Lords Sitting of 6 April 1954

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

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
TEES CONSERVANCY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

PENRHOS TERRITORIAL ARMY CAMP
2.35 p.m.
LORD HAMPTON: 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 their attention has been called to a statement in the Army Appropriation Account 1952–53 regarding the expenditure of £93,000 upon the construction of a Territorial Army training camp at Penrhos, and the eventual abandonment of that camp after it became known to the Ministry of Agriculture and other local objectors that a further 11,000 acres would be required for training purposes; whether there had been any consultation between the War Office and the Ministry of Agriculture previous to the construction of this camp; if not, whether, when any future construction of this nature is being considered, every effort will be made by way of pre-consultation with all interests concerned to avoid a like waste of material, effort and money.]
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, this statement has already been noted. The establishment of a Territorial Army training camp at Penrhos was agreed in its early stages with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and previous experience of post-war training in this area
974
did not indicate that difficulties were likely to be encountered over the War Department's training requirements outside the camp. Every effort is made to ensure that any necessary agreement is reached with all interests concerned before expenditure on training camps is authorised.
LORD HAMPTON: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his reply.

SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL [H.L.]
2.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to he put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[THE EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Functions of local authorities
1.—(1) Until Parliament otherwise determines, it shall he the duty of every local authority, if and so far as it appears to them that additional slaughterhouse facilities are required in their district having regard to the requirements of persons making use of such facilities, to make such use of their powers under any enactment or statutory order as they think expedient for securing the provision of the facilities required.
(2) It is hereby declared that the power of a local authority under subsection (1) of section sixty of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, to provide public slaughterhouses is exercisable in either of the following ways, that is to say—
(a) by acquiring (whether by purchase, lease or otherwise) or appropriating land and providing slaughterhouse facilities there; or
and any reference in Part V of the said Act of 1938, or in this Part of this Act, to a local authority providing a slaughterhouse or to slaughterhouse facilities provided by a local authority shall be construed accordingly.
LORD SILKI.NLORD SILKI.N moved, in subsection (1), to omit the opening words, "Until Parliament otherwise determines." The noble Lord said::I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of other noble Lords. Clause 1 begins with the extraordinary words, "Until Parliament otherwise determines." I raised this matter on Second Reading. Obviously, every Bill applies

975
"until Parliament otherwise determines." There have been a number of instances where measures passed by previous Parliaments have been repealed or revised by the present Parliament. Therefore, either these words in Clause 1 have some very special significance, much greater than the normal significance, or they are redundant. I should like to know which.
I imagine that we shall be told that this present policy is a temporary one, that the Government are considering the general policy of slaughterhouses, and that these words have been included in the Bill because of the need for haste in doing something, in view of the impending decontrol of meat. I would, however, draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that these words occur in only two clauses. Logically, if the reason is the one I have given, they ought to appear at the beginning of every clause. They appear, however, here, in the English Part of the Bill, and once in the Scottish Part. And I presume that in this Part they apply only to Clause 1, which lays down that it shall be the duty of every local authority to provide slaughterhouses in their area. Does that mean that the Government contemplate the possibility that, in their considered policy, it will no longer be the duty of local authorities to provide slaughterhouses? That would be a remarkable thing; they have been providing slaughterhouses since 1936 and have been licensing them. They have been responsible for securing the requirements of this country in respect of slaughterhouses.
I do not want to labour the point, but these are remarkable words. If taken literally, it looks as if there will come a time in the near future when these powers will be taken from the local authorities; and it is not very encouraging for them to go to the expense, as they are being asked to do, of providing slaughterhouses when they are told in terms that this is only "until Parliament otherwise determines." I should be glad, therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would explain what is the special significance, if any, of these words, why they have been put in and whether it would not be wiser to leave them out altogether. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("Until Parliament otherwise determines,").—(Lord Silkin.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): May I first be allowed to apologise to the Committee for the absence of my noble friend, Lord Home, who has an engagement which he could not break. He asked me to apologise to the House for not being here. As regards the Amendment, Lord Silkin will be glad to know that by his argument he has convinced me that he is right. The object of inserting these words, as he said, was to make it quite clear that the Bill was a temporary measure, so as to leave no doubt in the mind of anybody who read it that it was not to be permanently on the Statute Book. But I do not think that the words add very much, and I am glad to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: I do not want to paint the lily, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for accepting the Amendment, but the words do not do what the noble Earl, Lord Home, said they set out to do. All they say is that Clause 1 operates "until Parliament otherwise determines" —that is all. As a matter of fact, I should have had no objection to some words somewhere which would indicate that this is a temporary Bill, but perhaps the noble Lord's words have provided that indication.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN had given notice of two Amendments to subsection (2). the first being to leave out "either" and to insert "any." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name: it is preparatory to Amendment No. 3, and with the leave of the Committee I will, in moving this Amendment, argue my case on Amendment No. 3. This Amendment is one which the noble Lord, being in a reasonable frame of mind, will no doubt see his way to accept, because it does in terms what the noble Earl, Lord Home, whose absence we regret on this occasion, said it was the intention of the Government to do—namely, to provide powers of compulsory purchase of land. On Second Reading I made the point that the Bill, as it stands, does not confer upon English local authorities powers of compulsory purchase of land in order to carry out the duties which are being imposed upon

977
them. The Bill authorises the purchase of land by agreement, but not by compulsion, where necessary, and I made what I hoped was a reasonable case, to indicate that the local authorities ought to have compulsory purchase powers.
The noble Earl, in reply, to my surprise did not argue the need for those powers —he accepted that; but he said that they were already in existence under Section 306 of the Public Health Act, 1936. I had my doubts about that at the time, but I felt that it would be unfair to press the noble Earl—he was merely stating something which he had been told, and I did not think he had actually looked into it. I have since looked at Section 306 of the Public Health Act, 1936, and this is what it says—the noble Lord no doubt has it in front of him:
"The purposes of this Act shall be purposes for which a local authority may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily by means of a provisional order made by the Minister and confirmed by Parliament:
Provided that this section shall not apply where a power to purchase conferred by this Act is stated to be a power to purchase by agreement."
That is not a very satisfactory power in any case; but, taken by itself, the Public Health Act, 1936, does not contain a single word about slaughterhouses. Therefore, this power, which is a power to purchase compulsorily anything which a local authority are given power to purchase compulsorily under the Public Health Act, cannot confer on them powers compulsorily to purchase land for slaughterhouses.
But then I understand that there is a provision in a Schedule to the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, that Section 306 of the Public Health Act, applies to that Act. That may be so, and I do not want to take up the time of the Committee in arguing an intricate legal point. My own considered opinion, however, is that it does not provide powers of compulsory purchase for local authorities for the purpose of carrying on their functions as slaughterhouse operators. Even if it does, it provides the powers in a most unsatisfactory way, because it does it by means of a Provisional Order made by the Minister and confirmed by Parliament; and that, by general agreement, is not regarded to-day as a satisfactory method of exercising compulsory purchase. The Government are supposed
978
to be in a hurry over this Bill, and they know quite well that this method of Provisional Order, requiring confirmation by Parliament, is by no means the speediest way of acquiring land. It is expensive and it lends itself to considerable obstruction, and therefore in present-clay practice the normal method adopted is that of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946.
That is the method provided in Clause 14, in the Scottish Part of the Bill. Scotland has, in terms, a provision giving powers of compulsory purchase of land—and may I say, in passing, what a contrast there is between the drafting of the Scottish provisions and those of England! The Scottish provisions are much better drawn, much clearer and much more concise than the English ones. There may be good reasons for that, but it is a fact that they are better drawn. What I have done in my Amendment is to take the wording of Clause 14, in Part II of the Bill, which does confer compulsory powers, and to introduce it in Clause 1. If, therefore, there is no disagreement between us that these powers are necessary (and I hope that there is not), and that the powers conferred, if they are conferred at all under Section 306 of the Public Health Act, are too indirect and doubtful, and in any case are unsatisfactory; and if the Committee feel that, since the local authorities are given powers expressly in this clause to buy land by agreement, it would be better to say in this clause in terms that they should also have power to purchase land compulsorily, then I think the Committee would be well advised to accept the wording which is in the Scottish provision and to accept these Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("either") and insert ("any").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: I hope that I can satisfy the noble Lord that everything is all right, and that he need not worry unduly about this matter. In the first place, he is perfectly right in thinking that the reason there is no mention in subsection (2) about power to purchase land compulsorily is that subsection (2) merely elaborates a section of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. Under Section 60 of that Act, local authorities

979
have the power to acquire land compulsorily, and that power derives from the fact that Section 96 of the Act (if the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will turn it up he will see that this is so) applies Section 306 of the Public Health Act, 1936. I do not think there is any doubt about this matter. What the noble Lord seems to object to is the Provisional Order procedure. The whole of this Provisional Order procedure, as I understand, applies to all the subjects which come under the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. We think it would be quite wrong merely to change, for one particular aspect of the whole subject, the Food and Drugs Act form of compulsory purchase. The second half of the Amendment is unnecessary because the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, in Clause 1 applies its procedure to all Acts which had to do with the compulsory purchase of land before its passing. Therefore, automatically that will take effect. I hope the noble Lord will be reassured by what I have said, and will realise that what he wants is already in the Bill. I hope he will recognise that his Amendment is unnecessary and will agree to withdraw it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We are all glad to see the noble Lord back in his place again after his recent indisposition. We hope that he will be able to continue to bear the burden of the rest of the Session's work. He has been most charming in the reply which he has just made to my noble friend, but not very satisfactory. The way is now open so that large numbers of the poor, uninstructed, would-be licence-holders may, perhaps, get hold of the Report of the noble Lord's speech this afternoon, read it and then seek the best legal advice open to them. On the other hand, they may try to puzzle out for themselves what it is all about. Most of them, however, will become the usual victims of what we have got to call in modern Parliamentary life "legislation by reference." I know that Parliamentary draftsmen can get out of many difficulties by means of legislation by reference. It is inconceivable to us on these Benches that there should be any fundamental difference between the method to be applied in England and Wales and that applied in Scotland. Do I understand
980
that in the case of Scotland, if they want something, it will be subject to a Provisional Order and then subject to the definite approval of Parliament? Is that correct?
LORD CARRINGTON: No.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Exactly—that is the point which my noble friend Lord Silkin has been pressing. Why should this miasma be placed over the poor English and Welsh citizen, and yet not be applied in the case of Scotland? Why should we not get some fair crack of the whip in this procedure, such as that which has literally been won by the Scottish citizens. I cannot for one moment regard the noble Lord's answer as satisfactory. I am sure that he wants to reach the same objective in England and Wales as that which, I am glad to say, Scotland has reached in her public provision of slaughterhouses. Why does not the noble Lord give us the same procedure in this country? On both sides of the House we are anxious to obtain the same objective. What is standing in the way of having the same procedure for England and Wales as for Scotland? I can see nothing standing in the way, except perhaps a feeling that we must give way to the usual idiosyncracies of Parliamentary draftsmen who love legislation by reference.
LORD SILKIN: I do not know whether any other noble Lord wishes to say anything, but perhaps I may say a word or two further at this juncture. The only difference between us, apparently, is on a question of drafting. I am sure that it would be much more satisfactory to have these compulsory purchase powers set side by side with the powers of acquisition by agreement. As the matter stands, it is stated in the Bill that they may acquire by agreement. But nothing is stated to the effect that local authorities may, if necessary, acquire land compulsorily. Surely it would be much more satisfactory to say so. Secondly, in spite of the noble Lord's plausible statement, I am still in doubt as to whether Section 306 of the Public Health Act really applies—I hope the noble Lord will accept this as a genuine doubt. Need we have any doubt about such a matter in the drafting of a Bill, especially in the drafting of a clause about which we all

981
agree? Why cannot we, at this stage of the Bill, put in plain language something that we are all agreed about? I hope that the noble Lord will no: be difficult about this.
LORD CARRINGTON: Of course, the last thing I want to be is difficult. I should like, in passing, to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for what he said about me. I should also like to have another shot at answering noble Lords. I have a nasty feeling that I may have gone a little wrong in what I said in my first speech. I am, of course, no lawyer, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is. As I understand the position, it is this. In the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, which applies to Clause 1 of this Bill, Section 96 applies Section 306 of the Public Health Act, 1936. Lord Silkin, I am glad to note, agrees with that. There is no doubt whatever that Section 306 of the Public Health Act applies to the Food and Drugs Act, which applies to Clause 1 of this Bill.
LORD SILKIN: I follow all that—indeed, I think I said so. But may I express the doubt which I feel. My doubt is that I think Section 306 itself does not apply, because there is nothing in the Public Health Act, 1936, which relates to slaughterhouses. It confers compulsory purchase powers for anything that is done under the Public Health Act itself. Enormous powers are conferred, but it has nothing to do with slaughterhouses. Therefore, there is doubt in my mind as to whether power not given for compulsory purchase of slaughterhouses can be transferred from the Public Health Act and, therefore, can inferentially be applied to this Bill. The simplest thing, surely, is to remove that doubt by putting something in the Bill to make it clear that there are to be such powers.
LORD CARRINGTON: But Section 96 does apply and Section 306 also applies, because it has been used. The Food and Drugs Act, 1938, does apply to slaughterhouses. I hope the noble Lord will take it from me that that is so, for my advisers assure me that that is the case. If I may, I will go on from that. I do not want to quarrel over this point, for we all want to do the same thing. The section in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, applies. The Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, was
982
then passed, and that superseded he procedure in Section 306 of the Public Health Act, 1936. Therefore exactly the same procedure for the acquisition of land will take place in England as in Scotland, because the Acquisition of Land Act has superseded Section 306 of the Public Health Act, 1936. I do not think the noble Lord has any cause whatever to be uneasy about this. The power is there, and it has been used in the past for the acquisition of land. I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I regret to say that, though in other circumstances we might have agreed, this is a case where a Government measure is being introduced in your Lordships' House. I think it is fundamentally in the interests of citizens to be able to pick up a Bill and see from where the power stems under which they will have to pay rates and taxes because of the way in which a building for the slaughter of animals is acquired by compulsory purchase. I think that in an Act of Parliament the source of the power ought to be as plain as a pikestaff to every interested citizen. What we are getting here is a tripartite, and even a quadrilateral, reference. It goes to one, two, three and four Acts—"all round the mulberry bush," to use an old term. I think it is fundamental to us that we should have my noble friend's Amendment, setting out this additional power, put in the Bill, in order that we may have all three courses provided for in the clause.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Is it not rather a pity to go to a Division or to continue this wrangle over what is merely a question of drafting? The Front Opposition Bench appear to feel passionately upon this point. They say it is fundamental. For my own part, as a life-long opponent of legislation by reference, I think it is a pity that Acts of Parliament should rot be made as clear as they can be. Would it not be as well if, between now and Report stage, the Government and the Opposition discussed this matter with the draftsmen quietly, in good temper, over a cup of tea? If in that friendly atmosphere the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture can be persuaded to look at it again, then on Report stage the clause may be drawn in a form which will please all Parties.
LORD CARRINGTON: Of course, I shall be only too happy to accept the suggestion put by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. To be honest, I do not feel very strongly about this. I am told that all this is covered, and that the words which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, wants put in are quite unnecessary. But if the noble Lord feels strongly about it—I have been trying to convince him, but I am afraid that my powers of conviction are not very strong this afternoon—I do not want to quarrel about it. Of course, I will talk it over over a cup of tea, to see whether we cannot come to some arrangement; but at present I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment now, we will have conversations, on the understanding that I do not promise him anything.
LORD SILKIN: On a similar understanding, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON: This Amendment and the next are drafting Amendments. They leave out words which do not add to the sense of the Bill and I think are better left out. I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 12, leave out from ("1938") to ("to") in line 13.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, leave out from ("slaughterhouse") to ("shall") in line 14.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Charges for use of public slaughterhouses]:
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to add to the clause:
"(4) A local authority by whom a slaughterhouse has been provided under the foregoing sections of this Act or under any other enactment may provide plant or apparatus for disposing of or treating waste matter or refuse, or processing by-products resulting from the slaughter of animals in such a slaughterhouse."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, which would confer upon local authorities the power to deal
984
with by-products of slaughtering, which in many cases are extremely valuable, especially for fertilising and general agricultural purposes. It would also confer upon local authorities the power of providing plant and apparatus for the purpose of treating by-products. Here, again, I have followed literally the excellent example of Scotland, because in Clause 8 (3) (b) this power is conferred upon local authorities in Scotland. Surely what is good for Scotland should be good for this country. Therefore, I move this Amendment with great confidence, feeling that the noble Lord will not let this country down.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: Certainly as regards the first part of the noble Lord's Amendment—that is to say, the part dealing with the provision of plant or apparatus for disposing of or treating waste matter or refuse—the power already exists under the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, although I hesitate to say so in the presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. If the noble Lord has the Act with him, he will see that Section 60 (2) (c), gives local authorities that power, and I do not think there is any point in including in this Bill a power which already exists. The Food and Drugs Act, 1938, is on the Statute Book and local authorities have provided these services. I am not quite so certain about the processing of by-products. Originally, I thought this point was covered in the definition clause. If the noble Lord will turn to Part I of the Act he will see that among other things "slaughterhouse" means a place:
"for keeping, or subjecting to any treatment or process, products of the slaughtering of animals…"
I think that that covers the question of processing about which the noble Lord is worried, but I will most certainly look at it again between now and Report stage, and if I find that those words do not cover that process, then perhaps we can put down an agreed Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We are much obliged to the noble Lord for his answer. We should certainly like to know after reconsideration, whether anything is necessary. But I wonder whether at this stage the noble

985
Lord could give me some information about how this clause is going to work. It seems quite clear that the Act of 1938 is applicable to all publicly provided abattoirs, and its provisions have probably been followed in the case of abattoirs requisitioned during the war and the period of control. But I understand from the answer given to a question put by my noble friend and myself during Second Reading that the issue of licences is contemplated for a period of not less than thirteen months and probably for three years, and may be continued beyond that period if there are not sufficient public slaughterhouses to meet the needs of the area. I wonder whether this is going to be applicable in the sense of my noble friend's Amendment, in the case of premises for which licences have been allowed to lapse during the war and the control period but which may be re-licensed. I should think it is obvious from the fact that slaughterhouses can be relicensed to a minimum extent, sufficient to bring the number in the country up to about 3,000—there are only about 570 at the present time. Is this power likely to be used in the case of these slaughterhouses which will be freshly re-licensed?
LORD CARRINGTON: What power?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The power to make the provisions mentioned in the Amendment, such as of plant for the disposal or treatment of the by-products. The noble Lord has said it is already covered, to a large degree, in dire Statute.
LORD CARRINGTON: I do not think there is any difficulty about the provision of any of these things by the owner of a private slaughterhouse. Lord Silkin, I understand, is trying to ensure that the local authorities can provide them. I say that they already have power to do so. With regard to slaughterhouses which are being handed back to private owners, I do not think there is anything to stop them from providing these facilities, if they wish to.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am afraid that the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I think it is plain that a good many of the slaughterhouses which have been in use for the last fourteen or fifteen years have not been owned by local authorities,
986
although some of them have. Others have been under requisition, and they have been privately owned. But these provisions have not been made in every case by the private owner; some have been made by the Government. From the point of view of the improvement of public health and of the proper disposal of these waste matters, I want to know whether that same power will be used by the Department in respect of the 2,400 privately-owned slaughterhouses which may be re-licensed. We want guidance. I think that is a fair question to ask.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am perhaps being stupid, but I must say that I do not understand the noble Viscount. Is he suggesting that we should have a power to see that slaughterhouses under private ownership should be properly equipped?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: No.
LORD CARRINGTON: What power is the noble Viscount talking about?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I ant talking from my knowledge of what has been the procedure. The noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, will be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, what happened during the war period: that where a private slaughterhouse was. taken over by requisition, and it needed plant and other equipment in order to serve the public needs, then grants were made by the Government through the proper Department.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): May I intervene? Is the noble Viscount asking whether the Government, out of public funds, will make these provisions for privately-owned slaughterhouses? If I understand it, that is the question he is asking.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Yes. My noble friend has stressed the fact that this is a sort of special Government scheme, temporary in its nature. Nevertheless the Government propose to re license, not all, but a number of slaughterhouses which used to he licensed. They will have to act in many cases under the direction of The local authority and provide slaughtering facilities for other than their own imme-

987
diate trade requirements. That is what is being negotiated now. They will have to provide for more than their own business requirements. If that is so, they will have to provide extra plant. In that event, will they be made grants for it in exactly the same way as the Government made grants during the war?
LORD CARRINGTON: There is no question of giving grants to private people. As I understand it, there is no power by which the Ministry of Food can compel the owners of private slaughterhouses to do any more slaughtering than they wish to do. It is only an agreement which they enter into with the local authority.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am obliged to the noble Lord. Now I know where I am. It means that, if the owners of a slaughterhouse say that they do not wish to provide for other than their own business. the Government will have to re-license further slaughterhouses, because the number provided for at the moment will not be enough. The noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, is aware that I know a little about this matter: I was concerned with it for a long time, and had a great deal to do with building up the food and meat trade organisation at the Ministry of Food from 1938 to 1940. I understand that you are going to re-license private slaughterhouses and hope to carry on with those already in existence and in use. I believe that some of them have to carry out slaughtering for other than their own requirements. Is that not so? You are going to give power to the local authority in each case to decide what they will license in their particular area. Negotiations are going on now as to which private licence holders are, and which are not, to be re-established, and how far their re-establishment will provide for the slaughtering requirements of their area. If you are going to say that you have no power over one which is licensed in that way, then you must provide other facilities for slaughtering to meet other requirements. Then the owner will say that you must give him additional plant. I do not think the Government have considered this particular matter at all.
LORD CARRINGTON: With great respect to the noble Viscount, this point has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment. we are discussing at present. If the noble Viscount would like to put down an Amendment covering the point, I shall be happy to answer him. We are perfectly aware of the noble Viscount's point about there not being enough slaughterhouses after the forthcoming decontrol of meat. The whole object of the Bill is to ensure that there will be sufficient slaughterhouses. We hope that the owners of slaughterhouses—and I believe the noble Viscount has been connected for many years with the Co-operative Movement, who own a great number of slaughterhouses—will do all they can; that they will "play in" with the local authorities and with the Ministry of Food, and see that there are adequate slaughtering facilities when the time conies for derationing meat. But, with great respect, that has little to do with the Amendment we are discussing.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I said that I was asking for information because of the powers included in the Amendment which my noble friend has moved. Therefore, I was hanging my argument on to that Amendment: but I will probably hang it on to another Amendment later on.
LORD SILKIN: With regard to the Amendment itself, I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, says that the first part is covered by Section 60 (2) (c) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. It certainly looks as if that is the case. The noble Lord thinks that the second part of the Amendment may be covered by the definition in this Bill, but he is not sure. However, as he says he will look into it again, I am perfectly willing that he should do so, and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Grant and renewal of licences
3.—(1) Where, after the commencement of this Act and before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-six a slaughterhouse licence is granted or renewed by a local authority, the period fixed by the authority for the licence to remain in force or, as the case may be, the period for which it is renewed, may, notwithstanding anything in subsection (7)

989
of section fifty-seven of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938 (which relates to the duration of licences under that section in respect of slaughterhouses and knackers' yards), exceed thirteen months so long as it does not end later than the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fitly-seven:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply in any case where it appears to the heal authority that the premises in respect of which the licence is granted or renewed are, so far as they are to be used for slaughter, to be used wholly or mainly for the slaughter of horses.
(3) Where under any enactment regulations of the Minister of Food arc in force with respect to the construction, layout, equipment, cleanliness, ventilation or lighting of slaughterhouses, a local authority may, without prejudice to any discretion conferred on them under the said section fifty-seven, refuse an application, made to them for the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence in respect of any premises if they are not satisfied that the requirements of the regulations are complied with in respect of those premises, or will be complied with before the date on which the licence or renewed licence comes into force.
3.20 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to omit subsection (1). The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should explain that Amendment No. 8 is an alternative to the Amendment which I am now moving, No. 7. Obviously if No. 7 were accepted by the Committee, there would be no room for No. 8. Clause 3 provides powers to local authorities to grant licences in respect of slaughterhouses for a longer period than they have at the present time. At present, they can grant licences for up to thirteen months. Clause 3 will enable them to grant licences up to, I think it is, 1957. I take it that the object of this is to encourage owners of private slaughterhouses to carry out necessary improvements, in order to make the slaughterhouses clean and sanitary, an object of which we all approve. But there is nothing in the Bill which requires local authorities, once they have granted a licence for an extended period, to visit the slaughterhouses and make quite sure that they are kept in a clean and sanitary condition. I feel that in those circumstances it would be safer if the licence continued to be an annual one, because by so doing the licensing authority is under an obligation to visit the slaughterhouse before granting a licence under the terms of the 1936 Act. Therefore, I felt that the right thing was not to confer
990
upon local authorities this power to grant a licence for this longer period.
With the consent of the Committee, may I also say a word about the alternative Amendment, No. 8, and also about Amendment No. 8A, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, which is on the same point? If one could have an assurance that where a licence was granted for a longer period it would be with the approval of the appropriate Ministry—at the present time the Ministry of Food—and if one could have a further assurance that during that period there would he regular visits to the slaughterhouse to ensure that it was in a satisfactory condition, I should not object to an extension to 1957, or even, in the terms of the Amendment, to 1959. Obviously, if the object of granting a licence for a longer period is to give encouragement to the owner of a private slaughterhouse to spend money—and goodness only knows! he was discouraged by the first words of the Bill, which gave him a clear notice that Parliament may change its mind about this I should have thought it would be wiser to go the whole hog and give him a licence for the longer period, always provided, as I say, that there are adequate safeguards. The adequate safeguard that I would suggest is that a licence for a longer period than a year should be granted only with the consent of the Ministry of Food, and also (this is not in any Amendment, but it may be covered by a later one regarding by-laws) that there should be regular, periodic visits to the slaughterhouse to ensure that it is kept in good condition. To keep myself in order, having roamed round a number of Amendments, I beg leave to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 40, leave out subsection (1).—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Lord has taken me rather by surprise up to a point, because I thought that his object in putting this Amendment down was much more straightforward than lie has now led us to understand. I thought he disapproved of the idea of a three-year period for a licence, and that he wished to return to the 'thirteen-months period. As I understand it, all that he is worried about is this question of regular inspection of slaughterhouses, and that if we could overcome that he would have no

991
particular objection to longer licences and would agree with my noble friend Lord Lonsdale, who wants to have a longer period than three years.
LORD SILKIN: Yes, except that, if a longer period is to be given, I should then propose that it should be granted only with the consent of the Ministry of Food.
LORD CARRINGTON: Perhaps I may say one word about this question of granting long licences, because it is an important point. The noble Lord is quite right in suggesting that the reason why we want this longer period for a licence is to encourage private people to open up slaughterhouses and to give them a longer security of tenure than they would otherwise have. It may call for a considerable amount of work, and a certain amount of capital cost, to put the slaughterhouses into working order, and many people would be unwilling to meet that expense if they did not think there would be sufficient time for them to get a return on their money. We think that the encouragement which these longer licences would give is essential. As the noble Lord knows, we are imposing on local authorities the responsibility of seeing that there will be enough slaughtering facilities available after decontrol. Obviously, they themselves cannot be expected to provide all the slaughterhouses in their own areas and some obviously will have to be run by private enterprise.
While I believe that there are some advantages in retaining the period of thirteen months for a licence, I think that, in the conditions which we foresee, those advantages must be weighed against the urgent need that we must be certain, after control ends, that there is not a shortage of slaughtering facilities. That is the primary need with which this Bill is concerned. I am disposed to accept the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Lonsdale. I feel that three years is not long enough, and that five years is the right time. But, at the same time, I do not think I should find it possible to accept the second Amendment of the noble Lord opposite—that is, that the grant of licences should be subject to approval by the Ministry of Food. After all, the responsibility for slaughtering in their area rests squarely upon the local authority. They are the
992
people who know whether facilities exist or do not exist, and I doubt whether anything would be gained by having all the local licences referred from local authority areas up to the Ministry of Food. Therefore, I refuse the noble Lord's two Amendments on those grounds. With regard to what he has said about inspection, I can tell him that the Ministry of Food intend to make regulations for hygiene at slaughterhouses, and local authorities will be responsible for enforcing those regulations. Of course, the fact that they are responsible for enforcing them will mean that they have to make regular inspections. In that way, I think the noble Lord will find that his point is covered, and therefore I hope that he will withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: My Amendment was exploratory, and I see the force of what the noble Lord has said. I should like to say a word on the next Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved. in subsection (1), after the second "may" to insert "with the consent of the Minister of Food." The noble Lord said: I am not quite happy about the reply which the noble Lord gave on the last Amendment. It is not as if the local authorities are being given the job of getting on with slaughterhouses without reference to the Ministry of Food. The Ministry of Food are constantly having to be consulted about this matter, and this extraordinary power —and it is extraordinary—of granting a licence for five years, is one which should be exercised with great care. I do not object to the five-year period if there are adequate safeguards: but I object to it most strongly if there are no adequate safeguards. I think an effective safeguard would be the approval of the Ministry of Food, especially now that it is proposed to extend it to periods of up to five years. As the noble Lord knows, it is very difficult to revoke a licence once it is granted. The whole purpose of the annual licence was to enable local authorities to keep control of the situation, but once a licence has been granted for five years—and, as I say, I should not object to that if there is proper control; in fact, I approve of

993
it—control has, to a considerable degree, been lost. That makes it all the more necessary that these licences for the longer period should be granted with great care. If the noble Lord does not find it possible this afternoon to agree that it should be subject to the approval of the Ministry of Food, I should be grateful if he would consider the matter to see whether that is not a reasonable safeguard to import into the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, after the second ("may") insert ("with the consent of the Minister of Food").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: I have given in my previous remarks my answer to this Amendment, but in view of what the noble Lord has said, I will certainly look at it again, perhaps when we:lave a conversation, between now and the next stage. In view of that, I hope the noble Lord will see his way to withdraw the Amendment now.
LORD SILKIN: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONSDALE THE EARL OF LONSDALE moved in subsection (1), to substitute "nineteen hundred and fifty-nine" for "nineteen hundred and fifty-seven." The noble Earl said: In rising to move this Amendment, I ask your Lordships' indulgence for this my first time of speaking in your Lordships' House. We seem to have had all the arguments already on this Amendment, but none the less I will say that I feel it particularly important that there should be power to grant to owners of private slaughterhouses licences for a longer period than three years, so that they may be encouraged to put capital into their enterprise of improving and modernising private slaughterhouses, and may be assured of getting some return. Of course, your. Lordships will appreciate that, with meat control ending in July of this year, there is an urgent need now to give every encouragement for the provision of adequate slaughtering facilities; otherwise, there would be a block of fat-stock which there would not be the facilities to slaughter, with consequent loss to the agricultural community. In view of what we have heard, I do not think I
994
need say much more. As regards safeguards in the giving or the renewing of a licence, I would only point out that in the remaining clauses of this Bill there seem to be adequate safeguards to see that the slaughterhouses, in the first instance, are both hygienic and properly organised. I thank your Lordships for giving me the indulgence of listening to me. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 6, leave out ("fifty-seven") and insert ("fifty-nine ").—(The Earl of Lonsdale.)
LORD CARRINGTON: I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on breaking the ice. I think there are few of your Lordships present who made their maiden speech on an Amendment which was accepted, as this is going to be. I only hope that the noble Earl, on the many future occasions on which I trust he will address the House, will keep up as high a percentage. This is a good Amendment. For the reasons I have already given, I think that perhaps three years is not quite long enough to encourage private owners to open up slaughterhouses, and I am grad that the noble Earl has moved this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am glad that the noble Lord has accepted the Amendment because perhaps these slaughterhouses will now have sufficient spent on them to make them hygienic arid manageable. I wonder how much it will increase the compensation bill, when one comes to what was foreshadowed on the Second Reading, for the moderate concentration. which, as l understand it, is ultimately to mean just a few hundred larger. efficient abattoirs. In the meantime, I hope that some of us who are interested in the matter may make better progress in getting something done than would have been the case with the thirteen months period.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.37 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3).A local authority may, and if required by the Minister of Fold shall, make by-laws for securing that slaughterhouses are kept in a clean and sanitary condition, and are properly managed and Conduct
(4) The Minister of Food shall he the confirming authority as respects by-laws made under the last foregoing subsection.

995
(5) If and so far as a by-law made under this section is inconsistent with any regulation relating to slaughterhouses or the slaughter of animals therein, the latter shall prevail."
The noble Lord said: May I also take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Earl on his maiden speech. I think he must have achieved a record, because not only was his Amendment accepted by the Government; it was accepted by the Opposition, and accepted even before he had had a chance to move it. If we had known that the noble Earl was to make a maiden speech on this Amendment, we might have put up a fight and given the noble Earl a chance to exercise his forensic abilities. I am sure he will have equally good fortune in the future and that we shall hear him often.
The Amendment that I am moving is again one which I have taken from the Scottish provision. Under the Scottish Part, powers are conferred upon local authorities to make by-laws to provide for clean and sanitary conditions in slaughterhouses. Again, I think that it should be possible for English local authorities to do the same. I have already deployed the argument for it and I do not propose to elaborate it again. I am not sure whether I understood the noble Lord correctly when he said that the Ministry of Food are going to introduce by-laws—
LORD CARRINGTON: Regulations.
LORD SILKIN: If those regulations are to be for the purpose of requiring local authorities to make by-laws, it is, of course, difficult to discuss this Amendment without knowing what form those regulations will take. I am not particular whether by-laws are made under regulations made by the Ministry of Food or whether they are made in the way set out in the Amendment. If we are going to have uniform by-laws for the whole country, so much the better. I wonder whether the noble Lord could enlighten us as to what he has in mind about these by-laws. One thing is certain: that it is necessary to have bylaws to secure that these slaughterhouses are in a clean and sanitary condition and are properly managed and conducted. If we get uniform by-laws for the whole of England, so much the better. Apparently, the power of the Minister to make
996
by-laws is not going to apply to Scotland, because in the Scottish provision the provision that I am moving by way of Amendment is already in the Bill. It would be odd if the Minister made regulations which would apply to England but gave the local authorities in Scotland power to make by-laws themselves. However, I move the Amendment and perhaps the noble Lord will explain in more detail what he has in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, at the end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: May I explain the difference between Part I and Part II of the Bill? Subsections (3) and (4) of the noble Lord's Amendment are already covered in Section 58 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. The local authorities have power already to make by-laws. The only difference in the wording is that that is permissive. The noble Lord, in his Amendment, has put in:
"…if required by the Minister of Food shall."
That point has already been taken care of in the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill which was before this House for some considerable time—and which left, I think, only last week. If the noble Lord has that Bill in front of him he will see that in the Second Schedule, page 32, line 1, there is an amendment which says that in subsection (1) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1950, after the word "may" there shall be inserted the words "and shall if so required by the Minister of Food." So the first two headings of Lord Silkin's Amendment are already taken care of. As regards the proposed new subsection (5) I noticed that that is in the Scottish Part of the Bill and it is not in Part I, which relates to England. I think it is a useful point and one which we have overlooked. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment now, we will between now and the Report stage put down an Amendment to take care of that point.
LORD SILKIN: Does the noble Lord mean he is going to do what I say ought to be done in the Amendment, but that it is already provided for in existing legislation or in the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill, which is before another place, except for the proposed new subsection (5) in my Amendment, which he wants

997
to look at again? If that is the case I am very willing to withdraw my Amendment for the purpose of enabling us both to look at the thing again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON: This is almost a drafting Amendment. There was a mistake: the Minister of Food was put into this paragraph when in point of fact under the Food and Drugs Amendment Bill, Clause 6 (it will be a case under which regulations are made), the Ministers responsible are the Ministers of Food and of Health. So, if we leave out the Minister of Food, it will make the matter quite plain. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 26, leave out ("of the Minister of Food").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 as amended shall stand part of the Bill'?
LORD MATHERS: Before we part with this clause, may I ask the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill whether the regulations to which he has made passing reference will include reference to the necessity for slaughtering by humane methods? It may be that. I am getting beyond what is intended to be the scope of this Bill in making such a request, but it seems to me that if regulations are being set out to govern the conduct of work that is being carried on, all of which relates to slaughterhouses, it would be well, even if it were a case of repetition, to complete the code of working in slaughterhouses by including reference: to the necessity and the legal obligation that is upon those who use these slaughterhouses to use the humane methods that are already established by law.
LORD CARRINGTON: Of course, that is very much in mind. I am afraid I could not tell the noble Lord exactly what is to be in the regulations, for I have not seen them. As the noble Lord knows, that is not in my Department. But the question of humane slaughtering is dealt with in the Slaughter of Animals Act and in the Slaughter of Animals Bill which is going through another place at present. I agree that this is an aspect: of the subject which is extremely important and it will be taken care of; we will not overlook it.
LORD MATHERS: I am much obliged:to the noble Lord for that reply.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Restriction of private slaughterhouses
4.—(1) The power of a local authority under subsection (2) of section sixty-one of the Food and Drugs Act. 1938 (which authorises the closure of private slaughterhouses and restrictions on the establishment of private slaughterhouses in a district where the local authority have provided a public slaughterhouse), to make such a determination as is mentioned in that subsection shall be exercisable notwith- standing that the authority have not provided a public slaughterhouse, if the authority are of opinion that slaughterhouse facilities in their district ought to be abolished or reduced having regard to the existence of adequate alternative slaughterhouse facilities provided by another local authority; and subsections (3) to (5) of that section shall have effect accordingly.
(2) Where a local authority are satisfied that the slaughterhouse facilities available in their district are adequate fo.7 the time being having regard to the requirements of persons making use of such facilities, and that no additional facilities are required in the district, they may by a resolution determine that, after the date when the resolution has effect, no slaughterhouse licence will be;granted or renewed by them in respect of any premises in their district which were not licensed en that date; or that such a licence will be granted or renewed only in special cases and with the consent of the Minister of Food:
Provided that a resolution under this subsection shall not have effect until it has been approved by that Minister.
(4) Subsection (5) of section sixty-one of the said Act (under which the Minister of Food may impose conditions as to renewing the licence of a slaughterhouse exempted by a resolution under that section) shall cease to have effect.
3.45 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "provided by another local authority." The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The purpose of Clause 4 is to confer upon certain local authorities the power of making a review of the slaughterhouse facilities provided in their area, and in certain circumstances to require that some slaughterhouses shall be closed down if, in their opinion, adequate alternative slaughterhouse facilities are available. But if that is the intention, the language of Clause 4 seems to suggest that that is restricted to cases where these adequate alternative slaughterhouse facilities are provided by another local authority. That is to say,

999
that if there are excessive facilities provided by another authority, then the first authority may close some of these slaughterhouses down; but if there are excessive slaughterhouse facilities which are privately owned, then the authority cannot exercise their powers to restrict. The purpose of my Amendment is to make this power general, so that the local authority can review the whole situation in their area, decide where there are excess facilities available, and close down those that in their opinion are not necessary or are badly situated. It seems to me there can be no possible objection to that. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 14, leave out ("provided by another local authority ").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: Clause 4 (1), as the noble Lord says, empowers local authorities to pass resolutions to close private slaughterhouses and to refuse fresh licences where they are satisfied that there are adequate public slaughterhouses either in their own area or in an adjoining area. Here, "public slaughterhouse facilities" means facilities provided either by the local authority itself, or by a neighbouring local authority. We think it would be quite wrong to empower a local authority to close a private slaughterhouse merely because there was sufficient alternative accommodation in other private slaughterhouses. If the decision is merely to refuse fresh licences, this can be reached when there are sufficient facilities whether public or private, but the resolution is then taken under Clause 4 (2). But we do not think it would be right to give a local authority power in their area, where there is no local authority slaughterhouse, to close down a private slaughterhouse merely because there are too many private slaughterhouses. The noble Lord, who looks puzzled, will realise that all these slaughterhouses will have to be licensed in the first place. From now onwards local authorities will have to license, and they will not license more slaughterhouses in their area than they need. Although it is unlikely to happen, we do not think that if there are two private slaughterhouses one should suffer at the expense of another. That might well lead to a very invidious position.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think that what the noble Lord has said will probably work out all right—I am not quite sure. The local authorities are, in fact, going to be different: they are going to be either a county council or a town council, and I think "town council" may include an urban district council. There is no exact interpretation of that term, but, I think, in many cases in Acts of Parliament "town council" is interpreted as meaning also an urban district council. At any rate, those are the only terms given in this Bill—"county council" and "town council." It looks as if you are going to prevent a slaughterhouse which has been working under control but is not satisfactory from being closed down by a local authority provided the slaughterhouse is owned privately and not -by a local authority. It may be a quite unsatisfactory slaughterhouse. There is a little danger in this, but, on the whole, I think it may work out. As I say, there is more substance in my noble friend's Amendment than appears on the surface.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I think exactly the same thing will happen here as happened when the Traffic Commissioners were first set up. They had to take over the existing bus services as they stood, but as the applications subsequently came along they decided on the merits of those applications.
LORD SILKIN: I must confess that I should like to look at this matter again. I have been taken somewhat by surprise by the noble Lord's answer. I did not appreciate that the intention was that, because they were private slaughterhouses, even if there were an excess of them, they would be left alone. I hope that if the noble Lord finds the same Amendment again on the Marshalled List at another stage, he will not think it discourteous on my part, but simply that I have considered his reply and am not satisfied.
LORD CARRINGTON: I should like to make this point quite clear. If in an area in which the local authority operates the local authority itself has opened a public slaughterhouse, then it can close private slaughterhouses, and if in a neighbouring area there is, in the opinion of the local authority, a public slaughterhouse that provides the necessary facilities, then the same thing applies.
LORD SILKIN: I have difficulty in appreciating the distinction and I should like to look at it again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CARRINGTON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, (cave out ("to (5)") and insert ("and (4)").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH moved, in subsection (2), immediately before the proviso to insert:
"Every local authority contemplating such a resolution shall announce a period of not less than twenty-eight days, during which applications for slaughterhouse facilities will be entertained, and they shall make no determination until all applications received during such period have been considered:"
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name. The point that has been made to me on this matter is that in the case of some local authorities the licences granted under this Bill when it becomes an Act may be considered according to the date of application. If that were so, a good deal of trouble might arise. When the local authorities have a certain number of applications, they may say that they now have sufficient for the area; and the other applications may not be considered because they were not in, as the local authority say, in time to be included in the first survey of the applications. It is suggested to me that it would be advisable to make it a condition that the local authority should give adequate notice in regard to when they are going to move the resolution referred to in the clause, and should state a given period. I have put down twenty-eight days, but I should be quite willing to let the noble Lord argue me into some other period, if he thought it more appropriate. I have put down twenty-eight days so that we might make quite sure that all previous holders of licences who want their licence applications to he considered shall have reasonable notice and an opportunity of having their applications considered. If the noble Lord could give me that in principle, and so settle in some way what shall be the period or
1002
how that period shall be secured, I shall be glad. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, at end insert the said new words.—(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)
LORD CARRINGTON: I make no complaint, of course, but the noble Viscount wants to give private slaughterhouses twenty-eight days' notice, yet has given me only about an hour's notice of this Amendment—as a matter of fact, I saw it only just before luncheon. I hope, therefore, that he will not expect me to make up my mind this afternoon one way or another. I quite see what the noble Viscount has in mind, but I am not quite sure whether his Amendment would accomplish his purpose. After all, Clause 4 (2) comes into operation only when the local authority are satisfied that there arc enough slaughterhouses, and I do net know whether the fact that they had to wait for twenty-eight days would make very much difference. But I will mast certainly look at the point between now and the next stage, and perhaps communicate with the noble Viscount, if he is willing to withdraw his Amendment now.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment. I should like to point out that negotiations are going on, and the authorities may already have reached the particular point where they have a sufficient number without giving notice of their subsequent resolution. I think it is rather important to make quite sure that nobody feels afterwards that there has been an agreement.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved to omit subsection (4). The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment: it is a little complicated, but I will try to make it as simple as I can.:In order to make the position clear, one has to refer to Section 61 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, which provides that a local authority may pass a resolution, with the approval of the Minister, to the effect that there are sufficient slaughterhouses in the area and that they will not license arty more; or the) may even acquire some themselves. Subsection (4) of that section provides that the local authority may, with the consent of the Minister, exempt

1003
certain slaughterhouses from the operation of the resolution, and subsection (5) provides that in granting such exemption the Minister may impose conditions. It seems to me a reasonable provision, where an exemption is to be made, that the Minister should be satisfied that the conditions—for instance, the conditions regarding the manner in which the slaughterhouse is run—justify the exemption. The Bill seeks to repeal this subsection, and the effect would be that the Minister would either have to agree to a person being exempted or agree to his being exempted from the operation of the resolution; but he would have no power to make conditions for such exemption. The object of my Amendment is to restore what was thought a good provision in 1938 and which we think is an equally good provision to-day: that if exemptions are to be made, it should be possible to impose conditions as regards such exemptions. I hope that I have made the purpose of my Amendment clear. I hope I have made it so clear that the noble Lord will see his way to accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4. line 36. leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: As the noble Lord opposite has said, this is a rather complicated matter. I think that he has got a good point here, and my first impulse was to accept his Amendment and let it go at that. But I then had conversations with some of his learned friends, who told me that it was not quite so easy as that, and that in point of fact it would be impossible to leave section 61 (5) of the 1938 Act in in its present form—for these reasons. In the first place, the wording leaves in doubt the existence of a local authority's discretion to refuse to renew a slaughterhouse licence on the grounds of hygiene; and, secondly, it leaves in doubt the question whether a subsequent refusal by a local authority to renew a licence is subject to appeal to a magistrates' court. As I have said, I think that the noble Lord has a point here; and we should look at it, and try to meet him, if we can. I do not think we can meet him upon the Amendment which he has moved merely by continuing
1004
Section 61 (5) of the 1938 Act. However, if he will withdraw this Amendment, perhaps between now and the Report stage we can devise wording which will meet his point.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord has been good enough to say that I have a point here. I think that he has one. It would appear that Section 61 (5) of the 1938 Act needs looking at again, and that it would not do merely to leave it in its present form. My difficulty was that it was being taken away and that nothing was being put in its place. I will certainly withdraw the Amendment to-day, on the understanding that something will be put in the place of Section 61 (5). I take it that is the intention.
LORD CARRINGTON: I should not like to go so far as to say that something will be put in its place. It may prove impossible to do that; but the intention is that we should put in something, if it is possible; and if we can we will do so.
LORD SILKIN: On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5:
Compensation for closure or refusal of licence
(3) For the purposes of assessing compensation under this section,—
(b) without prejudice to the foregoing paragraph, regard shall be had to any respect in which the premises would, by reason of structural defects or otherwise, have been unsuitable for use as a slaughterhouse;
and where any dispute arises as to whether compensation is payable to any person under this section, or as to the amount of any such compensation, the dispute shall be referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal.
4.3 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
"(3) The foregoing subsections refer only to resolutions passed after the commencement of this Act.
(4) Where a resolution of a local authority under subsection (2) of the said section sixty-one has taken effect (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) having been passed after the first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-four. and before the said commencement, and a person had on the date

1005
of the passing of the resolution an interest in premises in the distract of the authority which were not on the last-mentioned date being used as a slaughterhouse but which—
(a) were on the first day of October, nineteen hundred arid thirty-nine, licensed and in use as a slaughterhouse; or
(b) not having been then licensed and in use as aforesaid, were licensed on the date of the passing of the resolution,
or in any land held with such premises, being an interest of which the value before the resolution had effect has been reduced in consequence of the resolution, then if, before the expiration of a period of fourteen clays beginning with the date of the commencement of this Act or the date when the resolution took effect (whichever is the later) that person makes an application to the local authority for the purposes of this subsection, he shall be entitled to be paid by the authority by way of compensation an amount equal to the said reduction."
The noble Lord said: This is a long Amendment but its object is simple. Since the Bill was introduced, it seems that some local authorities have already been passing resolutions under Section 61 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, to the effect that they will refuse to grant fresh licences for private slaughterhouses, whether the premises in question were, in fact, in use as a slaughterhouse at the outbreak of the war or not. Provision is already made in Clause 5 (2) of the Bill for the payment of compensation to persons having art interest in a private slaughterhouse which was licensed on October 1. 1939, if a licence is refused as the result of a local authority's resolution, passed after the commencement of the Act and before January, 1955. Your Lordships will see that, unless we take some action in the Bill, those persons who are affected by local authority resolutions passed before the beginning of the Act will be excluded from compensation. The object of this Amendment is to confer the same rights of compensation on those people affected by resolutions which come into force in the period from March 1, 1954, until the date on which the Act comes into operation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 18, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (3) (b), after "defects" to insert "inconvenient location." The noble Lord said: We have now reached the compensation provisions of the Bill, and the subsection
1006
which I am seeking to amend lays down I matters to which regard has to be had in assessing compensation. One of them is the question of structural defects. Clearly, the compensation for closing down a slaughter-house that is structurally defective would not be as great as for one in good condition. The purpose of my Amendment is that there should also be taken into account the actual location of the slaughterhouse. If it is one which, by reason of its inconvenient location, would cleat/ have to be closed down, then that is a matter which ought to be taken into account. The slaughterhouse might be so inconveniently located that it would be of very little use, or would be likely to be of very little use. I submit that that is a fact which ought to be taken into account in assessing compensation. For these reasons I bog to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, after ("defects") insert ("inconvenient location ".—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: When I saw this Amendment on the Marshalled List I did not understand it: and, I am not altogether sure that I understand it now. I do not understand the meaning of the words, "inconvenient location." Inconvenient to vvhom?—to the trader, to the public, to the local authority? I think that this Amendment, if accepted, would be rather confusing. Its intention is that, in assessing compensation, any assessor should have regard not only to whether premises are structurally unsuitable but also to the question of locality. Without fuller definition of what "inconvenient location" means, I suspect that the words would only cause confusion. And in some cases the effect of this Amendment might even be extremely unfair. For instance, it 'would be unreasonable, I think, that a trader's compensation should be reduced merely because a slaughterhouse was inconveniently situated in relation to his own trading premises. After all, that is his concern. If he was, apparently, prepared to use those premises in spite of inconvenience, there seems to be no reason why his compensation should be reduced.
From the point a: view of the local authority, and from the point of view of the general public the words "inconvenient location" probably mean the same thing. I do not know whether that

1007
is so; it may be so or it may not, but I think it is more than likely that they do. For instance, premises might be unsuitable because they are close to residential property, or because cattle have to cross a road near a house. But it would be a little unfair that a trader's compensation should be reduced because a house had been built since the erection of the slaughterhouse. In that case, the "inconvenient location" would not be due to any fault of the trader. It would be the circumstances which had changed, not the trader's property. Of course, in so far as it would be right that the factor of "inconvenient location," from the trading standpoint, should affect compensation, I think that would necessarily be taken into account in the application of the formula for compensation, which is one of "willing seller and willing buyer." From that point of view, I think that "inconvenient location" would be taken into account. I do not think the noble Lord's Amendment would help matters very much—indeed, it would probably make confusion worse.
LORD SILKIN: I confess that I was not very happy about these words. I put them down in order to raise the question, because I think that the location of the slaughterhouse is a factor which should be taken into account. I recognise that these words do not really carry the matter very much further. It might be that "inconvenient" might be left out and only the word "location" left in. I think my best course is to withdraw this Amendment to-day, to think again, and, possibly, put something down at a later stage of the Bill. I am sure that something ought to be done to meet this point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.10 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b):
"and to any grants. contributions or other payments made out of moneys provided by the Exchequer in respect of additions or improvements to such slaughterhouse."
The noble Lord said: If moneys were provided by Parliament, as I understand certain amounts of moneys were provided by the Exchequer during the war, in respect of additions and improvements to slaughterhouses, it would
1008
be wrong that the owner of a slaughterhouse should be given compensation in respect of additions and improvements which have been paid for by the Exchequer. Therefore, the purpose of this Amendment is to provide that where such payments have been made, they should be taken into account in assessing compensation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, after ("slaughterhouse") insert ("and to any grants, contributions or other payments made out of moneys provided by the Exchequer in respect of additions or improvements to such slaughterhouse.")—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: I quite see the intention of the noble Lord's Amendment, but I hope to prove to him that it would be unjust. Will he visualise the way things are going to work? A slaughterhouse has been requisitioned from a private individual, and While under requisition and operated, probably by the Minister of Food, sums of money have been spent by the Treasury on it. When it is handed back to the private individual, the terms of settlement have regard to the improvements made out of public funds, so the private individual will have paid betterment, to use an agricultural term, for the improvement in the condition of his property from the time it was requisitioned by the Government until the time he got it back. I should think it most unjust, he having paid for those improvements in the terms of settlement, to say that he shall get less compensation from the Government because those improvements have been made. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: In the particular case the noble Lord has exemplified I can see it may well be so, but I should like to be satisfied that that is the only kind of case in which money has been provided by the Exchequer. I had understood that moneys had been provided in cases where the slaughterhouse had been retained by a private person and there had not been any accountability for the improvements provided by public money.
LORD CARRINGTON: I checked that, and so far as I know there has been no case in which public money has been spent on a slaughterhouse which has been

1009
retained in private hands. The only cases in which grants of money have been given have been those of slaughterhouses requisitioned by the Government.
LORD SILKIN: On the noble Lord's assurance that this expenditure is inevitably taken into account when a slaughterhouse is handed back to a private individual, I agree that it would be unfair to penalise him once more when it is taken back by the local authority. I accept that assurance, and on that assurance I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation (Part I)]:
LORD CARRINGTON: This Amendment and the next one are little more than drafting. Their object is to set out in full a definition of "slaughterhouse facilities" so that it can he read in conjunction with Clause 1 (2). As the Bill is now drafted there is a definition of "slaughterhouse," and "slaughterhouse facilities" are to be construed accordingly. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 9, leave out ("and the expression").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 10, leave out from ("facilities") to end of line 11 and insert (" means facilities for carrying on the activities of a slaughterhouse, including the services of persons as slaughtermen or otherwise;".)—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "services of" to insert "adequately trained." The noble Lord said: This is a simple Amendment designed to ensure that persons who are employed in slaughterhouses should be adequately trained. I am not certain that this is the right place in which to insert these words and if the noble Lord thinks it is not I shall not quarrel with him. I want to get over the point that it is necessary, particularly now that the definition has been extended to include "the services of persons as slaughtermen or otherwise", that slaughtermen should be properly trained and that the slaughtering of animals should not be done by amateurs
1010
or butchers with no experience. I know the difficulty. I know that during the war a good many slaughtermen have gone out of existence and there is likely to be a shortage, bat it is important that ultimately we should get back to the conception that this is a skilled job to be done by people who have been adequately trained. I have put down this Amendment to secure by some form of words that we get adequately-trained people employed. I beg to move.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
Line 3 of the Amendment. After ("services") insert ("adequately trained ").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: I appreciate what the noble Lord is seeking to do, but I think it is already covered and I know this Amendment would not help. As the noble Lord suspected, I think it is in the wrong place. But let me see whether I can reassure him on the major issue. As he will know, under the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, all slaughtermen are required to be licensed, and under that Act, before granting or renewing a licence, a local authority are required to satisfy themselves that the applicant is a fit and proper person. Therefore slaughtermen would be adequately trained because they are licensed under the Act. Indeed, there is a training scheme. Where the words of the Amendment would cause confusion is in regard to the provision of services by other people. We may say "adequate training": but adequate in whose opinion? I think it could only be in the opinion of the local authority who are employing them, and if they did not think they were fit people, presumably they would not employ them. They would be unlikely to employ people who did not do their jobs properly and so lay themselves open in many cases to civil action for damage to the carcases and byproducts of animals. There will be other employees who perform humble duties like washing down floors. We could not expect them to be "adequately trained" in washing down floors. I think the real point the noble Lord has in mind has already been, provided for by the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933. I hope he is satisfied that his point is covered if a slaughterman has to be licensed and if in renewing his licence a local authority are required to satisfy themselves that he is a fit and proper person.
LORD GLYN: I should like to raise a point on this Amendment which is of some importance. There is at present a great shortage of slaughtermen. The real bother is that this Bill has been brought forward as a matter of great urgency, but it is no use carrying legislation to put up slaughterhouses if there are not the trained slaughtermen, because they will not be allowed to operate. At the present moment it is difficult to get an abattoir owned by the Ministry of Food to take apprentices; for some reason, they refuse to do it. There is a scheme under the Industrial Council for training slaughtermen. Most of the trained slaughtermen have gone out of business because nowadays, in most places, a shop is not, truly speaking, a butcher's shop; it is a flesher's shop, as they call it in Scotland—they take the carcases and sell them to their people. Where, in a small town, it is necessary to help agriculture by having, efficient slaughterhouses, it is vitally important that there should be training facilities to ensure that under the Slaughter of Animals Act the standard will be maintained; and that animals are not slaughtered under conditions of amateur handling, which can lead to great scandals, and which, incidentally, spoils the value of the carcase and the hide, and makes it impossible for the medical profession to obtain the offals necessary for making certain drugs. I hope that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will see that these matters are provided for somewhere in the Bill, because if they are not, we shall not get enough trained slaughtermen.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We are indebted to the noble Lord for the aspect of the case which he has just put. He has put it in more detail, from one angle, than I could, because of his connection with research. When I saw the Government Amendment for the first time I thought it meant that consultation had been going on between the local authorities and the trade unions. Obviously the trade unions have great concern in the matter. The noble Lord who has just spoken will realise how important it is for them that in a development of the large-scale abattoir—and that is the outward objective of this scheme—we shall not get a proper service from slaughtermen without the full agreement of the trade
1012
unions, which do not regard any person as a slaughterman, properly officiating and trained, unless he is a full-time employee. The trade unions make a great point of that. I have had contact with a number of traders in the last two or three weeks, and, whereas in some areas it seeems that there would be considerable advantage if some of them could be persuaded to apply for a renewal of a pre-war licence to assist in the present difficulties, they are holding back. They are doing so, first, because there is an insufficient supply of slaughtermen; and, secondly, because the trade unions, with whom they have connections in other respects, are not willing to recognise the old type of employee—a man who was, perhaps, the assistant in a butcher's shop for half of his time, or more, and an assistant in the small abattoir connected with the business for the remainder of his time. That has become a matter of major trade union importance, and this Amendment is important from that angle, as well as from the aspect brought to your Lordships' attention by the last speaker.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: As a party to the original Humane Slaughter Bill in another place, I feel that this is one of the most important points in the Bill. I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that he is going to see that this point is covered, and that possibly it is already covered by the 1933 Act. I should like to ask whether it is covered by the 1933 Act in relation to Scotland. Perhaps the noble Lord cannot answer that question off hand, but I should like him to look into it.
LORD CARRINGTON: I am afraid that I cannot answer the point about the application of the Act to Scotland, because I was dealing with it only in reference to the Amendment to Part I of the Bill. However, I will look into it and let the noble Viscount know. I am grateful for what my noble friend Lord Glyn and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, have said. We have very much in mind the point about the provision of trained slaughtermen. I cannot say more about it now, except that I will certainly bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Food what my noble friend Lord Glyn has said: and perhaps we may have a talk about it between now and the next stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Be Fore we pass from this matter, I would paint out that no mention has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, of the statement made by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, that the trade unions are unwilling to agree to the employment of other than full-time slaughtermen. Surely, that is a matter that requires careful consideration. I can visualise that local slaughterhouses, which might well be of advantage to the community, might not be in a position to employ a man full-time. I agree that slaughtermen should be fully qualified and competent, but if a condition is to be made that they must be employed full-time that may not be of benefit to the community in many smaller areas.
LORD SILKEN: I feel that this is one of these points that ought to be mentioned somewhere in the Bill. I am quite prepared to accept the view that this Amendment is not in the hest place, and also that the point may be covered. Even so, I feel that some reference ought to he made to the question of the provision of trained slaughtermen. In this Bill there is a good deal of repetition of what is already contained, say, in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938.
LORD CARRINGTON: I thought the noble Lord's complaint earlier on was that it was not repeated.
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord tried to counter that. We have got this:Bill as it stands, and since the principle of repetition is accepted by the Government, we may as well put in the Bill something on which there is a certain amount of feeling. However, I am prepared to accept that this Amendment will not do it and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Duty of local authorities in regard to slaughtering facilities]:
LORD SILKIN: The noble Lord. Lord Carrington, accepted the first Amendment that I moved to this Bill. I have no doubt that he will treat the last Amendment which I move in exactly the same way. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 32, leave out ("Until Parliament otherwise determines ").—(Lord Silkin.)
LORD CARRINGTON: The noble Lord is quite right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Registration in respect of private slaughterhouses]:
LORD CARRINGTON LORD CARRINGTON moved to add to the clause:
"(4) .A local authority may for the protection of the pub It: health prohibit the slaughter on any' premises, in respect of which a person is to be registered in pursuance of this section, of any kind of animal other than that specified in the certificate relating to those premises to be issued under the last foregoing subsection."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to allow local authorities in Scotland to specify, if necessary, the kind of animals which may be slaughtered in a slaughterhouse which they propose to register. It may be, for instance, that in premises which are rather out of the way the actual facilities are all right for slaughtering sheep but may not be all right for slaughtering cattle. The kcal authorities in Scotland wish to discriminate in this way. In addition, I believe that it will help them having regard to the need for an adequate meat inspection service. I beg to move.
.Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 5, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Carrington.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Can my noble friend explain why the conditions are different in regard to England and Scotland?
LORD CARRINGTON: I asked the same question. I think the reason is that we have not quite caught up; but I think we may catch up on the Report stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Refusal and cancellation of registration]:
LORD CARRINGTON: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 33, at end insert—
("(4) A local authority may for the protection of the public health vary any registration

1015
under the last foregoing section by prohibiting the slaughter on any premises to which the registration relates of any kind of animal other than that which may be specified by that authority.").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CARRINGTON: These Amendments also are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 34, leave out ("or cancel") and insert (", cancel or vary ").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 3, leave out ("or cancel") and insert (", cancel or vary ").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 15, leave out ("or cancel") and insert (", cancel or vary ").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Interpretation (Part II)]:
LORD CARRINGTON: This is a little more than a drafting Amendment, but not much. It deletes the provision that the term "slaughterhouse facilities" shall be construed in accordance with the definition of "slaughterhouse," since the meaning given to these words does not seem sufficiently wide. The alternative would have been to enlarge the definition of "slaughterhouse," but it has been thought in this case that "slaughtering facilities" can be best left to explain itself. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 15, leave out from ("therewith") to the end of line 17.—(Lord Carrington.)
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: This Amendment does not make any structural alteration in the Bill. It is merely a technical and drafting point?
LORD CARRINGTON: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I see that I was falling into an error earlier in the Committee stage when I referred to the interpretation of local authorities. I see that it relates only to Part II of the Act, and that there is no such interpretation in Part I. Does the interpretation in the case of Scotland apply also to England? Is a town council to be regarded as an urban district, as well as a borough or a county borough council?
LORD CARRINGTON: I am not altogether sure. I think the answer is that "local authority" is a term which is well known in all these matters. For instance, the noble Viscount mentioned county councils. They are one of the people who do not have anything to do with it. Only urban, rural and borough councils are concerned. I will check that statement, and perhaps I may write to the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I thank the noble Lord.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Expenses]:
LORD CARRINGTON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 7. leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(3)").—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

JUDGES' REMUNERATION BILL
4.35 p.m.
Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of the Judges' Remuneration Bill. This Bill, I hope, will he regarded in all parts of the House as coming in the category of non-controversial. I would, indeed, myself he inclined to put it in the further category of "long overdue," for the salaries of the High Court. Judges, which form. of course, the largest proportion of those affected by this increase, have not altered since 1832, which is over 120 years ago. Though the positions of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls have been reconsidered since that date, the Lord Chancellor's salary has riot been increased, and I think I am right in saying that the salaries of the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls actually went down in 1851, the Lord Chief Justice's from £10,000 a year to £8,000 a year, and that of the Master of the Rolls from £8.000 a year to £6.000 a year. They have never been raised since. Yet during the whole of that period, from 1851 to now, the value of money, as we all know, has fallen to a fraction of what it was at that time, and taxation, both direct and indirect, has gone up by leaps and bounds. As a result, the salaries of our Judges, I believe it has been calculated, now amount in real money, in real value, to about only one-sixth of what they were 120 years ago.
It may be said that Judges are not unique in that. It is, of course, the common experience of all those who have to live upon fixed incomes. It has been, I expect, the personal experience of a good many of your Lordships. But Judges are penalised in a way that, a good many of us are not. The vast majority of the British people, if they are hard hit by heavy taxation or by rises in prices, can always turn their hand to supplement their income by going into business, by writing for the Press, or in a thousand other ways which your Lordships can think of for yourselves. But a Judge, as I understand it. cannot do things of that kind. He has
1018
to lead what may be described as a dedicated life. It is the very essence of the position of a Judge in this country that he must keep himself aloof from anything which could be conceivably open to criticism or even controversy. He must not lend himself to anything which could in any way affect the integrity of his judgment. He must be absolutely above suspicion of any bias or personal interest. That is clearly:right, I am sure we should all agree.
But I do not think any of us entirely realises what a vital part the Judiciary plays in the whole of our social and constitutional system. We talk easily, almost glibly perhaps, of the liberties of our people and the rights of equal justice which are enjoyed by every free Englishman, but we do not always stop to think that those rights and liberties have to be preserved, and, in fact, can only be preserved by an independent and incorruptible Bench. I suppose that the most important of all the features of our British way of life is the Judiciary's complete independence of the Executive. A judge has to decide the case before him always, to use the old phrase, "without fear or favour, affection or ill will." His conclusions must he based, first, on what is known as the Common Law of England, and also, of course, upon the legislative enactments of the Crown and Parliament. Secondly, he has to depend on that great body of legal doctrine which has been enunciated by his brother Judges on the Bench in the past and at the present time, and on the interpretation which has to be put upon that legislation. But that is all. No other considerations but those can influence him.
In his judicial capacity he has a heavy responsibility to bear. He has to do justice. first of all, between man and man, and he has also—and this is becoming, I imagine, more important with every year that passes, now that the State plays such a large part in. our lives—to do justice between. the individual citizen and the State. Ha has to ensure that the Administration conforms with the law, and, in particular. that the powers which are exercised by the Executive conform with the law. To the proper performance of all these weighty functions it is essential that there should be an absolute independence of the judiciary from the

1019
Executive, and that 'that independence should always be maintained. No doubt, the position of a Judge vis-à-vis Parliament is in some respects not quite the same as that of a Judge vis-à-vis the Executive, for while a Judge, quite rightly, cannot, in any circumstances, be removed from his position by the Executive, he can, of course, be removed by an Address of both Houses of Parliament which is the sovereign power under the Crown.
But even Parliament has put Judges in a very special position. It has taken the precaution, as we all know, of charging their salaries on the Consolidated Fund, so that they are not subject to the annual scrutiny of Parliament; it has also eschewed the right to criticise Judges in their judicial capacity. Parliament, which represents the British people, the whole electorate of the country, has throughout history been at special pains to protect the independence of the Judiciary. This, I should have thought, was both natural and right. After all, the legislation that rules our lives is, in fact, the joint creation of Parliament and the Bench; Parliament decides what the law ought to be, and the Bench decides what in fact it is. As I see it, the work of Parliament largely depends for its effectiveness on the fact that both Parliament itself and the individual citizens of the country know there is behind it the Judiciary, which not only applies and enforces the law, but interprets it, where necessary, with high integrity and vast professional skill. I imagine that there can be no profession where professional skill based on long experience is more necessary than in the case of the Judiciary.
I am sure I have said enough to show that the discharge of judicial duties as they are conceived in this country requires qualities of the highest kind, both of mind and of character. In a position such as that, we clearly need the best men we can get. I do not say, of course, that the type of man one gets in a position of that kind depends on the reward which one gives him; that would be far too great a simplification and I think it would not be fair to those great men who have become Judges in this country. But it surely is necessary, I should have thought, that the reward
1020
which we give to a man of that kind should be enough not to inhibit him from accepting promotion to the Bench; and it should be adequate, too, to keep him from gnawing anxieties while he is on the Bench. I remember that is an aspect which we discussed when we were in the other place during the war, in connection with another Bill of a rather similar kind.
In this country, as your Lordships know, superior Judges are normally recruited from the Bar, and a successful practitioner at the Bar, even in these hard days, can. I imagine, earn a very substantial increment. It would be surely absurd, and I think very wrong, if it were to be found, when it was proposed to promote a man from the Bar to the Bench, that the pecuniary sacrifice in which he would be involved in taking these new responsibilities would be so great that he simply could not afford this promotion, and that, therefore, the State should be deprived of the services of the best men for these vitally important posts. As I am sure the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will agree, that is the point which we are very nearly reaching in this country at the present time.
I suggest, therefore, that the case for an increase in the salaries of our Judges is unanswerable. The only question is what ought that increase to be? Clearly it is desirable to give them a sum which will not have to be reviewed again in the course of a few years. A Judge's salary is not the sort of thing which ought to be constantly altered with every fluctuation in the cost of living. No doubt, we have delayed rather too long this time; but that is no reason for rushing to the other extreme. That is the main reason why in the Bill, which as your Lordships will remember came before Parliament last Session, the Government proposed to deal with this problem by making a portion of the Judges' salaries tax free, for it would have given a certain stability to those salaries against fluctuations in direct taxation. But Parliament, in its wisdom, clearly did not like that proposal: and, no doubt, to pay salaries tax-free does create, or might create, a dangerous precedent of a privileged class which might be further extended.
The Government accept that view and they have therefore decided, as your

1021
Lordships know, not to press that proposal further, and they have turned to possible alternatives. There is, of course, no question of putting Judges into the position that they occupied a hundred years ago: that would be, if I may use a colloquialism, to cock them up "higher than practically all their fellow citizens. I am certain that the Judges themselves would not desire that. Any decision which can be taken on this subject, whatever decision it may be, must be open to criticism by someone; but, after weighing all the considerations which have to be taken into account, the Government, as your Lordships know, have come down in favour of a proposal to grant an increase of £3,000 a year gross salary, with rather smaller increases of £2,000 a year in the case of a Lord Chief Justice and a Lord Chancellor. It will not mean, of course, that Judges will get all that money; they will not get the whole of that amount because it is subject to taxation. In the case of a Judge who has no other source of income, who is married but has no children, a fairly average case I think, the net increase will, in fact, be £734 a year. In the case of the most highly paid offices, that is to say the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor, what the Government propose is to give an increase of £2,000 a year. That will mean a net increase, in circumstances similar to those which I have already described with regard to the High Court Judges, of, for the Lord Chief Justice. £355 a year, and for the Lord Chancellor. £284 a year—not very enormous increases.
In the case of my noble and learned friend the present Lord Chancellor, I am afraid it means, indeed, no increase at all, for he, if I may make such an explanation to your Lordships in his presence, feeling deeply the importance of this measure and wishing to be entirely free to advocate it, has made it clear to the Government that he does hot intend to draw any additional salary, and he has authorised me to say this in your Lordships' House. In case any noble Lord is interested in the question of pensions, I should add that this Bill will not affect pensions at all. They were dealt with, as the House will remember. in the Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act, 1950, and the Government do not propose to make any further change. Such is the Bill which it is my
1022
agreeable duty to recommend to your Lordships this afternoon. The increases, I agree, are certainly not princely, if I may use such a word; but they are, I believe, the least on which the high standard of the Judiciary can be maintained. It is in that: spirit that I commend the Bill with confidence to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read2. —(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
4.50 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I so entirely agree with the observations which the noble Marquess who leads the house has just made that there is really no reason why I should trouble your Lordships at all. However, I think it might be desirable that this Bill should have our blessing from this side of the House as well as the blessing of the Government side. I congratulate the Government; I congratulate the Loaf Chancellor: and I congratulate the noble Marquess that he has been able to introduce this Bill. I am probably revealing no secret to him, or to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when I say that I hoped I might be able to introduce a similar Bill. I had to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer to agree to an increase for the county court judges, and I succeeded in doing that. But, having achieved one increase, it is always desirable to have a little pause before tackling the next problem; and the next problem was that of the High Court Judges, which is now being tackled.
I do not, unfortunately, go back in my memory for 120 years, when the Judges' salaries were then increased to £5,000 a year; but I remember the time before the war. and I knew a good many of the Judges at that time. It is rather interesting to see what is the position of a Judge to-day, if he is a married man with no other income at all, compared to his position in 1913, before the First World War. Then and now the nominal salary was £5,000 a year.. Then, taxes would have left him something like £4,500 of his income. To-day, taxes take away half his income, so he is left with £2,500. But the £2,500 which he gets to-day is nothing like the £4,505 which he got in 1913. I am told—many

1023
of your Lordships will know far better than I do what would be the right figure —that the approximate equivalent to-day is something like £850. So to-day the Judges' equivalent salary is £850, as compared with £4,500 before the First World War.
The noble Marquess has put his finger on the real necessity of this Bill. It is not, of course, that any of the existing Judges will do their work any better because they are receiving a rather larger salary, an extra five, six or seven hundred pounds net. But it is this. I became concerned in my time about the very problem which the noble Marquess mentioned, about inducing the right sort of people to leave the Bar to become Judges. I also think that a change has come over the situation in the universities since my young days. When I was there, I believe, young men who got a very good "First" used generally to regard themselves as marked out for the Bar; they used to go for the Bar, and formed an immense reservoir of promising young people from whom to draw. According to what I hear from the universities, that is not so to-day. After all, the man who goes into business, and devotes himself to his business, may be able, by building up his business, to bring forward an asset for himself which does not hear tax. He starts with a business which is worth very little; he works it up and develops it, and it becomes worth a great deal; and when he wants to sell it, he can. But the barrister and the Judge are shorn lambs before the wind of the Revenue officials. They cannot do anything of that sort. I feel that, unless we promise a reasonable remuneration for our Judges, there is a danger that we may not recruit the right sort of man. That situation has not arisen yet: I pray God that it never will. But I believe there is that danger.
I think our forefathers were very wise men when, one hundred and twenty years ago, they arranged to pay their Judges a salary which in those days must have been princely. I believe that we have profited down the ages from the wisdom of our forefathers, because I believe this simple faith—I believe that in a democracy the foundation rock on which it is built must be the due administration of justice. I believe it to be a fact that
1024
every citizen knows that he will get his case fairly and honestly heard and disposed of. That prevents him from seeking to take the law into his own hands. I believe that we cannot lay too great a stress on the vital importance of the due administration of justice. If we are to have, as thank God we have had for many years, justice properly and well administered—and I do not think I am prejudiced or partial when I say I honestly believe that justice is better administered in this country than in any other country in the world—we must draw the right sort of man. Therefore, I agree with the noble Marquess, that this Bill is long overdue. I am very glad that it has been introduced, and I believe that the concessions which are being made—I do not discuss quantum, or the extent of them, or anything of that sort—are on the right lines. Therefore, for what it is worth, I certainly give this Bill my support.
4.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, this Bill will, of course, receive the assent of all in your Lordships' House. It is a very moderate recognition of an overwhelmingly strong case. The British Judiciary is one of the prides of the nation. Its fame is world-wide. I do not think I remember ever reading a more noble tribute paid by a statesman of one country to an institution in another than the observation made by Taine, the French statesman and historian, who said once:
"If Justice had a voice, it would speak like an English judge."
It should be a great source of satisfaction and pride to the whole of this country that one of our institutions, not only stands so high in our own eyes, but is famous throughout the world. Listening to the noble Marquess's introduction, and the warm tributes he paid to the Judiciary, one might have expected something more substantial as the outcome. I was indeed glad when the former proposal to give a tax-free allowance to the Judges was, on consideration, not proceeded with, for it would have formed a most dangerous precedent. Many others, not having the same right, would press Parliament for some consideration of that kind, and a good deal of the revenue of the State might ultimately be eaten away by tax-free grants. But the amounts which are now in fact being given are exceedingly small.

1025
Parliament says, "You Judges have served your country well. You may have given up the possibility of much larger incomes at the Bar. It is essential to maintain the. status and dignity of your illustrious offices, and we are now going to vote you a sum of no less than £3,000, a year. They receive the £3,000, but round a corner are waiting the Inland Revenue, who promptly take away in income tax £2,250, so that the Judges, in the end, receive only £750—ar d a very depreciated £750 at that. After all it is not very much. It rather reminds me of Falstaff's
"a ha'porth of bread for this intolerable deal of sack."
However, it is difficult to devise any other means by which we can meet this need. I do not know whether I ought to say this, but I have it in mind to say it, and I feel that I must. I am rather sorry that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor thought it necessary to decline his share of this very modest grant. It shows a sensitive honour, but it was more than the case required; and I think that later on he should reconsider it and, since the thing is obviously just in itself. he should not he unjust to himself—I am sure that would he the feeling of every one of us. But still, it is his own desire and wish, and we recognise the high sense of duty which has prompted him to take that course. For the rest, I feel sure that your Lordships will pass the Bill with unanimity.
5.1 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this Bill has been moved and supported with such eloquence and dignity that it would need nothing more from any side of the Howe in support, except that I feel that something might he said from persons who are other than Leaders of the three Parrties. There is little I can add to what has been said. One of the most important of the functions of our Judiciary is that of judicial interpretation. In our present complex system of society, this is an increasingly important function. I know that Judges are said not to alter the law, but merely to interpret it; but the process of interpretation of our laws is such that, in fact. they have to keep abreast of modern thought, modern requirements and modern outlook. This requires an exceptionally high standard from our Judiciary, and they have lived up to it.
1026
I can quote instance after instance where this doctrine of judicial interpretation of our Statute Law has enabled society to keep pace with modern requirements.
From my own personal experience, I can confirm that there are at the Bar a number of men of the highest possible standing who have not seen their way to accept judicial office. One cannot altogether blame them. They have become accustomed. to a certain standard of living. Where a man has domestic responsibilities, he has to consider people other than himself; and it is very hard to ask such a man to accept a considerable sacrifice, not only for himself but for those dependent upon him, in accepting an office of this kind. One hopes that, little as it may be, this addition to the Judges' remuneration, the increase in status which it establishes, the recognition by the general public of our Judiciary and the fact that this Bill will have gone through both this House and another place without any dissension, will afford to those who are in the running for high judicial office some temptation to accept the position of a Judge.
In regarding the salaries of the High Court Judges, it is impossible to close our minds altogether to the doctrine of relativity and the question of repercussions. It is one of the features of our economic life that whenever something is clone for A, B considers whether as a -result he has any claim,. Whilst no claims have been pat forward by anybody, I should like to make it clear that when we consider the Judiciary and the judicial system of this country, we are considering not merely the High Court Judges, but all those concerned in the administration of justice, including county court judges, stipendiary magistrates, and even masters of the Supreme Court. It is true that about two years ago we did something for the county court judges and the magistrates but if, as we all agree, the remuneration of the High Court Judges is inadequate, I am bound to say that I regard the remuneration of the county court judges, stipendiary magistrates and the masters of the Supreme Court, as equally inadequate, in spite of the increase which they received some two years ago.
Of course, this Bill is not designed to deal with that matter, and perhaps this is not the proper time or place to press these

1027
claims. I feel, however, particularly justified in doing so to-day because, when the question of the increase in the remuneration of county court judges and magistrates came before us on February 28, 1952, I voiced my own view, that I thought the increases were inadequate, and I said that I would raise the matter again. I hope the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack will not mind my saying that he gave me some encouragement. I have here what he said. I will not quote it, but I will paraphrase it. He said, "Good luck to you; go ahead," and I am doing so. I want to say, with all the force that I can, that having regard to what the noble Marquess and others have said about our Judiciary, a remuneration of £2,800 a year for a county court judge, and a remuneration of £2,500 a year for a stipendiary magistrate, is hopelessly inadequate; that if we think that £5,000 is inadequate for a Judge (as I do, and as I think we all do), if we feel that anybody on the Bench should be free from financial anxiety, as I am sure we do, we ought to look again at the remuneration of the county court judges, the stipendiary magistrates and the masters of the Supreme Court, who have very important and responsible functions.
I know that this sounds like another round of increases which are so common in industrial life—this is about the time of the year when they usually come up—but members of the Judiciary have no trade union and they make no representations. There is no concerted action; they rely entirely on the honour and good will of public and Parliament; and I hope that my words will have some effect in inducing Her Majesty's Government to give reconsideration to the position of other members of the Judiciary who are not being treated as the Judges of the High Court are being treated under this Bill. I have great pleasure in supporting the Bill; nothing that I have said reduces my satisfaction at the Bill; but I felt it necessary to put in a plea for the less fortunate brethren of the Judiciary.
5.9 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, most of what can usefully be said has perhaps been said on this subject, but I should like just to add a word of
1028
support to what my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, and to offer one or two other observations which I trust will not be regarded as unhelpful. First, I should inform your Lordships that I am authorised by the Council of the Law Society, on which I sit, and which, as your Lordships' know, represents the solicitors' branch of the profession, to say that they fully support the Second Reading of this Bill. The Law Society believe that—as indeed has been said to-day—the administration of justice in this country is the best in the world, and that this is largely due to the position of independence occupied by the members of the Judiciary and to the character of those who occupy the Bench in their various judicial capacities.
There are two observations which I should like to offer on my own account. The first is to emphasise what has been said as to the difficulty that may arise in obtaining recruits to the High Court Bench. The position of Judge is undoubtedly one of great honour and dignity. No doubt, that, in itself, has been a very great inducement in the past; but having regard to the scales of taxation from which we all suffer, it may not be an equal inducement in the future. Undoubtedly, there are members of the Judiciary to-day who have very considerable difficulty in carrying on. I myself met one occupant of the Bench a few months ago who told me, quite seriously, that he was considering resigning and returning to his practice at the Bar. If that happened, even in a single case, it would clearly be regrettable, from quite a number of points of view. It would be equally regrettable if men of the highest legal acumen and character were not willing to be translated to the Bench in the future. That is a very genuine and very real danger.
I think it is often forgotten that the important consideration in these days of high taxation is not so much the remuneration or the salary which one receives; it is rather a question of the responsibilities one has to fulfil. A member of the Bar, in good practice and earning a substantial income, may have undertaken responsibilities of one sort and another— it may be by way of a substantial insurance or, possibly, the purchase of a house, which he could well do on a gross income of £20,000 a year in

1029
former days, but which it is quite impossible for him to keep up on £5,000 a year in these days. In many other ways he may have given hostages to fortune. A good deal is said nowadays about "the rate for the job." Clearly, we are all agreed that the rate for this particular job is not sufficient. And, indeed, it may not be sufficient, but I hope that the present increase may help to enable us to obtain the right men to do the job —which is the essential thing. The country must bear in mind that the man who occupies a position of the sort we are discussing must have an easy mind, and that financial difficulty destroys the possibility of having such a mind.
There are one or two factors on the other side which we ought not to forget, particularly, the factor of the pension. There is a pension attached to the position of High Court. Judge, which is not the case with many other people—with the practising barrister, for example, or with the practising solicitor, both of whom have to endeavour, in very difficult, almost impossible. circumstances, to make provision for their own days of retirement. Notwithstanding the pension, however, the position of a High Court Judge is an invidious one, and one difficult to keep up in these days. The amount of increase in remuneration which is proposed in the Bill which the Government are putting forward. though perhaps as much as is practicable in all the circumstances, is not too much.
There is another point that I should like to mention, which has, perhaps, not been sufficiently emphasised. In recent years—and all Governments are responsible—there has been a tendency to set up all sorts of tribunals and inquiries, conducted by inspectors and various other officials. Frequently, these tribunals and inquiries sit in secret. Frequently the reasons for their decisions and reports, which they give of their own volition, or which, perhaps, are adopted and given by Ministers, are not made clear to the man in be street. But the cases which come before Judges are heard in open court. Judgment is given in open court, and tie reasons are made clear to the world. This is a very great protection, and I think that, perhaps, the ordinary citizen does not fully appreciate that that is so. Possibly the greatest protection against
1030
arbitrary treatment:hat the ordinary citizen has to-day is the independence of the Judiciary, and the fact that Judges sit in public and give their judgments in public. Their reasons are known, and nowadays that is an exceedingly important factor.
May I add one additional word in support of what my noble friend Lord Silkin has said about the necessity for looking into the remuneration of those who occupy other judicial offices of one sort or another. For a good many years, in another place, I agitated for increased remuneration for county court judges, which my noble and learned friend Lord Jowitt was able to introduce. But I agree that their remuneration now, and that of other judicial functionaries. is net sufficient, arid ought to be looked into and increased. In ibis connection, would also mention the question of travelling expenses of magistrates and justices of the peace. They perform exceedingly useful functions, and I believe I am right in saying that they are not allowed, or not always paid, travelling expenses in all parts of the country. I think this is a matter which might also, in due course, be taken into account. Whilst I appreciate that it is not, perhaps, very relevant to the present Bill, it is a matter of some importance. I hope that your Lordships will unanimously agree to give this Bill a Second Reading.
5.18 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, before the noble Marquess pronounces the Benediction, I should like, as a layman, to express my support of this Bill. I am not a recent convert; I have always been ready to support such a Bill. But I should like to say this to your Lordships. In going up and down the country, through the provinces, and talking to people I have met, I have not once heard a single word of serious criticism of the action of the Government in introducing this measure. There was one piece of criticism of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and if I could help the people concerned by introducing a Bill compulsorily to increase his salary I would do so. But I believe that the, feeling in the country generally, is as I have stated.
In the past eighteen years I have visited a fairly large number of prisons.

1031
I remember on one occasion visiting a prison in an assize town. The Governor took me out to see a cricket pitch. A man was preparing the pitch for a cricket match. The Governor said to me, "That man is a German; he is serving a fairly long sentence. A few weeks ago the Judge of assize came on a visit to the prison during his luncheon interval and he spoke to this prisoner. I knew the Judge very well indeed, and when he had gone I said to the German ' Do you recognise that person who has been speaking to you? ' The prisoner said, His face was a little familiar, but I could not place him.' I replied, The last time you saw him he had on a red gown and a wig. He is the Judge who sent you here.' He then said, ' That could never happen in Germany.' "I will content myself with giving one more example. I was asked by a Judge, for whom I had a great regard, to visit a young fellow whom he had sentenced, to try to see that he did not grow bitter. I did so because it was part of my duty, and the first thing the young man said was that he understood that the Judge could have done nothing else; and he asked me, if I saw the Judge again, to tell him that he was not going to be hitter. His girl was not going to cancel their engagement and said she still loved him. That is the reason why I have seldom heard Judges criticised in prisons. I recall one case of criticism, by a man whom I knew, who had been sentenced to ten years. He did not want to stay in the local prison and understood that he was going to Dartmoor, and he had a grudge against the Judge who sentenced him because he remained in the local prison. That is all I wanted to say, but I join the chorus of approval of this Bill, and I hope that it will have a safe and swift passage into law.
5.21 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the short debate to which we have listened has fully satisfied the expectation I expressed in moving the Second Reading, that this Bill should be non-controversial. It has received the praise of everyone who has spoken, and all those who have spoken are well qualified to speak on this subject from their long experience of the law. The noble and learned Earl. Lord Jowitt, who speaks
1032
with the authority of a past Lord Chancellor, has told us, and I think it is particularly important that we should recognise it, that the outlook of those who formerly would have pressed to join the great profession of the law is now so bleak that the number of those turning their attention to that profession is continually going down. I was not aware of that before. It is a formidable fact of which we should all take account. In these days of heavy taxation, it is unhappily true that in all professions the rewards which are given to success are inevitably less glittering than they used to be. No doubt if that continues beyond a certain point the effect will be that irreparable harm may be done to a profession on which, as in the present case. the whole of our social system depends; and that would he a deplorable thing.
The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, thought that though the Government had done the right thing they had not been generous enough. I hope that is not the case. We are in an immense difficulty in that we might have been thought to err on the other side, and in the present situation of the country that would have been equally unfortunate. I assure the House that the proposals which find a place in this Bill were the subject of most continued and serious thought by the Government before they were produced, and I hope they will be regarded as the happy. if not as the golden, mean. the middle line between what has been and what might be. They are not, of course, ideal, but I think they are about as much as could be expected in the very difficult times in which we live.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, ranged rather wide and the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, went wider still and brought in still more categories of those who ought to be considered. I must not be expected to-day to comment on what they said. I thought it was a gratifying tribute not only to their own good nature but to the elastic rules of order of your Lordships' House that the noble Lords should have been able to make their remarks at all. I do not propose to follow them into that debatable ground, but I think I can say, without straying too far from the path of rectitude, that I am sure my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will give his most earnest attention to all the noble Lords have said. It only remains for me once

1033
more to thank the House most warmly for the welcome they have given to this Bill. I think that is all that needs to he said at the present stage.
On Question, Bill read 2; Committee negatived.

PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL
Read 3(according to Order), and passed.
BRITISH INDUSTRIES FAIR (GUARANTEES AND GRANTS) BILL
Read 3(according to Order), and passed.

FOOD AND DRUGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty. having been informed of the purport of the Food and Drugs (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place the interest of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved. That the Bill he now read 3.
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question. Bill read 3.
Amendment (Privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

RAILWAY MAINTENANCE
5.29 p.m.
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take to urge the British Transport Commission to carry cut better maintenance of the permanent way on British Railways, especially in tunnels. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in asking Her Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, I want to make it clear that I do so only for information, because I am sure that both they and the Ministry of Transport feel as much as I do that it is a very urgent matter. The rise in the number of railway accidents during the past ten years or so has been colossal, when we consider what our
1034
record was in pre-war clays. I do not think that many of them are doubtful in origin, but certainly there have been some which have not been explained. It may well be that this is due to the fact that the supervision of the permanent way is not really adequate at the present day. travel a good deal by rail and often I have noticed stretches of line where the keys have fallen out of the chairs. As a passing thought, I wonder whether the present day form of key, a metal spring key, is as satisfactory as the old-fashioned wooden ones, since often I have seen stretches of line where, if the keys have not fallen out. they are well on the way to doing so. There are many other stretches of line, not perhaps on the main lines, but on the branch lines—and these, after all, are equally important—where one sees ancient sleepers, which have obviously been asleep for many years without having been woken up, and points which show that the rails are badly worn. Altogether, I feel that the permanent way, particularly on branch lines, is not in a good state.
The chief example was the case of a mishap in the Watford. tunnel on:February 3, about which your Lordships probably read. The "up" Royal Scot was passing through the Watford tunnel, not at a high speed, and the last three coaches were derailed. Fortunately, as the train was going fairly slowly, the rate of casualties was not high, and only nine passengers were injured. However, an examination of the permanent way afterwards showed that nineteen rails were cracked; and, in the opinion of the experts, these rails were not cracked as a result of the accident but were cracked before. I should have thought that this was fairly obvious, because a derailment of that kind would not tend to crack the rails so much as to bend them. The inspector for the permanent way of that district said that it was a renowned stretch of line for being in a bad state. Apparently, a six-monthly inspection of the permanent way had been ordered, but the inspector said that through lack of manpower, he had been unable to carry it out. He said that even he, an in spector, had been working on the line, which was hardly his work.
This seems to me to be a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. No doubt n is due to the fact that the permanent way

1035
gang workers are underpaid, and it is difficult for the Railway Executive to find men who can take on this work. But surely this is an urgent enough matter for something to be done. One has to consider, also, the tunnel structure. Many of these tunnels have not been reconstructed or reconditioned for a great many years. If. by any chance, a sudden subsidence of the earth, or anything like that, occurred, no train could be stopped until an accident had happened; nobody would know about it, because the supervision of the line is not taking place. We have heard from the Ministry of Transport report that a certain mileage of track has been renewed, but naturally they would concentrate on the main lines, and I feel that the less important lines have been grossly neglected. As rail traffic is becoming a good deal heavier—not in the sense of more trains per minute, but in the sense that the trains themselves are a good deal heavier— and the rolling stock itself is not maintained in an efficient way, which causes increased wear and tear on the rails, something should definitely be done about this. Therefore, I ask Her Majesty's Government what they propose to do about it.
5.35 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Loins, the noble Lord has made a number of quite sweeping comments about the conduct of our railways; indeed, the way he has put his Question might raise some doubts in the mind of the travelling public as to the general safety of travel on British Railways. I therefore wish to state categorically that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, as advised by their technical advisers, there is no ground whatsoever for any such doubt. They are aware that British Railway engineers and operators, who have always regarded safety as their first aim, still continue to do so, and are applying all their unrivalled experience, married to the latest moves of science, to the end of safety.
Having said that, let me return to the precise subject of the Question. It is common ground that the end of the war found our railways very run down. The rehabilitation required a great deal of material—and that at a time when much of the world was looking to us for exports of railway material to rehabilitate their
1036
own railways. Not only did we need the foreign exchange, but the crops and the materials of the world could not move without those railway exports. In the result, there was not enough steel to go round, and everyone went short. However, we did give priority to our permanent way. Our railways have faced, and are still facing, great difficulties, but they are overcoming them. At one time, the difficulty was materials. Now they can get as many rails as they can put in the track, but the difficulty is labour. One cannot ignore the fact that the railway service in many grades is not so attractive as it used to be, and service in the permanent way gangs does not attract as many as one would like. The full complement is not there, and the turnover of labour is too heavy. But our engineers are realists, and they know they have got to find methods of maintaining our permanent way, in spite of a shortage of labour.
There are many methods by which this is being done. More use is being made of flying gangs; heavier flat-bottomed rails are replacing the bullhead rail—and that means less maintenance: re-laying, is to a greater extent now being done by prefabricating sections in the workshops and then placing them in the track by means of cranes; more use is being made of outside contractors; maintenance machinery is being introduced; the drainage is being improved, and various steps of that kind are being taken. All this means that a labour force, inadequate by the old standards is, in practice, managing to do the job. But that does not mean that there are not black spots where the position is most difficult. So much for the numbers.
When it comes to quality, the position is more difficult, and a tremendous strain is placed on all the more responsible men, from the ganger up to the district engineer. However, the position is being tackled. There are competitions between gangs for the best-kept sections of lines. There are instruction classes, evening classes, and such like. But the ultimate quality of the track depends upon the experience and zeal of the man in charge of the gang in patrolling his line every day and spotting the faults. He is not now so dependent as he used to be on the size of his gang, for the flying gang is now available for the bigger jobs. To

1037
measure the quality of the track one cannot have a better yardstick than the overall speed limit and the number of local and temporary speed restrictions. British engineers have been bred in a school of caution, and I believe that their judgment in fixing limits is likely to be what it always has been; that is, cautious. I should explain to your Lordships the difference between a speed limit and a speed restriction. The speed limit is the more permanent thing, operating perhaps over the whole of the line, whereas the speed restriction is something temporary over a shorter distance, imposed for some special purpose. We are not quite back to the prewar speed limits, but much of the mainline running track is now back to a 90 m.p.h. speed limit, and other lengths will be rising from 70 m.p.h. to 90 m.p.h. before very long. As for local speed restrictions, those imposed on account of track condition have dropped in six years from 85 to less than 20. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a sound indication of progress, and we ought to be grateful to the men with responsibility for this state of affairs, from the ganger up to the chief engineer, who have made it possible.
One can have the best track in the world, but some small defect overlooked. or some act of carelessness, may mean an accident; and that is the continual anxiety of all those who are in authority. With more inexperienced labour on the line, there is a heavy burden on all those who are responsible for supervision. One does not hear much about the permanent way unless there is an accident. Ergines and trains take the glamour, and the permanent way tends to be taken for granted. Now what happens if there is an accident? A long-established and rigorous process is immediately set on foot. All accidents to passenger trains, all accidents to goods trains affecting a passenger line, together with various specified mechanical faults, including broken rails, have to be reported to the Minister. Every report is scrutinised by one of his inspecting officers, and, if necessary, further facts are elicited. An inquiry is almost always ordered by the Minister when a passenger has been killed, when the accident is serious, where there are lessons to be drawn, or where the causes are obscure. The Minister's inspecting officers are, of course, quite independent of the British Transport Commission, and they stand in the same relation to the British Trans-
1038
port Commission as they stood to the old railway companies. The recommendations of the inspecting officers to the railways are not legally binding on the railways but are almost invariably adopted.
It is a little difficult to pick out accidents that were caused purely by permanent way defects—and this afternoon it is the permanent way about which we are talking. I have found it possible to do so by taking cases where there was an inquiry into a derailment. Of course, it is possible for there to be other sorts of permanent way accidents, but derailment would be the normal consequence. There are other accidents, but they are mostly trivial into which there is no inquiry. Therefore, the category of inquiry and derailment separates off the accidents of consequence. From 1930 to 1939 there were thirteen cases of derailment caused by permanent way defects into which an inquiry was held, while after the war there were thirteen cases, in the first five years, and five cases in the most recent three and a quarter years. When one is dealing with such spasmodic cases, it is difficult to speak of improvement or the reverse, but these figures seem to suggest some decline in track maintenance immediately after the war, with some subsequent improvement. At any rate, it is clear that the actual numbers of accidents in these two categories combined are not large.
At this point I would comment on one or two remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Somers. He has really suggested that the track is in a very bad state. If he will pardon my saying so, that is not correct. Undoubtedly on some branch lines he will find some rather old rails and points, and so on, but it is not correct or fair to say that on lines on which speeds of any consequence are run the rails, sleepers or points are not in good order. The noble Lord raised the point of spring keys. That is rather a technical point, and my technical advisers tell me that in certain cases they are better than wooden keys; and, of course, in the new standard flat-bottom track they do not exist at all, so that gradually keys will be eliminated altogether.
The noble Lord also raised the question of tunnels. I will start by saying that the maintenance to the permanent way in tunnels has always been recognised as presenting special problems

1039
for which special rules apply. But it would be entirely wrong to let the general public think that the permanent way in tunnels is less safe than in the open. I presume that the noble Lord's anxiety was almost entirely founded on the Watford tunnel. His facts were not quite correct there. Two coaches of the "up" Royal Scot became derailed and detached, with the unfortunate result that fifteen persons were injured—rather more than the noble Lord said. In the subsequent inquiry it was reported that a broken rail was the cause, and that further cracked rails had been found since the accident. I have walked through the tunnel and had the accident explained to me. I am not going to say any more about it this evening, because the inspector's report has not yet been published. The matter is sub judice, and I feel that it would be wrong for a Government spokesman to comment on it at this stage. I will say, however, that immediately following the accident the word went round the railways of Britain from the Transport Commission, "Look to your tunnels," and there has been a most careful checking up and a revision of the rules all over the country for the checking up of the maintenance of the tracks in the tunnels. Your Lordships may ask whether the permanent way in tunnels often causes accidents. My advisers have gone back to 1930, and they have found only one inquiry into an accident in a tunnel caused by the permanent way. before the Watford one, and that was in 1948, somewhere between Barnet and Potter's Bar. One can say, then. that it is quite clear that these cases are very infrequent—although, of course, that does not satisfy the engineer, because he regards every single accident as a reproach.
The problem of defective rails has had some publicity. Therefore. I should like to say something about it. We have over 7 million rails in our running lines and, of these, about 1,000 are found to be defective every year. About one third of this 1,000 are broken. These figures are very much better per mile than those in the United States, and are much better than those in many countries on the Continent of Europe. A broken rail sounds alarming but, in practice, it is soon found and removed;in any case, being firmly held by chairs, spikes and
1040
fish plates, it is very rare indeed in this country for it to cause an accident. My advisers have gone back to 1930, and until the Watford tunnel case this year they can find no case of an inquiry held into a derailment caused by a broken rail. As regards rails which have cracks but which are not broken, a few hundreds are found and removed every year, but they do not constitute any appreciable danger to traffic. If left in the track and unfound, they would eventually, after a time, probably develop into broken rails; but it is a matter of speculation as to how long that would be. So long as there are railways, there will always be a few cracked and broken rails. The great thing is to find them quickly and have them out of the track. Their detection is more difficult in tunnels than in the open; hence there are specially rigorous rules for opening up and examining the track in tunnels. But, in addition, the railways are now following the London Transport Railways in providing ultrasonic rail flaw detectors especially intended for use in tunnels and difficult places. I should like to emphasise here that every main line in the country is patrolled and inspected every day.
The noble Lord made some rather startling statements which seemed to suggest that there was danger in tunnels from subsidence, and so on. The Question on the Paper is entirely about the permanent way. If he likes to put down a Question or a Motion about railway safety in other directions, I, or one of my colleagues, will be only too delighted to answer him; but this evening I am not prepared to embark on a discussion of earthworks and the roof safety of tunnels. My noble friend the Minister is satisfied that the tunnels are as safe as any other part of the track in this country. Finally, I would say that the responsibility for the maintenance of the permanent way, and the safe operation of the railways, is clearly placed on the Transport Commission by the Transport Act, 1947. The Minister would intervene only if he thought that the Transport Commission were failing in their duty and that a question of major policy was at stake. I think I have said enough to show that the Minister, as advised by his technical advisers, considers that there is no need to remind the Commission of their duties in respect of the permanent way. In his opinion, they have been, and are, constantly striving

1041
for the improvement of the permanent way, and he considers that their efforts are showing results. The keynote of the operation of our railways has always been safety, and the quality of the track has always dictated speed limits. So long as British engineers are in charge, we can be assured that a cautious policy will always prevail in fixing these speed limits. In fact, the short answer to the noble Lord's Question is that the Minister sees no reason to intervene.

THE GRAND NATIONAL
5.56 p.m.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON rose to ask whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the disaster on the Aintree racecourse during the Grand National Steeplechase on Saturday, 27th March, when 29 horses started, of which 20, including four killed, failed to finish the course; whether the law concerning cruelty to animals applies in such cases, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is unfortunate that the pressure of business and attractions in another place have probably given us a much smaller audience than the widespread interest aroused in the matter which I desire to bring before your Lordships deserves. It is, perhaps, somewhat appropriate that on the same day on which we have been discussing slaughterhouses we should discuss the slaughter of horses in another manner. I want to make it quite clear, however, that I am not concerned in any way in interfering with racing or the turf. I, with those whom I represent, am concerned wholly, at the moment, with urging as strongly as I can that steps should be taken to avoid the unnecessary cruelty that takes place in steeplechasing, with special reference to the Grand National.
The fact that the recent Grand National has received world-wide publicity is an indication that public attention has been roused. To that extent, one has to thank the Press for, at last, taking notice of it, because, after all, what has happened is nothing new. Ever since the Grand National started, there has been a yearly toll of dead, mangled and injured horses; and the fact that horses are entered for it year after year in the knowledge that most of them will not be able to make the course and that those who do will do so only under severe pressure, is
1042
enough to indict it for cruelty, apart altogether from the particular fatalities.
Lest I should he thought to use exaggerated language in saying that this matter has aroused world-wide interest, I may tell your Lordships that I have been interviewed by the United States Press and I have received cables from Australia on the subject. Only an hour or two ago, I received another aerogram, also from Australia. I propose to inflict only those on your Lordships from hundreds of letters and communications I have received from. private individuals. Let me say that not all of those people are mere sentimentalists. A number of them, in their letters, have explained that in some way or another they have been connected with the racing business or are interested in it, but they all deplore the dreadful and avoidable cruelty that arises from this particular race and others similar to it.
This is a cable I have received from the R.S.P.C.A. of Sydney, Australia:
"Wholeheartedly support your principles for the modification of steeplechasing. Appalled at tragic loss of noble animals."
Here is another cable:
"Congratulations al stand re National, Continuation insult to human dignity. Thing of the past. Here thousands with you. Sharp, Sydney."
The aerogram I have received is from one who was an officer with the Australian forces that came over here in the First World War. He says:
"There are few readers of the Daily Press in Australia whose senses were not numbed on reading the report of the race. First allow me to assure you I am no sentimental crank. During the First World. War, I served with the Australian Forces in France and Belgium. The treatment meted out to dumb animals on the Continent shocked even the most hardened soldier. On witnessing this, the common expression among us was, 'Thank God, we are of British stock.' With the report in our Press, a certain doubt rises within us as to the pride in our origin. A race so hazardous that nine out of twenty-nine bosses finished the course, and the death of four horses, is sufficient condemnation of those in charge of the race and the course."
I do not propose to read any more; I will just intimate that I have here a list of the horses, and the details concerning them, that have lost their lives in recent years in this particular race. If propose to give some of the details in regard to the last five years, so that your Lordships may see that our opposition is not all based on one particular race. In 1950, forty-nine horses started, seven finished, forty-two failed, two died. In 1951, thirty-six started,

1043
three finished, thirty-three failed. In 1952, forty-seven started, nine finished, thirty-eight failed. In 1953, thirty-one started, five finished, twenty-six failed. In 1954, twenty-nine started, nine finished, twenty failed, four died. I submit that the fact that so few out of all those horses were able to make the course, and those that came through did so only under heavy punishment, is enough to condemn the race as something which ought not to be allowed to continue. But there are other details which are probably worth your Lordships' notice. In 1952, in the race I have mentioned, Skouras was destroyed and Freebooter was injured and had not recovered sufficiently to run in this year's race; thirty-seven out of forty-seven fell, or refused, and could not complete the course: ten fell at the first jump, some were trampled on and some less seriously injured.
In 1953. the season's record of all the steeplechasing shows that approximately seventy-two horses were killed, about half of these because of broken limbs or staking, while a few dropped dead. Therefore the whole story is not contained in the number of horses killed, which has shocked people and has given us a wider publicity now: it is in the fact that, however large the number of starters, nine is a fairly large proportion to finish the course. That is the number that came through this year, and, as I have said, four others were killed. I submit that this is something of which we ought to take notice, having regard to our reputation for the humane treatment of animals, and that what has happened ought to arouse, and indeed it has aroused, the indignation of thousands of people throughout the country. Non is that all the story; hundreds of the horses who fail are not heard of again. It is difficult to get news about them—probably they die or are not further used. Even some of those that win become utterly demoralised and are hardly of any further service. I am quite aware from the custom of the House of the answer I am likely to get. but I hope I shall have some assurance from the Government that they will use their influence with the particular bodies or whoever is concerned in the matter, to see whether some modification cannot be brought about. The credit and the fair name of this country ought not to be so used
1044
without some attempt being made to protect it.
I have here another report, which states:
"Countless other horses have received injury in this race; some are so completely demoralised as never to be able to win another race. Few will recall those gallant post-war Grand National winners, Lovely Cottage, Caughoo, Sheila's Cottage."
When I asked friends in this Society for the Modification of Steeplechasing and Grand National Reform to give me more information about the matter, I strictly underlined that I wanted facts, not sentiments, and it is facts I am bringing before your Lordships this afternoon. I hope they will shock your Lordships as they seem to have shocked many hundreds of people outside. The pressure and opinion of this House will go a great way with those people who maintain this race merely for material and financial gain and without any humanitarian ideas at all. Some of the Grand National figures are worth noting. In ten of the worst Grand Nationals, between 1923 and 1953. a grand total of 431 horses started; the amazing number of 352 came to grief and only seventy-five finished the course, hardly a year passing without some being mortally injured and destroyed. Every one of these statements can be proved and tested against the names. with details of the horses, what they suffered and so forth. I am merely bringing before your Lordships a case, for which I hope there is no need for further evidence, as to the tremendous cruelty involved; and I am trying to show that there is every reason why we should take such steps as are possible to bring about better conditions.
I want to show that not only do we bring accusations but we have some suggestions to make to achieve better treatment for horses in the years to come. Among suggestions that are being made is that something should be done, first of all, to shorten the distance of four and a half miles, which, at the tremendous pace at which it is run, is far too long. Becher's Brook and The Chair should also be modified. The thirty hurdles should be reduced and, above all, some check should be made on the quality and condition of the horses that are allowed to enter. That, alone, would do a great deal to diminish the number that fail to make the course. And, by no means the

1045
least, something should be done with regard to the first obstacle. Anybody who knows anything about the race knows that many who fail there are unable to make it owing to bunching and insufficient room. These are some of the suggestions which I think should be given serious consideration. These dumb animals, noble creatures and some of the best friends of man. deserve much better treatment than they receive in this particular instance; and I think it is the duty of people, particularly those situated as your Lordships are, to take what steps they can to see that some modification is brought about, that something is done to humanise this race, and that our fair fame is not lowered before the whole world by the continuance of this brutal and cruel sport. I beg to move for Papers.
6.10 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I rise for a few moments to support my noble friend. I do so because it is one of the characteristics of the English race that we love horses. That is why, in hurdling and jumping, the whole nation holds in high esteem such names as Colonel Llewellyn and Miss Pat Smythe. I, for one, like to listen in to a commentary on a good flat race. I listened in, of course, to the Grand National, but I have always been glad that that race has never been televised. I think of the real indignation—even to-day letters have been published in some of the provincial papers—of the whole country. Ordinary men and women in the street, and not simply an institution, are shocked that this limited company which runs the Aintree racecourse—which is, I may add, a purely commercial concern—can with impunity hold this Grand National steeplechase without, it would appear, any chance of real supervision from any public body. I know sufficient of the members of the Jockey Club to know that if such a thing took place in flat racing they would stop any abuses which put any dumb animals, especially horses, which we hold in such great affection—
EARL WINTERTON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? He is not doing justice to the National Hunt Committee.
LORD CALVERLEY: I am just going to refer to them. I have made a note
1046
"Coming to the National Hunt Committee"—I am grateful to the noble Earl for reminding me that I had actually written down a note to that effect.
I want this House to join with the ordinary folk who are real sportsmen and do not enjoy looking at cruel spectacles. I wish that I knew the appropriate authority in this House—perhaps it is the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, but I do not think so. However, I hope that the noble Lord will find out the usual channels to approach the National Hunt Committee and then tell them that they have a duty to perform, not simply to Mrs. Topham but also to the people of this country. They like to see a good race, but they hope that, when the race has been run, the majority of those taking part, the animals and the jockeys (this House, I believe, lost a distinguished Member in one such race) will be left unscathed. I ask that this House should take its part in impressing upon Her Majesty's Government the need to tell, and if necessary to prod, to give a hearty "kick in the pants" some members of the National Hunt Committee. We should tell them that they should either see that Topham's Limited run the race in a humane fashion or cancel the licence of the company to run the race—an eventuality which I should rather deplore. But there is another alternative. I put the positive suggestion that the National Hunt Committee should inform the Aintree people that, if they do not put their house in order, the race will be transferred to Cheltenham; then some more people in the South of England could perhaps enjoy it. That is all I have come especially from Yorkshire to say. There is real indignation in the country at this continued slaughter of these noble animals. It is high time that this slaughter, this cruelty, was stopped.
6.16 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, in rising to say one word on the Motion of the noble Lord opposite, I desire, in the first instance, to disclaim absolutely any expert knowledge of steeplechasing. I cannot help wondering, together, I think, with many other complete laymen in this matter, why this course has to be quite so severe. I wonder whether it serves any object which could not be equally well served by a slight lessening of the severity of the course.

1047
I know that the object of noble Lords opposite is to reduce the suffering which is caused to horses. My object in rising is to direct your Lordships' attention to an even wider source of suffering to horses, to which I hope noble Lords opposite will direct their attention. I am quite convinced that there is much greater suffering caused in the transport of horses for slaughter for human consumption than in all the steeplechases nut together. I believe it to be an established fact that great suffering is caused to horses in transit from Ireland into this country for slaughter, and in transit from this country to the Continent for slaughter. I believe that it is a tragic misfortune that this form of transport is not governed by an existing statutory order. I have been digging into the matter and I find that there is an order called the Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order. 1931, which governs the transport of butcher's meat animals for slaughter and which lays down meticulous conditions which have to be observed. But when that Order was passed there was no trade in horsemeat in this country for human consumption, and consequently horses are, unfortunately, not included in the Order.
My object in rising is simply to make a double plea. My first plea is to noble Lords, and others who have been deeply stirred by these unhappy events at Aintree, to direct their attention to this other source of cruelty—a course which I am sure will appeal to them just as much as it does to me. That is my first plea: do not let this indignation about Aintree be directed solely at that particular source of suffering to horses; but let this generous emotion of noble Lords be devoted rather more widely. Secondly, my plea is to the Government. Obviously, I cannot expect my noble friend who is to reply to deal with this quite unexpected question offhand, but if I am right in thinking that this Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order, could be extended by a very small addition to include horses, will the Government look into it to see whether that can be done?
6.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debate on this Motion, but I think that perhaps as your Lordships have heard
1048
two speeches from the Back Benches you might wish to hear the view of those who sit on this Front Bench. That view is in broad general support of the humanitarian plea made by the noble Lords on the Back Benches. I think we all feel that there has been a great deal of public concern about the number and the seriousness of the casualties in the last Grand National. At the same time, it is, of course, much more difficult to know what appropriate action could be taken to diminish occurrences of this kind in the future. I do not think it would be appropriate for the Government to impose any restrictions on steeplechasing or, indeed, to appoint a committee of inquiry to investigate these matters. As one who has had some administrative experience, I hardly think this is an appropriate field for Government action. That may, perhaps, be the line which the noble Lord who is to reply on behalf of the Government will take.
On the other hand, I should like to make this plea to the noble Lord: that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, that the attention of the National Hunt Committee be drawn to this matter, and that they be asked to inquire into the conditions under which the Grand National is run. should be followed up. I believe that that would be a not unreasonable course to take. I think that an inquiry of this kind by the appropriate authority—I do not know whether the National Hunt Committee is the appropriate authority; there may be another racing authority—would be fully justified, and the terms of reference might cover the cause of these accidents and any recommendations the Committee might think fit to make about ways and means of avoiding such occurrences in the future. At the moment, I do not think any Government action is called for. On the other hand, I think that, in view of the concern that has been shown by ordinary people and by the Press, Government action might be called for in time to come, if occurrences of this kind were repeated. I feel that at the moment it would be quite sufficient if an inquiry were set on foot by the appropriate authority, and that suitable action should be left to their discretion. We are dealing with people who are extremely responsible, both from the point of view of racing and from the point of view of the

1049
public. I think they should be given a fair chance of doing what they consider, in the circumstances, is right and proper.
6.23 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I wish only to address a few sentences to you upon this Motion. First, I wish to support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in what I think your Lordships will agree was a most temperate and moderate speech on the subject. Clearly, the Government have no power of intervention unless the law has been broken. Equally, the National Hunt Committee are a properly constituted body with a high reputation who will no doubt have regard to what has been said in your Lordships' House. I should not have risen to speak but for the fact that I thought I detected in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Calverley, and to some extent in that of the noble Lord who initiated the debate, something that seemed to me rather like unfair criticism of Messrs. Topham and the Liverpool authorities generally. I do not wish to enter into any argument on this matter, but noble Lords must make up their minds in dealing with this subject. Steeplechasing, like hunting and many other pursuits in which many Members of your Lordships' House have taken part, is a dangerous sport, and the fact that a noble Lord broke his neck when riding in the Grand National is no more an argument against the Grand National than is the fact that several noble Lords have broken their necks in the hunting field an argument against hunting. In my view, it would be a pity if it went out from your Lordships' House that there was undue criticism here. Surely we should leave the appropriate authorities to consider what has been said in this debate and decide what course they should take thereafter. I repeat that I strongly support what has been said by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
6.25 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, I think I can best carry out my task by speaking fairly briefly—which I know will he a relief to your Lordships. What I have to do is merely to explain the Government's position in this matter. We have had an interesting debate in which a number of
1050
noble Lords have expressed very sincere views. I do not intend to go at length into all those views, because I think I can serve your Lordships better by just dealing shortly with the two questions which I have been asked. The first of Lord Amnion's questions was whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been drawn to the distressing events during the running of the Grand National on March 27 last. Secondly he asked whether the law concerning cruelty to animals was applicable.
.As regards the first question, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, because in what was, I thought, a very wise speech he said for me what I have to say. He said—and I will repeat it—that this is not a matter in which the Government have any responsibility. The regulation of the conduct of steeplechasing is a matter for the authorities concerned with that sport; and tributes have been paid by noble Lords to-day to the National Hunt Committee, who are a very reputable body and who are concerned with this matter. That Committee will no doubt pay due attention to what has been said in your Lordships' House; but I emphasise that. this is a matter for them. and not one for Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord, Lord Calverley, seemed to wish us to do most violent things to the National Hunt Committee. We were to tell them off; we were to prod them; we were to give them a "hearty kick in the pants." The noble Lord might like us to do that, but we are really in no position to do any of those things to the National Hunt Committee. It would be quite improper if we did.
LORD CALVERLEY: My point is this. The National Hunt Committee have a responsibility to the public, and if they are anything like the Jockey Club, and have a similar sense of responsibility, then, just as the Jockey Club act, we expect the National Hunt Committee to act—that is all.
LORD LLOYD: I apprehend the noble Lord's point. I will pass on from that, if I may, to give the House some information which I think may be of interest in considering this matter. I think that a sense of proportion here is not, perhaps, unimportant. I therefore thought it right, when I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, proposed to raise this

1051
matter, to obtain some factual information about matters to which reference has been made in comments on this year's race. I have not been able to get figures for previous years of the number of horses killed in the race or which had to be destroyed as a result of accidents. I believe it is true to say that the number which died this year was exceptional, if not unprecedented. I think it would be wrong to imagine that the Grand National is a race in which four horses are killed every year—that is quite untrue. It should, moreover, be remembered that, of the four horses killed, only two actually met their deaths as a direct result of falls. One died of heart failure, and another had to be destroyed as the result of an accident which occurred after his rider had been unseated. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, I think, talked about the enormous number of horses that fall. These horses were not necessarily injured: they may merely have fallen or pulled up. I make that point only because I think that this is a matter which we ought to get in proportion.
LORD AMMON: I have the full list, and I am prepared to give the noble Lord all the details.
LORD LLOYD: If the noble Lord will do that, I shall be glad to receive the details from him. I understood him to say that a large number of horses were injured. As a matter of fact, on the whole, the number of horses injured is remarkably small. The death of four horses this year, and two horses last year, has led to suggestions that the difficulties of the race have been increasing. I am informed that that is not so. The heights of the jumps have not been generally increased since the war. A comparison of the heights this year and in 1936 shows that only one jump has been increased, and that from 4 feet 6 inches—which is the minimum permissible under the rules of the National Hunt Committee—to 4 feet 6½ inches, while some of the heights have been reduced by one or two inches. The remainder of the jumps—in which I include Becher's Brook—were the same height. The noble Lord referred to Becher's Brook in particular. Your Lordships will be interested to know that in this year's race not a single horse fell at Becher's Brook, either time round, The deduction which may be
1052
drawn from this is that it is not necessarily true that the formidable nature of this obstacle constitutes its peculiar difficulty. Another point of some interest is that the number of runners in this year's race, twenty-nine, was smaller than in any year since the war; and the number of falls, fifteen, was both the lowest figure and the lowest in proportion to the number of runners during the same period.
I think it worth mentioning these facts because we must have some sense of proportion about this. In that respect, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, for reminding your Lordships that the Grand National is not the only place where cruelty may happen to horses, and perhaps we might also keep that in mind when considering, this matter. I have given your Lordships these facts to bear in mind in drawing conclusions from the unhappy outcome of this year's race. It is not for me to suggest what those conclusions should be. I would repeat emphatically that the conduct of this race and of steeplechasing generally is not a matter in which the Government have any power to intervene. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, asked me for an assurance, and I am able to tell him this, at any rate: that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is inviting the stewards of the National Hunt Committee to discuss this matter with him.
The noble Lord's other question was whether the law concerning cruelty to animals is applicable in this case. On this point I can do no more than refer the noble Lord to the terms of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. He is as good a reader of English and judge of the law as I am, because we are both laymen. It is not for me to say whether these provisions would be applicable in a case of this kind—that is a matter which can be decided only in a court of law. I will go further, and say that it would be entirely improper for me, as Government spokesman, to express an opinion on this matter.
6.32 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, may I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for his assurance that there are to be discussions between the Home Secretary and the National Hunt Committee—that is some gain. But I challenge entirely the statement that the Government have no concern with this

1053
matter. Cruelty should be a matter for the Government, and the very fact that there is an Act on the Statute Book dealing with cruelty to animals is sufficient support of my argument. Cruelty is proved by the fact that it must be known that, of the horses entered, a number are not able to finish, and that those able to finish it only do so under very heavy punishment. It is known beforehand that many will be injured and some killed. If necessary, I can give the noble Lord the history of every horse injured or killed in the Grand National since it started. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord, Winterton, that steeplechasing is a dangerous game, but the matter all depends on whether the rules of the game are such as to give a fair chance to those taking part in it. All we are asking is that the rules should be altered so that a horse has a chance to come through. This year, only nine out of twenty-nine came through. That is proof of one of the suggestions we make, that the number of horses allowed to enter should he limited to a much smaller figure. That would give some opportunity to the horses to get through.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, knows well that we wholeheartedly support what he said about other cases of cruelty; but the fact that there are other cases of cruelty does not minimise in any way the one with which we are concerned. I believe I am right in saying that it is much easier to get the Government to deal with questions of importing and exporting horses than with the matter I have raised. It is the concern of the Government to take action against anything which will lead to the brutalising of the public mild or the unnecessary sacrificing of these creatures. The trouble is to get publicity given to the matter. All that Topham's have been concerned about is the commercial angle, and they have resisted strongly any attempt to limit or minimise the difficulties of this race. They have also opposed any attempt to televise it.
I want to get on record some of the suggestions I had meant to make. I suggest that the number of starters be limited to twenty and that the fences be lowered to 4 feet 6 inches—that is, to take them back to what they were before.
1054
I suggest that the steep drop into Becher's Brook should be modified and that there should be fewer unnecessary obstacles. I suggest that the course should be limited to three and a half miles, instead of four and a half, I would suggest to the noble Lord that these are some of the matters which the Home Secretary and the National Hunt Committee might discuss. I am grateful for the measure of support given by noble Lords. I am glad that we have gained the point that the matter is going to be discussed, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEICH: My Lords, before the Motion is withdrawn, may I ask the spokesman of the Government whether he will say a few words in answer to the question I raised?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I speak again with leave of the House. I apologise to the noble Lord that I did not deal with the point he raised, but I do not know the answer at the moment. I will, however, look into it, and will write to the noble Lord about it.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I thank the noble Lord.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DOVER HARBOUR CONSOLIDA TION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.
TOWCESTER RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL (ABTHORPE RATING) BILL

WEAR NAVIGATION AND SUNDERLAND DOCK BILL
Reported, without amendment.

INSTITUTION OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS BILL
Committed.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before seven o'clock.