HL Deb 13 April 1954 vol 186 cc1211-23

4.13 p.m.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1:

Functions of local authorities

(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— (b) by acquiring (whether by purchase, lease or otherwise) land on which such facilities have been provided by other persons and securing that such facilities continue to be provided there; and any reference in Part V of the said Act of 1938 to a local authority providing a slaughterhouse shall be construed accordingly.

LORD SILKINmoved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (b): and that, without prejudice to the effect of section ninety-six of the said Act (which incorporates in the Act certain ancillary provisions of the Public Health Act, 1936), the purposes for which a local authority may be authorised by the Minister of Housing and Local Government to purchase land compulsorily include the purposes of the said section sixty.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Noble Lords who were present on the Committee stage of this Bill will remember that we had considerable discussion on the question whether this Bill, which requires local authorities to provide slaughterhouses as quickly as possible in contemplation of the decontrol of meat, contained provision for compulsory purchase of land to enable them to carry out this duty. I took the view that, putting it at its highest, it was extremely doubtful. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, explained that there were powers, not in the Bill, but powers which had been given to local authorities.

I think I ought to explain once more to the House how it came about that it could have been argued that there were powers. Section 306 of the Public Health Act, 1936, contains a provision for compulsory acquisition, but not for slaughterhouses—for everything but slaughterhouses. Section 96 of the Food and Drugs Act incorporates Section 306 of the Public Health Act, and Section 60 of the Food and Drugs Act gives local authorities powers to provide slaughterhouses. If with that is coupled Section 1 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, then, by lumping all these together, it could be said that the local authorities had the powers which the noble Lord said they had. I am not at all sure that they have those powers, even when reference is made to these various measures. Legislation of that nature is really the legislation of a lunatic asylum. Surely, if you want local authorities to have power of compulsory purchase in a Bill that you are placing before the House, the simple way is to say so. This is not even legislation by reference, because there is not a word of reference about compulsory powers in this Bill. This is legislation, if you like, by intuition. The only people who could possibly imagine that there were compulsory powers, other than people like the noble Lord who have been briefed, are the Parliamentary draftsmen; and this is provision for Parliamentary draftsmen by Parliamentary draftsmen and nobody else.

Therefore, I feel strongly that there ought to be something in this Bill which indicates that local authorities have compulsory powers for purchase of land. In the end, it is only a dispute about drafting, and the House will remember that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, suggested on the last occasion that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I should try to settle it over a cup of tea. Circumstances have not permitted of that kind of refreshment, but we have met, and I think the noble Lord has recognised that something should go in the Bill. This Amendment is an attempt to indicate that compulsory powers are given to local authorities under this Bill; and while it does so by reference to other Acts, it does, at any rate, contain a statement that local authorities have compulsory powers and explains why they have them. I therefore move this Amendment, which I have every reason to hope will be accepted by the noble Lord.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 11, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords. I thought on the Committee stage that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, were making heavy weather on this point, and I still think they are. When I met them privately between fie Committee stage and this stage of the Bill they did not convince me that they were right in what they said, and I, alas! did not convince them that I was right in what I said. I do not want to go into the argument all over again. The simple explanation why no power of compulsory purchase appears in this Bill is that this Bill is an amendment of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. Clause 1 (2) with which we are dealing here is merely an explanatory clause, explaining the powers which local authorities have with regard to slaughterhouses. There is no doubt whatever in the minds of the lawyers who advised me, and the officials of the Ministry of Food, that in point of fact local authorities do have powers of compulsory purchase. Having said that, I think the worst that can be said about the noble Lord's Amendment is that it is repetitive and makes for untidiness. I am prepared to run the risk of being called repetitive and untidy if I can retain for its remaining stages such good will as the noble Lord has shown towards this Bill, and accordingly I accept his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3:

Grant end 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 fie 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 fifty-nine:

Provided that this subsection shall not apply in any case where it appears to the local 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.

4.20 p.m.

LORD SILKINmoved, in subsection (1), after the second "may" to insert: "with the consent of the Minister of Food." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. I am assure the noble Lord that of I have spoken strongly, and possibly more strongly than he thinks the occasion deserves, it is not in any sense personal to him; for he has conducted these discussions in the most amicable and reasonable manner. On this Amendment I de not feel so passionately, but I think it is right. Perhaps the House will let me explain why. Clause 3 provides that, in granting licences for slaughterhouses, a local authority may go beyond the normal period of thirteen months, which is provided for in the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and may grant a licence for five years. Originally in the Bill, the extended period was limited to three years but an Amendment was moved, which I supported and the Committee agreed to without any dissent, to extend the period. From thirteen months to five years is a very long extension. The reason is that it was desired to give private owners of slaughterhouses some incentive to incur expenses in improving their slaughterhouses, which in many cases had been out of use during the war and were in need of expenditure to make them sanitary, clean and serviceable.

We all agreed that there ought to be some encouragement, but that was the only ground on which this period was extended to five years. It is quite abnormal. It was always thought that a period of thirteen months was right. This is an abnormal extension. For that reason I felt—and that is the purpose of my Amendment—that the extension should not be granted automatically by a local authority, but should be subject to the consent of the Minister of Food. There is one other reason why I think that consent should be provided, and that is that the Minister of Food has, or may have, a financial interest in money that is spent on improving these slaughterhouses, because there may come a time when the local authority will wish to acquire. In that case, they will have to compensate, and the compensation will have to have regard to the money spent in improvements. The Minister of Food is a half partner in the compensation.

LORD CARRINGTON

With the local authority.

LORD SILKIN

Yes, with the local authority. At any rate, I am making the case that, where the extension of time is permitted, the Minister of Food has a contingent financial interest. For that reason, I think that the Minister of Food ought to give his consent to any extension. I hope that local authorities will not grant this extension automatically, and that they will exercise some discretion. But, if it is to be a matter of discretion on the part of each local authority, they may be acting under different principles, for different reasons and on account of different ideas. Surely there ought to be some overriding necessity for them to get approval from the Minister of Food so that it is quite clear that they are acting in accordance with the same principles throughout the country.

It may be said that this is a task which is entrusted to local authorities and that they ought to be allowed to get on with it without undue interference from the Minister of Food. If the Government want to take that line, they ought to have taken it in this Bill; but they have not. I want to point to a number of instances where, in fact, the Minister of Food does come into the picture and where his consent is already required. For instance, in Clause 2, subsection (3), the permission of the Minister of Food is required where it is proposed to vary charges in respect of the use of a slaughterhouse in certain circumstances.

I should have thought that, if the argument was that the local authorities ought to be allowed to carry out their duties without undue interference from the Ministry of Food, there is much less justification for their having to get the consent of the Ministry of Food to an alteration in charges than to granting a licence for an extended period of five years. There is another case. In this same clause, subsection (2), a local authority cannot grant a licence for a new slaughterhouse without the consent of the Ministry of Food. If the local authorities are to be allowed to get on with the job, why is this necessary? Surely they can be entrusted with this task. So Her Majesty's Government are not consistent. They are not allowing the local authorities to get on with the job without interference, nor are they providing the supervision in those cases in which, in my judgment, it is called for.

The last point that may be made is that it would be administratively difficult. But is it really any more difficult to provide for supervision over the extension of licences to a period of five years than it is to exercise supervision over the grant of licences for new slaughterhouses under subsection (2) of this clause, or to go into the question of charges, or to deal with the question of grants, which they have to do under later clauses in the Bill? Moreover, the number of cases will be very few and, relatively speaking, it will not need any new organisation or anything of that kind. It may be done with the existing organisation. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord that, if he cannot accept the Amendment—and I gather from the shaking of his head that he may find it difficult to accept it—at any rate, there is a case for further investigation and inquiry, in the light of the case which I have taken the trouble to put forward this afternoon. I put the case in perhaps more elaborate form than I did on the last occasion. I think I have supplied further arguments to support my point that there is a case for looking into the matter. The Bill will be going to another place. I do not ask even that it should be looked into before the Third Reading in this House, but I should like to feel that at any rate the noble Lord considers that these arguments that I have put forward are worthy of further consideration. If he were prepared to give that assurance, I should not feel disposed to press this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 43, after the second (" may ") insert ("with the consent of the Minister of Food ").—(Lord Silkin.)

4.29 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, I make no complaint about it, but the difficulty of having a private conversation between the two stages of the Bill is that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is well aware of the reasons why I am not going to accept this Amendment. He has, therefore, made most of his remarks in reply to reasons which I have not yet given. When this matter was first discussed in your Lordships' House, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had two reasons for moving the Amendment. First of all, he felt that a period of five years without any regular inspection by local authorities would, from the hygiene point of view, be a bad thing. I hope that, from that point of view, I have convinced him that in point of fact there will be regular inspection by local authorities; and; of course, the sanitary inspector will be in the slaughterhouse every day when there is slaughtering. So I think from that point of view, the noble Lord need have no fears.

As I understand it the point that is troubling the noble Lord is that he feels that the Minister of Food should have some kind of residual power and should be obliged to inspect every five-year application which is made by the owner of a slaughterhouse before the application is granted. Well, the Inter-Departmental Committee on Slaughterhouses, whose recommendations we accept and whose report I am sure both noble Lords opposite have read say this —I hope your Lordships will forgive me for quoting it: Having regard to the paramount necessity … of seeing that adequate slaughterhouse accommodation is then available"— that is, on the de-rationing of meat— we think it essential to secure that somebody is charged with the responsibility for ensuring that such accommodation is available in all areas of the country. We think this task must rest with local authorities rather than with the Central Government Departments … we are satisfied from our inquires that the local authority, by reason of its responsibility for licensing and its close connections with local trade and consumer interests, will be the most appropriate body to review and assess the slaughtering requirements of its districts. My Lords, we accepted that, and in this Bill we have placed on the local authorities the obligation to ensure that in their districts there is a sufficient number of slaughterhouses. I am informed that nobody can tell how many applications for a five-year licence may be made, and that at the moment there does not exist in the Ministry of Food a sufficiently qualified staff to carry out the work which would be made necessary by the acceptance of the noble Lord's Amendment.

Lastly, I feel very strongly that we in Parliament should be extremely careful not always to assume that local authorities are not capable of deciding things for themselves. After all, they have the local knowledge. They have given us an assurance that they intend to carry out the policy of the Government as regards slaughterhouses. As well as local knowledge they have the will to do it, and I think that it would be very much better to leave them to it, without putting this power in the hands of the Ministry of Food. I would just draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to the fact that the two cases he gave, in which there is a power in the Ministry of Food to intervene, are not cases affecting existing slaughterhouses, out relate to the licensing of absolutely new slaughterhouses. These are net powers which will affect the extreme urgency of getting these slaughterhouses opened before the de-rationing of meat, and I think that we should be quite wrong to do anything which might in any way dissuade private slaughterhouse owners from applying for these long licences and for opening then slaughterhouses. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, ended with an appeal to me that this matter should be considered again. I have been into it fully, and this is the advice I have been given. However, of course anything which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says will always be studied most carefully. There will be a further opportunity in another place, as he says, to discuss this matter, and for those reasons I hope he will not press his Amendment this afternoon.

LORD SILKIN

I cannot withdraw my Amendment, but I will not force it to a Division.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 4:

Restriction of private slaughterhouses

(2) Where a local authority are satisfied that the slaughterhouse facilities available in their district are adequate for 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 on 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.

4.35 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

moved, in subsection (2), after the first paragraph 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 he entertained, and they shall make no determination until all applications received during such period have been considered: The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships will probably remember that this matter was raised on the Committee stage of the Bill. I argued it at a little length then, and I understand from our conversations that the Minister has had the matter under further consideration. I should like to ask whether the noble Lord can make a statement. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 25, at end insert the said words. —(Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough.)

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said, this is in point of fact the same Amendment as that which was put down on the Committee stage, and I then gave an undertaking that I would consider the matter and see what could be done. Having had rather a longer time to look at the position, I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Viscount that his Amendment not only is unnecessary, but would not do that which he has in mind. In the first place, Section 61 (3) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, requires that a resolution to refuse further applications for licences shall not have effect until the Minister has approved it. This is one of the cases where the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has his way—the Minister must approve a closure, and the Minister has to take into consideration, before he approves the closure, all representations made to him within two months of the passing of the resolution. Therefore a disappointed applicant has two months in which to protest to the Minister of Food, and the Minister of Food is by law obliged to take into consideration his representations.

It could be argued, I suppose (perhaps the noble Viscount feels like this), that it is rather late after the passing of the resolution for these representations to be considered. But I very much doubt whether his Amendment, making it obligatory to give twenty-eight days' notice before the local authority passes the closure resolution, would make any difference, because I should think that in most cases the local authority would not give notice that they intended to pass a closure resolution until they were quite satisfied that they had enough slaughterhouses in their area. Therefore the fact that twenty-eight days' notice had to be given would, from the point of view of the applicant who was late, be quite unhelpful to him.

But one point does stand out from all this and cannot be over-emphasisednamely, that it is most desirable that all applications for well-equipped and good slaughterhouses should not be delayed; they should be made as soon as possible, and there should be no question of the owner of any good slaughterhouse being caught out by a resolution of closure, a sufficient number of smaller slaughterhouses having been opened in the meantime. I hope that those who can usefully contribute to the need for good and adequate slaughtering—and there is a need for good and adequate slaughtering—will make their applications without delay. I think that if we can make that quite clear, the noble Viscount's Amendment will be unnecessary. I hope, therefore that he will withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords. I am much obliged. There seem to be two outstanding themes in the Minister's statement.

The first is, that there is adequate statutory authority for an appeal against the resolution of the local authority, and in that regard the statement now made by the noble Lord to that effect, with its publicity, will be valuable. The second point that arises is that if those who have had pre-war licences are wise they will decide now whether or not they want to apply for a renewal: their application should be made not after the local authority has passed its resolution but forthwith. Those two points having been made, together with the consequent publicity that will be received, my objective in moving the Amendment has been met, and I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.39 p.m.

LORD CARRINGTON moved, after subsection (3) to insert: (" (4) Where a resolution of a local authority under the said section sixty-one has taken effect (whether before or after the commencement of this Act) and any premises used as a slaughterhouse have under subsection (4) of that section been exempted from the operation of the resolution, or the local authority since the passing of the resolution have in the exercise a power reserved for them under the said subsection (4) granted a fresh slaughterhouse licence in respect of any premises in their district, then in neither case shall the local authority refuse any subsequent application for the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence in respect of the premises in question, unless—

  1. (a) the Minister of Food has consented to the refusal; or
  2. (b) there are in force such regulations as are mentioned in subsection (3) of section three of this Act and the authority are not in relation to the premises, satisfied as mentioned in that subsection;
and in any case to which paragraph (a) of this subsection applies no appeal against the refusal shall lie under subsection (6) of section fifty-seven of the Food arid Drugs Act, 1938.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, moved an Amendment to omit subsection (4) which, in effect, would replace subsection (5) of Section 61 of the Food and Drugs Act. 1938. I said that I should look at the matter although I was doubtful whether his Amendment would serve the purpose which both of us had in mind. This Amendment is designed to meet the point. It does, in fact, prescribe that renewals of licences for such slaughterhouses—slaughterhouses that are subject to closure and then have been exempted—shall not be refused without the Minister's consent, unless the local authority are satisfied that the hygiene regulations are not complied with. I hope this Amendment meets the noble Lord's point, and I beg leave to move.

Amendment moved.— Page 4, line 35, at end insert the said sub-section —(Lord Carrington.)

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think it is an important point. I would ask him to bear this in mind. I quoted two instances where the Minister of Food stepped in and had jurisdiction over local authorities. Here is a third. Therefore, he cannot really say that the local authorities are being allowed to get on with the job without any interference.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, should have thought that the noble lord would not have taunted me with that. He should be grateful that I have acceded to his request.

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5 [Compensation for closure or refusal of licence]:

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment on compensation. It follows from the Amendment that I have just moved. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 41, at end insert— ("(5) Where after the commencement of this Act an application for the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence in respect of any premises to which subsection (4) of the last foregoing section applies is refused by a local authority otherwise than on the grounds specified in paragraph (h) of that subsection, any person having an interest in the premises, or in any land held therewith, being an interest of which the value is reduced in consequence of the refusal, shall be entitled to be paid by the authority by way of compensation an amount equal to the reduction.")—(Lord Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6 [Interpretation (Part 1)]:

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, this Amendment is Toyed to honour an undertaking that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that I would look into the question whether a local authority had power to erect plant and apparatus for processing the by-products of animals. I think he will find that this carries out what we both want. I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6. line 34, after ("including") insert ("plant and apparatus and").—(Lord Carrington.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.