Clause 5.—(SPECIAL GROUNDS FOR. AND APPEALS AGAINST, CERTAIN REFUSALS.) (Hansard, 23 April 1958)

§ Mr. Godber
I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, at the end to insert: or ceases to be in force on or after that date". This Amendment very slightly extends the effect, and its purpose again is to clarify the position and to make sure that all the cases are included that it is the intention to include.

§ Mr. Willey
My only difficulty here is that we are aware that the Government previously had an Amendment down at the end to insert: or is still in force at that date. That was the Government's previous suggestion, and it seems very different from the present Amendment. They say that instead of or is still in force at that date we should say or ceases to be in force on or after that date. That calls for an explanation. I must say that I felt satisfied with the explanation I heard, but it seems a little difficult to reconcile the two proposals of the Government.

§ Mr. Godber
I have not with me the previous Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I think that on consideration he will agree that the two mean the same thing. As I say, I have not before me the words of the previous Amendment——

§ Mr. Speaker
The question is not really before us, so it is not appropriate at all.

§ Mr. Godber
In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will merely say that, in fact, the words or ceases to be in force on or after that date and "or after that date" really embrace the same point, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that this Amendment includes the intention of the previous one, but, as Mr. Speaker said, I must not go further into that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the intention is there. It is to meet the same point in a different form of words.

§ Mr. Willey
I beg to move, in page 10, line 30, to leave out "twelve" and to insert "six".
This Amendment endeavours to limit the length of the period. It was considered in Committee, and, quite frankly, we are 1117 disappointed that the Government have not been able to come a certain way to meet us. We thought that, if they were not entirely persuaded by our arguments in favour of six months rather than twelve, they would at any rate go so far as to put in an Amendment to provide for, say, nine months. This was the sort of matter on which we could have struck such a compromise. While I expect the Government to resist this present Amendment, I hope that, though they may feel adament about it at the moment, they will look at the matter again and try to reduce the period.

§ Mr. Robens
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. Hare
Much as I should like to please the hon. Member for Sunderland. North (Mr. Willey), and he does, as it were, dangle the fly of nine months in front of me. I must assure him that we did look at this but I cannot really advise the House to accept his Amendment. I know that it was raised in Committee, but a period of only six months would be too short for the purpose of the Clause
Everybody agrees, of course, that a time limit is necessary. We do not want unreasonable delay. But the preparations for the building of a slaughterhouse take some time. It may be a large building or a small one, a building costing, perhaps, £20,000 or a building costing up to £200,000. Preparations even for the smaller type of building inevitably take some time, in the preparing of plans, securing planning consents, preparing detailed working drawings, applications for byelaw consents, preparation of bills of quantities, and so on. These are all matters which can easily take up to a year or even more to complete in the case of a big slaughterhouse.
There would really be no point in permitting refusal of a licence after so short a period as six months, because it would be too difficult at that stage for a local authority to tell whether or not an applicant was really in earnest. If refusals were made by local authorities in that way, there would probably be many quite unnecessary appeals to the courts against refusals.
I saw what was said in Committee, and I listened to the short explanation which the hon. Gentleman gave. Quite frankly, I do not think that anything would be gained by reducing the period 1118 to six months. Some local authorities might be satisfied by evidence that work was in progress merely on the drawing board, but others might well consider that they wanted to sec something more concrete than that taking place. I suggest that a year is the right time to take.

§ Mr. Robens
I do not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument, because it is not automatic at the end of six months that a licence would be revoked so that people could not continue with their preparations. It depends upon whether, in the first place, there has been unreasonable delay on the part of the applicant in making progress with the preparation of the premises for use as a slaughterhouse". The argument whether it is a big slaughterhouse or a small one would not apply.
The next condition is That the applicant will be unable, or has abandoned his intention, to use those premises as a slaughterhouse. If he has abandoned his intention and has done so within six months, that seems to me to be a reasonable time to strike him off the list, so to speak. Obviously, "unreasonable delay" would relate to somebody who had made no effort whatever to build the slaughterhouse for which the licence had been granted. Surely, when the matter is in the hands of reasonable people—local authorities and the Ministry—six months would seem to be sufficient. There is all the safeguard for the eventualities that the Minister suggested.

§ Mr. Godber
I beg to move, in page 10, line 34, to leave out from "slaughterhouse" to "or" in line 37 and to insert: under the licence or renewed licence, either—

(i) that the applicant has failed to take reasonable steps to secure the making of progress with the preparation of the premises for such use".

I am glad to be able to move the Amendment, which takes up a valid point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in Committee, when I promised to look into it. I have sought to find words to meet his case and at the same time to give adequate security to the applicant. The wording that the applicant has failed to take reasonable steps meets the point that the hon. Member had in mind. I therefore commend the Amendment to the House.

§ Mr. Willey
I rise only to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the steps which the Government have taken and to say without hesitation that the Amendment improves the Bill.

§ Mr. Hare
I beg to move, in page 11, line 1, to leave out from "The" to "shall" in line 9 and to insert: document notifying the refusal of an application under the foregoing subsection or under subsection (1) of section (Isolation of slaughter-halls from dwellings) of this Act, shall state the grounds therefor, and the applicant may appeal against the refusal to a magistrates' court, and that court, if satisfied that the local authority acted unreasonably in refusing the application on those grounds, may declare the refusal to be of no effect; and sections one hundred and seventeen and one hundred and eighteen of the principal Act shall apply for the purposes of any appeal under this subsection as if this subsection were contained in that Act. (3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, no appeal to a magistrates' court". This Amendment is the result of our consideration of points that were made in Committee. We are dealing here with appeals against the refusal of a licence by a local authority because the applicant has not got on with the job of getting the slaughterhouse ready. We originally provided for an appeal to the Minister, as in certain other cases, but such was the eloquence of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and others that we thought we were wrong and that this was a case where the appeal would be more appropriately directed to a court of law. As the hon. Member pointed out in Committee, the issues to be decided are issues of fact and not of policy. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that this is a wise Amendment and is in general line with the principles that have been accepted on both sides of the House.
The same consideration seems to apply to the refusal of a licence because a slaughterhouse is not separated from a dwellinghouse. Therefore, in this case also we are providing for appeal to the courts. This also is a question of fact.
I had hoped that our proposal would appeal to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, but to my horror I see that he has tabled two Amendments to it. It was his eloquence which persuaded us to move as we have done and I only hope that he will accept my Amendment and not press his own.

§ Mr. Willey
Again, I am obliged to the Government, for this Amendment arises out of some philosophic observations which I made on the Clause stand part. I do not intend to move the Amendments standing in my name on the Paper, for my heart would not be in them if I did. But I thought it right to put them down and call the attention of the House to what was being done, because I think this is a question, particularly in the light of the Franks Report, for the House to decide whether a matter should be for decision in a judicial tribunal or an administrative tribunal, or whether it should be left to the discretion of the Minister. I am obliged to the Government for changing their view and accepting this. My view was that this was a question of fact and should be left to the magistrates.