Lords Sitting of 23 June 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Hemphill—Took the Oath.
The Lord Harmsworth—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

DOVER HARBOUR BILL
2.35 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE CORONATION: AMERICAN TELEVISION PROGRAMME
2.37 p.m.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the deep feelings aroused in people throughout Great Britain as the result of the showing of the Coronation Ceremony by television in America; and whether the B.B.C. authorities were aware of the fact that the Ceremony as shown would be used for purposes of advertisements, some of which were in very bad taste.]
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I have now had an opportunity of having a fuller account of what occurred in the United States with regard to the broadcasting of the Coronation. There are just over 2,400 broadcasting stations in the United States, and by the vast majority of them the Coronation was dealt with in a spirit of kindliness and respect for the Royal Family, and showed deep friendliness and sympathy for our feelings in this country in connection with that Ceremony. There were, undoubtedly, a
1150
small number of lapses, of which, as I said last week, the Americans showed a disapproval at least as great as ours. It was perhaps regrettable that, before we were able to make a full survey, those lapses were given disproportionate prominence.
I am satisfied that the B.B.C. took all the steps that they could to ensure the best possible handling by the main networks, which showed a great desire to meet their suggestions. As no copyright exists of sound or television broadcasting, arrangements could not take a contractual form; but, short of that, everything possible was done. I hope that noble Lords will not ask me to say or do more. The Coronation has been a source of great emotional union and understanding between our two peoples which we may be in danger of marring if we rake up and examine every small mistake or lapse of taste that has been made, instead of concentrating on the broad general picture, which is one of which both countries can be very proud.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his answer and join with him in his references, so far as the American people are concerned? No one who has seen the American people, particularly in America, cart doubt their good will towards the people of this country. That is one of the things that made these incidents so surprising. The noble Earl has given me more or less what I wanted, an official estimate of the range of these incidents. I thank him for his answer and will let the matter stop at that.
EARL JOWITT: My (Lords, may I add this? I do not know whether on a previous occasion the noble Earl has taken the opportunity of expressing his approval of the work chat the B.B.C. did over here, because I believe the whole House would consider that the work they did was of very great value. The success of the Ceremony over here was largely due to the brilliant way in which they handled what was a most important and significant occasion in the life of this country. I am glad to hear from the noble Earl, and I readily agree, that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the same was true of the United States.

SALE OF CORONATION CHAIRS AND STOOLS
2.41 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can make any statement as to the disposal of chairs and stools used at the Coronation Service in Westminster Abbey.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Works wishes to inform guests who attended the Coronation Service in Westminster Abbey that the chairs and stools used by the congregation may now be purchased. It may not be possible to offer more than one chair or stool to each applicant. In considering applications for chairs, preference will be given to those who occupied them. Chairs will cost £7 10s. 0d. each and stools £4 7s. 6d. each, including packing and delivery. Applications should be sent, not later than June 30, 1953, to The Controller of Supplies, Ministry of Works, Great Westminster House, Horseferry Road, London, S.W.1. The envelope should be marked "Abbey furniture." Payment should not accompany the application. Applications may also be made for the purchase of carpets and damask frontals. Preference will be given to applications from churches. In case there are some noble Lords who may not see this Reply, I am arranging for it to be circulated with the Minutes of Proceedings.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before we go on to the next Business, may I ask the noble Earl one question? I forget what we did last time; I know that I obtained two of those very beautiful chairs at the last Coronation: do we collect them ourselves or are they delivered, or what happens?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If any noble Lord is lucky enough to obtain one or more chairs, the cost of £7 10s. 0d. each will include package and delivery.
LORD STRABOLGI: Delivery to his home?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes.
VISCOUNT LONG: Does this apply to Peeresses as well?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, any individual who was a guest in the Abbey can make application for a chair or a stool.

LAND DRAINAGE (SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL (RIVE DITCH IMPROVEMENT)) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
BRADFORD CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
WALSALL CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
2.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Llewellin be added to the Select Committee.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

CLYDE NAVIGATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
2.46 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

NAVY AND MARINES (WILLS) BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
2.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. May I, in the first place, explain that I am in no way responsible for the fact that this Bill, brought to us on June 16, is before your Lordships this afternoon for Second Reading. I am, however, most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, for adding this Bill to the many important duties he is called upon to undertake. This Bill was introduced in another place by an honourable Member in a speech which was rightly described as witty, lucid, and cogent. I believe, however, that it is true to say that the Bill has received a detailed and exhaustive examination. Some troublesome clauses have been dropped, attempts to widen the scope of the Bill have been resisted, and it is now what I may in all fairness describe as an agreed measure with, I understand, in addition, the benevolent blessing of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government as well as the blessing of the Ministry of Transport. I do not for one moment imply that the Bill should not receive full consideration from your Lordships, but I feel that my task is not so heavy as it certainly would have been if a determined and successful effort had not been made to ensure that the Bid did not contain any controversial questions, and in fact that it should represent the greatest common measure of agreement.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships with a laboured explanation of all the clauses. This is primarily a Bill dealing with the machinery of local government, a fascinating, if complex, question. The Bill seeks to tie up some loose ends. The first three clauses have reference to the financial powers of local authorities. Briefly, they will help local authorities to save for certain capital expenditure and to put into a fund the proceeds from capital sales, and to keep the capital fund available for an emergency. Clause 3 provides for the building up of a renewal and repairs fund. May I illustrate the importance of a fund of that kind by mentioning that to-day a first-class refuse-collecting vehicle costs a considerable sum of money, and it is, I venture
1154
to think, sound policy to provide for the maintenance and the renewal of vehicles, machinery and plant used by local authorities. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to make two further observations on this clause. First, many local authorities by means of local Acts already possess the powers; and secondly, the clause ensures a fairly strict Ministerial control.
I pass now to Clauses 4 to 7. These relate to the powers of local authorities to provide omnibus shelters, and, in connection with these clauses, I am glad that parish councils have been included. I have watched with deep interest, as I am sure have many others of your Lordships, the increased activities of parish councils—in many instances inspired by the National Association of Parish Councils. After all, perhaps a townsman may be allowed to say that agriculture is still our largest industry, and it is an industry upon which more and more in the future the happiness and prosperity of this country will depend. The clauses in regard to omnibus shelters have been carefully examined, and I feel confident that all the necessary safeguards have been inserted in the Bill. As to the desirability of omnibus shelters in many of the rural areas, I am sure there can be no dispute.
I pass now to the miscellaneous powers and provisions in the Bill, and the first calling for a brief word is a small problem in connection with the responsibility for providing dustbins. It is no doubt true that dustbins and drains are not subjects of profound interest. Probably, interest is only aroused when drains are blocked or when garbage accumulates and begins to smell. Anyone who has seen the debris collected in a large urban community and brought into a dust destructor works will marvel, but, at the same time, agree with the statement that "sanitation is sanity." In this cleansing work, dustbins are a necessity, but disputes sometimes arise as to who is responsible for the provision of the dustbins. This Bill does not alter in any way the law on this point. Where a Local authorities have the power, but, in eludes the cost in the general rate, no difficulty arises. Personally, I am of the opinion that this is the best solution. Local authorities have the power, but in the Bill now before your Lordships, obviously one could not ask for powers

1155
to compel them to do so. All this Bill seeks to do is, when there is a disputed liability, to ensure that the owner and the occupier are brought together at the same time, leaving the court to decide as to the liability. Again, the existing law is not altered as to the right of appeal. There is just one further point in regard to dustbins The present maximum charge is now 5s., but the sanction for this is in a Defence of the Realm regulation. This Bill makes statutory provision for the maximum charge of 5s. and power is taken, at the same time, for the Minister, by order, to vary the charge. I apologise to your Lordships for speaking for so long on these somewhat dull subjects.
I would now refer briefly to some of the remaining clauses. Clause 11 is put into the Bill because of a recent legal decision. May I summarise it in this way? Under the Public Health Act, 1936, a local authority may issue an order for the demolition of a house, but in some instances if an order of this kind were issued and carried out damage would be caused to adjoining houses. This clause will enable a local authority, in such circumstances, where a house is unfit for human habitation, to issue a closing order, but, as I understand the matter, this would not preclude the premises from being used for purposes other than for housing. Power is also sought to apply this variation to some outstanding demolition orders. Clause 12 looks somewhat complicated but, quite shortly, it will enable local authorities who supply water under powers conferred by local Acts, to undertake emergency repairs to prevent the waste and misuse of water—powers enjoyed by local authorities who now supply water as authorised by the Public Health Act and the Water Act, 1945. I can only suggest that, probably by accident, these provisions were not included in some of the local Acts of Parliament. May I now say a word or two in regard to subsection (4). This will enable local authorities to contribute the whole or part of the initial cost of connecting premises to the mains, and this power is very desirable. Rural district councils are laying some thousands of miles of water mains, and there is always the difficulty of negotiating with occupiers of premises on the route, and, unless this power is taken,
1156
when the mains are laid further large cost may be incurred in connecting, and so on.
Clause 13 authorises local authorities in certain circumstances to waive sewerage charges. Clause 14 seeks to eliminate the dreary recital of the names, addresses and descriptions of the persons to whom votes are given, and the names of the persons by whom these votes are cast, at a meeting of a county or borough council, when the election of Alderman takes place. Clause 15 is included to meet the position, in the main, of members of a local authority who have money saved in a co-operative society, and raises the maximum sum from £200 to £500, the new limit to an investment in a co-operative society by any one person. Clause 16 repeals the fixed amount of financial loss prescribed in the Local Government Act, 1948,and authorises the Minister to issue regulations dealing with this question. Without in any way elaborating the matter, I may say that it is generally recognised that while service on a local authority is, and ought to be, voluntary, it is somewhat unfair that public-spirited people who are willing to give their time should be put to heavy financial loss. It is, of course, quite impossible to meet the loss of earnings in very high salaries or wages, but, at any rate, I submit that it is not unreasonable to cover normal losses incurred in giving service on a local authority.
My Lords, I submit that this Bill contains provisions which will be extremely useful both to local authorities and to the central administration. It is, I venture to think, a Bill which will be welcomed by everyone with a knowledge of local government and concern as to its future. I need hardly say that local government has its roots very deep in our national life. With all its faults, it is a precious heritage of which we have every reason to be proud, and it is in that spirit, and with all humility, that I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Burden.)
3.0 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burden, for the clear explanation he has given of this rather miscellaneous set of provisions. As he said in the course of his winding-up remarks,

1157
local government in this country is virile and dynamic. Its functions are constantly changing, and so it is natural that a Bill of this kind should become necessary from time to time. I do not think that any apology is needed for the so-called dullness of the matters with which it deals. I suppose that drains and dustbins can be regarded as dull, but a great many people in this country are engaged in local government, and so are concerned with these dull subjects, and we are grateful to them. They give of their time and energy freely, and they are the backbone of our democratic system of Government. I think it is a good thing that we should have a Bill of this kind before the House from time to time.
I have no particular criticism of any of the provisions of this Bill; I would rather refer to matters which have been omitted from it. I would express some disappointment that, if a Bill of this kind is necessary, it is not being presented by the Government. I imagine this is a Bill which has been agreed by the various local authority associations and, therefore, constitutes the lowest common measure of agreement. If changes were necessary, as I believe they are, I think that the Government themselves might have introduced a measure and incorporated some of the more ambitious changes which are required but which possibly could not be agreed upon unanimously by the local authorities themselves. But to-day we are dealing not with a Government measure but with the Bill before us, and on that I have only one or two comments to make.
First, on the interesting subject of capital funds, dealt with in Clauses 2 and 3, I think the provisions are vague. It is right that the local authorities should be empowered to set up capital funds for the purpose of their normal functions, and particularly for renewals and repairs. I was under the impression that nearly all local authorities already had a repairs and renewals fund. If they have not, then it would be an extraordinary thing, because at a time when all local authorities are engaged in building large numbers of houses it must be obvious that the cost of repairs in the earlier years will be much less than it will be later on. It would be most improvident not to provide for the higher cost of repairs at the end of twenty or thirty years out of the smaller need for repairs in the early years. I am
1158
therefore surprised that a provision of this kind is necessary.
I should have liked to see a provision to do the reverse of this—that is, to enable local authorities to pay for capital expenditure out of revenue. Calculations have been made in the past of what would have been the result if local authorities had set aside a certain sum every year out of the rates towards the cost of housing. I am not in the position to give your Lordships the exact details, but it is calculated that if that had been done in the days when housing was in its relative infancy, the local authorities would have been able to provide out of that fund for the whole cost of housing to-day without the necessity of raising money by loan at all, and we should have saved an enormous sum by way of interest. I regret that there is no provision of that kind in the Bill. I believe that if the Government had introduced a measure of this kind, they might well have provided for die reverse course, not only of setting up a capital fund but of using revenue for the purpose of capital expenditure.
The only other provision I wish to refer to is that contained in Clause 16, which deals with the financial allowances to members of local authorities. This is a provision that was first made in the Local Government Act, 1948, and it was intended that members of local authorities, particularly those self-employed, who sustain loss by reason of their attendance at meetings of the local authorities, should be compensated. The provisions of the 1948 Act have not worked well as regards self-employed persons. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Burden is under the impression that Clause 16 of this Bill puts the matter right, but I can assure him that it does not. The fact is that self-employed persons are in considerable difficulty under the Local Government Act of 1948. The provisions are vague and ambiguous. Persons who have made claims in good faith for payment of expenses incurred by them for attendance at local authority meetings have subsequently found themselves surcharged by the district auditor, have had to refund the money and, in a number of cases, have actually been prosecuted. So far as know, few prosecutions have succeeded, but the fact remains that there is a cloud of obscurity about the whole matter. In my view, this

1159
is a matter which ought to be put right at the earliest possible moment. People who give their services freely for the benefit of the public, and who claim only the loss which they have sustained, and, generally speaking, not the full amount of that loss, should not be imperilled either by the stigma of the district auditor's surcharge to repay the money which they had claimed in good faith over the years or by the possibility of prosecution. Clause 16 of this Bill does not put that right, as my noble friend seemed to suggest. On the contrary, it enables local authorities to restrict still further claims by self-employed persons. I hope that my noble friend will have another look at Clause 16, to see whether he cannot put right the various anomalies which experience has shown exist as a result of the 1948 Act.
Subject to these relatively small points, I think this is a good Bill. It is not an exciting or a thrilling Bill, but it is good so far as it goes, and I commend it for the favourable consideration of the House.
3.10 p.m.
LORD HINDLIP: My Lords, I rise to give my blessing to the Second Reading of this Bill. I have been interested in its passage through another place, and I find that it has been considerably amended since it was first introduced there. I am particularly interested in Clauses 4 to 7, which concern bus shelters. Until now, a local authority have not been able to put up a bus shelter until an order had been obtained from the Ministry of Transport, and that Ministry would empower the erection only of what is called a covered queue shelter. A covered queue shelter may be all right on the pavement outside Her Majesty's Treasury but it is not good enough in a pretty country village. So I am pleased to see that under this Bill local authorities will now be able to erect a bus shelter which will be in keeping with the amenities of the district. I am also glad to see that, as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has mentioned, the Bill includes, among the authorities who are given power to erect such a shelter, the council of a rural parish. I should like to ask him whether he can go one step further and include the parish meeting. I say this, because I know of
1160
one village meeting which is anxious to put up a bus shelter.
I welcome this Bill because, under it, local authorities are to be allowed to do certain things without having to ask permission from one Ministry, or to get an order from another: they are now to be allowed to carry out progressive and positive acts for themselves. This is most welcome. Most legislation which comes before your Lordships' House generally contains too many restrictions or too many directions. This Bill does not. Therefore, I wish the Bill a happy passage through the rest of its stages in your Lordships' House.
3.11 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, as this is a Private Member's Bill, your Lordships will naturally look rather to the sponsor of the Bill than to the Government for advice and explanation upon the meaning of the proposed measure. Nevertheless, I think it might be for the help of the House if I were to intervene at this moment to indicate in some way what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards this Bill. I can do that in a few words. The Government think that this is a good Bill and one which can safely be commended for your Lordships' approval. I cannot say, as one does usually in a Second Reading speech, that the Bill is one which can be approved in principle, because there is very little principle in the Bill; it concerns itself, as noble Lords have pointed out, with many topics rather than with many aspects of a single theme. It springs, so far as I can see, as much from private as from public legislation. Your Lordships will probably have seen the forbears of many of its clauses in the Private Bills promoted by local authorities from year to year.
I think that clearly the Bill will do good. It will do it, as the noble Lord, Lord Burden, pointed out, not by enacting some large change in the law, or in the powers of central or local government, or in the rights and privileges of citizens; it will do it, on the contrary, by small improvements in many ways. None of these changes by themselves is of great public moment. Indeed, some of the provisions of the Bill, such as the financial clauses, to

1161
which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred, mean only the extension to all counties, boroughs and district councils of opportunities and powers which many of them have sought and obtained from Parliament already. Others, such as the clauses relating to bus shelters, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, referred, are improvements of powers which are available only in an imperfect form.
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, apologised for the dullness and unexciting nature of this Bill. I do not think there was any need for him to do that. To those of us who are interested, or have in the past been interested, in local government—and that includes nearly everybody in your Lordships' House—many of these individual clauses will revive memories of old battles fought in the council chamber, and of difficult problems of local government which occupy greatly the attention of local councillors. Those of your Lordships, who like myself, have served on a metropolitan borough council, approach with particular interest Clause 10, to which the noble Lord, Lord Burden, referred. That is the clause which now gives a local authority the right to make a closing order for the whole house, rather than an order for the demolition which hitherto has had to be made. Had that provision been made ten years ago it would have given great benefit to many citizens, including myself (and here I must disclose an interest) because many of us suffered through having a bombed site next door, or a house that had fallen into disuse, and suddenly found the local council pulling down the house, leaving the two side houses open to the four winds, as mine has been for something like eight years. The existing law gave the owner of the bombed site the right to appeal; but usually the owner (if I may use such a terrible expression) could not care less—it was the people on either side who cared. But they had no right of appeal. Now, although it is rather locking the stable door after the horse has got well away, all the many people in London and in other large cities who suffered from the blitz, and who regarded this state of affairs as an unjustified and unjustifiable hardship, will note wits satisfaction that this matter is being put right.
1162
I will not go into the other clauses. The noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, suggested that there is room for improvement on one or two aspects. The mere fact that this is an uncontroversial measure, and largely an agreed one, which has been carefully examined in another place, will not, of course, prevent your Lordships from examining it with equal care; and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Burden, would welcome such examination. Provided it goes no further than the agreed nature of the Bill, as it now stands, I can, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, repeat the assurance that I gave a few moments ago: that we feel it is a measure which should meet with the approval of your Lordships' House.
3.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words in regard to Clause 4—namely, the provision of omnibus shelters. I happen to live in an area where the bulk of the property belongs to the Crown, and the majority of the people who use the buses are either employees of the Crown or of the lessees of the Crown. I happen to live near the little town where most of the commercial business is carried on. I have seen, to my distress, people standing in the pouring rain, waiting for possibly overcrowded buses, many of them old people, suffering obviously extreme discomfort and risk to their health. The local feeling is sufficiently strong about it for a local fund to be started in order to help to provide, out of the private purse, these much-needed bus shelters. Incidentally, if these bus shelters are provided, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Hindlip as to the desirability of seeing that they are of a pattern which will not conflict unduly with the attractiveness of the local scenery. I say that, more particularly, having been in the past for many years president of the county branch of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. But I am interested to wonder how soon these bus shelters have a reasonable prospect of being established. If money is being raised by private contribution for this purpose, it seems desirable, if the cost is going to be thrown on the local authority, that such collections out of private means should be discontinued. At any rate, on account of this provision, if no other, I give my hearty support to this Bill.
3.18 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I am grateful for the kindly and considerate welcome that has been given to this Bill, particularly as it is the first time that I have had the temerity to introduce a Private Member's Bill for your Lordships' consideration. I am grateful, too, for the points which have been raised. I am well aware of the extremely difficult question raised by my noble friend Lord Silkin in regard to self-employed persons. With regard to the points, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hindlip, and other noble Lords, all I can say, and all your Lordships will expect me to say, is that I will have these points carefully considered by those who are responsible for the promotion of the Bill to see what can be done at a later stage. I should again like to thank your Lordships for the kind and friendly welcome to the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DOGS (PROTECTION OF LIVESTOCK) BILL
3.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, this is a small but necessary Bill. It is the policy of the Government, as it is indeed of all Parties, to encourage the increase in production from our own soil, and in particular the production of meat. I hope that one of the results of this Bill, if it becomes law, will be to encourage producers in some areas to keep more livestock and produce more meat. The Bill should also go some way towards decreasing the amount of cruelty and suffering caused to livestock by dogs. There is no doubt that, directly and indirectly, the worrying of livestock, particularly sheep, by dogs causes considerable loss of meat each year.
I do not wish to give a great many figures, but in the year 1952 nearly 6,000 sheep were killed and over 5,000 injured by dogs in Great Britain. But serious as is the direct loss, the indirect loss is far greater. There are many areas where sheep could with advantage be kept, both from the point of view of meat production and as an improver of land, but where, owing to the dangers of attack and
1164
losses by dogs, farmers simply do not keep sheep. I know that in one instance a friend of mine on whose farm there had always been a flock of sheep recently gave it up after a series of attacks by dogs. I do not want to over-emphasise the point. Obviously the risk of loss through dogs is not the only reason why farmers do not keep sheep, but in many areas it has an important influence. This Bill, which makes the owner punishable if his dog worries livestock, is not intended to be an attack on those who own dogs. It insists merely that they take precautions so that their dogs do not commit crimes which cause serious loss to the owners of livestock, cause suffering to that livestock and loss to the country of much-needed meat. An uncontrolled dog, like a spoilt child, maybe a joy to its parents but to no one else.
As to the Bill itself, Clause 1 contains the "teeth." It makes the owner and the person in charge of the dog liable to a fine of up to £10 for a first offence, and £50 for each subsequent offence, if the dog worries sheep on agricultural land. Agricultural land is defined in Clause 3 and covers all the normal types of farm land. Worrying is defined as:
"(a) attacking livestock, or
(b) chasing livestock in such a way as may reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering to the livestock or, in the case of females, abortion, or loss of or diminution in their produce."
Therefore, to be an offence under this Act the worrying must be serious and likely to cause damage, suffering and loss. Clause 1 (3)of the Bill permits the owner of land to use a dog to drive off trespassing cattle, so long as he does not cause the dog to attack the stock. Under subsection (4), the owner of a dog can escape liability if he can show that at the time of the offence the dog was in charge of a fit and proper person. Of course he has to prove this to the satisfaction of the court, and the owner is not the final judge of who is or who is not a fit person. Under subsection (5), the Minister has power to exclude from the operation of this Bill land which he considers to be mainly "mountain, hill, moor or down land." I hope that that power will be sparingly used, because I feel that people who keep stock on that rather poorer land possibly suffer losses less well than the person who keeps stock on the more fertile land.

1165
Clause 2 deals with enforcement. It provides that prosecutions can be taken only by or with the consent of the police, by the occupier of land or by the owner of the livestock. This should prevent any frivolous prosecutions under this Act. Your Lordships will notice that this measure applies to England and Wales. In Scotland, I understand, a private individual cannot prosecute in this type of case. This clause also allows a policeman to seize a dog which he believes to have been worrying sheep, and if it is not claimed within seven days it can be dealt with in the ordinary way as a stray. Clause 3 defines agricultural land and also livestock, which includes all the normal farm animals.
I have tried briefly to tell your Lordships the reasons for the Bill and what it contains. I hope that if this Bill becomes law there will not be a large number of prosecutions. The success of the Bill will be if it encourages the thoughtless and careless owner to be more careful and, by so doing, reduces unnecessary loss of livestock. At the same time, I hope that it will encourage the farmer who is at present doubtful to keep more sheep and other livestock, which will be to the benefit of us all, and that some sheep may be spared a painful and useless death in order that they may, when the time comes, die humanely and usefully. This Bill had support from all sides during its passage through another place, where it was considerably amended, and in the end it was largely an agreed measure. If hope that your Lordships will accept it and give it a speedy passage, so that it can make its contribution to the crusade to grow more food in this country and also to the reduction of suffering. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
3.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Amherst, for sponsoring this small but extremely important Bill in your Lordships' House, and for the clear and concise way in which he has stated the case for it. On behalf of us on these Benches I should like to welcome the Bill very warmly. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to refer quite briefly to a little back history of this measure. I have no
1166
doubt that the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, could take the history of this matter a great deal further back than I can—indeed, possibly the problem disturbed the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, when he was with the Ministry of Agriculture.
This Bill deals with an abiding problem which has faced Ministers for a very long time. I recollect that, when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture in the late Government, my right honourable friend the then Minister, Mr. Tom Williams, was acutely worried by this grievous problem of damage done to livestock by sheep-worrying. He spent a good deal of time considering the possibility of legislation such as we have before us this afternoon to check the evil, but, of course, the difficulty about drafting a Government Bill was that it was really impracticable to do so without producing a measure which would be regarded as aimed at dog lovers, and therefore highly contentious. I imagine—though I do not know—that the present Government have found themselves in much the same difficulty. However, this practical difficulty has been overcome by public-spirited private Members in another place, and now from the Back-Benchers in this House; and, at long last, a Bill has been produced which all Parties can support and which, I believe, will influence public opinion far more than a Government Bill, because it is basically, as the noble Lord opposite pointed out, an agreed measure. I should like to thank all those in both Houses who have rendered a useful public service, which only they were in a position to give.
I think we all agree with the main arguments used by Lord Amherst in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The worrying of livestock by dogs is a shocking form of cruelty to animals, and results also in a considerable wastage of food every year. Perhaps I may say a few words about the aspect of the loss of food production. I believe—and this belief is, I think, borne out by the experts—that one reason, though not the main or the sole reason, for the decline in our sheep population since the war, as compared with the increase in cattle, poultry and pigs, has been the direct or indirect effect of the worrying of sheep by dogs. The noble Lord gave us some figures of the number of sheep destroyed in one year. But no less serious than the annual loss of sheep, and, of course, of poultry—

1167
although fewer poultry are killed—has been the deterrent influence on sheep farmers of this danger of sheep worrying. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote a typical reaction on the part of sheep farmers, given in a letter which appeared in The Times recently from the editor of a local newspaper, the Kent and Sussex Courier. This is one sentence:
"In this part of West Kent and East Sussex, where the paper I represent has campaigned for years against killer dogs, we know of farmers who have quite definitely given up rearing owing to continued losses from sheep worrying."
Your Lordships will remember the number of reports in recent months of cases of sheep worrying and I should like to quote one of these which relates to an incident in the South Downs. This is part of the report:
"Police cars caught two dogs, a Labrador and a terrior, leaving the scene of the killings. The sheep owner, Mr. Lewis Pile of Chalk Farm, Willingdon, said, 'the sight has so sickened me that I will never keep sheep here any more. In the thirteen years I have farmed this land I have lost over £1,000 worth of sheep, all killed by dogs.'"
This is an example of a farmer who has given up sheep farming. Probably this kind of result is even more important than the direct result of worrying, owing to the risk to which these farmers will be exposed. Indeed, I feel that one of the most serious consequences of these ravages is that farmers are beginning to feel that it is no longer safe for them to continue keeping sheep.
What I hope this Bill will do—it is a hope which I share entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Amherst—is to increase the sense of responsibility among people who own dogs. Most people are responsible, but some are not; and these people need some action to stimulate them to that sense of responsibility. By creating a new offence the Bill should bring home to the dog owners that public opinion in this country condemns irresponsibility in the control of dogs. It is thoroughly wrong because it leads both to shocking cruelty and to wastage of valuable food. Sheep worrying cannot be stopped by legislation, but only by people ceasing to allow their dogs to wander at large over land where sheep are kept. And we all hope that that will be the outcome of this Bill.
1168
My only anxiety about the Bill is that it has been so whittled down, for the sake of securing agreement, that it may not be a sufficient deterrent to the irresponsible. For my part, I am sorry that the maximum fine first proposed in the Bill has been reduced from £20 to £10. I am sure that the heavier fine would have proved a more effective deterrent. I also regret the possible exemption in Clause 1 (5), of hills, moors and down land. As all who have to do with the hill and upland farms of England and Wales are aware, such land carries large numbers of sheep; and we hope that those numbers will steadily increase. I think it would be very unfortunate if the hill and upland farmers were deprived of the protection given to farmers in other parts of the country. I have no doubt that this subsection was included at the instance of the Ministry, and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to say what his Department had in mind in asking for this provision, to what parts of the country it is intended that the provision should apply, and whether the Government propose to make any orders under this section if and when the Bill becomes law. I do not want to embarrass the noble Lord, to whom I have not given notice of this question—but I am sure the information would be welcome to all of us. The fundamental thing is that we all want this Bill to pass into law as speedily as possible, and as an agreed measure in both Houses. No one, therefore, would wish to propose any Amendment which would delay the Bill or undermine the basis of an agreement that has already been reached during its passage through another place. For my part, I hope very keenly that your Lordships will pass this Bill substantially in its present form.
3.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I should like shortly to express my agreement with this Bill, the Second Reading of which has been so ably and clearly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst. There is no doubt whatever that this particular plague of the countryside has been increasing quite considerably during the last few years, with resulting loss of sheep in those areas where sheep are still to be found. I am sorry to say that the numbers have decreased very seriously in recent years, with, of course, a consequent loss to our food supply. Incidentally, the

1169
trouble is aggravated by the fact that whereas in old days, particularly in areas like the Cotswold Hills, or the Chalk Downs, where sheep were largely kept intensively, with proper lambing pens and duly experienced shepherds, nowadays the keeping of sheep is done on a more extensive scale, with far less protection afforded to them and giving greater opportunities for dogs to do damage of this description. My only regret, in reading hastily through this Bill, is that it contains no provision—and I am not sure to what extent outside legislation deals with the matter—for shooting a dog found in the act of worrying sheep.
There is one other factor to which I would refer, and that is the iniquity, particularly in bad times, when people are reluctant to spend money on adequately feeding their pet dogs, of putting their dogs outside their homes to fend for themselves. I mention this particularly because it came very much under my notice when I was Governor-General of New Zealand, a country where sheep-breeding is carried on on a very much larger scale than it is in this country. During the period of the serious economic depression in the early 1930's, sheep worrying there became very serious indeed, particularly on the part of Alsatian dogs, which are kept to a preponderant extent in parts of that Dominion, and I had myself, perhaps irregularly, to take rather strong action, in order that these who turned their dogs out of doors to fend for themselves, because they purported not to be able to feed them, should be punished, in fact drastically punished, with an adequate penalty. I fear that that sort of process is beginning to occur in this country. I hope that an eagle eye will be kept upon it, and that anyone who treats his dogs in that way, instead of sending them to be humanely killed, as is now strongly advocated and carried out under the ægis of the Royal Society for the Prevention of. Cruelty to Animals, will be dealt with equally in this old country as they are now dealt with in certain countries overseas.
3.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, I should like to join in congratulating the noble Lord and those in another place on bringing in this Bill which I think is bound to do a certain amount of good, but I hope I shall not be accused of
1170
destroying the harmony of the proceedings if I point out, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has, a gap, and, in my view, a very serious gap, in its provisions. I confess that I did not follow as I perhaps ought to have done the proceedings on the Bill in another place. The noble Lord may be able to explain the reason for the gap. The ancient recipe, before ever you started upon anything, was: "First catch your hare." I think the first thing you have to do is to catch the owner, apart from the dog, and I am sure noble Lords who are practical farmers will agree with me that only too often the culprit is a dog which, even if you catch it, does not bear a large label round its neck giving its name and its owner.
On large farms, especially on down land, it is not easy for the unfortunate shepherd to keep up with the dog that has been worrying sheep, in the hope of eventually tracing it home. Therefore I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in suggesting that we ought, if possible, unless it is going entirely to wreck the Bill, to insert some provision to make it possible for a dog caught or seen in the act of worrying sheep to be killed—infact, to be shot. That is the only real remedy available to the farmer. There may be some other remedy available under some other Act. If so, I apologise to your Lordships for raising this point. As a practical farmer, I should very much like to know to what extent, in future, if this Bill is passed, my shepherd, if he fails to find the owner, is entitled to shoot the dog.
3.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, as one who once had the honour of being at the Ministry of Agriculture, I should like to join the chorus of those who welcome this Bill, but I do so with the same reservations that my noble friends who have already contributed have mentioned. The House and Parliament are no doubt generally and rightly reluctant to create new offences, but if a case is made out for the creation of a new offence, as I think most of us feel has been done in this instance, it is of evident importance and desirability that the necessary steps to be taken against that offence should be effectively achieved. As I heard my noble friend Lord Bledisloe draw attention to what he felt was a gap, as to who had a right to shoot the

1171
dog, and as the noble Viscount, Lord Hudson, referred to it again, in my untutored mind, without knowing exactly what the law might be on the subject, I did not suppose that any farmer with whom I had acquaintance would hesitate long, if he happened to have a gun and to be within range; and, if he was on the wrong side of the law, I supposed that public opinion would soon get the law corrected in order to save him from any penalty to which he might be subject. But, if my noble friend can get that point cleared up in Committee without interfering with the basis, which I think is important, he will command my general support.
I am glad the noble Earl raised the point about Clause 1 (5). I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will be able to explain what to me, at all events, and I gathered also to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, was slightly obscure—the necessity for that provision. For the rest, I am bound to say that I think this Bill is very carefully hedged about. I should have liked to see a Bill more drastically drawn; but in this, as in many other things, "beggars cannot be choosers." If I am told that this is the best I can get at this stage, I am quite willing to give it a trial, although I am bound to admit that I do not feel completely confident that it will achieve the purpose we all have at heart.
3.47 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, I want to support this Bill but also to criticise it in exactly the same way as it has already been criticised. The noble Lord, Lord Amherst, in introducing the Bill said he did not want to over-emphasise. I do not believe it is possible to over-emphasise the harm that is being done to-day by the worrying of sheep. I come from a natural sheep-growing district where twenty years ago there was not a farmer who did not run sheep. The other day I was talking to a local farmer who does still run sheep, and he said: "It is an absolute tragedy. When my father owned my farm, there was not one farm in this district that did not run sheep. To-day I have to go twelve miles before I can find another flock of sheep besides my own. That is entirely due to sheep-worrying by dogs." That is a serious situation, and I am bound to say I do not believe this Bill is strong enough to deal with it.
1172
A point has been brought up about the shooting of dogs. I will tell your Lordships a remark that the same farmer made to me in the same conversation. I said: "Why are you still running sheep? How do you keep them protected from dogs?" He said: "My keeper has a gun, and so have I, and the dogs do not come." That was his answer and I believe it is the right answer. We ought to give the farmer the power and the right to give a gun to his shepherd, to keep a gun in his own hand and to use it when a dog is seen worrying his sheep. It is vitally important in our life to-day that we should run sheep on our farms, not only because of the meat but also because of the good the sheep do to the land. If we allow farmers to make the excuse that they cannot run sheep because of worrying by dogs, then we shall be making a very grave error. I hope that not only will this Bill go through, but that it will go through in a stronger form than as at present drafted.
3.50 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I do not suppose that it will come as too much of a surprise to a number of your Lordships if I say at the outset that Her Majesty's Government welcome this Bill, and that they think my noble friend Lord Amherst, and the promoters of the Bill, should be congratulated for bringing it forward. My noble friend has rightly drawn attention to the seriousness of the problem which is caused by the worrying of livestock by dogs. It was because Her Majesty's Government were seriously concerned about this matter, and felt that some means should be found of reducing the number of such cases, that discussions took place last year between my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and members of animal welfare organisations, together with representatives of the farmers and local authorities. The main ideas which emerged from these discussions were that power should be sought to require dogs to be kept under control on land where they might do damage to livestock, and also that there should be some changes in the arrangements for dog licensing so as to reduce the number of stray and

1173
unlicensed dogs in the countryside. However, it was not possible to find room for a Government Bill in the legislative programme this Session, and as this is a Private Member's Bill it cannot deal with changes in the licensing arrangements; but it does, I think, make a very useful contribution to solving the problem.
As my noble friend Lord Amherst has explained, the Bill itself is simple and to the point. It makes the worrying of livestock on agricultural land a criminal offence, and in this straightforward way I think the Bill ought to bring home to clog owners that they have a responsibility for seeing that their dogs do not harm livestock, and for keeping them under control when they are in a position to do damage. The Government have no desire to see harsh or unnecessary restrictions placed on dog owners or their dogs when only a minority do damage to livestock. It seems to me that this Bill strikes a very fair balance between the interests of the dog owner and the farmer. In particular, quite unlike some proposals for dealing with this problem, it does not penalise the owners of dogs which behave perfectly well or which never come into contact with livestock.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and my noble friend Lord Halifax both asked me what was the purpose of subsection (5) of Clause 1. I am not, of course, responsible for this Bill, nor are Her Majesty's Government, but I can tell the noble Earl what I think is the purpose of subsection (5). Close to a number of big towns, there are open spaces, which are used primarily, for most of the year, for recreation, where people exercise their dogs and play football, and all the rest of it. Sometimes, for three weeks or so during the year, sheep or cattle are put to graze there, and it was felt that in such a small number of cases it might be rather a hardship on people who normally used that bit of land for exercising their dogs if they were required to keep the dogs under very tight control. This is a power which I am sure my right honourable friend will use sparingly, and only in very isolated instances, but that is the object of it.
Several other noble Lords have mentioned the question of the shooting of dogs. I do not want to trespass on my noble friend's Bill, but I think I am right in saying that at the present time there
1174
is nothing to prevent noble Lords from shooting dogs which are worrying sheep. The thing that usually stops them is the knowledge that they may be prosecuted by the owner of the dog. Of course, that deters a great number of people. I think I am right in saying, however—I am sure my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack will correct me if I am wrong—that if you can show that, at the time that you shot the dog, it was attacking sheep, and that that was the only means you had of ensuring that your livestock were not harmed, then the prosecution will not get very much further. Moreover, a Committee presided over by the Lord Chief Justice have issued a Report on The Law of Civil Liability for Damage Done by Animals (Command Paper 8746). They made a recommendation that the shooting of dogs should be made the subject of less strict provisions. At the moment Her Majesty's Government are studying this Report, and I think that is the reason why my noble friend and the promoters of this Bill have not put anything into this Bill about the shooting of dogs. In any event, I think it would be impossible to put anything in the Bill, because there is nothing in the Long Title about it—but I may be wrong there.
My Lords, I do not think—and I am sure my noble friend would not claim—that this Bill is going to solve completely the problem of livestock worrying. Certainly we must continue as we are doing at the present time, particularly in the direction of educating dog owners about the need for keeping their dogs under control when in the countryside. But I believe that this Bill will help to make dog owners more conscious of their responsibilities, and so make a valuable contribution towards solving the problem. I therefore commend it to your Lordships with the blessing of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I am grateful to all your Lordships for the way that this Bill has been received. I cannot claim much of the credit for the Bill, although I have sponsored it in this House. As regards the few questions which have been asked, the one which was asked by several noble Lords about the shooting of dogs has, I am pleased to say, been

1175
answered already by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. He gave exactly the answer. The only other point which has been emphasised by a number of your Lordships is that this Bill is not quite as strong as one would have liked it to be. But one has to sacrifice something to get agreement. That is all I need say, I think.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (PIGS) BILL
3.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It has passed through all its stages in another place, and, having read the debates which there took place, I have been unable to find any real disagreement over its provisions. There were no Divisions at any stage of the Bill, and it is difficult to detect that there was any opposition at all to it. But of course it is my duty to satisfy your Lordships' House that this Bill ought to be passed.
In 1933, just twenty years ago, your Lordships passed into law the Slaughter of Animals Act, which was preceded, five years beforehand, by a similar Act which applied only to Scotland. Those Acts applied only to animals killed in slaughterhouses and knackers' yards—the former, slaughterhouses, applying to places where animals are killed to provide food for human beings and the latter, knackers' yards, to places where animals are killed for other purposes. It is now thought that that restriction was too narrow. There was at that time a good deal of opposition to the Bill which became law, but that opposition, as is so commonly found in these matters, has largely disappeared; and it is now thought that the operation of the Slaughter of Animals Acts should be widened. There was at that time, for example, a suggestion that the meat of an animal which had been killed by a humane killer was not as good as other meat. It is now recognised that there is absolutely nothing in that suggestion.
1176
I quote that merely as an illustration to show how these theories disappear in the course of time. I may also mention that in another place, on the Second Reading of this Bill, one honourable Member frankly confessed that, although he had strongly opposed the Bill in 1933, he was now fully persuaded that it was right; and he is a strong supporter of the Bill which I am moving. I am sure your Lordships will give credit to anyone who was so honest as to confess that he had changed his mind in that way.
This Bill applies to pigs killed outside slaughterhouses and knackers' yards, which hitherto have not been covered in any way. Up to now, the best that could be done—and it has been done—has been that advice has been given and even persuasion applied by the Ministry of Food to those about to kill pigs. For that, everyone has been grateful, but it was no more than advice and persuasion, and it is now urged that it should be made compulsory to use the humane killer. It is estimated that approximately 500,000 pigs are killed every year outside slaughterhouses and knackers' yards. Certainly, the number is very large, and it is likely to be larger still, when the rationing of food stuffs terminates, and there is complete freedom to pig-breeders to kill as many pigs as are required.
Your Lordships will probably not deny that there is cruelty in the old-fashioned method of killing pigs. I need not go into details, but surely it is unnecessary cruelty and, consequently, should be made illegal. The operative clause is Clause 1, paragraphs (a) and (b). These two paragraphs make it compulsory that a humane killer should be used for killing pigs outside the premises I have already mentioned. To that, there are two exceptions in the Bill. In the first place, there is an age limit. A pig of less than twelve weeks in age does not come within the operation of the Bill. The reason for that is that it would be impracticable to insist that pigs of any age, however small, should be killed with a humane killer—and for various reasons a large number of very small pigs are killed. A humane killer may be used on a very small pig without killing it or, in other cases, may result in injury to the operator. Secondly, there is a proviso creating exemption in the case of

1177
animals which, after killing, are to be used for experimental purposes. The reasons for that are that an animal killed by electricity may not always be suitable for certain experiments, and if it is desired to carry out an experiment on the brain of an animal, it may not be possible to carry out such an experiment, if it has been killed by a humane killer.
Your Lordships will probably be anxious to know whether there is a sufficient number of humane killers in the country readily available for those who wish to kill pigs. That is an important point. I have no hesitation in saying that we are perfectly satisfied that there is a sufficient number. More than that, there should be no appreciable cost to the man who wants to kill a pig—in fact, in almost every case, there will be no cost at all, because these instruments can be borrowed. They are freely available to be borrowed in every part of the country—certainly in England and Wales, and I have no doubt also in Scotland, because this Bill does apply to Scotland. Every inspector of the R.S.P.C.A. has at least one humane killer which can be lent readily to anyone who wants to kill a pig. Therefore, not only are these instruments readily available but there is no expense connected with their use. Furthermore, having made inquiries, I am satisfied that the manufacturers of these instruments have an ample supply of them which will be ready in a very short time.
Clause 2 of the Bill sets out penalties. These are the same as in the 1933 Act. Having regard to the change which has taken place in the value of money, I must admit that when I read the Bill it seemed to me at first as if the penalties were small. On the other hand, there is surely virtue in having penalties identical with those in the 1933 Act. Therefore, I support the figures set out in this clause. Clause 3 is the interpretation clause. I should like to draw your Lordships attention to Clause 4 (4) which provides that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, shall come into force on July 1, 1954— that is, twelve months hence. Your Lordships may wonder why there should be this delay. That date has been put in quite deliberately in order to make certain that there is ample time to obtain the necessary number of humane killers everywhere in the country—even in the most remote places—so that no one will
1178
then be able to say that he is being unduly rushed in this matter. That really is this Bill, and I commend it to your Lordships as a sane piece of legislation. It has been found, in the course of time and as the result of experience of the working of the 1933 Act, to be desirable, and I would almost say necessary, if we are to prevent unnecessary cruelty in this country. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
4.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that no one could more appropriately have commended this Bill to your Lordships than the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, whose concern for animals we all know so well. We on these Benches—I think I call still talk in the plural—welcome this second Bill dealing with agricultural matters, because it establishes the right of the backyard pig to humane treatment. There is no reason at all why a pig killed in a slaughter house or a knacker's yard should suffer less than a pig killed on its owner's premises. This Bill will give the home-killed pig the same protection in law as other pigs already have. I need hardly remind your Lordships that we, as Socialists, believe in equality among pigs as well as men. We are glad to think that this is a measure which will put an end to much unnecessary suffering that goes on at the present time.
Again, as the noble Lord pointed out—and perhaps I might emphasise the point because I think it is of importance—our expanding pig population makes this Bill particularly urgent. More pigs were slaughtered in 1952 than in 1951, and it is likely that still more will be reared and killed after feeding stuffs have been freed later on in the year. We can get a rapid increase in our supply of home-killed meat—which is something that everyone wants—only by increasing our pig population, and in order to do this we want to encourage the keeping of pigs by the whole farming community, from the pig farmers, who rear their animals for pork and also to send to the bacon factories, right down to the smallholder and the small farmer who kill their own pigs. But as more of these small

1179
men keep pigs in the future then the protection provided by this Bill will be all the more necessary.
Of course, the practical effect of the Bill will depend on its enforcement, and I very much doubt whether it can be successfully enforced unless we can persuade public opinion in the countryside that brutality to pigs is just as detestable as brutality to horses and dogs. I am sure the Government will be in agreement with this plea. I hope they will do all they can to draw the attention of the farming community to the broad principles on which this Bill is based and to the particular provisions about humane slaughter. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will be able to say whether he intends to try and enlist the support of the National Farmers' Union and its local branches, and whether also he is considering the desirability of notifying the county agricultural committees and asking them to notify their district committees.
There are two questions I should like to ask someone connected with the Bill: I am not quite certain whether I should address them to the noble Lord who is promoting the Bill or to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who has no responsibility for it but apparently an immeasurable fund of information about it. Under Clause 4 (2) the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. Of course, we should all agree that it is for the Government of Northern Ireland to decide whether or not they wish to legislate on any matter which is within their domestic jurisdiction, but I should like to know whether Northern Ireland has been consulted about this matter and whether any views have been expressed by the Government of Northern Ireland.
My second question was answered in part by what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, said towards the end of his speech. I wanted to ask: why this curiously long delay in the application of the Bill after it becomes law? Why have we to wait for twelve months? The noble Lord said it is on account of the provision of these instruments for humane slaughter. Everyone who has been connected with a Government Department realises that administrative arrangements have to be made very carefully and well in advance if a Bill is to become effective,
1180
but I cannot help regretting this delay of twelve months, because with every month that passes the provisions of the Bill become more urgent. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Lord who is promoting the Bill to consider the possibility of reducing the period before the Bill becomes effective, even if it be only by a few months. It may not be possible to bring the Bill into effect at the beginning of next year, but perhaps it may be possible to do so three months earlier than is at present provided, say, in the spring of next year. I am certain that the benefits of the Bill will be greatly increased if those concerned with the administration of it would make a special effort to see that the necessary preparations are made in less than a year from now. I warmly commend the Bill and I hope your Lordships will feel that it should have a speedy passage through the House.
4.14 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I most heartily congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, upon bringing this Bill before your Lordships' House. I am very happy about it, because on three occasions I have spoken on this subject and I am sorry to say I obtained little satisfaction. When addressing the Labour Government I did not find that their concern for pigs was equal to their concern for other animals, as we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. But I am only too delighted that others have succeeded where I have failed.
I have just two points to make. One has already been raised—that is, the question of the delay of twelve months in bringing the Bill into effect. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, assured us to-day that there is an adequate number of humane killers available in the country. If that is a little doubtful, surely another six months should be sufficient to bring the number up to the required standard. So I would ask him, if he would, to reconsider that point and make the Bill effective, let us say, at the end of this year. The other point I wanted to raise was the question of the slaughter of sheep outside slaughter houses. It may be that it is impossible to extend the protection in this Bill to sheep. Although the slaughter of sheep outside slaughter houses is not very common now, it may be that when the rationing of food is lifted, a considerable number of sheep will be slaughtered on

1181
farms, as I believe was the case before rationing was brought in. Having raised these two points, I reiterate my own great pleasure that at last this much-needed reform is, I hope, to be brought about.
4.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I warmly support this Bill. The great puzzle to me is that we have had to wait until 1953 for such a Bill to be passed through Parliament I have a lively recollection of when I was standing as a candidate for another place, for the South Wilts Division, more than forty years ago. A dominant lady, the late Duchess of Hamilton, to whom in this connection all credit should be paid, not only emphasised the enormous importance of using a humane killer in the process of slaughtering pigs, but warned me that I should have a very poor chance of being returned if she started a campaign against me on this subject. I was wholly convinced by her crusade, and subsequently, when I found myself the second largest owner of pigs in the country and also the owner of a private bacon factory, I was very careful indeed to adopt the system which is apparently embodied in this Bill.
I am bound to confess I am not at all up to date and I am going to ask the noble Lord whether he will kindly answer one question which puzzles me. In the old clays I remember that the great objection on the part of butchers and bacon factors to the use of a humane killer was that unless death took place instantaneously, what was called "blood splash" developed in the fibres of the flesh of the pig. I believe that electricity is now used in this connection. But I notice that Clause 1 of the Bill says:
"No pig exceeding twelve weeks in age shall be slaughtered in any place other than a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard unless—

(a) it shall be instantaneously slaughtered or shall by stunning be instantaneously rendered insensible to pain until death supervenes."

I always understood in the old days that, if there was any long interval between the time when the pig was stunned end death supervened, the complaint on the part of the butchers and the bacon factors was well justified. In other words, there was quite serious detriment to the quality of the flesh of the pig. Incidentally, I do not know why the words "until death supervenes" are inserted. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Merthyr
1182
whether, in fact, under the present system of humane killing, death does actually supervene instantaneously; and whether, otherwise, there is still not an objection to this process on the part of the butchers and bacon factors.
There is only one other point I should like to mention—I am afraid it cannot be put in the Bill. There is nothing more distressing to other pigs, where there are several pigs and only one is being selected for slaughter, than to watch this process going on. I hope that if this sort of slaughter takes place outside slaughterhouses, the presence of other pigs will, so far as possible, be avoided, and that the pig will be killed in isolation. I warmly support the Bill.
4.22 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I hope that it will not be considered ungracious on my part, in view of your Lordships' kindness to me in connection with a Bill earlier this afternoon, if I say a few words on this Bill. First of all, I assume that I must declare an interest, not in farming, or anything of that nature, but because my attention has been called to the point I intend to raise by the Association of Municipal Corporations, of which, with some noble Lords on the Benches opposite, I happen to be one of the Vice-Presidents. I warmly associate myself with others who have spoken in favour of the Bill and its objects. It is because I am concerned that the Bill should not be simply a dead letter that I raise the point of the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act.
I am sure your Lordships will be aware that the local authorities are responsible for the enforcement of the provisions of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, and that their sanitary officers and meat inspectors are frequently called in when the slaughtering of pigs takes place. As I read the Bill, there is nothing in it which would effectively lead to the enforcement of its provisions, other than what has already been mentioned—namely, enlightened public opinion. I am not for a moment decrying the importance of enlightened public opinion, but, in view of the fact that it has been necessary to include provisions in the main Act in regard to the slaughter of animals, and knowing what would go on unless there was systematic enforcement

1183
of the law under the main Act, I suggest that this Bill requires tidying up in that respect. I do not suggest that the local authorities should be the only people to be concerned with the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill, but I do feel it would be a mistake if we did not endeavour to tighten up the weakness in the Bill, as I see it, so far as enforcement is concerned. Therefore, not in any hostile spirit, but with a view to being co-operative, I hope that on the Committee stage I may be able to put down an Amendment which will meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who is in charge of the Bill, and whose speech I warmly welcome as an eloquent contribution to this difficult problem.
4.24 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, for the second time this afternoon I have the agreeable duty, on behalf of the Government, of welcoming a Private Member's Bill. We have watched its progress with interest and feel that it is a useful and constructive measure. I was glad to see, however—because it concerns my Department, although I know that this may shock the humanitarian feelings of my noble friend Lord Listowel—that special provision has been made in Clause 1 so that the requirements of the Bill will not apply if a pig is slaughtered at a laboratory or a research station. Scientists who are engaged on research into the diagnosis of disease, or in connection with the aims of veterinary surgery or medicine, sometimes have to kill pigs without damaging the brain or the central nervous system, so that those parts of the body can be examined in detail after death. But they will, of course, be in a position to ensure that the animal does not suffer. The normal procedure, I believe, is to anæsthetise the pig and then bleed it to death while it is unconscious.
I shall not attempt to answer the questions which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the noble Lord, Lord Burden, have put. I would again emphasise that this is not my Bill, nor the Government's Bill. On the last occasion I was in a position to answer questions, because the Bill concerned my Department, whereas on this occasion it does
1184
not. However, I am sure my noble friend Lord Merthyr will answer all the questions that have been asked. I may say that the Scottish Departments of Health and Agriculture, and the Ministries of Agriculture and Fisheries and of Food, were consulted during the preparation of this Bill, and it has the support of the Government.
4.27 p.m.
LORD DORCHESTER: My Lords. I am old enough to remember the time when every farmer and many cottagers kept pigs, a happy state of affairs, which I hope will return. At the same time, I remember the shrieks and outcries that rang through the neighbourhood whenever a pig was stuck, which was our rather brutal method of dealing with them in those days. Therefore, I cannot too strongly endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Merthyr said in relation to this Bill.
4.28 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, it falls to me to reply to the various points which have been made by speakers in the debate Before doing so, I should like to thank all those speakers for their interest in, and support of, this Bill. I will do my best to reply to all the points raised, although I have not got them quite in the order in which they were made. The noble Lord, Lord Burden, raised the question of the enforcement of the provisions of the Bill when it becomes an Act. I shall be interested to see any Amendment that he puts down, but I should like to say at this stage that this matter was discussed in another place; and the answer given by the promoters of the Bill is that they think it is better to leave open the question of who is to enforce the provisions of the Bill, because if you lay down that one class of person shall be responsible, to the exclusion of any other, you may create unfortunate cases in some parts of the country. I therefore suggest that we should leave it elastic. The attention of the Government spokesman in the other place was called to this point, and he stated—and I respectfully agree—that it really is better to leave it so that the local authorities and the police may enforce the provisions. It was stated in another place—and I should like to state it here—that normally the police would enforce it; but there may be different circumstances in different parts of the

1185
country, and it may even be that personalities may be involved. After all, anyone can lay information, so there is nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent anyone from bringing the necessary proceedings. Although we may discuss this point again, I suggest that it would be better to leave it in that elastic and open state, so that nobody is prohibited from bringing the necessary proceedings.
I have been asked by more than one speaker about the delay of twelve months. In the original Bill, it was to come into force on January 1, 1954. In another place the promoter of the Bill himself moved an Amendment extending the period by six months, and I am bound to say, as I indicated in my former speech, that I think it is reasonable, in a matter of this kind, to give that extra period during which everybody affected can prepare himself for the coming into force of the Act. It may be that in remote parts of the country it will take rather longer to make all the necessary preparations, and surely six months is not a very long period. Of course, it is a matter of opinion. Suffice it to say that the promoter of the Bill introduced the Amendment delaying its coming into force by six months. There is one other point about this date. January 1 is in the middle of the pig-killing season. Would it not be preferable if the Bill were to come into operation in the off season, rather than in the middle of the pig-killing season?
I was asked about Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Government have not been consulted about this matter, and I think that in the circumstances it would not be proper for us, without consulting them, to introduce a Bill applying to Northern Ireland. I am informed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who has been good enough to take art interest in this point, that it would be perfectly normal for us to call their attention to the fact that this Bill has been passed by the United Kingdom Parliament and hope that they will do the same.
1186
The noble Lord, Lord Dowding, made an interesting suggestion—namely, that this Bill should apply to sheep. I do not want to throw cold water on that suggestion, but I am informed—I am not an expert in this matter—that in these days sheep are usually taken to a slaughterhouse, and that it is comparatively rare for sheep to be killed, as are pigs, in isolated farms, cottages and back gardens. But it may well be a point that is worthy of further consideration. On the whole, however, we think that there is no great need to include sheep. If it transpires that we are wrong, no doubt the point can be reconsidered.
The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made an inquiry about the actual wording of the operative clause. First of all, I wish to say that these words are taken word for word from the 1933 Act. I have checked it up, and the wording is precisely the same. I support it on that ground. That Act has been in operation for twenty years, and so far as I know the wording has not been challenged or found to be wanting or defective. I submit, therefore, that we are on safe ground in copying the wording. But again I will certainly undertake to look into that matter to see whether there is any case for amending the wording at a later stage. The noble Viscount also mentioned the point about instantaneous killing of pigs. Again, I am in no sense an expert in this matter, but I believe it to be the case that in many cases bleeding takes place while the pig is still alive. The point is that the pig should be stunned by the humane killer. If it is stunned, then cruelly and pain do not occur. Again, I will look into that point, which may not have received sufficient consideration. I think I have dealt with all the points that have been raised. If there are any others, I will willingly inquire into them. I again thank your Lordships for taking such an interest in this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING (AMENDMENT) BILL
4.36 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I am indebted to my honourable friend in another place, the Member for Wolver Hampton South West. I think this is a Bill which is absolutely straightforward and one which is wanted by all users of the Queen's highway. The Bill, I feel, needs little explanation from me. The Title is self-explanatory, which is a very good thing, because I regret to say that on many occasions I have been rather bewildered by the Title of a Bill—as perhaps your Lordships have been. This Bill has had a straightforward passage in another place. Nevertheless, my honourable friend hopes that it will have the close scrutiny of your Lordships, not only in detail but in principle. The Bill has the support of the motoring organisations; it has, I think, the support of all users of mechanically propelled vehicles and, I think I am justified in saying, the support of the Pedestrians' Association and the National Cyclists' Union, because it is a very sensible amending Bill.
I will be very brief in dealing with the details. Clause 1 seeks to amend the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, so as to extend the circumstances under which the Minister may, by regulation, exempt vehicles, when parked, from the full lighting requirements of the Act. The effect of Section 1 (2) of the 1927 Act is that vehicles at present may be parked on roads at night only if they show their obligatory side and rear lamps. The curious thing is that the obligatory rear lamp requires a motorist to illuminate his number plate when the vehicle is parked, which seems a rather senseless thing, because when the vehicle is at the side of the road anyone can go and look at its number. The principal objects of the amendment now proposed are to empower the Minister to authorise the parking of vehicles at night, illuminated by what are termed parking lamps, in streets where there is a system of street lighting, or unlit on road verges. The form adopted here has been to extend the powers provided by the 1927 Act rather more widely. In common
1188
parlance, the parking lamp means a single lamp of small wattage, on the side of the vehicle, showing a white light to the front and a red light to the rear of the vehicle. It is very useful, because battery drain in the hours of darkness can cause a great deal of trouble. It is even possible, if a car—or indeed any vehicle—is used in the winter months with the consequent heavy drain on the battery from starting under cold conditions, that the lights may go out completely if all the three lights are put on during the hours of darkness.
These parking lamps that I have mentioned are in common use now in London and other cities, as well as in many countries outside these Islands, and the provision that parking without full lights should be permitted within 100 yards of a street lamp is related to the definition in Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, which defines for the purpose of the speed limit what is a built-up area. I think I had better read the provision to your Lordships. It says:
"… a length of road shall be deemed to be a road in a built-up area—

(a) if a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than two hundred yards apart is provided thereon, …"

It was felt that the words now proposed in this amending Bill would be clearer and simpler as a definition, for instance, in a street with a single lamp; but in fact except in streets where a direction has been issued exempting them from the speed limit (this, I am afraid, is very technical) it would generally come to much the same thing. The definition of streets where parking lamps would be permissible in terms of the existence or the contrary of street lamps would, we feel, lead to administration or enforcement difficulties, especially in border-line cases.
Clause 2 seeks to apply the Road Transport Lighting Act of 1927 to trolley vehicles. At the present time, lighting regulations on trolley vehicles are laid down in safety regulations; they are very similar to those of the ordinary public service vehicle, but there are some differences. Without going into a great deal of detail, I would say that it is felt logical and reasonable that, in the matter of lighting, trolley services should be made subject to the same regulations as

1189
other public service vehicles. The practical advantages, of course, of having central lighting regulations for trolley buses would be that any amendment could more conveniently be effected. The present arrangement would mean amendment of individual regulations for each undertaking. The third clause is purely formal. If I can explain anything further I shall be happy to do so. I commend this Bill to your Lordships and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Waleran.)
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I should like to say that we offer no opposition to this Bill. There will be opportunities at a later stage to go into detail, and in view of that I will say no more than that we on these Benches support this Bill.
4.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD: My Lords, I am glad to say that the Government welcome this Bill which is now presented to your Lordships for Second Reading. As the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, has explained with great lucidity, it falls into two parts, and I should like to express the Government's attitude to these two parts in turn. Clause 1 of the Bill, as my noble friend has explained, seeks to give the Minister of Transport wide powers to exempt vehicles from the full lighting requirements of the Road Vehicles Lighting Acts when these vehicles are parked. My right honourable friend the Minister is not in a position now to say what use he would make of these powers; more particularly he is not prepared to argue in detail the case for or against the use of parking lamps. I am quite sure noble Lords will appreciate that many consultations are necessary with those concerned, and especially, of course, with the Home Office and the police, before the Minister will be in a position to declare whether or how he is ready to give effect by regulation to the permissive power which is here proposed. Until this is done the Government must reserve its final position. Nevertheless, without at this stage giving any undertaking, the Government do not wish to resist the grant of the power proposed.
1190
It is fully recognised that in some circumstances, and subject to a number of conditions, the use of parking lamps may prove to be a useful contribution to road safety. It is in line with a growing practice on the part of the public, of course not legal, and it has been successfully tried abroad. The possibility of legalising these lamps has been under examination from time to time in the Ministry of Transport for several years and opinion has not been unfavourable, subject again to a number of safeguards. These would cover such matters as limitation of the classes of vehicles to which the relaxation might apply, the place in which vehicles might be parked, and perhaps also the times at which they might be so parked. The clause as now proposed would permit the Minister to lay down safeguards of this kind, if on consideration he decided to use the power.
Noble Lords will, I am sure, realise that there are many difficulties to be overcome; for instance, by defining parking places in relation to street lamps, the Bill might automatically open the door to the parking of vehicles on trunk roads or other places where the single parking lamp would be inadequate. Moreover it would clearly be quite impossible to mark all streets throughout the length and breadth of the country where parking within 100 yards of a street lamp was not to be permitted. This is an example of the kind of difficulty which in our opinion inspires caution on this matter, but these difficulties are not necessarily insurmountable. As was stated in another place, if this power is granted, we shall be glad to promise an early and thorough re-examination of the whole question of parking lamps; but until that is done I cannot state to noble Lords what use, if any, would be made of the proposed additional powers.
I should, however, add—and I feel this is important—that it is not the intention of the Government to use these powers to permit any extension of the all-too-prevalent practice of parking vehicles on the roads unlit. An exception might be made in the case of vehicles parked on road verges, to which reference is made in Clause 1. While reserving the Government's final position, I can promise that this question also will be examined, together with the question of parking lamps.

1191
As regards Clause 2, to which my noble friend has referred, the Government welcome the proposed change which is logical and will help simplify procedure over trolley buses. I see no need for me to discuss the merits of this clause in detail, since they have already been put before you clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Waleran. I will content myself, therefore, by making one point. Under the present system, the individual regulations for each trolley bus undertaking have to be amended separately, if there is any change in the law with regard to vehicle lighting. As noble Lords will be aware, very substantial changes in the law on this subject are now being made under the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, recently introduced into your Lordships' House, and which is now awaiting the Royal Assent. The clause now before your Lordships will save a great deal of trouble which would otherwise have resulted from that Bill, and in my opinion the Bill comes at a very fortunate time. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will feel able to give this Bill a Second Reading.
LORD WALERAN: My Lords, may I thank your Lordships for your attention, for your silence, which I understand connotes consent, and for the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Birkenhead, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, saying that they look upon the Bill with favour, if with reservations.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ARCHDEACONRIES (AUGMENTATION) MEASURE, 1953
4.53 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN rose to move to resolve, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Archdeaconries (Augmentation) Measure, 1953, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My
1192
Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name which refers to the Archdeaconries (Augmentation) Measure, 1953, of the National Assembly of the Church of England. The object of this very short Measure is to enable the Church Commissioners, at their discretion, to increase to £400 per annum the present maximum payments of £300 per annum which they may make to archdeacons from their General Fund. Archdeacons as such have no other form of remuneration. They hold their office with some benefice or other preferment, and the assistance given by the Commissioners is, in effect, a contribution towards their expenses. The expenses of the office are often very heavy. The proposed increase of £100 per annum in the amount payable by the Commissioners will do no more than help to meet the increase in these expenses since 1926, when the figure was raised from £200 to the present £300.
In addition to that, this Measure provides for the repeal of certain previous procedures. It takes the opportunity of doing away with the present rather cumbrous procedure of a scheme confirmed by Order in Council, and it also repeals a certain amount of obsolete or obsolescent law relating to archdeaconries. It will remove certain restrictions which have worked most unfairly in the administration of the Commissioners' scheme of grants. That is the whole of the Measure. It has been favourably reported upon by the Ecclesiastical Committee and has passed through the Church Assembly without a division at any stage. I hope the House will find it acceptable. I beg to move.
Moved, That in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Archdeaconries (Augmentation) Measure, 1953, be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Blackburn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
House adjourned at five minutes before five o'clock