Lords Sitting of 22 June 1954

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  NEWPORT CORPORATION BILL
  Read 2a, and committed: the, Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

ALCOHOL AND ROAD ACCIDENTS
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in studying the causes contributing to road accidents, investigations have bean made into the use of the "Alcometer" method of ascertaining the alcohol content of the blood of persons involved in such accidents, with the view of impressing upon road users the need for the utmost care in the use of alcoholic beverages.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, research has been carried out under the ægis of the Medical Research Council and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to find out, under laboratory
2
conditions, how drink affects driving performance and how such effect can be assessed in a manner which cannot be challenged. With this in view, experiments involving chemical analyses of blood, urine and breath are being carried out. All these media present certain difficulties in application, and further examination is proceeding. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that these experiments are being continued and that arrangements will be made to include the "Alcometer" in these tests.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl for the Answer he has given me. It does not take us very far, but there is a promise of something being done. Against the background of road deaths and accidents, the noble Earl will agree that there is much need to achieve some definiteness in this matter.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I may tell the noble Lord that quite a lot is being done. Professor Drew, of Bristol University, has conducted researches at the Road Research Laboratory in Langley. Buckinghamshire, for the last nine months or so, and it is hoped that his report will be available next year.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lord, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Newark-on-Trent, the Urban District of Denby Dale, the Rural District of Newent and the Rural District of Thirsk, be approved.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL
2.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Before dealing specifically with the contents of the Bill, I feel that it may be helpful to your Lordships if I refer briefly to the trade in horseflesh in this country and to more recent events which have led to the introduction of this Bill into your Lord-ships' House. Before the war, in England, Wales and Scotland, there were slaughtered annually some 18,000 horses, from which a large proportion of the carcase meat was exported to the Continent. During the war, for reasons which I need not elaborate, there was a rapid expansion in the business of slaughtering horses for human consumption, and the home supply was supplemented by imports from Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. By 1948, the peak year, at least 76,000 horses were slaughtered in England and Wales and, in addition, 10,000 in Scotland. Those figures are very conservative figures, and, I think, were greatly exceeded. There are probably still some 50,000 horses being slaughtered annually by some fifty persons or firms, as compared with sixteen old-established firms before the war.
Furthermore, immediately after the war there was some danger of the revival of the export trade in live horses to the Continent. As a result, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the export and slaughter of horses. The Committee was presided over by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, and reported in March, 1950. The adoption of certain valuable recommendations in that Report led to the extinction of the trade in live horses to the Continent, to improved
4
conditions in the transport of horses, under the Transit of Horses Order, 1951; and finally, in 1952, to the centralisation of Government functions in relation to slaughterhouses in one Ministry, the Ministry of Food. At the same time, public anxiety was roused by statements in the Press, notably in the Manchester Guardian, regarding the conditions in horse slaughterhouses. In October of the same year, a Committee was appointed, over which I had the honour to preside, to consider the law and practice thereunder in relation to the slaughtering of horses and whether any further safeguards are necessary to ensure humane conditions in slaughtering. This Bill gives effect to the main recommendations of that Committee. Most of the amendments which the Bill makes in the existing law will apply to the law in regard to other animals as well as to horses. The Bill also enables Ministers to make regulations prescribing conditions and practices that must be complied with in slaughter premises. It was introduced as a Private Member's Bill in another place, and I hope that I may properly take this opportunity of paying tribute to its sponsor and to others who helped to speed its passage there.
When considering the question of improving conditions in slaughterhouses and knackers' yards, it is important to have a clear distinction in mind between the method of slaughter and the conditions under which horses are brought to slaughter. It is the latter which includes the lairages—that is, the places where animals are kept awaiting slaughter—the watering and feeding of horses, and the conditions in the slaughter hall itself, which at the present time are the main causes for distress. There are slaughterhouses with open pounds, where the horses and ponies are herded in together, where the hay is often musty, where the water is foul or stagnant, where bedding is damp or non-existent, and where there is totally inadequate provision for the swilling away of blood and the disposal of waste and offal. In most slaughterhouses horses are led into a slaughter hall around which are hanging the carcases of horses previously slaughtered. How much a horse associates the sight and smell of blood, or the presence of carcases of other horses, with its own impending death, or how great a degree

5
of fear or apprehension is induced by these things, seems to me a purely academic argument, and one which we need not pursue. I submit that the sensible approach is to say that, even if the degree of apprehension is less than is commonly supposed, the general environment under which many horses at the present time in this country are being brought to slaughter certainly does cause very considerable distress. Such conditions are unnecessary; they can be avoided; they offend the public conscience, and they must be stopped.
Clause 1 of the Bill, therefore, deals with the licensing of premises used for, or in connection with, the slaughter of animals. It requires that slaughterhouses and knackers' yards used for the slaughter of horses must be specifically authorised for that purpose. It provides for the granting of separate licences, at the discretion of the licensing authority, for lairages which may be separate from the main premises, and it secures that a licence shall not be given unless the regulations in regard to construction, layout and equipment in force under the Act are complied with. The responsibility for licensing will remain with the local authorities. In England and Wales, an appeal against the decision of a local authority will continue to be made to a court of summary jurisdiction and in Scotland to the Secretary of State.
My Lords, in the past the chief hindrance to an improvement in the conditions of slaughterhouses has been that the law did not prescribe any minimum standards. Clause 2 of the Bill therefore empowers the Minister of Food, or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland, to make regulations for securing humane conditions and practices in slaughterhouses and knackers' yards. The regulations may prescribe detailed requirements as to construction, layout and equipment, and as to the feeding and watering of animals awaiting slaughter, and they may deal differently with different kinds of animals. This will enable regulations to be made in respect of horses which might not be applicable to other animals. The clause also provides that any regulations dealing with horses shall make provision for the
6
matters specified in the First Schedule to the Bill.
I have already referred to the method of slaughter—that is, the stunning of an animal, which, under the existing law, must be by a mechanically operated instrument. There are various types of instruments in use, and provided that they are used with requisite skill there is little danger of cruelty arising. But, as with all weapons, their effectiveness depends upon the skill of the operator. On the whole, slaughtermen are skilled operators who take a pride in doing their work humanely and efficiently, and who are imbued with the same care for, and kindness towards, animals as are your Lordships. But at the present time there is a risk that cruelty may arise from inexperience, because the law as it stands makes no provision for the person who wants to become a slaughterman; nor is any provision made for ensuring skill in the use of different types of weapons or in dealing with different kinds of animals. Clause 3, therefore, provides that licences shall specify the kinds of animals which the holder of a licence may slaughter or stun and the type of instruments he may use. It also provides for the grant of conditional licences to inexperienced persons who will be required to serve a term of apprenticeship under the supervision of an experienced slaughterman. The clause also amplifies the grounds for refusal by a local authority of an application for a licence or for the revocation or suspension of a licence.
Clause 4 gives to sheep and lambs, goats and kids and pigs, the same protection of humane slaughter as already applies to all other animals, and will make statutory in England and Wales what is common practice, and bring the law in those countries into line with that of Scotland. Clause 5 increases the penalties for an offence against the slaughtering and stunning provisions of the Slaughter of Animals Acts or regulations made under Clause 2 of the Bill, and provides that a court may enforce the additional penalty, in the case of slaughterhouse occupiers, of cancellation of licence. The execution and enforcement of the law will, I think rightly, remain with the local authorities, but it is a fact that medical officers of health

7
and sanitary inspectors are, by the nature of their training, concerned mainly with post-mortem conditions. It is therefore extremely important to make provision for some measure of advice and supervision by a central department to keep a check on the ante-mortem conditions under which horses are brought to slaughter, and in order to ensure adequate standards throughout the country.
The Committee over which I presided felt very strongly that such supervision could best be provided by persons with veterinary qualifications. I have assurances from the Minister—and I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, in his remarks may reinforce them—that he will provide persons with knowledge, understanding and experience of live animals. Clause 6, therefore, in addition to giving powers of entry to medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors, also gives powers of entry to veterinary officers appointed by local authorities and to officers of the Minister of Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am also assured that this will enable the Minister to call upon staff in the Animal Health Division of the Ministry of Agriculture, if that becomes necessary. The remainder of the clauses of the Bill deal with technical matters to which I need not draw special attention.
Your Lordships' House has ever shown itself keenly concerned in matters of animal welfare. Many of your Lordships, I know, have spent, as I still do myself, some of the happiest days of your lives with horses—it may be in the Army, or in the hunting field, on the race course or on the farm. But I suppose that few of us ever pause to think, unless the matter is drawn specially to our attention, of their ultimate fate. There can be no question about the necessity for this Bill. I shall welcome your Lordships' views and advice, and I hope that I may count upon the full measure of your support.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Duke of Northumberland.)
2.52 p.m.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, I am sure that I am expressing the views of all your Lordships when I congratulate the noble Duke on the clarity of the speech that he has just
8
made, and I hope that he will acquit me of discourtesy if I say how very much we wish that we more frequently had the pleasure of his guidance. The Government recognise to the full the importance of the problem that he has put before us. I do not think we need encumber our minds by trying to understand the psychology of the horses in these conditions, because the truth is that the bad conditions under which the slaughter of horses has taken place, whatever effect they may have on the horses that are about to be slaughtered, certainly offend public taste and public conscience in this country.
The anxiety which the Government have on the question is shown by the fact that they asked the noble Duke to go into the matter; and on behalf of the Government, and I am sure on behalf of your Lordships, I would to-day express our gratitude to the noble Duke and to his Committee for the expedition with which they have produced their Report, and for the excellence of it. Her Majesty's Government accept the Committee's recommendations. They consider that the proposals in this Bill are reasonable, practical and humane. I can assure the noble Duke that the Minister of Food, or whoever ultimately becomes the responsible Minister, will give the full support of ministerial powers and of staff, and I join the noble Duke in commending this Bill to your Lordships' House.
2.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to associate myself with what the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, has said in reference to the speech of the noble Duke. The noble Viscount said he would like to hear the noble Duke more often, and I entirely agree with that. I first met the noble Duke when he was vice-chairman of the Hill Farming Committee of the Department in which I had the honour to serve, and I also had an opportunity of visiting his admirable farms in the north, and I know that he has many other calls on his time which are very largely matters of public work. I should also like to say how grateful we are to the noble Duke, and indeed to all the members of his Committee, for their Report, which forms the basis of this Bill and which I gather must have involved a great deal of travel up and down the country, as

9
well as a great deal of ordinary committee work. I think the noble Duke will agree that the best tribute to the thoroughness of his Committee's Report is that its conclusions have been embodied so quickly in this uncontroversial Bill, which has been welcomed, both here and in another place, by spokesmen for the Government, as well as by members of all Parties.
As the noble Duke pointed out, the practices which his Committee was appointed to inquire into arose during the war, and resulted from its effect upon our diet and upon our system of agriculture. War-time meat shortage resulted in greatly increased consumption of horsemeat, and the need for more home-grown food meant that the tractor and the combined harvester were substituted for the horse on most of our fields. But, of course, those conditions have changed, and are rapidly changing. We are now hoping for, and experiencing, a steadily increasing supply of home-grown sheep and cattle, arid the mechanisation of British agriculture probably has reached about its economic limit. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the change from war to peace-time conditions does not lessen the value of the noble Duke's report or the urgency of this Bill.
We have recently passed another Act to facilitate a large increase in the number of slaughterhouses. They will be needed to deal with the reversion to private trading in livestock and, of course, to provide sufficient accommodation for our expanding livestock industry. It is absolutely essential that conditions in these new slaughterhouses should be at least as good as the conditions recommended for the slaughter of horses in the noble Duke's Report. The Bill sets out to do this by giving the Minister power to make regulations which will lay down a minimum standard of decency in the management of slaughterhouses. These regulations will apply to slaughter-houses generally, arid not only to premises where horses are slaughtered. Judging from the harrowing description given by the noble Duke (he did not go into great detail, I am glad to say, although the details that he gave were fairly shocking), and the fact that at some of the places visited by his Committee the preparations for the slaughter of horses were perhaps even more shock-
10
ing than the actual method of slaughter, there is urgent need at the present time for a code having the force of law which will apply equally to all premises and persons engaged in the slaughter of animals. It is a code of this kind which the present Bill authorises the Minister to draw up.
The standard laid down will no doubt be a minimum standard, but it will be a great thing for such a standard to be established as a normal practice, though I rather fear that it will not be any too easy to enforce. I should like to say a word or two about enforcement later. It will be very difficult indeed to maintain the standard unless, in addition to the compulsion of law which this Bill will apply, those who manage slaughter houses show a personal sense of responsibility for the animals under their care: we must have their good will and co-operation. It is only in this way, I think, that we can hope to achieve the high standard of humanity and decency which, according to a most interesting Appendix to the noble Duke's Report, appears already to prevail in Sweden. May I just make these references to what the Report said with reference to conditions in Sweden? It concluded with observations upon such things as excellent lairage, separate stunning chambers, and veterinary supervision at every stage in the slaughterhouses. These conditions seem to be the general rule at all slaughterhouses in Sweden. Our humane feelings are certainly not inferior in any degree to those of the Swedes, and I do not altogether like to know that they are ahead of us in humane practices. But there is really no reason at all why we should not catch up with Sweden if all concerned in this work, both in an official capacity and in a business capacity, do their best to improve existing conditions.
There is one thing about the Swedish system that struck me as being particularly important in the maintenance of a proper standard hero. That is the employment of veterinary officers to superintend at every stage of this business. I am not quite happy—and this is the one query which I am raising in relation to the Bill; it is not a query in regard to any matter of principle, but it is important if the Bill is to become effective—about what the Bill provides in relation to this matter of supervision. Clause 6

11
will admit veterinary officers of local authorities—of local authorities, be it noted, not of a central department—and inspectors from the Ministry of Food, as well as health and sanitary officers at present employed for these purposes by local authorities. But will local authorities, who are already pretty short of qualified staff, have enough veterinary officers to be able to supervise all the slaughterhouses in every large area for which they are responsible? The Report recommended the admission of veterinary officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, but this recommendation, I understand has been turned down. There was a somewhat oblique reference to the matter in the noble Duke's speech. I should be happy if the noble Viscount. Lord Woolton, would enlighten us by making it clear what are the intentions of the Government in regard to the use of veterinary officers employed by the central authority. I do not know whether help is to be given by the Ministry of Food or the Ministry of Agriculture, but it seems to me essential to supplement what the local authorities can do in the way of employing veterinary officers if the working of this Bill when it becomes an Act is to be satisfactorily supervised, and if the conditions which we all desire are to be enforced.
There is just one further question—I do not wish to press the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, to speak again at this stage, but perhaps a note will be made by some noble Lord opposite, in order that a reply can be given later. Both the Minister of Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland will have extremely important duties to carry out under the Bill. The office of Secretary of State for Scotland, we all hope, and expect, is a fairly permanent one, whatever the changes and chances of politics may be. But we all know that the Ministry of Food is going to disappear very soon—that, I think, is expected. I have no doubt that it is the intention of the Government, because it is the policy of the Government to wind up this particular Department. May I therefore ask the Government whether they can tell us now what are their intentions in relation to the administration of this Bill when the Ministry of Food is wound up and the Minister of Food disappears?
12
This is, I think, an extremely important matter, from the point of view of the effectiveness of the Bill. Personally, I hope that the administration of the Bill will pass to the Ministry of Agriculture, for I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture are better qualified than any other Government Department to assist local authorities in the performance of these duties. I see that the noble Duke nods: I am glad to think that he agrees with me on this point. So I ask, will it be the Ministry of Agriculture or the Home Office—which, of course, has duties in relation to the protection of animals—or is it going to be a combination of Departments or Ministers? I feel that at all costs we must avoid a division of responsibility. We ought to try to get this matter into the hands of one Department, with one Minister responsible for England and Wales and the other responsible for Scotland. With those few questions, I come practically to the end of my remarks, but perhaps I may say, in a final sentence, that I warmly commend this Bill and hope that your Lordships will support it. We on this side of the House will do everything we can to expedite its passage through this House.
3.8 p.m.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, would it be now convenient to the House if I reply to the questions which the noble Earl has put to me? One of his questions—if I understood him aright—was; Who will take over when the Ministry of Food ceases to exist? The real answer to that question is that it depends upon the wisdom of your Lordships' House and of another place, because, clearly, there will have to be a transfer of functions; and that will depend upon the Parliamentary decision. But I should not be surprised if this duty were given to the Ministry of Agriculture. The other question which the noble Earl put to me was whether there would be sufficient veterinary officers, apart from those in the service of the local authorities. I have made inquiry on this point and I am told that there are four such officers in the Ministry of Food who will be available for the purpose, and that the Animal Health Division of the Ministry of Agriculture has veterinary officers who, if necessary, will be available for helping out. I apologise to your

13
Lordships for being completely out of order in speaking again in this way, but I thought it might be for the convenience of the House if I answered at once the questions addressed to the Government.
3.9 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, there are two questions which I should like to ask in connection with this Bill. The first one possibly arises because of my own ignorance and inexperience. It is this. Will there be any compulsion on the Minister to make the regulations referred to in Clause 2 of the Bill? Surely it has been in the power of the Minister to make such regulations for many years: indeed, I should have thought that it was a definite part of his responsibility. But that is my question. Would it be possible for the Minister to treat these recommendations purely as recommendations and do nothing about them? My second question refers to the powers of entry which have already been dealt with by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I think this is a very important matter, because slaughterhouses vary greatly in regard to the practices which are carried on therein.
It may be within the recollection of your Lordships that during the war the protection given to sheep and small animals of that sort was left to the discretion of the local authorities: that is to say, it was left to their discretion whether the animals should be stunned first or should be killed in full consciousness. At that time most local authorities took the humane view, but there were thirty-one local authorities which did not enforce previous stunning of animals. I think that under this new system horses will be very well looked after. I know that at present the preliminary conditions leave very much to be desired, but I am certain that with all the attention that has been focussed on this question, in two or three years' time probably there will be little criticism on the question of the slaughtering of horses and of cattle. Nobody would attempt to slaughter them without stunning them first. But smaller animals, particularly sheep, need constant protection, and it is about them that I am concerned. I have evidence to show that even now in some of the slaughterhouses in the North of England preliminary stunning of sheep is not carried out. Therefore, I think continuous inspection is required of slaughterhouses.
14
Of course, if it were possible to supply a large number of veterinary officers to keep a continuous eye on this matter, then all would be well, but one cannot help thinking that the veterinary officers who are found for this purpose will be few and far between, and so might be their visits. At the present time inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have the right of access to slaughterhouses. Perhaps "right" is not the correct word, but they have been given, as a concession, power to enter slaughterhouses and see what is going on, and the question I would ask is: will that permission be continued under the new system?
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: My Lords, first of all, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for their kind references to the work of my Committee. Both Lord Listowel and Lord Dowding raised the question of supervision and inspectorate, and I entirely agree that the inspectorate which is set up, by whichever Minister who may become responsible, is extremely important. This is a matter that has been gone into most carefully and we have had assurances from the Minister. For my part, I am prepared to accept those assurances, but I agree that it will be vital to see that the slaughter house arrangements are as we wish them to be. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, referred to sheep and lambs. Sheep and lambs, goals and kids, which are not under the law at the moment as other animals are, are being brought under the law by this Bill. This applies to pigs as well.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I think that they are under the law by statutory instrument. I can give the noble Duke references and dates.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLAND: Thank you. I was under the impression that they were not, and that this was the first time in which these animals were brought in. I think it is a matter for the local authorities in the areas in which they are being slaughtered, but I shall be grateful to the noble Lord if he will give me the references. So far as I know, inspectors of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals do not have the right to enter slaughter houses, but arrangements are made for

15
R.S.P.C.A. inspectors to go in. I am not aware that there will be any change under this Bill, nor do I think it would be the intention to make such a change.
On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS (ANAESTHETICS) BILL
3.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, I do not feel it will be necessary for me to take up much of your Lordships' time in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I say this because your Lordships will remember that an unopposed Second Reading was given in your Lordships' House to the first edition of this measure on October 27 of last year, just before the end of last Session. I pointed out then that, owing to lack of time, the Bill could not make any further progress during that Session of Parliament, but I suggested that there were many advantages to be gained by discussing there and then the general objects, so as to enlist the support and sympathy of Her Majesty's Government and ascertain whether there were any points of a general nature that any of your Lordships might care to make.
This procedure, I suggest, turned out to be very satisfactory. It enabled the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to declare that the Government were in full support of the Bill in principle, and also enabled him and other noble Lords to make one or two observations about how the Bill might be improved in various minor ways. In consequence, it was possible at an early stage in the current Session of Parliament for this measure to be redrafted in the light of the observations made by your Lordships and also by the Parliamentary draftsmen and officers of the Ministry of Agriculture, and to be introduced and passed through all its stages in another place. Since, therefore, the measure has not only been discussed already at some length in this House and approved by it in principle, but has also been subjected to long and careful discussion in another
16
place, I am hopeful that there will be no difficulty in placing it on the Statute Book without undue delay.
May I now recapitulate briefly the objects of the Bill and the ways in which it modifies the Bill which received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House last October? Its main object remains to bring the law up to date so far as the use of anaesthesia is concerned for animal operations. It does away with the Anaesthetics Act of 1919, which listed in six Schedules certain operations on certain animals which should be subject to particular types of anaesthesia. The Bill now before your Lordships proposes that all operations on all animals which involve pain, with certain minor exceptions, should be carried out under the influence of anaesthesia, it being left to the veterinary surgeon to decide what specific agent he will use and how it shall be administered. The main changes from the Bill which received its Second Reading here last October are that it has been extended to cover Scotland and in connection with the minor operations which are to be exempted from compulsory anaesthesia. These minor operations, as previously, are dealt with in a Schedule.
The Schedule has been modified in two respects: first, we have clarified the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland so far as concerns their power to modify the Schedule, subject to Parliamentary approval. This responsibility is now limited to paragraph 6 of the Schedule, which deals with the maximum age up to which it will be permissible to castrate certain male farm animals without the use of anaesthesia. Secondly, so far as concerns the castration of these animals, and also of dogs and cats, we have laid down in the Schedule certain definite maximum ages, rather than, as previously, leaving these ages for the Minister to prescribe after the Bill is placed upon the Statute Book. These ages have been the subject of much discussion and debate by the various experts and organisations concerned, and although they may not satisfy everyone, they do embody a compromise which I hope will be regarded as reasonable and acceptable in all the circumstances. In any event, however, it will be possible for the Ministers to modify the ages, so far as farm animals are concerned, if

17
they care at any time in the future to submit the necessary amending order to Parliament for approval.
I think that is all I need say about the technical aspects of the measure, but should like to mention the organisations which have given their support to the Bill, so that your Lordships may fully appreciate that the measure is one that is the subject of happy agreement between the agricultural and animal breeding associations, and also the animal protection societies. The Bill itself was prepared by the British Veterinary Association, and it is supported by the entire veterinary profession, including the Scottish branch of the British Veterinary Association and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Other interests concerned which have given their full approval include the Animal Health Trust, the National Farmers' Union, the National Cattle Breeders' Association, the British Horse Society, the Kennel Club, the R.S.P.C.A. and the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals.
If there are any points which, in my anxiety to save time, I have not dealt with, but which are of concern to any member of your Lordships' House, I shall be only too pleased to give the necessary explanations, if called upon, either at the end of this debate or in private discussion. As I have indicated, there is inevitably the necessity for a certain degree of compromise in any measure of this kind. I hope, therefore, that if any noble Lord should feel disposed to put down an Amendment, he will not do so until he has given me the opportunity to explain, if I can, why the Bill has been drafted in the way it has. I have already indicated that certain minor drafting alterations have been made in the measure to meet the wishes of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Scottish Office. In the circumstances, I am hopeful that the Bill will enjoy a speedy and uninterrupted passage through your Lordships' House, so that it can reach the Statute Book at the earliest opportunity, and so enable the veterinary profession of this country to ensure that the advances in knowledge in animal anaesthesia which have been made in recent years, both as a result of their own efforts and as a result of the efforts of scientific experts, will now be applied in practice. I regard it as a great pleasure
18
and privilege to associate myself with the British Veterinary Association in this undertaking, and I hope that the House will now be prepared to give the measure a unanimous Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Stamp.)
3.24 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I do not think there is much that I need say. As the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, has said, we had a discussion on a similar Bill to this on the last day of last Session, and I am happy that I can welcome this Bill, as I did the other one. It is true that, although I welcomed the earlier Bill in principle, I had one or two minor criticisms to make. I also said that the Government, reluctantly, could not find time to introduce the Bill themselves. The noble Lord, Lord Stamp, was fortunate, and found somebody to introduce the Bill in another place; and it has now come up here. If I may say so, I find the noble Lord's second edition better than his first. Certainly all the criticisms which I had on that occasion have now been fully met, and on behalf of the Government I am happy to give our unqualified approval to this Bill. I hope that it will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
3.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure the mover of this Bill shares my gratification at hearing what the Government spokesman has had to say about it; indeed, I do not think there will be any difference of opinion in your Lordships' House as to the desirability of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Stamp, has pointed out that it is, in principle, the same as the Bill which your Lordships approved without a Division when it was introduced in this House and given a Second Reading last October. We knew at the time that the noble Lord's Bill would fall for lack of Parliamentary time, and I myself—and I think other noble Lords, too, though my memory may be at fault—urged the Government, in view of the support which the Bill had received from your Lordships, and the

19
unanimous support of the interested organisations outside, to adopt the Bill and make it a Government Bill this Session.
I must admit—I hope that I shall not be accused of Party criticism, because this is far from being a Party point—that I am sorry the Government did not respond to that appeal, because a Government Bill always gets more time for consideration in Parliament than a Private Member's Bill, however admirable that Bill may be. If the Government had fathered this Bill, there would have been sufficient time for this House to carry out its function of making minor Amendments to legislation which reaches it after consideration in another place. The present Bill is still a Private Member's Bill, and we know full well that a single Amendment made to it at a later stage in this House will send the Bill back to another place, and if this happens, the Bill runs the risk of being lost. I must confess that I had some ideas about the Bill—they may be bad ones; I do not know whether they are good or bad—and I should have liked to suggest one or two minor Amendments. However, I shall refrain from proposing any Amendments, and I would add, with the utmost diffidence, that I hope other noble Lords will follow the same course, for the reason I have already given. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, was urging the same procedure, in a modest way, when he suggested that any noble Lords who wished to put down an Amendment should first consult him about it.
No one can doubt the value of this Bill, which makes it a general rule that anaesthetics should be used for animals, though it specifies various minor exceptions to this rule and in this way reverses the procedure under the 1919 Act. But I should like to say, as it has not been said so far, one thing. We have this measure largely due to two circumstances: first, to the initiative taken by the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, last year: and secondly, to the unanimous support given to his previous Bill by your Lordships when it came before this House for Second Reading. The present measure is, I feel, an example of the useful influence that this House can still exert. I believe this to be so partly because it gives scope for independent-minded Back-Benchers, like the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, and partly, also,
20
because the judgment of this House in matters like animal welfare, which do not directly touch on Party politics, is widely respected. The extension of the franchise in the last 100 years was, fortunately, stopped at adult franchise—even the most ardent egalitarian jibbed at animal franchise. So long as animals continue to have no votes, our opinion on this subject will, I am certain, carry a great deal of weight and will not be suspected of the slightest Party bias.
There are two small matters in relation to this Bill which I should like to mention. I do not know whether they are Second Reading or Committee points, but if they are Committee points, perhaps your Lordships will excuse me, because I do not intend to say anything during the Committee stage. The first is this. In subsection (4) of Clause 1, the word "animal" is defined in a delightful way which defies both common sense and the dictionary, so as to exclude birds, fishes and reptiles. I admit, of course, that this definition is necessary for the purposes of the Bill, but it does raise one point which I think deserves consideration. Whatever we may think about the sensibility of fishes and reptiles—and that, of course, is a matter which is open to question; even a philosopher like Herbert Spencer, who was very careful and conscious about cruelty to animals, was willing to fish—there can be no doubt that birds feel and suffer pain if they are injured; indeed, the legislation for the protection of birds shows that that is accepted by public opinion. It would therefore appear to be both humane and logical for this Bill, in its definition of animals, to include, as well as mammals, at least domestic fowls and birds used as pets. At the moment it is confined to mammals.
I gather, from studying the proceedings in another place, that the objection to including birds under the Bill was that the veterinary profession do not know for certain how to anaesthetise birds. Against this view, an example was given of the successful application of a local anaesthetic to a swan with a broken wing. It was also argued that a veterinary surgeon in the London Zoo believed that local anaesthetics could be used successfully in relation to birds. For my part, I hope that we shall accept the expert advice which must have been tendered to the promoters of this Bill. It is

21
obvious that at the present time expert opinion in this matter is divided, but in view of this division of opinion, and of the consequent progress of medical knowledge on anesthetics and their application, I should have liked to see this provision amended in a way that would make it possible for the Minister to make a statutory order to include birds at some appropriate time in the future. This is the procedure contemplated, I think, in Paragraph 6 to the First Schedule, and I wish that it had been applied also to this part of the Bill. As it is we shall have to wait for amending legislation, and sometimes it takes a long time for a Government to amend a Bill of this type.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer briefly, and that is the question of the age limit, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, referred, for castration of animals without an anaesthetic. This age limit varies according to the species concerned. It is as high as twelve months for a horse or a bull, and seven months for a pig. I think we shall all agree that the longer this operation is delayed, the more the animal will suffer. That being so, the time after birth during which castration without an anaesthetic is permissible should, clearly, be as short as possible. Everyone will appreciate the economic and practical reasons connected with farming, and especially farming in the more remote parts of this country, and in Wales and Scotland, which make it absolutely essential for age limits of this order to be included in the provisions of the present Bill; and I hope that considerations of this kind will be accepted as a valid justification for these age limits. Under the Bill, the Minister may alter the age limits by statutory order. I am glad that he has been given that power, and I think we must look to farmers, aided by the veterinary profession, to increase the use of anaesthetics before these age limits are reached, and in this way to make it possible for the Minister to use the powers which he has been given, which will obviously be a matter of great satisfaction for the humanitarian conscience of the country. I warmly commend this Bill to your Lordships, and I assure the noble Lord that we on this side of the House will endeavour to expedite its passage.
3.35 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I have no intention of suggesting Amendments which might delay the passage of this Bill, or perhaps even kill it altogether. I think it is unfortunate that so many Private Members' Bills come to this House late in the Session, when they have to be taken as they stand or rejected because there is no time to put through Amendments. I am glad to see that this Bill gives further protection, in particular, to horses, but there are two questions that I should like to ask. I understand that, according to the law as it stands at present, unqualified persons can castrate horses up to the age of two years. Has there been any alteration in that regulation, or is that still possible? If it is, it means that unqualified persons may be castrating horses between the ages of one and two years with the use of anaesthetics.
The other question I wanted to ask follows what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said. What is the principle upon which these limits of age mentioned in the First Schedule were fixed? Presumably, the principle is that painful operations which are to be carried out without anaesthetics should be carried out in infancy, or as near that as possible, so that the suffering of the animal is as little as possible. I can well understand the exception that must be made to that principle in the interests of farming, particularly where creatures exist in numbers—sheep, for example—but I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us why the limiting age for a sheep should be twelve months, for a goat three months and for a pig seven months. Again, one is grateful for the improvement in the lot of horses, but even now a yearling horse probably feels just as much as a fully grown horse, and as a horse is so much an individual one had hoped that it might be possible to make the use of anaesthetics for castration of horses compulsory in all cases. However, as I said, I do not want to do anything to upset this admirable Bill. I would only ask the noble Lord whether he can enlighten me on those two questions which I have asked.
3.40 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I have left it very late in the day to come into this discussion, and I am obliged to the

23
noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, for easing my conscience to some extent with regard to this Bill by describing it as some improvement upon the position that exists at the present time. It seems to me that the provision in the First Schedule of a list of exceptions where operations can be carried out without an anaesthetic demonstrates that this country of ours, the country with the greatest reputation in the world for humane treatment of animals, has still some way to go before its reputation can be looked upon as being absolutely perfect in that respect.
The noble Lord, Lord Stamp, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said that the First Schedule dealt with certain "minor exceptions". It seems to me that if it were human beings who were being treated in that way, the fact that they were "minor exceptions" would not be much consolation to them. It has been pointed out that the Ministers, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the appropriate Minister South of the Border, have power to modify these conditions. It seems to me that the castration of a horse at an age as late as twelve months is not a happy arrangement and that there should be a modification of that particular provision. The noble Lord, Lord Stamp, then said that there had been a happy agreement about the arrangements that are embodied in this Bill, and he made reference to the fact, as I understood him, that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were in support of the Bill. My understanding with regard to the R.S.P.C.A's. attitude to the Bill is not that they support the Bill so much as that they do not take violent exception to it, because a certain concession is made to those who wish to see animals treated with the utmost consideration. There is no active opposition to the Bill by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. If there had been such a disposition on the part of the R.S.P.C.A., I should be endeavouring to move Amendments and to improve the Bill along the lines that I consider necessary.
My noble friend Lord Listowel made reference to the fact that animals have no votes. It is certain that if animals had votes, they would not be supporting
24
the Second Reading of this Bill. In my judgment, it is regrettable that at this time of day those who for years have been carrying out these operations without anaesthetics should have become so enured to carrying them out in that way and apparently so accustomed to the amount of cruelty involved and pain and suffering caused, that they do not see the necessity for dealing with the matter on a wholesale scale and making certain that anaesthetics are used. I have been told that in respect of castration elastic bands are used to limit, to some extent, the severity of the pain that the animal suffers. Even so, it seems to me that the Christian conscience of this country should regret the present position. I hope that we may look forward in the not distant future to clearing up and completing the process of caring for animals that are operated upon in the way mentioned in the Bill. I feel sure that what I have said will evoke something from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and I shall be glad to hear of anything which will lead me to modify the feelings I have with regard to this Bill. I look forward to the day when we shall have an absolutely clean bill in respect of our dealing with animals.
3.46 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I intervene for only two or three moments because the noble Lord who has just sat down mentioned the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I am fully aware that noble Lords in this House speak for themselves as individuals and not for any societies, and I would not have intervened at all if the noble Lord had not mentioned that Society. I should like to make this point plain: that the Society do welcome this Bill; they support it strongly whilst, at the same time, reserving to themselves the right to say that this Bill, like so many other Bills, does not contain everything that they would have desired. But in case there is any doubt about that point, let me say, without any reservation, that the Society are strong supporters of this Bill.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord who, I think, is still Chairman of the Society, how pleased I am to have his assurance to that effect? My information was to the contrary effect. I am glad to have been corrected.
3.47 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, in view of what I may call, I think, the wholehearted support that this Bill has once more received in your Lordships' House, it seems unnecessary for me to detain you for more than a few minutes, but I should like to refer briefly to some of the points which your Lordships have raised. First of all, with regard to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, concerning the exclusion of birds from the provision, the answer is that the efficient application of anaesthesia to all types of birds is still only in the experimental stage. So far as poultry is concerned, it would be wholly impracticable at this juncture to enforce anaesthesia.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Dowding, referred to the question of castration of horses up to the age of two years by unqualified people. Of course, that is now quite impossible, because castration without anaesthesia is allowed only up to one year. Up to one year of age, however, that would still be possible. That is my understanding. Then the noble and gallant Lord asked for some information as to how these ages for various animals have been arrived at. They represent a compromise between what the animal protection societies would like to have and what the organisations representing farmers and animal breeders are prepared to accept as practicable. The age for a bull and the age for a pig are related to the ages at which the owners of such animals can get licences to keep them as bulls or boars. Then, with regard to sheep, the age cannot easily be reduced because it is the practice on hill farms and in remote parts of the country for the sheep to be gathered in on only one or two occasions in the year. The noble and gallant Lord also referred to horses. When the Bill was originally presented in another place the maximum age provided in regard to a horse was eighteen months, but in the light of further representation the Thoroughbred Horse Breeders' Association agreed to a reduction of six months—that is, to one year. This must be regarded as the lowest at which any reasonable compromise could be enforced in present circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Mathers, raised the question of what constitutes a minor operation. It has been argued
26
that the definition of a minor operation is not sufficiently tight, but it has been found virtually impossible to evolve a mere satisfactory form of words without going into excessive detail. It is thought that the wording of the Bill will work out satisfactorily in practice, and it is up to the animal protection societies to arrange to take suitable action under the Bill if they consider that there is any abuse of the facility given. I think that is all I have to say. If any of the points which I have attempted to answer need further explanation, or if any points occur to your Lordships following this debate, I shall, as I have said, be only too glad to attempt to meet them if noble Lords come and discuss them with me privately. I am sure we are all most anxious that this Bill should not suffer any undue or unnecessary delay at this stage which might, as one noble Lord has suggested, jeopardise its chances of reaching the Statute Book during the present Session. In conclusion, I should like to thank the, noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for his kind references to the part I have been privileged to play in introducing this Bill into your Lordships' House, and to thank all noble Lords who have fully supported it. It is most gratifying that this piece of proposed legislation has made such speedy progress since it was debated in your Lordships' House last October, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all those who were responsible. I trust that nothing will now prevent it from becoming law at the earliest possible time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

POST OFFICE (SITE AND RAILWAY) BILL
3.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and anyone else who has ever been concerned with the Post Office will agree with me in saying that the only possible criticism of this Bill is that it has not been brought forward before. The Western District Office was condemned as inadequate for

27
existing traffic in 1937, and since then traffic, both in letters and in parcels, has increased until it is about half as much again. The scheme that we are proposing to carry through will not only make it possible to improve the postal service in the Western District but will also make a considerable contribution towards solving the transport problem behind Oxford Street. I have referred to the question of postal traffic in the Western District. Quite honestly, I think that any of us who has been round the Western District Office, which is actually four disconnected offices, would agree that each one is not only inadequate but unsuitable; and one wonders how the service in the West End is as good as it is at the present moment. I should like to take this opportunity of paying a very warm tribute to the staff there for the way in which they have been carrying on in these surroundings. Under this Bill we shall have a five-storey building, and the ground floor will be devoted entirely to our vans. Therefore any of your Lordships who lives in that district will be glad to learn that our vans will no longer clutter up these very narrow side streets.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, interested himself at one moment in this Bill. He was good enough to put certain questions to me, one of which was: why not have this building in Oxford Street itself? As this building is not really for the direct service of the public, but for the purpose of dealing with the mail—it is, in fact, a sorting office—that would have been a wasteful use of a valuable shopping frontage. The total area of the site with which we are concerned is two and a half acres, of which one and a half acres are to be developed immediately and the rest within ten or fifteen years. The total cost of the scheme will be £7 million, but on the first stage of the scheme we shall have to spend up to pound;4 million. Of course, the expense of the scheme is greatly increased by the fact that we have to alter the direction and the placing of the Post Office underground railway.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised that point with me. He asked, since the railway already runs under the site where we are to have the new building, why have we to alter it? Naturally,
28
that was the first point that occurred to me. I am afraid that, in order to get efficient working of the railway, it just has to be altered. Incidentally, I have been asked: Why do we need a Bill at all in relation to this scheme? The answer to that question is that we are changing the position and direction of the railway, and when it is proposed to burrow underground, under other people's property, it is necessary to have legislation. Most of this area has been cleared for us already by bombs, but there are still a number of shops and a few residences. We shall not need the bulk of the occupied area for some time, but, if it would help existing tenants or occupiers, we are quite prepared to purchase that land, which we do not need now, and to allow existing occupiers or tenants to stay on. That is a matter that we should be prepared to discuss if it would help the existing occupiers.
There is one further point. Some questions in regard to the nature of the building were raised on Second Reading in another place. I should like to give this definite undertaking in regard to this building, which is in a very important part of London. It is to be a large building, comprising, as I have said, five storeys. I shall keep in the closest touch with the Minister of Works in order to see that we have erected there a building that is worthy of the district and of the site. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl De La Warr.)
3.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation of this Bill. I think that any of your Lordships who have tried to pass round Wimpole Street will have noticed considerable congestion there. If I understood the noble Earl aright, however, the object of this Bill and of this scheme, which is a very expensive one, is not to relieve the traffic situation in London, but to provide the district post office with the facilities that it needs if it is to operate efficiently. If the traffic congestion in that part of the West End is relieved, it will be merely a by-product of the scheme. In the proceedings in another place one figure given struck me

29
as rather puzzling. The Assistant Postmaster General said, that the cost in cash of these inadequate buildings amounts to something like £80,000 a year. One would like to know how accurate that figure is—how it is possible to assess the extra cost of an inefficient building of that sort.
The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has explained one thing that was not clear, at a glance, in the plan upstairs—namely, why, since the railway runs underneath the new site, it needs to be re-aliened and reconstructed over several hundred yards of its length. I should like to ask how the capital expenditure required for this scheme is to be found, and whether the effect of heavy capital expenditure in one district in London is likely to prejudice in any way the provision of capital for other schemes in other parts of the country, or for other services, such as telephone exchanges and other urgent work. No doubt the London postal services are an extremely important part of the work of the Post Office, and it is therefore essential that the district offices should all be able to work at full efficiency; but I think we should like to know whether there will be any repercussions on other capital schemes. Subject to that, we have nothing but praise for this Bill.
4.2 p.m.
EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for the way in which he has received this Bill. He has asked me two questions, one about the extra cost—the figure of £80,000. We make very careful assessments of the efficiency of our staff, and that is the best assessment that we can make of the extra staff and transport costs that we have to incur as a result of the inefficiency of our present arrangements. It includes little for extra rentals. The other point is: will this scheme reduce
30
our expenditure on telephone development and so on? We do have limited capital expenditure, which every year we agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if we spend money on one thing we cannot spend it on another; but I can say that the £4 million will be spent over a considerable period, and therefore will not make a big hole in any one year's Estimates. I have been able to persuade my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the urgent need for more money for general postal and telephone developments. He has allowed me a good many millions more for next year and he has been good enough to agree with me a considerably increased figure even for the following year, which helps us to plan.

FERGUSON BEQUEST FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes past four o'clock.