The Minister can say, "I have had consultations. I have sought the advice of the council. Is not that enough?" I would say to him that it is not enough. As the Legislature, we ought to make express provision for consultation with the interested and the affected parties.

When we discussed consultation in the Committee—and I think there was a favourable climate in Committee towards consultation—the point was occasionally made about the difficulty of ensuring that we should provide for comprehensive consultation. Indeed, I remember that one of our Amendments was criticised because we did not make our proposals sufficiently comprehensive. We have sought to make this Amendment as comprehensive as we can. We have sought out all the bodies which we believe will be affected or who will or ought to have an interest in these construction regulations. If by inadvertence we have omitted somebody, then we apologise, and we would readily accede to a suggestion that our proposal should be made more comprehensive.

I now want to deal with another objection that might be made. I know Parkinson's Law about committees. It may be said, "If you ask for consultation on this wide scale, you will not get an effective committee." Frankly, we are not seeking to find an effective committee in that sense. That is not the purpose of consultations such as we are trying to provide by the Amendment. We are not suggesting that by consultation a body such as this should draw up the construction regulations. We place that responsibility upon the Minister, very properly. We say that before making the regulations there should be consultation.

It is right and proper that there should be consultation for these two reasons. First, I think it is proper that the Minister, if he takes what we regard as a narrow view—and we are reasonably well-informed on slaughterhouse matters—and if he sincerely believes that he can go no further, then he, in his own interests, should undertake to have consultations to ascertain whether it is possible to go further. The Parliamentary Secretary, during our proceedings in Standing Committee, protested that he wished to seek moderate concentration through these means. Very well. If this is his chosen instrument, then he should have no objection to trying to make it more effective. If he believes that it cannot be made more effective, then it should be tested out by consulting the informed representative bodies to see whether they can help him.

The second reason, which I again emphasise, is one of equal importance. It is that the House should seek out ways for providing for wider participation in the legislation that we enforce and inflict upon other people. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated his assent when I said that he wishes this to be his chosen instrument towards moderate concentration. If his head was wagging sincerely, he knows quite well his proposal means an interference with people's private rights, in the sense that the way in which they conduct slaughtering will be controlled. I know, in view of the statements recently made by the Leader of the House, that the Parliamentary Secretary will feel disturbed if I should call attention to that point. Even if it be a slow movement—and I concede that this Bill would be a slow movement—any movement towards moderate concentration will be against the current political philosophy of the Leader of the House.

But conceding that point and agreeing with it, I should have thought that there is all the more reason for saying that if we are to take steps in the public interest to improve slaughterhouse conditions and if we are to affect the way in which people can open new slaughterhouses, then we ought to be doubly sure that we are paying every proper attention to people's legitimate private interests. Those private interests nowadays are expressed through representative bodies.

Therefore, I hope that the Minister will agree to accept the burden of consultation. I have said many times before that many of those who advise him sincerely think that—and this is a legitimate bureaucratic point of view—proposals of this sort lead to untidy indirect legislation. I do not think it does. If we provide for such consultations, more often than not we avoid troubles which we inadvertently make for ourselves otherwise. Therefore, if for no good positive reason, I hope that for that negative reason and in his own self-defence the Minister will agree to accept the Amendment.

7.30 p.m.

I have no particular quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman or his Department. They have a good record of accepting consultation. I hope, however, that having been provided with this opportunity they will extend it a little further. I should have thought that all our discussions on these draft regulations in Standing Committee confirm that it would be far better if the Government gave an express undertaking and accepted the legislative obligation in future to consult as widely as possible before laying any such regulations before the House.

Mr. Darling

I beg to second the Amendment.

One of the very good reasons for insisting on consultation concerning the regulations for the construction of abattoirs and slaughterhouses is that if there is consultation with the trade which provides the equipment for slaughterhouses we can get a high degree of standardisation of efficient equipment, which would help to cut down the costs both of the erection of slaughterhouses of the type and standard that we want and also of maintenance.

I can give an illustration by referring to proposals which came up in Committee for a standardised type or types of stunning pens, which are part of the con? structional equipment of slaughterhouses. The need for consultation has been clearly brought out. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Ministry had had, or was having, consultation with the trade on this matter. We took that to mean that consultations were taking place about the standardised equipment. My information, however, suggests that the Parliamentary Secretary misled us. This is of importance, because the view given to me by manufacturers illustrates the need for the Amendment.

What happened, I understand, was that the manufacturers, who want to provide just one or two standardised types, were asked to come to the Ministry and discuss the matter with representatives of the meat traders, with the Ministry representatives sitting in the middle. I do not know whether it was to the surprise of the Ministry representatives that both the manufacturers and meat traders agreed that there should be one or two standard types of equipment approved by the Ministry. In spite, however, of the joint representations on both sides in this so-called consultation, the Ministry has refused to accept the proposal that one or two standard types of stunning pen should be approved by him and that all other types should not be allowed to go into slaughterhouses.

The point concerning consultation is borne out by the view expressed by one of the manufacturers, who writes: You will. I am sure, appreciate that in the absence of Ministry approval, there is no basis on which either the trade can give advice to their members or that manufacturers can usefully provide for an anticipated demand for equipment. We cannot simultaneously deal with a thousand or more local authorities in England and Wales whose ideas and standards on this particular subject will be dictated by the experience, whims, or prejudices of individuals in each case. Here is a manufacturer—I believe that all the equipment manufacturers share this view—who says that standardised equipment for abattoirs should be approved by the Ministry after consultation with the Ministry and that this would lead to economies in construction and in operation and would generally provide the efficiency of service that we all want. In the absence of proper consultation with the Ministry, however, this cannot be achieved.

If each person in the business can go to manufacturers and try to order any kind of equipment he wants, without working to the types approved by the Ministry, we will get far too much competition. Far too many types will be produced. There will not be the advantages of large-scale production, standardisation, and so on. In these circumstances, it is essential that the Ministry should be called upon to consult everybody engaged in the business so that we can get the slaughterhouses that we want under proper construction regulations.

In the construction regulations, we must have reference to the equipment that goes into the slaughterhouses, including stunning pens. I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary misled the Committee on this matter. I understand that the manufacturers and the trade want Ministerially-approved stunning pens to be specified in the regulations, but that it is only the stubbornness of the Ministry which prevents that. If I am wrong, I shall apologise, but that is what I am told by the manufacturers. This shows the need for the fullest consultation so that the regulations which emerge and are given the force of law when the Bill becomes an Act will be satisfactory in every way, after consultation.

Sir James Duncan (South Angus)

There is an old negro song about the Missouri River which contains the words: Old man river, that old man river, he just keeps flowing along.

Mr. Darling

It is "rolling along".

Sir J. Duncan

After 24 sittings of the Standing Committee, the whole of this afternoon and the prospect of what is to happen in the Agriculture Bill Standing Committee, I shall christen the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) "Old Man River". I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has ever analysed the water of the Missouri River. I suppose that it consists of a little part of good water and a lot of bad water.

Mr. Darling

It is the Mississippi, not the Missouri River.

Sir J. Duncan

If it is anything like the Amendment, the Mississippi water must be poor. This Amendment is typical——

Mr. Hayman

Will the hon. Member give way?

Sir J. Duncan

No.

Mr. Hayman

The hon Member's Amendments are rather bad.

Sir J. Duncan

I did not put any down.

If the Amendment were to become law, how would the Minister select persons representative of interests substantially affected by the regulations, such interests including those of the public generally in relation to slaughterhouses? How on earth will the Minister collect one or a number of persons who will represent the public? The suggestion is a stupid one. I see the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) nodding his head in agreement with me——

Mr. Willey

I do not want to interrupt more than I am bound to do, but, as the hon. Gentleman has referred to my nodding head, I must make it clear that I was disagreeing with him. This is standard form. The Minister already does it in other respects.

Sir J. Duncan

I have not seen those words in any previous Act. I will willingly withdraw what I have said if the hon. Gentleman can point to any Act in which those words appear.

The Amendment fails on another ground, because it is not comprehensive, and if the hon. Gentleman is trying to be comprehensive, let him be so. In law, the trouble is that when a number of interests are specified we may well leave out an interest which should be consulted, and there the Minister might be hampered. I will take the case of slaughterhouse machinery. The hon. Gentleman has put these words in his Amendment—"persons carrying on slaughterhouse trade or business". This means the carrying on of slaughterhouse trade, not the construction of slaughterhouses. As I read ordinary English as a layman, that does not mean what the hon. Gentleman has tried to make it mean. I may be wrong, but I am trying to understand English, and the hon. Gentleman has put down those words.

Mr. Darling rose——

Sir J. Duncan

No, let me try to say what I mean. To my lay mind that means a private person or a local authority carrying on the business of a slaughterhouse, not a private person who is an expert in the constructional machinery which will go into the slaughterhouse. For those three reasons, I think the Amendment is wrong and hope that it will be withdrawn.

Mr. Darling

Surely the manufacturers of the equipment are "interests substantially affected by the regulations".

Sir J. Duncan

Yes, but the Amendment states … shall include the interests of the public generally … Who is the Minister to select? I think that the Amendment is impossible and would be unworkable in practice. I am all in favour of consultation, and I believe that in the principal Act the Government have made every necessary provision for the widest possible consultation before the regulations are made.

Therefore, it is not necessary to put into the Bill any such words. In Clause 8 (1) there is provision for all regulations to come before Parliament, and if Parliament is not satisfied they can be prayed against and annulled. In that way, Parliament has the right, which it ought to have, and I believe that this is the satisfactory way of doing things instead of this welter of words which flows like "Old Man River".

Dr. Stross

I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). It is so refreshing to have him intervening, especially as he is in an excellent position to condescend to us on this subject. A Scotsman, enjoying an advanced technique in his own country, with a guarantee that there will be the best possible action to get humane slaughter and 100 per cent. inspection of animals after slaughter, is able to come here and tell us that our efforts to try to do something to improve a Bill, which he knows is by no means as good in its provisions as the conditions enjoyed in Scotland, tells us, "You are not doing this the right way. It is no use. It is stupid."

7.45 p.m.

I think it would have been better not to have intervened. Had the hon. Gentleman really meant business, he should have encouraged us to go on struggling to get improvements in this English Bill. Amongst other things, the hon. Gentleman suggested that these words were of no use. To start with, he spoke of the impossibility of defining "the interests of the public generally." I wonder if I can take him with me in suggesting that all of us represent the public generally. It is a generic term since every single member of the public, irrespective of his occupation, whether man, woman or child, is involved in the provisions of this Bill unless they are vegetarians, and even then they may indirectly be involved for they may be supplying stunning pens. So, by and large, all the public are involved.

We know what these words mean. We know that the public make certain demands, or would do so if they knew the true position. In this country, the public demand is, first, the maximum possible humane approach to the slaughter of animals. So it is our duty to do everything within our power to effect this, and therefore the construction regulations must make that possible. Surely that is a reasonable thing to say.

Then the public generally have an interest, in as much as they are consumers of meat. Therefore, they want to be certain of both ante-mortem and postmortem inspection. When we discussed these matters in Committee we heard some extraordinary views in the rare speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. For example, I remember the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) poking fun at us because we suggested that there should be ante-mortem inspection. He did not think that veterinary science could possibly tell what was wrong with an animal while it was alive. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that veterinary surgeons exist only to inspect cattle after slaughter. He also explained that the trade was so arranged that it was a physical impossibility to get at the cattle to be inspected. That is not good enough, and the hon. Member for South Angus knows it is not so, because in Scotland these problems have been overcome as a result of long experience.

I come to the next point, namely, "persons carrying on slaughterhouse trade or business". Of course they ought to be consulted with reference to construction regulations. They are the people who, according to this Bill, if they are private owners of slaughterhouses will, in the main, have to find the capital, so they ought to have their say. By and large, all of us know the principle that will apply to the regulations. According to the amount of money one has, according to the population one serves, one knows roughly what will have to be spent and how many persons will be served by that size of abattoir. The specimen plans are all available, and they have been published. There is a series of them at the back of the publication issued by the inter-departmental Committee, showing both cost and lay-out. That is the principle of it, but those interested in the trade should be consulted about detail.

With reference to local authorities, next specified in the Amendment, where this Bill is concerned the Minister must accept from those of us who have been in touch with local authorities throughout the country, and particularly our own local authorities, that the Bill is not popular. They think it is a bad Bill. We on this side of the House do not make any bones about it. However it may be improved in these somewhat superficial ways, it will still remain a bad Bill as compared with what it could have been had it been differently drafted and had a different approach been made originally. Local authorities naturally want to be consulted. The worse this Bill is, the more important becomes the quality of the regulations. If, added to a bad Bill we get poor regulations, without proper consultation, we shall be in very great difficulty indeed.

In the next group of words we ask that public health inspectors should be consulted. All of us who have attended to our work have received information that the public health inspectors are not at all happy about the situation today. We know that they would have a good deal of advice to give. Their duty is to protect public health. All those who spoke or listened in Committee, or had to discipline themselves not to speak—because we know that that is the case with hon. Members opposite; we should have had a much more interesting time if hon. Members opposite had been encouraged and allowed to speak, because many of them know as much as and more than we do on this subject—know that public health inspectors have a point of view, and a great deal of advice to give.

The Minister may well answer, "I have a great deal of advice available to me in my Department; indeed, I have people who are specially skilled in these matters of health." That may be true, but there is a great deal of difference between the skilled advice obtainable in the Department and the skilled advice obtainable from the men who do the work in the field. They are always up against the new problems which arise each day, and they should be listened to.

As for consulting veterinary surgeons and animal welfare societies—to appear not to do so would not only be a slight upon those bodies but would be so unusual that I cannot believe that the Minister would say that he would not do so. Our animal welfare societies have a splendid tradition, which goes back for many years. In Committee, we received excellent advice from them when we were speaking of anaesthesia, or methods of electrical stunning. They have watched all these matters, and if we construct abattoirs and put in plant which will bring about carbon-dioxide anaesthesia we know that we must look to them for the advice that they can give, because they have been watching this process not only here but in other countries.

They know how successful it can be and what pitfalls to avoid. I shall not speak at length on these matters, because we discussed them exhaustively in Committee, but hon. Members will remember that if a mistake is made in grading pigs for slaughter by carbon-dioxide anaesthesia great distress can be caused to the animals. They shriek and come out bleeding from their mouths, and so on.

If it be accepted that we should take note of what these bodies say, and consult them, we are left only with the workers employed in slaughterhouses and the producers of livestock. Those who have to work in the premises will naturally be consulted, but that fact should be specified, as it is in the Amendment. Again, we have to criticise the workers in certain ways. We know that in using carbon-dioxide anaesthesia we should not use an excitable man to drive the pigs on to the conveyor belt, because he tends to overuse the electric goad, which distresses the pigs and causes them pain. We do not then achieve the required object.

The workers' organisations will be able to help in all sorts of directions. They can speak not only of humane slaughter, but of their personal attitudes towards the business. I am sure that the producers of livestock, too, are as anxious as anyone that slaughtering should be humane and that animals should be caused as little distress as possible.

I strongly urge the Minister to accept this form of words. I am certain that his hon. Friend, who suggested that we were foolish, is mistaken, and that if he agrees to the Amendment he will improve the Bill.

Mr. Winterbottom

I shall not keep the House for very long. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) on one point—at any rate, he has spoken. We cannot say that many hon. Members opposite have felt inclined to make a contribution to the debate.

I want the Minister to accept the Amendment because of my experience in the butchering industry. I have been a member of three joint industrial councils dealing with the meat industry—retail meat, slaughtering, and the animal gut industry. We cannot say that discussion in those bodies is confined to wages and conditions of labour. Indeed, in a meeting of slaughtermen at a joint industrial council one hears more about the intimate details of their occupation than one would expect having regard to the agenda in front of them.

In the discussions that I have had with them, I have found them to be deeply concerned about what is happening in the slaughtering world. They have a point of view, and if that point of view is properly expressed to the Minister through the joint industrial council and the trade unions in which the men are organised it can make a great contribution to the well-being of the industry, from a point of view not only of health but of general efficiency, and it would be worth while using that advice in considering what regulations should be made when the Bill becomes an Act.

I wonder what would happen if someone experienced in the flaying of animals was able to put his point of view to the Minister, through his organisation. We criticised the bad flaying of animals when we were in Committee, and pointed out that we were losing at least £1 million per year in this respect. I can imagine that many of those engaged in flaying animals have a point of view of what is required in slaughterhouses in order to ensure the efficient flaying of animals. After animals have been flayed many of the hides are so badly handled that they become almost valueless.

I can also imagine that many people working in the industry could tell the Minister a great deal about what is necessary in meat inspection. For the first dozen sittings of the Committee that problem dominated our proceedings. This proved that the problem of meat inspection should be looked into very closely. I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Government approve of 100 per cent. meat inspection. But the Government also know that 100 per cent. meat inspection is impossible at the moment. The Amendment would ensure that the Minister is compelled to seek the opinions and advice of those sections of people enumerated in it which are concerned with the slaughtering of animals, from the point of view not only of health and welfare, but of the efficiency of the industry.

That is already done in part by the Minister, and I can see no reason why it should not be extended so as to be part and parcel of the regulations which will affect the new slaughterhouses that we are hoping to see built. That is the answer to the hon. Member for South Angus, who said that this is unnecessary. In part, the Minister is doing it already, and we want it done as a whole. That is why we are pressing the Amendment, believing that if it is incorporated in the Bill, although it may be something which is being done for the first time, it will prove well worth while. Perhaps if this is done, the mind of the Minister may be influenced when he comes to make the regulations. I am sure that those who work in the industry can offer useful advice. They yield to none in their enthusiasm and interest in seeing that the regulations should be such as will ensure that all slaughterhouses will become efficient as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. He believes in consultation, and we wish that to be included in the Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Hayman

The opening words of our Amendment are: Before making any construction regulations the Minister shall consult … The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) referred to opportunities open to hon. Members to pray against regulations and to get them annulled. I am sure that the number of occasions upon which such a Prayer has been successful are few.

Sir J. Duncan

I remember one successful occasion.

Mr. Hayman

I remember one about cheese.

Sir J. Duncan

There was one connected with public assistance regulations.

Mr. Hayman

At any rate, the hon. Gentleman will agree that the procedure is not often successful, and the average number of successes would be far less than one a year, perhaps less than one every three years.

The discussions on the Bill have shown that in spite of differences over detail, we are agreed that the slaughtering of animals should be carried out in the most humane way possible. The Committee stage discussions revealed that there are many new and novel methods of slaughtering, some of which have not been fully tested. I was shocked to learn that methods employed for many years in the slaughtering of pigs, which many of us thought were humane, are now open to doubt. It seems to me essential, therefore, that the Minister should consult on a matter of this kind with, say, a body like the University Federation of Animal Welfare, which carries out widespread investigations over Europe, is versed in all methods of slaughter and is in a position scientifically and professionally to assess their effects.

Some people may say, as did the hon. Member for South Angus, that it is unnecessary to specify any group of persons in the Bill. I do not agree. Recently, in this Palace of Westminster we had an example of a Minister causing confusion because he did not consult hon. Members about the working of the lift between the Library corridor and the Committee corridor. As a result, he has had to change the regulation that there should be no attendant on that lift in the mornings and has had to provide one because of inconvenience caused to his colleagues.

Mr. Winterbottom

May I call attention, Sir Gordon, to the fact that there are not 40 Members in the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)

The hon. Member cannot do so at this time.

Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow)

I cannot understand why the Minister will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hare

I have not said a word. I have just been listening. I think it a little hard to be accused of refusing to accept an Amendment before I have said a word.

Mr. Fernyhough

I assumed that when the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) intervened, he was speaking after consultation with the Minister——

Sir J. Duncan

Why?

Mr. Fernyhough

—because we know that during the Committee stage discussions hon. Members opposite followed, like sheep, every bit of advice given them by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary.

Sir J. Duncan

The hon. Gentleman is being most unjust. He seems to think that I have inside information, which I have not. He has no right to say that.

Mr. Fernyhough

Having witnessed during the Committee stage discussions how faithfully Members opposite sup-pored the Minister, I naturally anticipated that the same state of affairs would apply now and that they would merely echo the thoughts of the Minister.

When the right hon. Gentleman says that he has not rejected the Amendment, I hope we may take it that he will accept it. We know that the Minister will have consultations. It is unlikely that he, or any other Minister, would introduce regulations without first consulting those concerned. I cannot understand, therefore, what objection there can be to the Amendment. At one time it was claimed that the men in Whitehall knew best. But that is a long time ago. I do not think anybody subscribes to that idea now. Since we know that the Minister is bound to consult the interests concerned, all we ask is that that should be included in the regulations.

There will be an outlay of thousands of pounds on the provision of buildings wherein will work the men who have to do the job, and who know much more about what is desirable and necessary than any civil servant. They are practical people and they are entitled to the best conditions and the most efficient arrangements for their work. It would be a travesty if such advice as they can tender is ignored. While we may have an assurance from the present Minister that he will consult particularly with the representative of the workers, the right hon. Gentleman cannot, of course, commit any future Minister. We want to be sure that every Minister will be committed, to this extent.

We have heard a lot today about consultations. It is a question of the two sides of an industry getting together to make the industry as efficient and productive as possible. Workers who will spend a quarter of their lives in a factory have as much right to be consulted as anybody else about its construction because they know what is necessary. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) said that the Bill was bad and unpopular, but that is because we have a bad and unpopular Government. This is an opportunity for the Government to redeem themselves by accepting a sensible and reasonable Amendment.

Mr. Hare

I have had the pleasure of discussing other subjects with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Ferny-hough). I am delighted to have had from him tips on methods of political redemption.

We have had a long discussion on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), and I have listened carefully to it. There is a good deal of agreement between the two sides of the House, and I would like to go some way to meet what I consider to be the main point raised by the Amendment. For reasons which I will give later, I do not think I can accept the Amendment in its present form.

What binds the two sides of the House together is that we agree that before regulations are made there shall be consultation. I think the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that the Government were not allergic to consultation. That was a perfectly fair compliment.

Mr. Willey

I said the right hon. Gentleman and his Department.

Mr. Hare

I took the hon. Gentleman's word down, and he actually referred to the Government and not to my Department. Therefore, we agree upon that. We always intended to consult. The draft regulations which were published last year were presented for consultation. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) outlined the number of organisations and bodies that he thought should be consulted; every one of those bodies was consulted when the draft regulations were prepared.

I wonder whether hon. Members have missed the point that consultation is specifically provided for under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955? Therefore, consultation is a statutory obligation if regulations are made under that Act. The debate has brought out the point that construction regulations can be made under the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954. Under that Act it is not specifically stated that consultations shall take place, and that is why the debate, from my point of view, has been useful in that it justifies my putting down an Amendment, in Clause 7, page 12, of the Bill, to put right the omission in the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954, regarding consultation. I shall be moving it, because I thought it fitted what we are doing in the Bill. It will make consultation obligatory if regulations for construction are made under that Act. The Government of the day were not specifically told that they should consult. My Amendment will deal with that possibility should it ever arise.

I cannot go along with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North and other hon. Members when they wish to spell out in detail all the possible interests which should be consulted. I think the hon. Gentleman gave his argument away when he said, "If we have left anybody out, of course, we apologise". That is the whole difficulty. I happen to represent the Government at the moment, and I have not the joys of irresponsibility which the Opposition have. It is very serious if the Government leave out anybody, and it is no use apologising. It is difficult to be sure that we have not left out specific people, so it is wiser to have a general power of consultation. That is what we propose.

Mr. Willey

That is the problem which faces the Government, but they must run the risk. The various interests have their representative bodies nowadays.

Mr. Hare

By his own words the hon. Gentleman admitted the difficulties. I assure the House that all these bodies are, and will be, consulted. If we tried to write them down in detail, we would be bound to get into trouble. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) was right when he said it was difficult for a Minister to include by name every body which should be consulted.

I hope what I have said will encourage the hon. Member for Sunderland, North to withdraw his Amendment. I have tabled an Amendment to Clause 7 which will provide for filling the gap in the 1954 Act. I hope that he will be reasonable enough to forget his own argument in respect of my Amendment. I do not want to specify the actual organisations.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Dye

While it is clearly the intention of the Minister to make consultations, his argument in resisting the Amendment was weak. He said that although organisations should be consulted there might be some which were not included. The Amendment merely says: and such interests shall include". It does not prohibit the Minister from consulting interests not specified in the Bill. We are concerned that before making regulations he should have the power by Statute to make these consultations.

There are still many questions about the construction and working of slaughterhouses on which there are doubts. If by having consultations with such representatives as are mentioned in the Amendment the Minister can at an early stage bring out and resolve some of the doubt which exists, it will be all to the good. We have had mentioned in our discussions today problems on which the Minister and others still have grave doubts.

For instance, representatives of animal welfare societies are not yet satisfied that the methods for the instantaneous stunning of animals are effective or are even being carried out, whereas an earlier Act of Parliament lays down that the effect must be instantaneous. The latest advice which the Minister has given on this subject indicates that if, in the case of the electrical stunning of animals, the intruments are held in position for ten seconds, or for seven seconds in some other cases, that is sufficient, but that is not instantaneous, and there are still grave doubts about using electrical stunning instruments on sheep.

The discussions which have taken place with the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and others have not cleared up these matters. It would be a matter of very grave concern if we allowed instruments to be used for the instantaneous stunning of animals which were not proving successful, and if it went on, not only would it necessitate consultation with representatives of these societies, but those representatives would have the facilities for a greater study of these problems in the actual slaughterhouses, which many of them do not get today.

I hope the Minister will take a broader view of some of these matters, both from the point of view of the farmer and of others concerned with the welfare of animals, so that our whole system is foolproof and avoids unnecessary suffering and the fullest and best use is made of the hides and offals. All these are matters of grave concern, not merely from a humane point of view, but also from that of efficiency and all the good that comes from it.

I think that the Minister ought to be willing to broaden his view on this subject, and even if he is not willing to accept this Amendment, should give a clear indication that one along these lines would be acceptable to him.

Mr. Robens

The Minister has said that one of the reasons that would prevent him from accepting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was the fear that someone who ought to be consulted may be left out.

In moving Amendments, we have never at any time claimed that we have produced the right words in the draft, and it would be appropriate, if the Minister was prepared to accept the general idea about consultation, to produce his own form of words and put them in the Bill in another place. It seems to me that it is quite simple for him to safeguard himself against not consulting all interests, and prevent anyone being left out, by indicating the principal people whom he thought ought to be consulted, and adding some such words as "and any other persons whom the Minister deems desirable." Therefore, he can cover himself quite easily, and draftsmen are available to give him the best advice on the words to be employed.

What we are concerned about in dealing with this Amendment is to ensure that there is consultation. I should like to draw the attention of the House once again to the complications of the cross-references in this Bill, particularly on the matter we are now discussing. Subsection (4), which we are proposing to amend, provides: (4) In paragraph (d) of subsection (4) of section seventy-five of the principal Act, for the reference to subsection (1) of section sixty-five of that Act there shall be substituted a reference to subsection (1) or subsection (2) of the said section sixty-five. I am sure that all hon. Members here have got that perfectly clearly and understand exactly what it means. One must turn to the principal Act to understand it, and that is what I propose to do, because this has a bearing upon this Amendment. Section 75 (4, h) shows that the Minister must refuse a licence——

Mr. Godber

I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he appreciates that subsection (4), to which he is referring, is the one we deleted from the Bill a short time ago.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Robens

That is so, but, at the same time, the Amendment we have put forward deals with construction. The fact that this was in the Bill is a clear indication that we are dealing with construction, and reference is made to this Act. In fact, we are still relying on the principal Act for a good deal of the work that we are doing on this Bill. That passes us on to Section 65 and we have to substitute sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (2), which deal with construction. In dealing with construction one has to return to the 1954 Slaughter of Animals Act, under which the Minister had power to make regulations for the construction of slaughterhouses. I do not believe that any regulations have been made under that Act. If they have, they will have to be repealed to make way for the regulations to be made under this Measure. One has all these cross-references.

Everybody who has discussed the question of slaughterhouses, not only the inter-departmental Committee, has always had in mind the importance of the construction and equipment of slaughterhouses. There is abundant evidence that that is the case. The Ministry has been good enough to supply us with some of the recommended minimum standards for construction of slaughterhouses. They have been issued to aid persons intending to erect slaughterhouses so that they might know the minimum conditions for which they would be granted permission. They are not before us for discussion, but a glance at them shows that in almost every case reference is made to "suitable and sufficient". Those words occur in almost every line dealing with what a slaughterhouse shall contain.

Who is to determine what is "suitable and sufficient"? Who is to determine what is the suitable and sufficient space for hanging meat? Who is to determine what is suitable and sufficient space for a slaughterhall and hanging space for the emptying and cleaning of the intestines of animals to be slaughtered? That should not lie entirely with the Minister and his advisers. He should call into conference those who have to work in slaughterhouses, those who own and operate them, veterinary surgeons, and all who have a part to play in doing what, presumably, this Bill seeks to enable them to do.

I regard as the kernel of the Bill that we should seek to safeguard the health of the people of the nation in so far as it is affected by the slaughtering of animals. Already, more than 25 per cent. of cattle slaughtered in this country for human consumption are not examined as to fitness for human consumption. That is a clear indication that in the building of new slaughterhouses there must be such equipment as to minimise the danger of contamination. All we are asking is that the Minister should avail himself of the best expert advice. He says that he will consult these interests. I am sure he will, but he may not be the Minister who will draft the regulations. He was not the Minister who introduced the Bill. It is quite likely that before the Bill receives the Royal Assent another Minister will replace him.

Mr. Winterbottom

That Minister may be my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens).

Mr. Robens

I do not want to introduce a party point into the discussion. If there were another Government we would introduce another Bill, which would be a proper one. It is not enough for the Minister to say that he will consult the interests concerned. We are legislating not just for the present, or for the duration of the Minister's tenure of office, but for a very long time. We might not get back to this slaughterhouse legislation for a long time to come.

What is the objection to the Minister not only agreeing to consult these interests, but binding his successors to do so as well? Is that not a reasonable thing? He is not bound to accept the words of the Amendment, but why can he not say that in addition to consulting those interests he will bind his successors to do so when framing new regulations dealing with slaughterhouses? If he feels that he might miss a body out, the draftsmen could easily find words to meet the requirement.

This has been our experience in discussing many things on this Bill. I do not understand why we should have to go on to such length in discussing such obvious things, which would cost the Minister nothing. They would not add to the burden of his work, but they would improve the Bill. I hope that even now the Minister will say that not only will he consult these interests when making regulations for the construction of new slaughterhouses, but will bind his successors to do so and will find the appropriate words for insertion in another place which will have that effect.

Mr. Somerville Hastings (Barking)

I want, in a few words, to put to the Minister a point of view which, I believe, has not been fully dealt with in the

Division No. 93.]	AYES	[8.38 p.m.
Ainsley, J. W.	Boyd, T. C.	Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth	Cove, W. G.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)	Brockway, A. F.	Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Cronin, J. D.
Awbery, S. S.	Brown, Thomas (Ince)	Cullen, Mrs. A.
Balfour, A.	Burke, W. A.	Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Benson, Sir George	Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Davies, Harold (Leek)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Carmichael, J.	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Blackburn, F.	Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Deer, G.
Boardman, H.	Champion, A. J.	de Freitas, Geoffrey
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Chetwynd, G. R.	Diamond, John
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)	Clunie, J.	Dodds, N. N.
Bowles, F. G.	Coldrick, W.	Dye, S.

discussion so far. We, as human beings, accept a considerable responsibility in killing animals and using them for food. As I see them, the responsibilities are twofold. The first is that the animals should be killed with as little cruelty as possible, and the second is that there should be as little waste as possible so that no animals are unnecessarily killed.

I am old enough to remember the time when the slaughter of animals was an exceedingly cruel business. I have seen pig sticking in country districts and I have seen how pigs were killed in towns before the first Slaughter of Animals Act.

I am glad that we have advanced so far in the way in which we kill animals for food. We are also advancing in the way in which we take care of the products of their slaughter and use them to the best advantage. The advances which have been made have been the result of inquiries of the people who had practical experience and who went from country to country to see how things were done in other countries. I cannot help feeling that this process ought to continue.

The Minister cannot do without all the help he can possibly obtain. He has said that it is unnecessary to specify specific organisations to consult, but we are not asking for that. We are asking that specific types of organisation should be consulted. It will be for the Minister to say which of the animal welfare associations he thinks would give him most assistance, and that also applies to all the other types of society. It seems to me that no harm could possibly occur, but only good, if the Minister reconsidered the matter and accepted the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 205.

Edelman, M.	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Proctor, W. T.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lindgren, G. S.	Rankin, John
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Logan, D. G.	Redhead, E. C.
Fernyhough, E.	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Reeves, J.
Finch, H. J.	McAlister, Mrs. Mary	Rhodes, H.
Forman, J. C.	MacColl, J. E.	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	McGhee, H. G.	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.	McInnes, J.	Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.	McKay, John (Wallsend)	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.	McLeavy, Frank	Ross, William
Grey, C. F.	MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)	MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Hale, Leslie	Mahon, Simon	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)	Mainwaring, W. H.	Sorensen, R. W.
Hamilton, W. W.	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Steele, T.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)	Mann, Mrs. Jean	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Hastings, S.	Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Stones, W. (Consett)
Hayman, F. H.	Mason, Roy	Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Herbison, Miss M.	Mitchison, G. R.	Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Holmes, Horace	Moody, A. S.	Sylvester, G. O.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)	Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)	Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)	Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Hoy, J. H.	Mort, D. L.	Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Moss, R.	Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)	Moyle, A.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Neal, Harold (Bolsover)	Thornton, E.
Hunter, A. E.	Oliver, G. H.	Timmons, J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)	Oram, A. E.	Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)	Orbach, M.	Watkins, T. E.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)	Oswald, T.	Wheeldon, W. E.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)	Owen, W. J.	Willey, Frederick
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.	Padley, W. E.	Williams, David (Neath)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.	Paget, R. T.	Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)
Jeger, George (Goole)	Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)	Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(Holbn & St.Pncs,S.)	Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)	Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)
Johnson, James (Rugby)	Palmer, A. M. F.	Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)	Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)	Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)	Parkin, B. T.	Winterbottom, Richard
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Paton, John	Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Pentland, N.	Woof, R. E.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)	Popplewell, E.	Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Kenyon, C.	Prentice, R. E.	Zilliacus, K.
King, Dr. H. M.	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Lawson, G. M.	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lee, Frederick (Newton)	Probert, A. R.	Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons

NOES
Aitken, W. T.	Channon, Sir Henry	Grimond, J.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)	Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Alport, C. J. M.	Cooke, Robert	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Arbuthnot, John	Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.	Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Armstrong, C. W.	Corfield, Capt. F. V.	Gurden, Harold
Ashton, H.	Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Atkins, H. E.	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.	Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Baldwin, A. E.	Cunningham, Knox	Harris, Reader (Heston)
Balniel, Lord	Currie, G. B. H.	Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Barber, Anthony	Dance, J. C. G.	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Barlow, Sir John	Davidson, Viscountess	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Barter, John	D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Deedes, W. F.	Hay, John
Beamish, Col. Tufton	Du Cann, E. D. L.	Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)	Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)	Duncan, Sir James	Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)	Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Biggs-Davison, J. A.	Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)	Hirst, Geoffrey
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel	Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Holland-Martin, C. J.
Bishop, F. P.	Errington, Sir Eric	Holt, A. F.
Black, C. W.	Farey-Jones, F. W.	Hornby, R. P.
Body, R. F.	Finlay, Graeme	Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Bonham-Carter, Capt. M. R.	Fisher, Nigel	Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)	Fletcher-Cooke, C.	Howard, John (Test)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.	Fort, R.	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Boyle, Sir Edward	George, J. C. (Pollok)	Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Braine, B. R.	Glover, D.	Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Glyn, Col. Richard H.	Iremonger, T. L.
Brooman-White, R. C.	Godber, J. B.	Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)	Goodhart, Philip	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Bryan, P.	Gower, H. R.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Burden, F. F. A.	Graham, Sir Fergus	Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Grant, W. (Woodside)	Kaberry, D.
Carr, Robert	Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr.R.(Nantwich)	Keegan, D.
Cary, Sir Robert	Green, A.	Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.	Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Kershaw, J. A.	Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh	Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Kimball, M.	Morrison, John (Salisbury)	Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Kirk, P. M.	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Storey, S.
Lambton, Viscount	Nairn, D. L. S.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Nicholls, Harmar	Studholme, Sir Henry
Langford-Holl, J. A.	Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)	Summers, Sir Spencer
Leavey, J. A.	Nicolson, N.(B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)	Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Leburn, W. G.	Nugent, G. R. H.	Teeling, W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.	Oakshott, H. D.	Temple, John M.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim,N.)	Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.	Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Page, R. G.	Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Longden, Gilbert	Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)	Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
	Partridge, E.	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby	Peel, W. J.	Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Vane, W. M. F.
Macdonald, Sir Peter	Pilkington, Capt. R. A.	Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry	Pitman, I. J.	Vickers, Miss Joan
McKibbin, Alan	Pitt, Miss E. M.	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)	Powell, J. Enoch	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Wall, Patrick
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)	Ramsden, J. E.	Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)	Rawlinson, Peter	Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)	Redmayne, M.	Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)	Ridsdale, J. E.	Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Maddan, Martin	Rippon, A. G. F.	Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)	Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.	Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)	Woollam, John Victor
Marshall, Douglas	Russell, R. S.
Mathew, R.	Soott-Miller, Cmdr. R.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.	Sharples, R. C.	Mr. Gibson-Watt and
Mawby, R. L.	Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)	Mr. Chichester-Clark.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.	Spearman, Sir Alexander