Lords Sitting of 18 March 1948

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Viscount the Leader of the House I beg to move the Motion standing on the Order Paper in his name.
Moved, That Standing Orders Nos. XXI and XXXIX be considered in order to their being suspended until the House adjourn for the Recess at Easter and that until that date Government business have, except with the consent of the Government, precedence over other Notices and Orders of the Day.—(Viscount Addison.)
On Question, Motion agreed to and ordered accordingly.

GLASGOW CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Considered on Report (according to Order).

WESTON-SUPER-MARE GAS ORDER, 1948;
ST. HELENS GAS ORDER, 1948;
HEREFORD GAS ORDER, 1948.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Orders, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COTTON INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL ORDER, 1948.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last, be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Tuesday last be approved.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE PENSIONS BILL.
2.36 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, before the House go into Committee on the Police Pensions Bill, there is just one small point to which I should like to draw the attention of the noble and learned Viscount and on which I should like an explanation. Under Clause 8 (that is the Interpretation Clause) of the Bill there occur these three words:
"'injury' includes disease."
That strikes me as a very wide definition of the word "injury." If your Lordships will refer to the Police Pensions Act, 1921, the greater portion of which is being repealed by the new Bill, your Lordships will observe, in subsection (2) of Section 33, a very wide definition of the word "injury." I need not bother to read it to your Lordships now. My purpose is merely to seek from the Lord Chancellor an explanation of these words in the new Bill to the effect that, if a policeman contracts a disease, it shall be said to be an injury, and he will thereby be able to claim a pension or other remunerative reward under the Bill. It is quite a small matter. Probably it is due to a decision reached in the High Court. I do not know, but I should like the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to reply to that point.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I am glad to reply to the point raised by the noble Earl. The position is not unlike that which has been agreed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Under the existing Act of 1921, the case of Garvin v. the Police Authority for the City of London came before the High Court. A policeman alleged, and proved, that he had suffered from tuberculosis and that that tuberculosis was due to the fact that he had had prolonged service in an unventilated office. The

963
Court held that that was an injury within the meaning of the Act of 1921. Similarly, if a policeman in the course of his duty were to have to lie upon the wet ground whilst keeping observation, and he contracted an illness, that also would be held to be an injury within the Police Pensions Act, 1921.
Again, suppose that a policeman, in the course of his duties, had to go to a fever hospital to arrest somebody, or to take a dying declaration, and he contracted fever; that also, under the existing law, would be held to be an injury within the meaning of the Act of 1921. All we are doing in this new Bill, in substance, is to reproduce quite simply the existing law, though it may seem to many of your Lordships rather far-fetched to call those diseases "injuries." However, they are injuries according to the law as it has been interpreted. All we are now doing is to make it quite obvious that "injury" does include "disease." I think that that is the answer to the noble Earl's question.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for that reply. That certainly has made the point much clearer.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly. [The Earl of Drogheda in the Chair.]
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS BILL.
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I have one thing to say on this Bill, which I regard as an excellent Bill. I should like to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, whether he can give me an assurance that the remission of the ad valorem duty on American films will not result in a lower quota of British films under the Bill.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, during the Committee stage of this Bill I ventured to raise two points which received the sympathy of my noble friend Viscount Hall. The first point had regard to the cost test, and the second to the position of the supporting film producers in relation to a percentage of the
964
box office takings. My noble friend undertook to discuss both subjects with his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade, since time was the essence of the contract in both, one having to be referred to the new Films Council and the second to the Committee of Inquiry. May I ask my noble friend whether he has been able to consult with his right honourable friend and, if so, with what result? Will the new Films Council be set up without delay, and can the Committee of Inquiry now commence their duties?
VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, a categorical assurance that there is no question of there being a lower quota than would have been fixed but for the recent American agreement. I would like to inform my noble friend, Lord Lucas, that I did have a conversation with the President of the Board of Trade upon the two points which he raised, and my right honourable friend was still of the opinion that it would be much better to refer the question of the cost test to the new Films Council. Once the legislation is through, the new Films Council will be formed. The noble Lord was quite right in his view that the Committee of Inquiry could not be appointed until there had been some understanding between my right honourable friend and the American industry. As we now know, that agreement has been published, and I have been given an assurance that the Committee of Inquiry for which he asked will be set up as soon as possible.
LORD TEYNHAM: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the assurance he has given about the quota for British films.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL.
2.45 p.m.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 12 [Continuation of third fixed grant period for certain purposes]:
LORD HENDERSON LORD HENDERSON moved to add to the clause as a new subsection:
"(4) Any scheme made under any of the enactments mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section

965
which, by virtue of this section, continues in operation on or after the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, may be altered or revoked by a subsequent scheme made at any time between that date and the date when the enactment in question ceases to be in force as aforesaid."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 12 provides for the continuation of the third fixed grant period under the Local Government Acts, 1929 to 1941, until the appointed day under the National Health Service Act—namely, July 5, 1948—for certain purposes. These purposes are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of this Clause. Amendment or revocation of these schemes is necessary from time to time, in consequence of changes in expenditure or other circumstances, and power to amend or revoke schemes at any time before the end of a fixed grant period is given by proviso (a) to Section 131 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1929. This proviso is repealed by Clause 145 (2) of the Bill and Part I of the Second Schedule, with effect from April 1, 1948, and the Minister will, under Clause 12 as it stands, be unable after that date to amend or revoke a scheme. The proposed Amendment gives the Minister power to make any amendment or revocation which may be required during the period from April 1 to the date on which the schemes cease to have effect—that is, the appointed day under the National Health Service Act, which is July 5. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this Amendment seems to be quite all right and we have no objection to its insertion. It makes the clause rather more flexible than it would otherwise have been.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30:
Investigation into working of provisions as to amount of payments to local authorities under Part II.
30.—(1) In the year 1952–53, or such later year not later than 1955–56 as the Secretary of State may determine, and every fifth subsequent year, the Secretary of State shall, in consultation with such associations of local authorities as appear to him to be concerned and with any local authority with whom consultation appears to him to be desirable, cause investigations to be made into the working of this Part of this Act (due regard being had, amongst other things, to the sums falling to
966
be paid to local authorities under Part V of this Act).
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that if the Secretary of State is satisfied on representations made to him by any local authority or by any such association as aforesaid that the first of the said investigations should be made in a year prior to the year 1952–53, he shall cause an investigation to be made in that prior year, and in that event the foregoing provisions of this section shall have effect with the substitution of that prior year for the year 1952–53 or such later year as aforesaid."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment refers to Clause 30, which makes provision for possible investigation into the operation of the formula for the distribution of equalization grants. In the event of the equalization grants not proving entirely satisfactory, it is open to the Secretary of State to hold an investigation as from the year 1952.
The purpose of this Amendment is to add flexibility to that arrangement so that, in certain circumstances, it will be possible for the Secretary of State, if he thinks it wise, to hold an investigation at an earlier date. The Amendment makes the administration of this clause more suitable and more flexible, and also, possibly, more adaptable should circumstances not work out entirely as it is hoped they will. I recognise entirely the purpose of this Bill and I fully appreciate it; I think that in many ways it is well founded. But whether in practice it will work out as well as the Government hope, I do not know. I feel it proper and wise that some wider measure of flexibility should be incorporated which enables alteration to be made should this prove in the light of experience to be necessary. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 15, at end, insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, the House will remember that the noble Earl raised a somewhat similar point during the Committee stage and I promised to look at it again to see whether it was possible to meet it. The noble Earl has now been good enough to put down a slightly modified version of the Amendment which he moved then. He will remember—and possibly the House will remember—that when I agreed to look

967
again into this particular point I did so with the proviso that if he found words which were acceptable to the Government they should apply only to Scotland, and not to England and Wales. The noble Earl has been good enough to put his Amendment in this modified form, and I am pleased to accept it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I beg to thank the noble Lord for what he has said. I can assure him that it will give great satisfaction to many local authorities in Scotland.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Draft lists]:
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in subsection (1) (b), to delete "a copy," and insert "three copies." The noble Lord said: My Lords, those of your Lordships who were here during the Committee stage of this Bill will remember that we had some discussion then on the provision in Clause 35 about the sending by the valuation officer of one copy only of the valuation list to each rating authority. We pressed from this side that there should be enough copies for rating authorities in widely scattered areas to display them in convenient places—as for instance in the local church or in the village hall, should there be one in the locality. This would mean that occupiers who had had assessments made on their property need not go all the way to a town, which might be some way from their place of residence, but would have easier access to the official notification of the new assessment.
During the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said that he would take back this part of the Bill and look at it again. It was suggested in the hearing of the whole House that we should meet to discuss this together. I am glad to say that we have done that, and as a result of our discussion I have put down this Amendment, by which three copies of the valuation list, instead of only one, would be supplied. The necessity of having three copies, instead of two, arises because nowadays the paper is printed upon on both sides. If one part of a list is cut then damage may be done to some other part of it. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this Amendment. I believe that as the result of our discussions he will be able
968
to do so, and its adoption will mean that the people affected will be able to ascertain their new assessments without being put to the trouble of going to the Town Hall or wherever may be the headquarters of their local authority. This, and the following Amendments on this page, all hang together, the others being merely consequential on that which I am now moving. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 6, leave out ("a copy") and insert (" three copies ").—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, as the noble Lord has rightly said, there was agreement on this and I am going to accept the Amendment. I would just add that in the circular to local authorities the Ministry of Health will indicate to them the purpose for which extra copies are being sent—that is, so that they may be broken up and displayed in the locality.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for accepting this Amendment and also for stating that in this circular all necessary information will be given to the local authorities so that they will know what they are expected to do with the extra copies.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The next Amendments, as I have already indicated, are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 22, line 16, leave out ("the copy") and insert ("the copies ");
Page 22, line 17, leave out ("is") and insert ("are");
Page 22, line 19, leave out ("the said copy") and insert ("one of the said copies");
line 22, leave out ("the said copy") and insert ("a copy of the draft list")—(Lord Llewellin.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 56:
Advertising stations to be separate hereditaments in certain cases.
56. Where the right to use any land (including any hoarding, frame, post, wall or structure erected or to be erected on the land, and including also any wall or other part of a building) for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements is let out or reserved to any person other than the occupier of the land, or, when the land is not occupied for any other purpose, to any person other than the owner of the land, that right shall be deemed

969
for rating purposes to be a separate hereditament in the occupation of the person for the time being entitled to the right, and shall be included in the valuation list as a separate hereditament accordingly, and, notwithstanding anything in section three or section four of the Advertising, Stations (Rating) Act, 1889, in estimating the value of the land for rating purposes no account shall be taken of any value or, as the case may be, of any increased value arising from the use of the land for the purpose of exhibiting advertisements in accordance with that right.
LORD TEYNHAM LORD TEYNHAM had given Notice of a series of Amendments to Clause 56, the lust of which was to delete the opening words: "Where the right to use." The noble Lord said: In moving the first Amendment, may I suggest, for the convenience of your Lordships, that the remaining Amendments on this clause standing in my name should be discussed together, as they all have a bearing on the same subject, and are, in fact, consequential on the first Amendment? During the Committee stage of the Bill I moved an Amendment to insert a new clause in place of Clause 56, which we are now discussing, and, after hearing the points put forward by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill I agreed to withdraw it for further consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the limited object which I desire to be incorporated in the Bill can be attained by the Amendments which I have now set down on the Order Paper. The object is a simple one, and it is to ensure that the clause does, in fact, carry out the intentions of the Minister as he stated them when he introduced this clause in another place. He said that the purpose of the clause was not to create unfairness, and I will now read his words from Hansard. They appear in column 1256 and are as follows:
"The purpose of the clause is to restrict the advantages which the railway companies possess in the absence of the clause. Without this clause that property would not be rated for local purposes and the clause is moved in order to make it rated."
I should like to make it quite clear that there is no difference of principle involved in this matter, and there is no dispute as to whether advertising stations other than for railway advertisements or railway property should be rated direct or should be rated indirectly through the general cumulo, because the Minister has himself stated that he wants to take them out of the cumulo, He said—and I propose to read the actual words from Hansard:
970
"This is to make it quite clear that, where a piece of property is let out by a railway company or an electricity undertaking for the purpose stated in the clause, for advertising, it shall be possible to rate it as a separate hereditament. Local authorises were naturally anxious at the fact that these undertakings did not now appear on the local rating roll, and would be part of the cumulo of both electricity and transport, and, therefore, would only make an indirect contribution to the local revenues. We should not deny to the local authority the possibility of rating those hereditaments which could not be regarded as inseparable."
I would suggest that the clause as drawn fails in some respects, for technical reasons, to accomplish this object. By using the words "let out" or "reserve" it opens the door to all the legal uncertainties which, in fact, due to the use of similar words in the Rating Act of 1874, arose in regard to the rating of sporting rights on the derating of agricultural land. I think it would be found that although an advertising station owned by the railway might be used for advertising some commercial product quite unconnected with the railway, it would not be rated separately in accordance with the intentions of the clause; in fact it would only be so rated if it were "let" or "reserved."
I would suggest that, in course of time, no such sites would, in fact, be "let" or "reserved" and the railway department dealing with advertisements would not have to take into account any direct liability for rates in arriving at the charge to be made for advertising, and would thus be able to compete unfairly with the private contractor of advertisement space. What is more, the rating authorities would lose the possibility of rating those advertising stations. This Amendment, and the following Amendments, will ensure that the clause accomplishes its object, and will have the effect of leaving to be included in the cumulo all advertising stations which are used for advertisements of the railway itself, but advertising stations used for advertising anything not connected with the railways will become subject to separate rating. The Amendments also make the person who permits the space to be used the person liable to be rated, and thus the clause will maintain the same liability as in Section 3 of the Advertising Stations Rating Act, 1889. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 4, leave out from ("where") to ("any ").—(Lord Teynham.)
LORD HENDERSON: Clause 56 does not deal only with railways, and the Amendment radically alters the intention of the clause, quite apart from the point about railway advertisements. But as the noble Lord has stressed the aspect of railway advertisements, I will deal with that first. The noble Lord quoted from a speech by the Minister in the re-committal stage of the Bill in another place, but I think he did not go far enough in that reading of the speech, because the Minister went on to say:
"in other words, we are alienating from the railway cumulo certain advertising stations "—
LORD TEYNHAM: What column is this?
Lord HENDERSON: Column 1257—
"We are saying that where they are let out and contracted for as advertising stations, they shall be liable to local rates. The purpose of the clause is a mitigation of what the right honourable gentleman considers to be an evil."
The Minister was replying to a criticism made by a Member in another place. I think that makes it perfectly clear that the Minister not only knew what he wanted but was satisfied that the clause as drawn was achieving what he had in mind.
The noble Lord has argued that, as the Transport Commission do not have to pay rates on advertisements on the railways, except of course those which are let out, they will tend to undercut agencies who do have to pay rates. There seems no good ground for that assumption. The Commission are at present at an advantage in that they do not have to pay rent for advertising sites. They hold the property for other purposes. Agencies do have to pay rents, and therefore their overheads are inevitably higher. But the practice of the Commission is to charge the standard rates of the trade, which are understood to be graded, according to situation, on a recognised scale. There is not the slightest reason to suppose they will wish to depart from that practice. They will no doubt want to get the maximum rent they can from their advertising space. Apart from railway advertisements, the Amendments to Clause 56 would make separately rateable any advertisement—using the word of the Amendment—"of" any person other than the occupier. This phraseology seems to us to be just as difficult to work as the alternative new clause which the noble Lord moved on Committee stage and which was withdrawn.
972
It would produce an impossible situation in which every poster outside the grocer's, or the tobacconist's, or the newsagent's, would have to be separately assessed unless it contained simply the name of the shopkeeper or of something he himself produced. Having regard to those arguments, which I think prove conclusively that the Minister is achieving by the clause as it stands the purpose which he had in mind, I am afraid that I must say again that I am not able to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD TEYNHAM: I cannot say I am very satisfied by the reply of the noble Lord, but I was glad to hear the assurance that the Railway Executive will quote the standard rates of the trade. I am grateful for that assurance. In those circumstances I do not propose to press my Amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw the one I have moved.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69 [Use of public rooms]:
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "shall be entitled to require" and insert "may request the permission of." The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will recollect that during the Committee stage it was felt in all parts of the House that Clause 69 as drafted was unfortunate. As it is drawn, it seeks to place the valuation officer—who in future will have no connection with any local government body—in a position to requisition what are referred to in the marginal note as "public rooms." The actual words are "shall be entitled to require." These public rooms may be the Guildhall or council chamber, or committee rooms of any local authority. It was felt, and felt strongly, I think, that this was not the best method to effect the purpose intended.
It was generally agreed that it would be much more effective, and would lead to better relations between the valuation officer and the local authorities concerned, if agreement could be reached between the two parties interested. It was agreed that these rooms, as in the past, should be available for the purpose required, but that an agreement between the parties concerned would be infinitely preferable to the very dictatorial method laid down in the clause. At the present time local

973
authorities are working under great pressure, and anything that will exacerbate the conditions of working between valuation officers and local authorities would be deplorable. It was with that in mind that I put down these Amendments, which follow one from another, to ensure that the valuation officers shall request permission from the local authority concerned for the use of the rooms. Your Lordships will see that in subsection (4) of the clause the power to determine any dispute is left in the hands of the Minister of Health. It was agreed, and clearly put by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that the power to settle any disagreement should be left in the hands of the Minister. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 34, leave out ("shall be entitled to require") and insert ("may request the permission of ").—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, my noble friend has given the reasons for this Amendment and the subsequent Amendments. We all recall that in the discussion on this point on Committee stage there was general agreement in the House that this sort of arrangement should be effected, so far as possible, by agreement. I pointed out why the Minister would require reserve powers but it was still felt that perhaps this was not the happiest way to achieve the agreed purpose, and it was taken back to be reconsidered. The Amendments achieve what the Minister had in mind, perhaps by a much better method and certainly one more conducive to amity. I am quite prepared to accept this and the consequent Amendments.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, since I took part in the discussion—indeed it was I who suggested that a compromise might be reached so that in default of agreement the Minister should decide—perhaps I may say that I think the words now put forward by my noble friend Lord Hylton will from the start put the whole matter on a more friendly footing. I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, who I know has taken a considerable amount of trouble about this matter, for having persuaded the Ministry to accept this point, and for accepting the Amendment on behalf of the Government.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I should like sincerely to thank the noble Lord,
974
Lord Henderson, for his assistance in re-drafting the wording of this clause, which I am sure will help to secure those friendly relations that are so desirable between the various bodies interested in local government. I would ask the noble Lord if he can give me any assurance at this stage that the reasonable costs of lighting, heating and cleaning these rooms will be met by the valuation authorities, in the same way as they are met at present under the existing Local Government Act.
LORD HENDERSON: I can give that assurance to the noble Lord. I think the Ministry of Works are responsible for these premises.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I beg to move the remaining Amendments to Clause 69 standing in my name.
Amendments moved—
Page 41, line 36, leave out ("to make available for") and insert ("for the");
Page 41,line 38, leave out ("requirement any") and insert (" request of");
Page 41,leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert ("the council or authority shall not unreasonably withhold their permission ");
Page 41,line 42, leave out ("shall be entitled to require") and insert (" may request the permission of ");
Page 41,line 45, leave out from ("acts") to ("use") in line 46, and insert ("for the");
Page 41,line 48, after ("panel") insert ("on such days as may be specified in the request of");
Page 42, line 1, leave out from ("and") to the end of line 3, and insert ("the council or authority shall not unreasonably withhold their permission");
Page 42,line 11, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 12, and insert—
("(4) Where a request is made under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section, any dispute as to whether the permission of the county council or rating authority has been unreasonably withheld").—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
3.3 p.m.
Clause 76 [Meaning of "hypothetical 1938 cost of construction"]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to add to subsection (6):
"and any person shall be entitled to obtain from the rating authority a copy thereof for his own use upon payment to the authority of such fee as may be prescribed by regulation's of the Minister."

975
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is one to which I referred on the Committee stage of the Bill. Your Lordships will remember that under subsection (2) of this clause the Minister is to prepare for each rating area, after consultation with the rating authority, a statement; and what will be embodied in that statement is contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2). When that statement has been prepared it will be deposited with the offices of the rating authority, and the general public may go and inspect it as and when they please. All I want to ensure is that any person who wishes to purchase a copy from the rating authority shall be entitled to receive a copy if he pays the prescribed fee. I do not think there was any difference between the noble Lord and myself on the Committee stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, we regard this as a perfectly reasonable provision, and I am happy to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 77 [Meaning of "hypothetical 1938 site cost "]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, this Amendment deals with precisely the same point in the next clause of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 4, at end insert ("and any person shall be entitled to obtain from the rating authority a copy thereof for his own use upon payment to the authority of such fee as may be prescribed by regulations of the Minister ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 80:
Other small post-1918 dwelling-houses, except flats and maisonettes.
80.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the gross value of any small post-1918 dwelling-house which is neither a local authority or housing association dwelling-house nor a flat or maisonette shall be five per cent. of the hypothetical 1938 cost of construction of the dwelling-house plus five per cent. of what is for the time being the value of the site, estimated on the basis—
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "what is for the time being the value of the site" and insert:
"the value of the site on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine."
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is rather an important Amendment, which I also raised on the Committee stage of the Bill. Clause 80 deals with the rating of "Other small post-1918 dwelling-houses, except flats and maisonettes." Under Clause 80 (1) your Lordships will observe that the assessment is to be:
"five per cent. of the hypothetical 1938 cost of construction … plus five per cent. of what is for the time being the value of the site."
It is the words at the end which I seek to omit, and I want to insert instead:
"the value of the site on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine."
What that will mean, as I understand it, is this. When a house comes to be reassessed, the valuation officer will make a calculation on the hypothetical cost of construction of the dwelling-house, plus 5 per cent. of the site value as at April 1, 1949. Once that has been done it will not be altered during the next quinquennial period: in point of fact it cannot be altered again, unless Parliament passes another Act dealing with this matter. I hope the noble Lord, who was certainly not averse to the previous Amendment, will accept this. Before I move the Amendment, perhaps I should make it quite clear that, as I understand what I have put down, if any house is built hereafter and comes up for assessment, the assessment will be on the hypothetical cost of construction, plus 5 per cent. of the site value on April 1, 1949. I think perhaps I should make that point clear to your Lordships, and if I have interpreted it wrongly, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, will be good enough to tell me so. I do not want to repeat all that I said on the Committee stage of the Bill, which will no doubt be familiar to noble Lords who were here during that discussion. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 22, leave out from the first ("of") to ("estimated") and insert ("the value of the site on the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty-nine ").—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I think I can give the noble Earl an assurance on his understanding of the operation of the Amendment in relation to the date, and on its operation in relation to a new house built after the date. He is quite right in both eases, and I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 105 [Temporary grants by county councils to county district councils, parish councils, etc., in certain cases]:
LORD HENDERSONmoved, in subsection (2) (a), to delete "rateable value for that district for that year had been diminished by" and to insert:
"product of a rate of one penny in the pound for that district for that year had been diminished by a sum ascertained as follows, that is to say, by dividing by two hundred and forty."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is largely a drafting point. The purpose of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 105 is to provide a method of ascertaining the change in rate poundage for the year 1947–48 due to the loss of rateable value from the derating of railways and electricity; and if this change is more than 2d. a grant will be attracted from the county council. Some doubt has been expressed as to whether the rate poundage for 1947–48, determined under subsection (1), and the reduced rate poundage, determined under subsection (2), are strictly comparable, because under subsection (2) the rateable value which enters into the calculation is by definition the fixed figure of the rateable value at the beginning of the year, whereas under subsection (1) variations in rateable value are taken into account. This argument is probably unsound, but the Amendment removes any doubt by referring to the product of a rate of one penny (multiplied by 240) instead of to rateable value. I think perhaps this Amendment will meet the point of the next Amendment on the Paper, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 21, leave out from ("the") to ("an") in line 22, and insert the said words.—(Lord Henderson.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said,
978
the Amendment which he has moved does dispense with the necessity for the two Amendments to this clause which stand in my name. This matter was brought to my attention by the Wiltshire County Council. Unless we had put it right, it might have attracted a grant in the case of Swindon, which was not intended, I think, by the Minister or anybody else. I am told that the amount of grant attracted under the Bill as originally before another place would have been about £12,350. On the wording, if we had not amended it now, the calculation is that it would have come out at about £35,000. This is the fair way of doing it, and at present I am told that the estimate is about £18,000. The Bill was not meant to act unfairly in that way, and I think the Government have fully met the point raised by the Wiltshire County Council. There may be other cases in which it would have applied equally wrongly, but at any rate in this instance the people who raised the point are fully satisfied with the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved and they are grateful to the Government for having met their view.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HENDERSON: The next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 45, leave out ("penny rate"), and insert ("rate of one penny in the pound ").—(Lord Henderson.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this drafting Amendment is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 105, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in the Committee stage and accepted, providing for the insertion of subsection (7). The reference in the subsection to an amount due under a precept requires translation for Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 4, after ("county") insert ("for any reference to an amount due under a precept there shall be substituted a reference to a sum payable under a requisition issued under section two hundred and fourteen of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947").—(Lord Morrison.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.24 p.m.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, after Clause 126 to insert the following new clause:
"Transfer to county councils of property and liabilities relating to county roads.
. Where by virtue of Part III of the Local Government Act, 1929 (which relates to the vesting, repair and maintenance of county roads) and whether before or after the passing of this Act—

(a) any road within the area or a borough or urban district council has, since the appointed day for the purposes of the said Part of the said Act, become a county road and the council have not within the time specified in the said Act, claimed to exercise the functions of maintenance and repair with respect to that road; or

(b) a borough or urban district council, having or being deemed to have claimed as aforesaid with respect to a county road in their area, have since the said appointed day relinquished the aforesaid functions with respect thereto;

the urban or borough district council and the county council may agree for the transfer to the county council of such property and liabilities of the borough or urban district council relating to the road upon such terms and conditions as may be specified in the agreement."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a point which was raised on the Committee stage, and the clause I then sought to insert was found to be worded not altogether suitably. It has now been redrafted with the co-operation of the noble Lord opposite, and I hope it is now more suitable. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 24, at end, insert the said clause.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am quite ready to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 131 [Provision of entertainments]:
LORD HYLTON LORD HYLTON moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided also that a local authority which is the council of a county district shall, before exercising either generally or particularly the powers conferred upon them by this subsection, consult the local education authority for the administrative county in which the district is situated with a view to ascertaining what facilities have been or are proposed to be provided by the local education authority in accordance with the duty imposed upon them by section fifty-three of the Education Act, 1944."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new point which was not brought
980
out on the Committee stage. Clause 131, upon which a certain amount of discussion took place on a previous occasion, refers to entertainment and gives power to local authorities to levy rates for the provision of theatre halls, concert halls and dance halls—in fact very wide powers. The object of my Amendment is to effect a very simple thing: that local authorities, when wishing to exercise those powers, either generally or particularly, shall consult the local education authority for the administrative county in which the district is situated.
The marginal note of Section 53 of the Education Act, 1944 reads as follows:
"Provision of facilities for recreation and social and physical training."
It appears from that clause that the local education authority—which of course is a county council body—has a duty to provide in every county adequate facilities for recreation, social and physical training. There are thus two bodies, the county council and the district council, both being made responsible for, or being given powers to implement, facilities for all kinds of recreation, social and physical training. It seems clear that some form of co-ordination should be exercised at an early stage, and my Amendment suggests that that stage should be when the proposals are initiated—that is to say, at the county level. Local authorities should consult with their local education authorities as to what the latter have in mind to provide, before the local authorities themselves make application to the Minister for loan charges or any other form of expenditure. I think that by so doing a great amount of unnecessary correspondence and work for the Minister of Health will be saved.
Those of your Lordships who have seen any of the further education proposals submitted under the 1944 Act by local education authorities will realise that they include the erection of a large number of assembly halls and other buildings which are just the sort of buildings which may be required by the district council under the powers now proposed for them in Clause 131. It would be a saving, especially to the Ministries in London, if this prior consultation at county level took place. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 46, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Hylton.)
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. It is the general practice for local authorities to consult on matters of this kind, and I think we should leave it to their good sense to see that where there is need for it consultation will take place. It takes place at present in general practice, and we can rest assured that it will take place normally in future.
LORD LLEWELLIN: May I ask one question on that point? If an extra hall, or anything of that sort, is being built for any of these facilities, I take it that an application will be made to the Ministry from the local authority for a loan towards the expenditure. Before dealing with it, would not the Minister normally make inquiries in the locality, to see whether or not similar buildings were being erected by some other authority?
LORD HENDERSON: He certainly would; and he would insist on consultation taking place if it had not already taken place. He would not authorise a loan unless the case for its necessity were made perfectly clear.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has rather missed my point. What I want is prior consultation before any Ministry is brought into the picture. If I may say so, I think the noble Lord is a little optimistic in his suggestion that the local authorities—that is to say district councils—will in fact always consult with the local education authority. The noble Lord suggests that it always is the case, but from what experience I have, I am afraid that it is not always so. But this is not a question of principle in any way, and if the noble Lord who, after all, is responsible, is satisfied that such consultations will take place—and I think he will agree that they are eminently desirable—I will not press this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to insert the following new subsections:
"(4) A local authority who propose to borrow money for any of the purposes authorised under this section shall, before applying to the Minister for his consent to the borrowing, publish in such local newspapers, and in such other ways, if any, as appear to them best suited for bringing the matter to the attention of persons concerned, notice of their
982
proposal, specifying the amount which and the purposes for which they propose to borrow and the time (not being less than twenty-eight days from the publication of the notice) within which any objection to the proposal may be made to the Minister.
(5) Where any such objection as is mentioned in the last preceding subsection is made to the Minister within the time specified in the notice aforesaid and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall not, unless in his opinion the objection is frivolous, consent to the borrowing of any money for the purposes in question until he has caused a public local inquiry to be held into the proposal, and, in considering whether or not to give his consent to the borrowing of any money for those purposes, he shall consider the report of the person by whom the inquiry was held."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that on the last occasion on which we were dealing with this Bill we had some argument, and indeed a Division, on Clause 131. The three Amendments which are down on the Order Paper to-day in my name all run together, and with your Lordships' permission I will discuss them together. On the last occasion we inserted words in Clause 131 which now form subsection (10) of that clause. Looking at those words in the interval between the Committee stage and the present stage—I may as well be quite frank—that Amendment seemed to many of us to have gone rather too far and not indeed to be completely applicable. First, as drafted it paid little attention to the position in Scotland. Your Lordships will see, in subsection (10) of Clause 131 as it now stands in the Bill, that the procedure laid down is the same as hat under the Sunday Entertainment Act of 1932.
Neither House of Parliament, even in 1932, or in any other year, would, I think, dare to suggest that there should be general opening of cinematograph theatres in Scotland; therefore the Entertainment Act of 1932 does not apply at all to Scotland. The procedure is linked up as it might apply to Scotland in the case of a private Bill, but there is no provision in Scotland for any local poll as there is in England and Wales. What happens there is that representations are made to the Secretary of State—any local government elector can do that. Those representations are considered by the Secretary of State, or the people in his Department may consolidate them and put up the case to him; and then he, in his unfettered discretion, can allow or disallow the provision the local

983
authority sought to apply. That is the procedure in Scotland. Had we tried to adapt our present proposals we should have had to adopt completely distinct procedure for the Northern part of the United Kingdom and the Southern part.
Incidentally, subsection (10) goes a little far when it is realised that subsection (6) of Clause 131 repeals many provisions which allowed local authorities to employ, say, a band to play in a public park in their neighbourhood. That is a position which certainly I, and other noble Lords on this side who spoke in favour of the new subsection (10), did not have in mind. We do not wish to make it impossible for a local authority to have a band playing in a public park. The kind of expenditure we had in mind was not annual expenditure, and I think the noble Lord is right in his view on that matter; if it is found that a local council has been extravagant in its annual expenditure, the ratepayers can turn the council out at the next election. In short, in the case of ordinary current expenditure the situation is met by ordinary democratic means, but large capital expenditure is in a different category, because that expenditure is lasting, and there might be a burden on the locality for a long time afterwards; for whether it be a big municipal theatre or anything else of the kind it has to be maintained or something has to be done about it by successive generations of local government electors—but that is rather locking the stable door after the horse has got out.
So I am seeking now to take out subsection (10) which we inserted on the last occasion, and to substitute for it provisions by which, if objection is made to this expenditure by the local government electors, a local inquiry where the whole thing can be ventilated shall be ordered by the Minister. If the Minister finds a substantial body of opinion in the locality against the expenditure, then he has in his hands the right remedy, which is, not to give his sanction to the loan. The great advantage of the subsections which I am now submitting in lieu of the other one is that this procedure can apply equally in England and Wales and in Scotland at the same time. In fact it is quite normal at present for the Minister, if he thinks it necessary, to send down an inspector to hold such a public inquiry.
984
But in cases involving exceptional expenditure of this kind, for projects which may be turned down on submission to a local poll, it is necessary generally that if there are objectors there shall be a local government inquiry. It is the kind of provision which I very much hope the noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, will be able to accept. At any rate, I have no doubt that he will think it far less objectionable than the one which was adopted last time. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, line 40, at end insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD HENDERSON: The noble Lord has put the case for his Amendment fairly and straightforwardly, and there is nothing for me to add. As the noble Lord said, the Amendment refers to capital expenditure. The present practice is for the Minister to hold an inquiry when application for a loan is made. This Amendment is to convert the present practice into a statutory obligation, and I am quite prepared to accept it.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Having been the culprit who moved the insertion of subsection (10) on behalf of my noble friend Lord Llewellin, I frankly admit that I had no idea that it did what my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, tell me it does. For that reason, I am only too happy to see it disappear and this new subsection inserted. As the noble Lords have said, this subsection deals entirely with capital expenditure, which was the one thing which was worrying me when I moved the other Amendment on the Committee stage of the Bill. I am grateful, and I am happy to see subsection (10) depart.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 40, at end insert—
("(a) no money shall be borrowed for the purposes authorised under this section except with the consent of the Secretary of State;
(b) for any reference to the Minister there shall be substituted a reference to the Secretary of State.")—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD MORRISON: My Lords, this is the necessary Scottish adjustment which arises from the acceptance of the new

985
subsections (4) and (5) just moved by the noble Lord. Paragraph (a) is required because in Scotland, unlike England, under the permanent legislation dealing with borrowing by the local authorities the consent of the Secretary of State is not required, unless a resolution to borrow fails to obtain a two-thirds majority.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, this Amendment is agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 10, Leave out subsection (10).—(Lord Llewellin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD ADDINGTON LORD ADDINGTON moved, after Clause 134, to insert the following new clause:
"Assistance by local authorities to other bodies.
. A local authority in England or Wales may, with the consent of the Minister given either generally or specially, contribute towards the expenses of any body carrying on activities within the area of that authority, being activities for the purpose of furthering the development of trade, industry or commerce therein, or of giving advice, information or other assistance to persons resident therein, or otherwise for the benefit of that area or those persons."
The noble Lord said: My Lords this is another matter which was referred to on Committee stage. The clause then suggested has been redrafted, with the cooperation of the noble Lord opposite. I hope that it is now satisfactory. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 134, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, this is a useful provision. I am glad to be able to accept it.
LORD ADDINGTON: Thank you very much.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 136:
power to assist in performance of transferred functions.
136.—(1) Where, by or under the Electricity Act, 1947, or any Act passed during the present Session providing for the establishing of public ownership of the gas industry, any undertaking theretofore carried on by a local authority is transferred to any other body, the authority may enter into an agreement with the body for the performance by the authority, as agent for the body, for such period as may
986
be specified in the agreement, of such of the functions of the body as fall to be performed within the area of he authority as may be so specified.
LORD ADDINGTONmoved, in subsection (1), to omit "as fall to be performed within the area of the authority." The noble Lord said: My Lords, This is a slight modification to a clause that was put in at the previous stage. It has now become desirable to delete the words in lines 45 and 46, which would limit a local authority to the performance of functions only within their own area. I understand that this has been agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 45, leave out from ("body") to ("as") in line 46.—(Lord Addington.)
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the noble Lord has explained his Amendment. I am quite prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 145 [Repeals]:
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I apologise to the House that I have one brief manuscript Amendment to move. It is an Amendment to Clause 145, page 103, line 37, after the word "different" to insert the word "rating." It is a purely consequential Amendment on the Amendment which the noble Lord accepted to Clause 72, when we inserted the word "rating" in subsection (1). My attention has only just been drawn to the matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 37, after ("different") to insert ("rating").—(The Earl of Munster.)
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, my noble friend has rightly explained that this is a consequential Amendment. I am glad to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution):
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Henderson.)
3.44 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before we part with this measure, I think

987
it right that I should say a few words. When I first came to look at the Bill, and started reading its clauses, I was rather appalled at the complicated nature of a good deal of it. I do not know whether the same thought occurred to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, when he first looked at it, but perhaps I may be permitted to congratulate him on the way he has mastered the Bill and, also, on the manner in which he has striven to meet us on every reasonable point (and most of them have been reasonable) that we put up. We may all rejoice that once again we have shown the value of this House as a revising Chamber, and that we are sending back a better Bill to the other place. I hope they will be wise enough to accept all the Amendments which have been agreed upon here and that this will be the closing chapter of the Bill in this House—because I must confess that I do not want to have to read through all its clauses again. While I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I think we may also congratulate ourselves on a good job of work.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and thank him for the manner in which he has accepted the many Amendments which I have moved. I do not wish to repeat anything which was said by the noble Lord behind me, but I desire to make a personal explanation to your Lordships. During the Committee stage of the Bill, I moved an Amendment to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 128, which dealt with subscriptions to local government associations. In the course of my remarks, I unfortunately said that the National Association of Local Government Officers were a trade union, that they were affiliated to a political Party and that in due course of time they paid their levy to the Socialist Party. Since then, I have had many letters of a somewhat vigorous tone telling me that this Association are entirely free from all politics, that they subscribe to no political Party and that they have no intention whatsoever of doing so. If I have misled any of your Lordships with my remarks, which were based on information that I had received and which were made on my own initiative, then I unreservedly withdraw them on this occasion.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, on the way in which he has tackled this Bill. I do not pretend that I was able to understand every line of it when I came to read it. Nevertheless, I congratulate the noble Lord on completing his task in such an efficient manner. If bouquets are to be thrown, I do not see that it is right that all the bouquets should come only from one side of the Houe. I know that every noble Lord sitting on these Benches would like to join other noble Lords in expressing their appreciation of what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has so well and truly done.
I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Munster, has acknowledged his error in what he said about N.A.L.G.O. Those of us who serve on local government bodies know N.A.L.G.O. well, and N.A.L.G.O. would be the first to claim that they are a body quite as respectable as the Primrose League, of which the noble Earl is such a distinguished member. I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Munster, on making such a handsome apology—or, at least, an explanation. Apparently he was afraid that the ratepayers were going to have all sorts of fancy entertainments, including the noble Earl's favourite entertainment—nigger minstrels! He has retracted his previous statement and has given us a handsome explanation. Seriously, though, this Bill is a monumental piece of work, in connection with which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has done credit to both himself and the Party to which he belongs.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I would like to express my personal gratification at the generous words that have been said about me in connection with this Bill. What I really want to do, however, is to express my thanks to the House. Noble Lords will remember that when we came to the Second Reading it fell to me to explain that we were working with a very short time limit—for obvious reasons—and I had to appeal to the House to give consideration to this matter in the light of the time-table. The reason we have got through so rapidly and successfully is that noble Lords in all parts of the House have responded to the appeal which was then made. It would therefore be wrong for me to allow the Third Reading to pass without expressing to

989
your Lordships, on behalf of the Minister and the Government and also, if I may say so, on behalf of myself, our thanks for the response which has been made to our appeal.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order): an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS.
3.52 p.m.
LORD DOWDING LORD DOWDING had the following Notice on the Order Paper: To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they will (a) forthwith extend to other domestic animals the provisions applicable to cattle and calves in licensed slaughterhouses, (b) forthwith prohibit the slaughter by knife of domestic animals in full consciousness, in any circumstances, and (c) at the first opportunity legislate for the improvement of existing slaughterhouses, both in design and in capacity, so as to obviate all cruelty in the process of slaughter; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I have taken it upon myself to raise this question in your Lordships' House. There are many noble Lords who are more qualified by experience to deal with the question, and many perhaps who know more about the facts; but I yield to nobody in the depth and sincerity of my feeling on this subject, and this must be my excuse for rushing in where angels, for one reason or another, have not recently trod. For convenience in handling, I have divided my subject into three parts. The first part deals with the killing of animals in licensed slaughter-houses; the second part aims mainly at practices obtaining outside licensed slaughter-houses, and the third part deals with the adequacy both in capacity and design of the slaughter-houses themselves.
In the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, provision is made that the humane killer, or some mechanically operated appliance, shall be used on all cattle and calves
990
killed in licensed slaughter-houses; further, that a mechanical or electric stunner must be used on all pigs killed in bacon factories or slaughter-houses where electric power is available. But that is all; there is no statutory protection for sheep and lambs, and only partial protection for pigs. It will be noticed that there is no provision that the mechanical stunner must be used in those slaughterhouses where electric power is not available. In addition, every local authority had to decide within one year whether they would pass a resolution bringing sheep and lambs under the protection which was afforded to other animals.
The present position in England and Wales is as follows. There are 1,440 local authorities, and of those 1,198, or about 85 per cent., have voluntarily accorded to sheep and lambs the protection afforded to other animals. Of the remaining 242 authorities, 31 have refused to give that protection to sheep and lambs, and the remaining 211 authorities do not include in their areas slaughter-houses which are active to-day. Before the war there were 17,600 slaughter-houses, and that number has now been reduced to 600; so it is not impossible that some slaughter-houses may be re-opened in the territories of the 211 authorities which have none at present under their jurisdiction. Therefore, my first question to His Majesty's Government is whether they will make this protection statutory instead of leaving the question—which is one for the national conscience—to the chances of debate in the councils of local authorities.
I should like to take this opportunity of saying that there is no political criticism expressed or implied in this matter. It is nearly fifteen years since this Act was passed, and the responsibility of the present Government is correspondingly reduced. Nevertheless, the question was raised in another place just over a year ago, but then the discussion covered a much wider field than that covered by the questions which I raise today. It dealt, for instance, with cruelties alleged to be committed in the market place, and the discussion even wandered into the hunting field. Nevertheless, at that time the responsible Minister did say—and I am reading from Hansard:
"Finally I want to say that that Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, covers completely all the objections the honourable and gallant Member makes to this slaughtering of

991
animals. The animals are protected within that Act."
I think perhaps I have already said enough to show that the protection is only partial, and animals killed outside slaughter-houses receive no protection whatsoever.
This brings me to the second part of my question. Before the war, owing to the plentiful provision of slaughter-houses and the small number of amateur stock raisers, the number of animals killed outside slaughter-houses was reduced to a very small proportion of the total. But now the situation is very different. Out of 17,600 slaughter-houses only 600 remain, and there has been a great increase in the number of pigs privately raised. I have found it difficult to get exact figures, but I think I shall not be far out if I say that in a year the number of pigs slaughtered outside licensed slaughter-houses is somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000. A large proportion of those poor animals, together with uncounted sheep and lambs, are killed with the knife, in full consciousness. I shall not attempt to harrow the feelings of your Lordships with any description of the process. If I can lay no claim to a tender heart I have, at least, a queasy stomach. But this I will say—that the cumulative mental and physical agony of these poor creatures cries to high Heaven, and it is all absolutely unnecessary. It could be stopped by a stroke of the pen. It is necessary only to legislate for the use of the humane killer in all cases.
The humane killer, as most of your Lordships are probably aware, is a kind of pistol. It fires a captive bolt which just protrudes far enough to reach to the brain of the animal and then is retracted into the barrel of the pistol. I have examined several types of humane killers. The cost of one type which I examined—and I should say that this is about the average cost—is eight guineas. Doubtless that price could be reduced considerably if manufacture were undertaken on a large scale. The cartridges are in two sizes; one for cattle and one for smaller beasts. They cost three-farthings apiece. One society with which I have been in touch—it is called the Council for Justice to Animals—has distributed gratis more than 150 humane killers. They have given some to sanitary
992
authorities to lend to licensed slaughter-men, and others they have given direct on the recommendation of inspectors. But it is not right that we should depend on private charity in a matter of this kind, nor, indeed, could any private body meet the large total requirements.
Now the objections which have been raised to the use of the mechanical killer are as follows. First, it has been suggested that the weapon is dangerous. Secondly, it has been claimed that the carcases of animals killed with it are imperfectly drained of blood, with the result that the meat is inferior both in appearance and keeping qualities. A third objection is made on the ground that the cost of slaughter is materially increased. Taking the first objection, that of danger, I say there is none. The pistol does not fire a bullet; it merely fires this captive bolt, which protrudes not more than an inch or an inch-and-a-half and is afterwards withdrawn automatically into the barrel of the pistol. As regards the argument about the blood content, I maintain that it is altogether fallacious. I could produce a great volume of evidence, if that were necessary, but I will quote only a few samples of the kind of testimony which is available. A test was made in the Birmingham slaughter-house in the presence of the chief veterinary officer, and, as a result of that test, the blood content, surprisingly enough, came out in favour of the humane killer. The figures were 2.5 per cent. of residual blood, as against 2.8 per cent.
The late Colonel Dunlop Young, an acknowledged authority on meat inspection, who was for many years chief official at Smithfield under the Corporation of the City of London, gave his opinion after examining the carcases of 1,255 animals stunned with the humane killer at Islington. He said:
"We have carefully examined the meat of the above animals in carcase form and we desire to state emphatically that no exception can be taken to the efficiency of the bleeding—the meat was sold at Smithfield, and no complaints were made or received. We are even of the opinion that it would have been impracticable to have selected otherwise than by chance the carcases of those animals slaughtered after preliminary unconsciousness had been effected by mechanical means."
Then there is the evidence of Mr. F. W. Stillman, the head of a big meat organisation at Exeter. He says:

993
"I claim to have killed over 50,000 animals, large and small, with the use of the humane killer, and I have received a large measure of support from those lovers of animals who form a big percentage of our population to-day."
But if practical proof were needed of the efficiency of the mechanical killer, I would merely state that of the twelve hundred odd local authorities who have contracted sheep and lambs into the protection afforded to other animals, not one has rescinded its decision, nor has any complaint been received from the 95 per cent. of slaughter-houses where power is available and pigs must be stunned. All the big bacon factories use the electric method. As for the cost, it is entirely negligible. It amounts to three farthings on a carcase, once the initial cost of the weapon has been defrayed.
I come to an aspect of the question which I had hoped to avoid. I refer to ritual laughter by Jews and Moslems for their requirements. I had hoped to make plain that it is quite unreasonable that we should be hampered in the process of setting our own house in order in this matter, which affects the national conscience, by the religious ceremonial of the strangers within our gates: I still maintain that view very strongly. At the same time, it is unfortunate that the specific immunity granted under subsection (1) (b) of the first section of the Act should undermine the law in all slaughter-houses where the two methods are practised concurrently. If a complaint is made that the law is being broken, it is only necessary to plead that the infractions are due to the requirements of the Jewish population and the issue is hopelessly clouded. The members of the Animal Defence Society subscribed to build a model abattoir at Letchworth. They leased this out to a private tenant under the most rigid guarantees that only humane methods of killing would be used. The Government stepped in and took over the abattoir: and then what happened to all the guarantees!
Two other points in connection with this immunity are that it is granted specifically as regards animal slaughter without "unnecessary suffering" and for the food of Jews and Moslems. This latter proviso is openly flouted. Many more beasts are killed by the Jewish method than are required by the Jews. The balance are sold to Christians. As regards the former proviso, that animals shall be slaughtered
994
without "unnecessary suffering," I do not know what was in the minds of those who drafted the Act when they spoke of "unnecessary suffering." What suffering do they consider to be necessary? A noble lady, noble in every sense of the word, the Duchess of Hamilton, has told me that she was present at a demonstration of the Jewish method of slaughter and she timed the proceedings by stop watch: it was seven minutes before unconsciousness released the poor victim from its pain. Seven minutes, my Lords! Think of the two minutes silence which we used to observe between the wars on Armistice Day. Think how long that seemed. Take three of these periods; add another half for good measure—and then talk about necessary suffering.
I make the broad assertion that the partial statutory protection under the Act is habitually set aside in all slaughterhouses. If it is observed anywhere, it is only because of the humanity of the management. The conditions may be even worse than I fear, because in these days it is not easy to find out what goes on in slaughter-houses. Accredited officers of humanitarian societies have been refused access to slaughter-houses. Take, for instance, the case where the supply of cartridges for the humane killer runs out, either through faulty prevision or for some other reason: is anybody so simple as to suppose that the process of slaughter comes to a standstill? I have now finished what I have to say on sections (a) and (b) of my Motion. I maintain that the conditions constitute a blot on the national conscience. They can be removed by a stroke of the pen. I urge with all the force at my command that that pen stroke be made.
As regards my question (c), in regard to accommodation, the arrangement and design of slaughter-houses, I agree that some delay may be unavoidable. It would not be reasonable to press that manpower and material should be expended on slaughter-houses when there are so many human beings who have not a roof over their heads. Nevertheless, the matter is urgent enough. Conditions in some slaughter-houses are a disgrace to a nation which calls itself civilised. The first thing that occurs to one is this fantastic proportion of slaughter-houses closed down in relation to those remaining—17,000 to 600. I rubbed my eyes when I saw those

995
figures. I thought a stray nought had slipped in from somewhere else. But not so; those figures were substantially confirmed in the debate in another place which I have previously mentioned. Would it not be possible to mitigate overcrowding, at any rate, in the slaughterhouses by re-opening some of the vast number that have been closed? Of course, it is not only a question of overcrowding. Some of the conditions can only be described as atrocious. I have heard from two independent sources of a West Country town where the terrified beasts are dragged across the road to a shed with open doors where they are dispatched coram populo and the children gather round to watch.
There are two kinds of cruelty. There is the infliction of pain and there is the infliction of terror. I do not know which is the worse. But I can say that both kinds are perpetrated in full measure, even when the final act is preceded by stunning, when the terrified animals are forced up to the killing point through the sights and sounds of previous operations and the smell of blood and entrails. What are the Government going to do? That is what everyone wants to know, and what nobody can find out. Are they going to hand the slaughter-houses back to private enterprise? Are they going to hand them over to local authorities? Or are they going to nationalise them? In the interests of decency and humanity this question ought to be answered, so that plans may be considered and may be ready for implementation when the national situation allows this blot to be removed from the national conscience. These facts, these figures, these statistics, are but trees in the wood. I have dealt with them in detail so as to show that the difficulties are not insuperable, and so that no one shall say of me that I could not see the trees for the wood. But it is upon the wood that my eyes are fixed—the great dark wood of human callousness and cruelty. If the remedies were ten times as difficult and expensive to apply, I should still plead for their application.
Who is to blame for all this? We are all to blame. I am to blame. I have lived on this planet for sixty-five years and this is the first time that I have raised my voice in the interests of the animals.
996
Why? Because I did not know. Why did I not know? Because I did not choose to find out. I was one of those many people who ignore all the proceedings between the gambolling of the lamb in the field and the appearance of the joint on the dinner table—and some of those proceedings are not pretty. I am not one of those who believe in the literal truth of every word of the first chapter of Genesis, but I do believe that man was placed over the beasts of the field by the Creator in a position of trust. To all intents and purposes, man is god to the beasts; they have no appeal from his decisions. I am not a tilter at windmills—but I believe that in the long course of human evolution the time will come when man will no more need or desire to eat the flesh of animals. But that day is not yet. In the meantime we shall continue to use them for food. Well and good. There is, however, this proviso: that when they have spent their humble lives in our service, we shall take those lives with every precaution that humaneness and mercy can devise. Man, through his association with animals, is responsible to God for their evolution. Man can take, but he cannot destroy life. If in his greed and blindness he sends his charges across the border, crazed with terror and agony, he sets in motion a cause which by immutable law will be followed by its inevitable effect. I beg to move for Papers.
4.26 p.m.
LORD MONK BRETTON: My Lords, provided the honour of making a maiden speech is not entirely eclipsed by the boredom of those listening to it, one hopes that it is going to be welcome. As an agriculturist, I feel that I may briefly contribute to the debate on the last part of the subject raised by my noble friend. The Englishman, formerly one of the greatest meat-eaters of the world, ought to be able to arrange these matters satisfactorily; and it is a subject about which the Englishman has been traditionally conscientious. The present system grew out of the war and the necessity for rationing, and it contains several evils which have come to light. The main evil, which has already been mentioned, is that of overcrowding live animals before slaughter. I myself have visited a public abattoir, and I was not convinced of the adequacy of the premises. When I was

997
informed that soon the number of killings in that abattoir were to be doubled, in order to reduce difficulties in other abattoirs, I felt that the position must be growing very serious. The first thing over-crowding causes is cruelty, even if it is unintentional.
Another matter which I think I should mention is that animals are kept too long under bad conditions before slaughtering. That causes also financial loss. Not only do the animals become thinner, but the bruising of the meat through their being kept in too small a box is bound to spoil its quality. On going round the slaughterhouses one cannot but be impressed by a great many of the other inadequacies which should be mentioned. Hand in hand with the difficulties of accommodation for live animals goes the shortage of hanging capacity for the meat when it has been killed. Those two factors must be partially responsible for the reputation that home grown meat must be acquiring in this country to-day. The whole question needs careful attention. No adequate study of the advantages and economies of central slaughtering seems ever to have been undertaken; but now that we have had experience of central slaughtering for some time, it may be possible; to discover a great deal more about it than we knew before. I may mention that I believe that there are now doubts about its rigid application, particularly to rural areas. I think that that long-term policy should be considered, although I fully understand that it cannot possibly be implemented to-day. If we are experiencing loss of meat, it may be justifiable to spend something on accommodation; and if we are to spend something on accommodation, we should know the direction in which we are to proceed.
Meanwhile, as has already been stated by my noble friend, every effort should be made to open more slaughter-houses wherever possible. This is the best, the cheapest and the quickest remedy. I have also had in mind the question of the slaughter of meat according to the requirements of the Jewish faith. I should mention that the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, provides that animals shall be slaughtered in a separate chamber from the one in which they are subsequently bled and hung. That applied to all slaughter-houses built after 1933 and
998
applied also to Jewish methods of slaughter.
In the case of slaughter-houses built before 1933, however, where the full facilities were not available, the slaughter of animals actually in the chamber where the bleeding was done was permitted. That is a loop-hole in the Act to which I think attention should be drawn. It causes great distress to the animal and is deplored by slaughter-house staffs, who speak very strongly about it. I should like to say how pleased I am to have the opportunity of addressing you and of bringing these matters to the notice of your Lordships' House.
4.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, it is a high privilege to have this opportunity of warmly congratulating on your behalf the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, on making his maiden speech to-day in your Lordships' House. He has spoken frankly and straight-forwardly of his own experiences in matters of which he has personal knowledge. I am sure it is your Lordships' wish and hope that he will come to your Lordships' House on many future occasions. I intend to intervene in this debate only for a short time but I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply two questions. First, is he satisfied with the present statutory position? The 1933. Act has been on the Statute Book for fifteen years. It is, of course, common knowledge that that is a private Act. To-day it is impossible for any private Act to be promoted and, therefore, it rests squarely upon the shoulders of His Majesty's Government to say whether they are satisfied with the existing state of affairs, or whether they are not; because it is by them, and them only, that any alteration can be made.
The second point I would like to make is this. Something over a year ago, in another place, I think it was Dr. Summerskill who said: "There is no widespread cruelty." I do not think anybody suggests there is widespread cruelty, but I would ask: Is there any assurance that there is adequate inspection? Supposing there were widespread cruelty, how would the noble Lord know? I believe I am right in saying that all, or virtually all, public slaughter houses—indeed all abattoirs—are under the control of the Ministry of Food. Therefore, His Majesty's Government have a direct

999
responsibility in this matter. I would like to ask whether there is adequate inspection both in the cattleyards and in the matter of slaughter itself. I submit respectfully that it is not enough to say that every official at an abattoir is necessarily an inspector: I do not think that is the case. The inspection in this matter is a special task, which should be undertaken only by those who are specially detailed and specially qualified to do so.
I would like to press the point which the noble Lord, Lord Dowding made—that there should be permitted the entry of accredited representatives of recognised societies. I feel that this is a case in which they are entitled to access. I believe I am right in saying there are something of the order of 30,000 to 40,000 animals killed in this country every day; that is a very large number. It is impossible to believe that those who engage in those tasks do not in some cases become, shall I say, a little casual, not to use any stronger word. It is the sort of task in which it is almost impossible that that should not be the case. It is necessary, I suggest, that someone should have the task of saying that the full standards—which I am sure the Minister would wish himself—are in fact fulfilled to their utmost.
I would like to refer your Lordships to the speech of the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition in the Foreign Affairs debate when he said:
"The things which unite us"—.
and I am quite sure that this is one, are—
"the love of liberty, the hatred of cruelty and oppression, the belief in justice…."
It is only a question of how we can most effectively put them into operation.
4.36 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, I should first like to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, for having raised a subject which most people would be apt to overlook. I would also like to take the opportunity of congratulating both the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, and the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, on their most excellent maiden speeches. I hope that this House will often have the benefit of hearing their remarks on future occasions.
1000
With regard to the Motion which is before us, I quite agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that there will be complete agreement on all sides of the House that we should, so far as possible, ensure that the most humane methods will be used in any necessary slaughtering of animals. I think we can start from that point with a considerable measure of agreement, and I do not think anyone on any side of the House would venture to disagree. So far as that goes, I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord who moved this Motion. After that we come upon some practical difficulties, and it is only fair to say, looking at the question from the other side, so to speak, that this country is in the forefront in regard to the measures and precautions taken to ensure that cruelty is reduced to the minimum. We are not at all behind, but are in the forefront among the nations to-day. It is not the case, however, that we think there is no room for improvement. Obviously, the Government are only too glad to hear the views of your Lordships upon this matter, and to look into any possible steps that might be taken to improve conditions or to eliminate abuses. But when we come to the facts one sees that the problem is rather more difficult than perhaps at first it seems.
I should like to begin by concentrating on the question of animals killed in licensed slaughter-houses. As your Lordships know, cattle and calves have to be stunned or rendered senseless before slaughter. In other words they must be "instantaneously slaughtered or by stunning be rendered insensible to pain until death supervenes." This should be done by mechanically operated instruments in proper repair. I am dealing now only with animals in slaughterhouses—with calves and cattle. In regard to them, I think the provisions of the Act are fairly adequate. I do not think one could criticise or improve the conditions and rules which have been laid down. In regard to pigs the matter is slightly different. In slaughter-houses pigs should be and are, whenever possible, stunned by electricity. Whenever power is available that method is used; but it is quite true that where electricity is unavailable it is not possible for this practice to be followed. I am informed that in the Ministry of Food slaughter-houses pigs are stunned before actually being killed.

1001
With regard to sheep and lambs, the question, as your Lordships will know, was left to the discretion of the local authority. As the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, has pointed out, of the 1,440 local authorities—that is the figure, according to my information—1,200 insist on sheep being stunned, whereas 240 have not come into these arrangements. As regards the killing of goats and pigs, those animals can be excluded by a local authority from the protection given by the Act, if the local authority so wish; that is to say, however, that the animals have to be stunned unless the local authority pass a resolution to the contrary. Actually, there is a very small number of these animals killed in slaughter-houses. I have not been able to get the number of local authorities who have opted out of this provision, but I should think it is very small.
The point which surprised me in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, was his objection to the reduction of the number of slaughter-houses from about 16,000 to approximately 600. His implication seemed to be that that was a reactionary step. I should have thought that in practice it was an improvement, because before the war slaughtering was carried out in all sorts of little backyards, knackers' yards and so forth, in which no adequate inspection could possibly be made or enforced; whereas getting slaughter-houses under central inspection is surely the first elementary step to (insure that proper measures are taken.
Now I come to what is, I admit, an extremely difficult problem, and that is the methods of Jewish and Mohammedan slaughtering. As your Lordships know, those methods were excluded from the Act, the reason being that under Mosaic and Moslem laws animals have to be killed by an authorised slaughterer and according to a certain ritual. If the animal is not killed in that way it is pronounced unclean by the Rabbi or other authority concerned, and no Jew or Moslem is allowed by his religion to eat the meat. How great the suffering is compared with that caused by the humane killer I am not prepared to say—it is a question of which I, personally, have no knowledge—but I believe there is some doubt among experts.
I would, however, put to your Lordships this problem. If we brought in a
1002
law or regulation which stopped this method of slaughter, then automatically we should be stopping the supply of meat to a large part of the community at a time when, first, food is extremely short and not only meat but potatoes and bread are rationed, and secondly the Government have had to call on everybody for the maximum amount of effort and exertion. I would remind noble Lords that this is a matter not for my own Department but for the Ministry of Food; and it is the opinion of my right honourable friend the Minister that legislation could not be introduced to alter the present position. However, there is one device which has perhaps ease d the situation a little, and that is the Weinberg Pen. This reduces very considerably indeed the time taken for this method of slaughter, by holding the animal and turning it round so that it can be slaughtered much more quickly than in former times. I ask your Lordships to realise the problem that the Government have to face in regard to the slaughter of animals for the Mohammedan and Jewish communities.
I come now to another point which is also difficult—the question of private premises. Could any legislation be brought in which would ensure absolutely that all animals killed on a farm or on private premises were killed humanely, or as humanely as possible? It is not a question of our being unwilling to secure that end, if it could be obtained, but we are up against big difficulties. The greatest perhaps is the question of inspection. Some farms—and other premises—are in remote districts, and it would be almost impossible to maintain continual and adequate inspection of all those premises. Moreover, I think your Lordships will agree that there is no point in bringing in legislation which cannot be rigidly enforced.
The second difficulty is that of cost. I think it was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, that the humane killer should be used universally, but, as he himself said, the cost of the humane killer is eight guineas. It would be difficult to compel every farmer to buy what is quite an expensive instrument and not in plentiful supply. I am told, too, that it is an instrument that must be used by someone who understands it and is skilled in using it; otherwise the cruelty and suffering that might be caused would be

1003
even worse than that occasioned by other methods. For these reasons, I think it is difficult to maintain that thousands of farmers should be compelled to possess and taught how to use this particular instrument.
Another question—a very important one—was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, and that is the question of the construction and the capacity of premises. We have no illusions about the fact, nor do we believe that all is well in regard to premises used for slaughtering. We know what conditions are needed, and we envisage a time when slaughter-houses will be properly constructed and adequate. But in these days of acute difficulty in regard to materials—steel, bricks, timber and everything needed for building—when we are crying out for factories and for houses for the people who still have not a roof over their heads, the improvement of slaughter-houses is not a reform that we can immediately bring into operation. But that does not mean that the matter is not very much in our minds, or that we do not appreciate the necessity for extending and improving slaughter-house premises. Some of them are badly dilapidated, but that does not necessarily mean that inhumane methods of slaughter are used in them. We try to ensure that everything possible that can be done shall be done to prevent cruelty. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, raised one or two points. He asked, how do we inspect these premises to make sure that cruelty is avoided as much as possible? There is a system by which Ministry of Food inspectors examine these premises. I agree that the accredited representatives of the societies—
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Are these Ministry of Food inspectors not veterinary inspectors who inspect meat, rather than the methods of killing animals?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: So far as my information goes, these inspectors are quite definitely given instructions not only to examine the meat but also to see that everything is carried out in a regular and proper fashion, and that cruelty is not practised in any way. I did not know that the accredited representatives of societies were not allowed into the slaughter-houses. This has, however, been brought to my attention, and I will bring
1004
it to the notice of my right honourable friend. Then there is the general question of premises, which I think is a vital one. I may say that at this moment we are examining the Lucas Report on marketing, and the planning of slaughter-houses. The Report will have far-reaching effects, not only on marketing and slaughtering, but I cannot say what will be our future plans concerning slaughter-houses until this Report has been discussed further and we decide what the policy will be in regard to distribution of meat, slaughtering and everything else.
I would suggest to your Lordships that the chief weapon we have against any cruelty or barbarity in this matter is public opinion. I think we should pay a tribute here to men like the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, and to the societies which have carried on their campaigns to educate the public on this matter. I think that in the future that will be our greatest safeguard and method of approach. It is the gradual awareness of the public which will make cruelty impossible. One of the difficulties which I understand my right honourable friend is up against is the fact that people will not come forward and report cruelty when they see it. We occasionally receive reports of animals being driven to the slaughter-houses with unnecessary violence, and of the infliction of undue punishment, but we can hardly ever pin down someone who will come forward and give us the facts. It is an obligation, because under the Protection of Animals Act it is the duty of any policeman to arrest without warrant anybody who is inflicting cruelty on animals. If anyone will inform either the police or the local authority of the facts they will if necessary immediately institute proceedings. I am afraid that what I have said may in some ways be unsatisfactory but I hope I have been able to convince your Lordships that we have taken note of this subject. We hope that when we have framed our policy in regard to marketing, we can take great steps towards regulating the whole position concerning abattoirs, the collection of animals and their despatch in the most humane possible way.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I interrupt? The noble Earl spoke about private slaughter-houses. I would ask, does he see any hope of extending the

1005
humane killing of sheep to public slaughter-houses to make it 100 per cent. humane?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Under the Act, it is left to the local authority, but I cannot say, without notice of the question, whether that point can be brought in under the new Act.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: All the slaughter-houses are under the control of the Minister of Food, are they not?
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I think practically all slaughter-houses are at the moment. Certainly in the ones that are under the control of the Ministry of Food, stunning is carried out. When a local authority are outside that control, it is left to the local authority. However, I will examine that point.
4.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I hope that I shall be allowed to intervene even at this late stage of the debate, although I was not present during its earlier stages. Certain remarks have fallen from the lips of the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, in a reply which I think all your Lordships feel was informative and helpful, in so far as it could be and these remarks have prompted me to speak now. The noble Earl spoke of the reduction of the number of slaughter-houses down to a figure of 600. The noble Earl spoke rather as if the elimination of these small slaughter-houses was being achieved, or had been partially achieved. I confess that what is in my mind now is not the slaughter-house where animals are killed for food, but the knacker's yard where beasts are slaughtered for dogs' meat or other offal. Many of these still exist.
I have in mind one such place which is not far from where I live. I do not want to harrow your Lordships with any description of what obtains in that place, but I know only too well that the legs, the skeletons and the entrails of animals are scattered about outside. Any animal that is to be slaughtered is openly driven through the lane leading to the yard, in which I myself have seen horses' feet thrown about as though they were stones—quite apart from the skeletons and the offal. I am afraid that, contrary to my usual practice, I have acquired no knowledge of the law in the matter under discussion. I have
1006
not applied myself closely to it, and I confess that I have no knowledge of how the law stands. I do not know whether these knackers' yards are inspected. I do not know, if they are not supplying meat for food, whether they are subject to the same control as the recognised slaughter-houses. From what I have seen, I rather suspect that they are not. If that is the case, I am sure that the noble Earl, whose sympathy is undoubtedly with us in this matter, will do what he can to see that this state of affairs is rectified. I shall be happy to give him full particulars of the place I have in mind, if they will be of any assistance to him.
The next point is the question of the humane killer. Obviously, I am in favour of it, but I think that to a certain extent the public are misled by what is said about it. I believe the real cruelty is caused before the animal is killed. I question whether there is any difference between stunning an animal skilfully and killing it with a humane killer, but there is a difference between driving an animal through a yard full of the remains of other beasts to have its throat cut and having it stunned and taken in to be killed in a properly constructed abattoir. I feel that the places which I have in mind are supported in error by the public, because the advertisements about knackers' yards say, "Send your worn-out horses to us. We pay the highest prices. We kill them with the humane killer." But often there is much cruelty before killing. Often they do not kill those animals at all. They take the worn-out hunter or the broken down racehorse and sell it again; and, so far as I know, there is no law to prevent them doing that. Whiles I feel that it would be out of place and unnecessary to make any appeal to your Lordships in this matter. I would take this opportunity to make a very strong appeal to the public and to urge those sending any worn-out animals to be killed at the knackers' yards to change their minds. I hope that, when the van comes to take the animal away, they will see that it is killed on their own premises. It comes to the same thing in the end, and it avoids all the suffering to which the unfortunate beasts would otherwise be exposed.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: To answer one question which the noble Viscount asked me, as the noble Lord

1007
knows, the killing of all horses is subject to the provisions of the Slaughter of Animals Act; and they would have to be stunned. Knackers' yards are under the control of the local authorities. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would send me details of cases where unkind treatment of animals occurs.
VISCOUNT BUCKMASTER: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I am sure he will forgive me for not having mastered me law on the subject before I spoke.
5.0 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl who has replied for the Government for the courteous and kindly way in which he phrased his refusal. I do not suppose that Joshua expected the walls of Jericho to fall down at the first advance of his army, and perhaps I may have an opportunity of sounding a trumpet again if I am still permitted to address your Lordships' House. I do not know what is "cooking," and perhaps that opportunity will be denied me. For that reason I would like to take a little, more time, if I may, in dealing specifically with the answer I have received. In the first place we are told that this country is in the forefront of the countries of the world in scientific humanitarianism. I would say that that was a self-delusion. I would say that Switzerland is far ahead of this country. I know that Switzerland would not for a moment tolerate the Jewish methods of slaughter in their beautifully constructed and conducted abattoirs.
This matter of the Jewish and Moslem slaughter is one which I maintain should be fought. A Jewish Rabbi during this, last summer spoke in a series of talks on the wireless called "What I believe," and this is what Rabbi Dr. Mattuck said in July, 1947:
"The way is charted for man by the Law. The Law is therefore also a gospel, it promises salvation. Leaving aside its ceremonial prescriptions, which, as the Prophets taught long ago, have only a functional and therefore a relative and changing value, it shows the way of the good life."
That is the point that I want to emphasise: the ceremonial of the law is essentially ephemeral. We put a stop to the practice of suttee in India. The Mormons are no longer allowed to exercise unrestricted their activities in America. Even
1008
the right reverend Prelates who sit opposite, through the intervention of St. Paul, are severally restricted to the enjoyment of one wife; and I personally maintain that we should not take it for granted, that because this is a canon, or rather a custom, of the Jewish priesthood it is therefore unalterable. I understand that many Jews had to eat unsanctified meat during the war, and I have yet to learn that they suffered any ill-effects. Be that as it may, if the Government do not sec the question from my point of view, if they say, "No; we will not stand out against the Jews in that respect," then at least surely they can ensure that the Jewish practices are not carried out in our slaughter-houses and that a totally unnecessary number of beasts are not slaughtered by the Jewish method for sale to the Christian community.
When the noble Earl indicated that the reduction in the number of slaughterhouses had resulted in an improvement, I was not able to follow him. If all those 600 slaughter-houses that remain were modern, decently designed and constructed abattoirs, there would be strong point in what he said. But they are not. Some of these 600 places are mere dirty shambles, like the instance I quoted in the West country. With regard to the main point, which is the vast number of animals that are slaughtered outside slaughter-houses, I quite agree that it would be difficult (impossible if you like), to enforce absolutely the use of the humane killer throughout the whole country. But, on a whole, we are a law-abiding people, and if it were the law that the humane killer should be used surely a great number of people who do not use it now would then use it. I saw in a newspaper the other day that Mr. Strachey, for quite another reason—namely, to prevent the black market slaughtering of pigs—is contemplating an order that privately owned animals must be slaughtered by licensed slaughtermen. If he is considering that, there is a means of bringing into force what I want, because they are licensed slaughtermen and they must all be provided with the humane killer. I offer that point to the noble Earl, in the hope that he may go into it a little further.
Finally, there is this question of public complaints. That was why, at the beginning of my speech, I said that I wished

1009
to confine my remarks to the slaughter of animals for food, and not to consider external cruelty. If any noble Lord wishes to raise the question of cruelty to animals in any form whatsoever, he will find a stout supporter in myself. But the question of public information about such cruelty can come into this question only in market places, or by drovers, and so on; the public do not know what goes on inside the slaughter house. That is one of the points I make. When I put down this Motion I was asked whether I wished to divide the House upon it. I do not want to divide the House; I want to unite the House solidly to the active pursuit of the question so that a really humanitarian result may be obtained. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

ROYAL MARINES BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, before this House adjourns for Public Business until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday next, may I say that the principal business on that day will be a debate on a Motion on the
1010
marketing of agricultural produce, to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Radnor?

MERSEY AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) ORDER, 1948.
Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons under Section 3 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, that no Petition has been presented against the Order: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of six Members to join with the Committee appointed by this House, as mentioned in their Lordships' Message of Thursday last, to consider all Consolidation Bills of the present Session: The Evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time to be printed, but no copies to be delivered out, except to Members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further notice. Leave given to the Joint Committee to report from time to time.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past five o'clock.