SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 06 April 1954 vol 186 cc974-1017

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.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 "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 There have been a number of instances where measures passed by previous Parliaments have been repealed or revised by the present Parliament.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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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- 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) 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. (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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.