Lords Sitting of 22 November 1954

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  CHURCHES AND UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CON FIRMATION BILL
  Considered on Report (according to Order).

FOOD AND DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
2.36 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT WOOLTON): My Lords, in moving that the Commons Amendments be now considered, I beg permission of your Lordships to make a personal statement. When this Bill was being considered in another place Mr. Willey said that I was in charge of it, and that it was common knowledge that I had considerable interests in the catering industry. He suggested that constitutional issues were raised when the Minister in charge of the Bill had these well-recognised interests, and he said it was very disquieting that it was in connection with the catering industry, and that industry alone, that exceptions had been made. He added that, so far as was known, no recommendations had come from anywhere apart from this particular section of the food trades. The House will know that I am not, in fact, in charge of the Bill, except in your Lordships' House, that constitutionally the Minister of Food, and he alone, is in charge of it and, within his rights, has made such alterations as he thought fit.
For purposes of record, and in order to answer the personal imputation of being actuated by improper motives, I beg to inform the House that I was neither consulted nor informed by the Minister, either personally or in Ministerial discussions more generally, about any of the detailed alterations to which Mr. Willey has referred, and I knew
1684
nothing about them until I read the OFFICIAL REPORT. The suggestion, therefore, that I used improper influence is completely false, and I regret that Mr. Willey should have suggested that any personal financial interests of mine have affected Government policy. Of course, my interests in the catering trade are confined to those of a shareholder and, in fact, they are comparatively small. I hardly think that your Lordships will feel the matter to be of sufficient moment to make it necessary for me to defend myself against imputations of this kind.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I feel perfectly certain that all your Lordships, in whatever quarter of the House you may sit, will accept most readily the assurances which the noble Viscount has given.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Earl. I felt that the circumstances were such that I had to make that statement.
To come now to the Bill, the Amendments from another place which I have to put before you to-day are voluminous, and I have been at some concern as to how most rapidly to get through them for the convenience of the whole House. If your Lordships will agree, I propose to group them together, because in many cases the Amendments that are submitted have also consequential Amendments in other parts of the Bill. If it be your Lordships' pleasure, I think it will save time if my noble friend Lord Carrington—who has been good enough to help me with this rather heavy task—and I submit to you groups of Amendments. Of course, while we shall make but one speech on each group—which may be to your Lordships' advantage—your Lordships will deal with the Amendments as you think fit and they will, of course, be put separately. I now beg to move that the Commons Amendments to the Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Viscount Woolton.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, before we pass that Motion may I make this suggestion? We have here a mass of Amendments, and I think it would be much better if in future we had the Amendments numbered. When I was Lord Chancellor that was one of the reforms which I initiated. I think it was very

1685
valuable. Instead of having to refer to, it may be, "page 3, line 77," and so on, we were then enabled to say simply, "Amendment No. 1," or whatever it might be. I would suggest for the consideration of your Lordships and of the Officers of this House, who are always ready to consider suggestions, that in future, even if Amendments come from the Commons, for our own convenience we should number them as we do our own Amendments.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, on the suggestion which the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton has just made, may I say this? I do not know whether within the Rules of Order we cart, as it were, jump about on the Order Paper. I do not know whether that was the intention; but it might be very inconvenient. We do not want to prolong the debate on these Commons Amendments, and if the noble Lord who moves an Amendment can refer at the same time to the consequential Amendments, we can then take them as they come on the Order Paper. When we come to an Amendment, which is indicated as being consequential we can just accept it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The references are to Bill 88 as first printed for the House of Commons]
Clause 3, page 3, line 37, at end, insert—
("(4) Regulations so made may provide, in relation to such cases as may be specified and subject to such exceptions as may be allowed by or under the regulations, that where any food is certified by a public analyst as being food to which the regulations apply so far as they are made under paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section that food may be treated for the purposes of section ten of the principal Act (which enables food to be seized and condemned on the order of a magistrate) as being unfit for human consumption:
Provided that nothing in any such regulations shall be taken as prejudicing the generality of the powers conferred by the said section ten.")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Earl for the suggestion he wade. I am sure it will be for our convenience and that notice will be taken of it. Perhaps we may see how it goes. I think the line I was proposing is very much the line the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was suggesting, and if it is not, then we will do what we can to meet your Lordships. To this Amendment to Clause 3 the Amendments to the
1686
Second Schedule, headed "Section 10" and "Section 12," will be consequential. Clause 3 empowers the Ministers of Food and Health to make regulations controlling the composition of food. The first Amendment enables the Ministers to provide in such regulations that food not complying with the regulations may be treated as unfit for human consumption for the purposes of Section 10 of the 1938 Act, which empowers local authority officers to seize food which in their opinion is unfit for human consumption and to bring it before a magistrate for condemnation.
The Amendment is required because without it food containing prohibited preservatives or prohibited quantities of injurious substances cannot be seized. The only course open is to prosecute the distributors after the food has gone into circulation. A recent example occurred in the case of oranges containing a substance called thiourea. I will not weary your Lordships with the description of that substance about which I am not very clear. This Amendment, with the Amendment to the Second Schedule, page 31, line 34, will enable injurious food to be seized at the port. The second Amendment extends the powers conferred by Sections 10 and 12 of the 1938 Act to officers of port health authorities. Section 10 empowers an authorised officer of a local authority to seize food intended for but unfit for human consumption and to bring it before a magistrate who, if he agrees with the officer is required to order the food to be destroyed. Section 12 provides powers for the examination of food in transit. The extension is made by substituting the word "council" for the words "local authority," and "council" is elsewhere defined as including a port health authority. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 4, page 4, line 5, after ("importation") insert ("or use").
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE(LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, this Amendment and the next three on the Order Paper are in the same clause, and

1687
with your Lordships' permission I will explain them all together. All these Amendments extend the Ministers' powers to obtain information about substances used in or intended for use in the manufacture of food. The first Amendment enables the Minister to call for information from users of substances as well as from persons who produce or import them. The second Amendment removes some unnecessary words which would have limited the substances about which the Minister could have called for information. The third and fourth Amendments ensure that information can be called for on all possible effects on health including cumulative effects, a point which was raised during the Committee and Report stages in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch. This Amendment meets the point he raised. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 4, page 4, line 6, leave out from ("order")to("to")in line 9.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 4, page 4, line 28, after ("to") insert ("or in any other way affects").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 4, page 4, line 28, at end insert—
("(d) particulars of any investigations or inquiries carried out by or to the knowledge of the person carrying on the business in question
1688
for the purpose of determining the cumulative effect on the health of a person consuming such substance in ordinary quantities.")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 5, page 5, line 22, after ("six") insert ("but subject to the next following subsection,").
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this and the next Amendment are simple in essence but complicated in the number of consequential Amendments that follow. I do not know whether this is going to be quite clear.
EARL JOWITT: I should put them as consequential when you come to the Amendments.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: I will say that there are a number of consequential Amendments which I will move when the time comes, but I will speak to them now.
EARL JOWITT: We are not going to oppose these.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: Does the noble and learned Earl mean that he will accept them without my making a speech?
EARL JOWITT: Yes.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: Then, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 5, page 5, line 25, at end insert—
("(4) In relation to the labelling and marking of food with respect to weight, measure and number, the last foregoing subsection shall apply with the substitution for the reference to the Ministers of a reference to the Board of Trade.")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 5, line 43, after ("packaging,") insert ("wrapping").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment and all the Amendments down to page 6, line 22, add items to the list of matters about which the Ministers may make regulations for securing that food is handled hygienically and for securing that premises in which food is handled are constructed and maintained in a hygienic condition. I do not think any of these matters significantly alters the Bill as it was before your Lordships' House, but they do remove all doubt as to the matters which can be regulated. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendrnent.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 6, line 6, after ("layout,") insert ("drainage,").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 6, line 8, after ("lighting") insert ("water supply.").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Cause 6, page 6, line 11, after ("cleansed") insert ("or in which refuse is disposed of or stored").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amenedment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amenemeat.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 6, line 14, after ("premises,") insert ("the disposal of refuse").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page f, line 15, after ("apparatus," insert ("equipment").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page line 16, at end insert (",and in particular for imposing requirements that every sanitary convenience situate in such premises shall be supplied with water through a suitable flushing appliance;).
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 6, line 22, at end insert—
("(d) for prohibiting spitting on premises where food is sold or offered exposed, stored or prepared for sale for human consumption (including any parts of such premises in which apparatus and utensils are cleansed);").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 6, line 22, at end insert—
("(e) for imposing requirements as to the clothing worn by persons in such premises;").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 6, line 27, after ("staining") insert ("or sterilisation").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment and the next one which follows immediately on the Paper are about the same subject. The object of these Amendments is to ensure that the Ministers will be fully empowered to make regulations requiring the sterilisation of meat used for feeding animals, as such meat may be diseased and a danger. I think it has happened that somebody, coming home from work when his wife was out of the house, has taken a piece of meat from the kitchen table and cooked it for his evening supper when it was, in fact, the dog's dinner. As a result people may become ill—at any rate there is a danger there. It may be proposed under this Amendment to make regulations requiring sterilisation. As the clause stood, it would have been necessary to word the regulations in such a way that the enforcing authority would have to prove that the meat sold for cat or dog food was unfit for human consumption before they could take proceedings for failure to sterilise such meat, a procedure which would not have been convenient or easy. These two Amendments have therefore been inserted. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the first Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 6, line 31, leave out from ("yards,") to ("any") in line 32, and insert ("or which, though not unfit for human consumption, is not intended therefor;
(f) for regulating generally the treatment and disposal of").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 6, line 34, leave out paragraph (f).
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this paragraph which it is proposed to leave out would have enabled the Ministers to prohibit the sale in the open air of meat or other such products which are peculiarly susceptible to infection. We can regulate the sale of such food under the powers of Clause 6 (1) (e). We can say under that clause that it shall not 'be sold in the open air unless proper precautions are taken. We cannot, however, under Clause 6 (1) (e), prohibit it absolutely. As there is no intention of doing so, it was thought better to leave out this paragraph. It was feared that if the powers were available Ministers might use them to put a stop to the use of such things as mobile shops in country districts. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I do not follow the reference to Clause 6 (1) (e).
LORD CARRINGTON: I beg your Lordships' pardon if I have not explained it right. Under Clause 6 (1) (e)—
EARL JOWITT: There is no (e).
LORD CARRINGTON: No, of course not: it should be Clause 6 (1).
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 6, line 43, at end insert—
("(3) In the last foregoing subsection 'animals' includes poultry.")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment enables regulations to be made requiring the inspection of poultry intended for slaughter for sale for human consumption. The definition section (Section 100 of the 1938 Food and Drugs Act) says that "animal" does not include "bird," so that without this Amendment poultry would not be covered by the clause. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 7, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) provide, subject to such limitations and safeguards as may be specified, for conferring, in relation to particular premises, exemptions from the operation of specified provisions contained in regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection' while there is in force a certificate of the local authority to the effect that compliance with those provisions cannot reasonably be required with respect to the premises or any activities carried on there.")
2.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this additional paragraph enables the Ministers to include in regulations dealing with the structure and equipment of premises a provision that local authorities may grant certificates to the occupiers of particular premises. This Amendment is necessary because regulations concerning the structure and equipment of premises will be couched in general terms applying to certain classes of business. There may, however, be individual premises where compliance would be impossible—for example, a canteen put up on some building site or on a site where constructional work was going on for an aerodrome. On many of these sites it is the practice for people using the canteen to bring their own utensils and to take them home to be washed there. The youth hostel in a rural area may be in a similar case. There they are accustomed to washing their pots and pans in the neighbouring stream. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Viscount Woolton.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I must confess that I do not like this Amendment. I do not feel strongly enough about it to divide against it, but this is the sort of thing that we do not like in this House. It is a dispensing power conferred upon Ministers. I think that in principle that is wrong. If we are to have regulations they are the law of the land, and everybody ought to obey them. I think that to have regulations and then to have corresponding with those regulations Ministerial power exempting certain individuals from complying with those regulations is a had type of legislation. I am not happy about this Amendment. As I say, I do not propose to move any Motion against it, but I ant sure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would agree with me in that he would dislike this sort of principle just as much as I do. In broad and general principle, I think it is wrong and thoroughly undesirable, and may lead to all sorts of undesirable practices and habits. I content myself with putting it in that way, and I do not propose to do any more about it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 6, page 7, line 12, at end insert—
("(4) If any person who has incurred, or is about to incur, expenditure in securing that the requirements of regulations made under this section, being requirements of a structural character, are complied with in respect of any premises owned or occupied by him claims that the whole or any part of the expenditure ought to be borne by any other person having an interest in the premises, he may apply to the county court, and the court may make such order concerning the expenditure or its apportionment as appears to the court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the terms of any contract between the parties, to be just and equitable; and any order made under this section may direct that any such contract as aforesaid, shall cease to have effect in so far as it is inconsistent with the terms of the order.")
3.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, This Amendment replaces paragraph (b) of Clause 6 (3), repealed by the previous Amendment to Clause 6 which deals with the adjustment between owners and occupiers of expenses incurred in making structural alterations in accordance with the requirements of regulations under the new subsection set out above. The gist of

1695
the Amendment is that either the owner or the occupier may apply to the county court to have the issue determined. It is thought that the procedure for resolving differences of this kind should be set out in the Act rather than that it should be laid down in regulations made by the Ministers. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am sorry to rise again. I have no desire to be cantankerous about these things, as the noble Viscount knows, but I do not think it right to let this matter pass without saying how much I disapprove of it. Her Majesty's judges have, I think, the universal admiration of the lieges, and it is largely because they administer settled principles of law. They are not cadis sitting under palm trees, who administer what they think the law ought to be; they are administering the law as it is set down. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will know that in the early days of equity the Lord Chancellor used to have a power of declaring out of his own inner conscience what ought to be done. It was said at a very early stage that equity is a roguish thing, as variable as the Chancellor's foot—meaning to say that one Chancellor's idea of what was right would differ from that of another Chancellor. Consequently, equity became, as did law, subject to certain definite principles, and became crystallised and clear. I am perfectly certain that it is of the utmost importance that Her Majesty's judges should administer a settled system. They should not simply be set at large amongst the lieges and told to do what is right and proper in the circumstances.
To my mind, that is the vice of this clause. What it means is this. There may be a lease as between a landlord and a tenant, and there may be perfectly proper requirements made by the local authority which involve the making of certain structural alterations, and, therefore, the incurring of expense. But who is to bear that expense? Normally, you would look to the lease and would consider whether it falls upon the tenant or the landlord. If you
1696
were in difficulty about a lease, you would no doubt consult lawyers, and they would have a settled principle. But that is not to be the principle here at all. As I understand this clause, one has to go before the county court judge, who has to look at the lease and see what that lease provides. That is only one of the things he has to look at, and it is not the governing consideration. He has to decide on the cui bono principle what has to be done. That is how I read this clause.
I appeal to the Lord Chancellor. It seems to me that this clause is subject to the vice which I have indicated; and it transforms the county court judge, who is trying to administer law according to a settled principle, and makes him a cadi under the palm tree. It says to him: "You do that which is just and equitable. You can look at the lease amongst other things, but consider what ought to be done." It gives him no further guidance. I do not think that is right, and I believe that if that principle were extended, our judges would not have the high repute they have to-day. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount, who understands fully the point I am making and I suspect in his heart of hearts agrees with it, whether we can do anything at this stage to put it right. I seriously believe it is a bad blot on the Bill and is the introduction of what I believe to be a bad principle.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, as the noble and learned Earl has asked me to give my views on the matter, I should like to say that, on the broad principle which he has enunciated, I am sure that no Member of your Lordships' House is in disagreement with him. But here we have to face the difficulty that arises as to the apportionment of the costs between the owner and the occupier. I think the only way in which it can be done is as my noble friend Lord Woolton has said, by making regulations—it may be rather intricate regulations—in order to give guidance on the matter. It was felt that the county court judge could, in the circumstances, as the noble and learned Earl says, look at the lease and also at the reason for making the alterations. That would be a method of solving the difficulty which would probably give more satisfaction to both the owner and the occupier than any other. I think I

1697
can say—and I am sure that my noble friend, Lord Woolton, will entirely agree—that we are grateful to the noble and learned Earl for drawing our attention to the matter. As he knows, when one is legislating it is very attractive to try to find an easy and acceptable method of arriving at justice, but if we forget the principles about which the noble and learned Earl has reminded us, our legislation will suffer. I hope, if I may use the phrase, "taking into account all the circumstances of the case," and having regard to the time of the Session, the noble and learned Earl will not press it this time on the assurance I have given.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I will certainly agree to that, and withdraw my opposition. I have made my point on a matter which I think we should attempt to avoid in future.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask whether this means that any man who lets premises for use as a shop for his own protection will, in the future, have to put a clause in the lease to say that it may not be used as a milk bar or anything of that kind without a licence from the lessor? Must he do that in order to protect himself from being mulcted for the structural expenditure without his knowing anything about what is going on?
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, it is not for me to answer, but that was the very point which occurred to me. It seems to me that a landlord in future must make some arrangement of that sort in his lease; otherwise he may find himself under an obligation to incur structural expenditure at the behest of the county court judge.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say, to help my noble friend Lord Saltoun, that as I understand it the particular, proviso which we are putting into the Bill deals only with structural alterations in accordance with the requirements of the regulations. The noble and learned Earl has put the difficulty on the matter which is present to our minds. If I may give what I am afraid must be a "snap" opinion, I do not think Lord Saltoun's apprehensions are so well founded.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
clause 6, page 7, line 23, at end insert—
("(6) The Ministers shall from time to time take such steps as they think expedient for publishing codes of practice in connection with matters which may be made the subject of regulations under this section, for the purpose of giving advice and guidance to persons responsible for compliance with such regulations.")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this is an Amendment requiring the Minister to take appropriate steps for publishing codes of practice, but it does not impose on him the duty of publication. These codes would not be enforceable, but might, as suggested in the Committee stage lit another place, act as a guide. I do not think I need say any more about them. There was a good deal of pressure in another place for this subsection to be put in. Accordingly, it is inserted for your Lordships' consent. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
Catering premises
(".—(1) Where a person is proceeded against by a local authority for an offence against regulations made under section six of this Act in respect of any premises used as catering premises or of any business carried on at such premises, the following provisions of this section shall have effect.
(2) If the person is convicted of the offence, the court may if it thinks it expedient so to do having regard to the gravity of the offence or (in the case of an offence committed in respect of premises) to the unsatisfactory nature of the premises, or to any offences against regulations made under section six of this Act of which the person has previously been convicted, on the application of the local authority make an order disqualifying that person from using those premises as catering premises for such period not exceeding two years as may be specified in the order:
Provided that an order under this section shall not he made against any person unless the local authority have, not less than fourteen days before the date of the hearing, given that person written notice of their intention to apply for an order to be made against him.
(3) A person subject to an order under this section shall be guilty of an offence if, while the order is in force—

(a) he uses the premises to which the order relates as catering premises, or

1699

(b) he participates in the management of any business in the course of which the premises are so used by another person.

(4) A person so subject may, at any time after the expiration of six months from the date on which the order came into force and from time to time thereafter, apply to the court before which he was convicted or by which the order was made to revoke the order, and on any such application the court may, if it thinks proper having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including in particular the person's conduct subsequent to the conviction and any improvement in the state of the premises to which the order relates, grant the application.
(5) If an application under the last foregoing subsection is refused by the court to which it is made, a further application thereunder shall not be entertained if made within three months after the date of the refusal.
(6) The court to which an application under the said subsection is made shall have power to order the applicant to pay the whole or any part of the costs of the application.")
3.12 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is a rather long and complicated series of Amendments. With this Amendment we should take also the Amendments to Clause 7, page 8, line 26, Clause 8, page 8, line 45, Clause 8, page 9, line 6, and the Second Schedule, page 35, line 24. The effect of all these Amendments, read together, is to substitute for a registration procedure a disqualification procedure. As the Bill stood when it left your Lordships' House, it could have been made obligatory on anyone opening a catering business to register his premises with the local authority. It was felt in another place, however, that, in view of the wide variety of catering premises which, as your Lordships will realise, range from small country teashops and large hotels to boarding houses and lodging houses, it would be a considerable task to register all of them. Indeed, catering establishments differ from manufacturing premises in that they are bound to make themselves known to the public and to the local authority by the very nature of their business and, if they are unsatisfactory, the public can complain either to the management or to the local authority.
There will, however, be stringent regulations with which catering premises will have to comply. There will also be a detailed code of practice. Nevertheless, in spite of those two things, it seemed right to my right honourable friend the Minister of Food that the ultimate penalty of putting a really bad caterer out of business should be retained. This is done by the disqualification clause. The main
1700
distinction between this procedure and the one in the Bill as it left this House is that the final penalty of disqualification can be applied only after there has been a conviction for some breach of the regulations. Whilst this acts as a safeguard to the caterer, it also carries with it—I think one should not underestimate this—the element of publicity which caterers, much more than manufacturers, will wish to avoid. Accordingly, the local authority will be in a strong position to use persuasive measures to bring about compliance with the regulations.
I see that in another place this series of Amendments was described by one Opposition Member as a "sell out" to the catering industry. As your Lordships will see, this is really complete nonsense, since the local authority may apply to the court for disqualification in the rare cases when it may be necessary. I think we should remember, too, that registration of itself does not produce clean food or clean premises, and, since that is the object of this Bill, the new procedure will be just as fair and fairer, I think, to all sections of the catering trade. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
3.16 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it will not surprise the noble Lord who moved this Amendment to hear that there will be some opposition to this Amendment. The noble Lord said that this had been determined in another place, but he did not say that the Amendment had been carried in the face of considerable opposition, on both the Committee stage and Report stages, although he did say that it was described by one honourable Member in another place as a "sell out." The Amendment was, in fact, strongly objected to. The noble Viscount will remember that on the Second Reading of this Bill and subsequently in Committee, he was pressed strongly to say whether or not it was the
Government's intention, as it appeared to be from the way in which the Bill had been drawn, to register catering establishments. His answer was most definite; he gave a definite answer to me, and my question was reinforced by the question of the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, who received the same

1701
answer. There was no doubt, he said, that it was the Government's intention that catering establishments should be registered. In fact, he went further on the Committee stage, because he said then—I am merely giving the purport of what he said; I hope I am not misinterpreting it—
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: Of course not.
LORD SILKIN: —how hypocritical it would be for a Government to put in a clause of this kind authorising them to register catering establishments if they had no intention of doing so. So this Bill passed this House in the full belief that catering establishments were going to be registered. On the Second Reading in another place, so far as I have read the speech of the honourable Member who introduced the Bill, I can see no evidence of any change of mind. I should like to remind the House of the circumstances in which the Government had decided to register catering establishments. There had been set up by the previous Government a Catering Trade Working Party. They had deliberated for some two years and eventually they made a recommendation that catering premises should be registered. This was a unanimous recommendation, but certain members of the Working Party who were concerned in the catering industry put in a proviso in the form of a minority report that existing premises should be registered as of right. They were not objecting to registration even of existing premises but existing premises should be registered as of right. New premises should be registered by the local authority after inspection and after they were satisfied that they were hygienic and satisfactory in all respects. So we have the unanimous recommendation of the Catering Trade, Working Committee.
Before this Committee, evidence was given by the local government officials, and they strongly recommended that it was necessary that catering establishments should be registered. In the report itself there appears this sentence:
"Representatives of the Association of Local Authorities and of their officers who gave evidence before us, stressed the necessity for the registration of catering establishments."
So that we have the local authorities themselves asking for it—stressing the necessity for it; we have the Working Party unanimously recommending it, and
1702
we have even those members of the industry who were on the Working Party accepting the principle of registration, but asking only that existing catering establishments should be registered as of right.
I want to ask the Government, through the noble Viscount who is going to reply, what is it that has induced the Government to change their mind. Certainly, up to the time of the Second Reading in another place it looked as if there was no cloud on the horizon at all; it was going through to the general satisfaction of this House and, so far as I know, of the other place. On Second Reading nobody had complained of the registration of catering establishments; I do not think any honourable Member in another place raised the point at all. From whence, then, did the initiative come? The noble Lord who introduced this Amendment spoke of somebody saying it was a "sell-out" I do not think it was a "sell-out" at all; even the industry itself is in favour of registration, though reluctantly, because they have issued a memorandum saying that they would rather have registration than what is proposed in the Amendment. So it does not come from the Working Party; it does not come on the initiative of the other place; it does not come from this House; and it certainly does not come from the noble Viscount, who has disclaimed any influence on this measure at all. Where does the change come from, and why?
In another place it was argued that it would be putting an unnecessary and intolerable burden upon the local authorities. Well, in their evidence the local authorities have asked for it—both the authorities and the officers; they all asked for registration. Is the true reason that this is a more effective way of controlling catering establishments? I cannot believe that it is. Surely it is much better to make sure that a catering establishment is satisfactory in all respects before registration, before it is allowed to open, than to have to deal with it afterwards—to inspect it and then take this cumbersome procedure of requiring it to close down or penalising it. The industry itself would much rather know where it stood by this requirement of registration before, rather than after, they open. I quite agree that there is a difficulty about the existing catering premises. I should not have been distressed if we had had a dual

1703
procedure—if existing premises were registered as of right and we had something like the procedure laid down in the Amendment, and that a new catering establishment should have to be registered. There would have been no difficulty about that. I think that that would have been a reasonable compromise. Certainly it would have satisfied the catering industry. Is it that this method is more effective? I cannot think so. It is surely more effective to satisfy oneself that the premises are satisfactory before they open than have constantly to inspect them afterwards.
I am completely at a loss. The noble Lord in introducing this Amendment has certainly not elucidated the reasons for abandoning registration; nor, having read the debate in another place, have I understood the reasons. I do not know whether it is possible at this late stage in the Bill to abandon this clause. It would certainly give great satisfaction to a number of people—in this House, in another place and outside. Certainly it is not at all a satisfactory alternative to registration. Neither is it the case that noble Lords opposite have any objection to registration of business premises, because this Bill contemplates the registration of other premises. Indeed, as I have explained, it contemplated the registration of catering establishments, too; but they have taken out catering establishments and left the others in. I should have thought that if there was a case, if the sort of case which has been given for leaving out catering establishments is justified, then certainly it would be equally reasonable to leave out other establishments.
The odd thing now is that if you want to start up in London a massage establishment or a registry for employment, you have to be registered before you can start; but anybody can set up a catering establishment. I do not know whether it is legitimate to poison the body by bad food, but not legitimate to injure people by massage carried out in the wrong way. It seems to me extraordinary that for years there has been an obligation to register employment exchanges and massage establishments, and various establishments of that kind, but catering establishments can be set up quite freely without any obligation to carry on in an hygienic way. The noble Lord said they
1704
can be discovered; they have to advertise, and so on. But it is not really satisfactory to wait until people are poisoned or seriously injured before the inspectors get round. They do not normally parade the streets in order to find out whether a new establishment has been created. These establishments may be able to do a good deal of injury. If one goes round places like Soho, one finds that establishments start up like mushrooms—they are here to-day and they are gone to-morrow, and every time you go you find a new establishment set up, and it is difficult to keep pace with them. If it were practicable, I would certainly ask the House to reject this Amendment. What would happen if the House accepted my advice I do not know; but it is certainly a bad Amendment, particularly having regard to the fact that the registration that we all thought was going to be a feature of this Bill has now been withdrawn.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, your Lordships will appreciate that I am in some personal difficulty. The statements that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just made about the undertakings I gave when this Bill was previously before your Lordships are indisputable. I gave them, as I am sure your Lordships know, in the full belief that that was the policy that Her Majesty's Government had in view—and it most certainly was. There is, of course, another place which has its proper rights. I have been asked, where did the initiative come from in this matter? I have already explained to the House that the initiative did not come from me. There is no doubt about where it came from—from Members of Parliament who were, as they doubtless thought, looking after the interests of the people who sent them there. And, after all, what have they decided? They have decided to alter the form.
There were arguments of which I am sure noble Lords are just as much aware as I. Perhaps in courtesy to noble Lords I should deploy them a little. One of the arguments against registration is that it is a cumbersome process. I am not saying the arguments were not just as good when I advocated another course in this House. I am not for a moment going back; but registration is a cumbersome process involving a very large

1705
number of people over this extraordinarily wide range of businesses engaged in catering, from boarding houses to those places that we all know and have seen as we go through the countryside, offering teas and the like. All those would have to be registered. But in this peculiar case I would submit, with respect, that it is not for me to defend arguments that have been put forward. My duty is merely to submit them to your Lordships.
I would beg the House to consider one point here. I know noble Lords on the other side and I dare say many on this side of the House are very conscious of the fact that we came to a different conclusion before, but let us be quite clear that it was not a different conclusion on principle; it was a different conclusion on method. The issues on which we are now separated are issues as to which is the best method of arriving at the end which we all desire. I was grateful to the noble Lord—it was characteristic of him to say that this is no question of a betrayal in the interests of large firms. I notice that the last Minister of Food in another place went to some trouble to explain that on the whole it was not the big people who were in danger here; that the danger arose from the innumerable small people. There are some who feel that the procedure now suggested against the person who is selling dirty food is much stiffer than that advocated when the Bill was before this House on an earlier occasion. I must admit that the other form was probably more likely to be preventive at the beginning, while this is punitive against the person who does wrong. But the power to put a disreputable man out of business is retained, and it has never been intended to take that action except where the nature of the case demanded such action.
What am I to say to your Lordships? We have here a Bill with which, in its earlier stages, some noble Lords were associated. I remember that when we were discussing the Bill in this House en Second Reading we said it was not at all a Party measure. It is a measure which we hope will do something to protect the public. We have come to a disagreement because in another place a different view has been taken from that of your Lordships as to the best method of achieving that end. It is, of course, open to your Lordships to say you retain your privi-
1706
lege. It is open to your Lordships to reject this Bill. I have been much concerned on this matter for I feel that the Bill as a whole is good. Without any suggestion that anybody should say, "If you do not meet this, if you do not do that, you will lose the Bill," I would point out that we have to face the situation. These are the last few days of the Session. It is possible that the Bill could go back, if your Lordships so decide; but noble Lords will know that there is a great danger there. I have weighed this point very carefully in my mind and have come to the conclusion that it would be better, in he public interest, for us to have this different form of administration rather than to risk sending the Bill back to another place and, in the few days now available, standing a very good chance of not getting any further. On those grounds—and I have been very frank with your Lordships, as will no doubt be appreciated—I hope noble Lords will be good enough to accept the Commons Amendments in order to save the major parts of the Bill.
3.36 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I must confess we are in some difficulty here. This House has a duty to perform. It is charged with the duty of trying to ensure that legislation is in the most satisfactory form possible. I think we should carry through our duty and say so. The noble Viscount who has spoken, and whose frankness we all admire, has not attempted to say anything to justify what has been done. I do not think it can be justified. What do we want? We simply want, in the interests of the public, that there should be clean food. We do not want to punish people or take away their livelihood. We want clean food, and the right thing for us to do is surely to have these establishments registered. Then you can have officials going round and advising, if necessary, what is to be done in order that the rules of hygiene may be observed. In 999 cases of 1,000 people would be sensible enough to carry out the suggestions and instructions and would be glad of them.
It appears to me that Her Majesty's Government here have the thing completely the wrong way round. The idea of registration is being taken away altogether and they are relying on drastic punishments upon people. That is quite

1707
wrong. The noble Viscount has said, and I can well understand, that with regard to existing establishments you might well assume that they were all right and would not require registration; but with regard to new establishments surely those should have a registration system in order that competent people may ensure that food is served to the public under hygienic conditions. The noble Viscount, Lord Wootton, has not said a word, or put forward an argument, against that suggestion. Indeed he cannot do so, for he even supported the idea earlier, and I have no doubt he still believes it to be right as I certainly do. In those circumstances we ought to say that our original idea was the right one and that there ought to be this system of registration.
Had we had a proposal to exempt existing businesses I should have agreed. The noble Lord has said, with engaging frankness, all that he can say, but we have had no argument whatever against the desirability of a system of registration. That being so, speaking for myself, I feel we should divide and say there ought to be a system of registration and that this suggestion for eliminating registrations and simply relying on heavy punishments of people who break clean food laws is not the way to achieve our aim. One does not want to rely on punishments. One should be able to rely on advice and Guidance. Law-abiding citizens that we are, that is how we get along. I think a system of registration is best, that this House is right in its view and that another place is wrong; and, having heard no arguments to support the contrary, I consider we ought to insist on our views.
3.40 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will grant me your indulgence to say one or two words, because I am most anxious, as my noble friend is, that this Bill should go through. And I would like to inform the noble and learned Earl that I have an arrière pennsée with which I am sure he will agree, in that I think I am right in saying that some ten Defence Regulations will disappear when this Bill goes through. I believe the noble and learned Earl will agree that that is desirable. He has put a very real point here, with which I should like to deal. The fears which
1708
have crystallised in the noble and learned Earl's speech are in regard to the new entrant as opposed to the established business. The noble and learned Earl is afraid that the new entrant will come into business operation, and that his place will be the sort of place where there will be grounds for fearing bad conditions. I should like to point out to the noble and learned Earl, however, that as soon as the new entrant comes in—that is, as soon as the business is open—the premises can be inspected, and the hygiene regulations applied. Therefore, from that point onwards, the local authority will have control.
I ask your Lordships to look at the method by which we envisaged the control would be applied. It was not the intention of my noble friend to suggest for a moment that there would be a rush into prosecutions. Before there is any question of a prosecution there is a task laid on the local authority inspector, and that is to go round the premises, especially to have a look at the new premises that have been opened, and to make suggestions to the occupier on methods of improvement. Modern enforcement in this field is not a matter of threats followed by criminal sanction; it is a matter of co-operation and, I think, in the vast majority of cases, for suggestion and wise advice from the local authority inspector. It will be only when that has failed that the other matter—the question of the enforcement—will arise.
I do not say that it will not be a weapon in the background. Of course it will. It is much easier to get your wise suggestions accepted if the person to whom you are making them knows you have the power to enforce them. But the first stage will be that of advice. It is after that advice, if there is a breach of the regulations and conditions do not come up to the regulations, that the procedure can be taken and the premises disqualified—and disqualified for a considerable period, unless the court otherwise orders. So there are two points which I would ask the noble and learned Earl to consider. The first point which I have made is that once the premises are opened they become liable to inspection, and also at that time liable to the hygiene regulations. Then, after

1709
that, we all hope there will be this period when the local authority inspector will help and encourage the new entrant to go on the right lines. I hope, again, at this stage, that having had that indication of how we sincerely believe the matter will work the noble and learned.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 7, page 8, line 13, leave out ("their") and insert ("considerations of hygiene and in particular to the").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment and the following one is to limit the matters which can be taken into account by a local authority when considering the refusal or cancellation of a registration to matters affecting the hygienic condition of the premises. An Amendment very like this was moved by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye on Committee stage and we accepted a rather limited version of this Amendment, but the Commons Amendment does away with all possible doubt in the matter. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 7, page 8, line 14, after ("condition") insert ("of the premises").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree
1710
Earl will not require to divide the House on this point.
On Question, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment:
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Selkirk, E.

Carrington, L.

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Chesham, L.

Goschen, V.

Dormer, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Hailsham, V.

Dovercourt, L.

Willingdon, M.

Hudson, V.

Elton, L.

Swinton, V.

Hawke, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Templewood, V.

Leconfield, L.

Dundee, E.

Woolton, V.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

Mancroft, L.

Munster, E.

Aberdare, L.

Rockley, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Amulree, L.

Saltoun, L.

Perth, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Jowitt, E.

Hall, V.

Ogmore, L.

Listowel, E. [Teller.]

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Kenswood, L.

Silkin, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 7, page 8, line 18, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the four Amendments which go together here are those to Clause 7, at page 8, lines 18 and 20, and to the Second Schedule, at page 37, lines 9 and 10. The first two Amendments refer to Section 14 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, and Clause 7 of this Bill, which deal with the registration of premises, and state that if, in the case of registered premises, it appears to the local authority that the requirements of hygiene regulations are not complied with, they shall serve on the occupier a notice inviting him to appear before them. The section is so worded that, however slight the infringement of the regulations may be, the local authority are bound to do this. As your Lordships will realise, in most cases the local authority have no intention of cancelling or terminating the registration, and it seems superfluous for them to be obliged to send out these notices. The first Amendment

1711
puts this right. The second Amendment extends from fourteen to twenty-one days the time which the local authority must allow the trader to prepare his case. The third and fourth Amendments make similar alterations in the Food and Drugs (Milk, Dairies and Artificial Cream) Act, 1950. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 7, page 8, line 20, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-one").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 7, page 8, line 26, at end insert—
("(4) For subsection (7) of the said section fourteen there shall be substituted the following subsections:
'(7) Nothing in this section shall be taken as requiring the registration there under of premises used wholly or mainly—

(a) as catering premises, or

(b) as a school or club;

and paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in relation to the sale or storage of ice cream at any premises used as a theatre, cinematographic theatre, music hall or concert hall.
(7A) In this Act the expression "catering premises" means premises where, in the course of a business, food is prepared and supplied for immediate consumption on the premises'.")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the disqualification clause. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 8, page 8, line 45, leave out from ("section") to end of line 4, on page 9.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 8, page 9, line 6, leave out ("those purposes") and insert ("purposes for which registration is required by virtue of the order").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 8, page 9, line 11, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, when it is proposed to extend registration to new classes of business, the order which does this must provide that the registration shall not become effective until an appropriate future date, so as to give the local authority time to effect the registration of existing businesses. The clause goes on to say that the order may exclude or restrict the power of the local authority to refuse the registration of premises existing on the operative date. This Amendment requires that the order shall exclude or restrict such a power. It is the Government's intention to give due protection to existing businesses. I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 8, page 9, line 17, leave out from ("fourteen") to third ("and") in line 19.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, Clause 8 deals with the extension to other classes of business of the registration system. The 1938 and 1950 Acts also contain other registration provisions—

1713
namely, the registration of premises where artificial cream is manufactured and the registration of margarine factories. These registrations are non-revocable and are, in fact, no more than the compilation by the food and drugs authority of lists of the places where these foods are manufactured. The provisions go back a long way and were originally designed to prevent fraudulent dealings in margarine and in artificial cream. They serve no useful purpose, as the premises in question are all well-known to the local authority and are listed in their card indexes of food premises. It has accordingly been decided to dispense with these registrations. The Amendments which do this are those made to the Second Schedule. The Amendment above and the following Amendment remove some words from Clause 8 which were necessary so long as the registration of margarine factories was continued. The other Amendments are consequential and I will deal with them in their proper place. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 8, page 9, line 21, leave out from ("fourteen") to ("and") in line 22.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree, with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 9, line 24, at end insert—
("Where an order made under this section repeals the whole or any part of the said paragraphs, section thirty-eight of the Interpretation Act, 1889 (which relates to the effect of repeals), shall apply as if the order were an Act.")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendinent.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 9, page 10, line 23, leave out subsections, (4) and (5) and insert—
("(4) If on the coming into operation of any regulations under this section in relation to any class of business local Act provisions are in force in any district, being provisions under which persons engaged in that class of business are required to be licensed or registered, the regulations so far as they relate to that class of business shall not apply to that district until such date as may be appointed by an order made by the Minister upon application in that behalf made by the local authority.
(5) Where an order is made in relation to any district under subsection (4) of this section, that order—

(a) may repeal any such local Act provisions as are mentioned in that subsection so far as they relate to that district and to the class of business in relation to which the regulations under this section have effect; and

(b) shall provide for securing that persons licensed or registered under those provisions are, in relation to any business of the said class in which they are engaged, treated as licensed under the regulations.")

4.0 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the two subsections which are left out are to be replaced by two new ones which do not in any way alter the meaning of the provisions but merely clarify the language. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 10, page, 10, line 39, at end insert—
("(a) for requiring cream or separated milk to be subjected to specified treatment before being sold for human consumption;")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, all these Amendments to Clause 10 deal with what one might call the milk clause. I will try to explain them briefly. The first Amendment, that at page 10, line 39, should be read with the Amendment at page 11, line 5. The object of these two Amendments is to extend to cream and separated milk the same sort of provisions as apply to specially designated milk. This extension has been requested by the trade for reasons of equity and is only reasonable, since most of the country will soon become a specified area where all "whole" milk will have to be specially designated. This brings cream into the

1715
same sort of line. The second Amendment is consequential. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 10, page 10, line 41, after ("description") insert ("(being a description which in the opinion of the Ministers making the regulations ascribes to the milk a quality higher than the minimum quality prescribed for milk under section ten of the said Act),").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is to make it quite clear that the regulation-making powers dealing with the composition of special milks contained in this paragraph are confined to milk the description of which implies that it has a higher fat or milk solids content than ordinary milk. This assurance was sought by the milk trade. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 10, page 10, line 45, after ("milked") insert—

("(i) at any stage of a journey to or from a dairy farm,

(ii) at a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard, or

(iii)")

LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment goes with those at page 11, line 3; page 11, line 4; and page 11, line 12. The object of the first two Amendments is to enable regulations to be made prohibiting the sale for human consumption of milk which has been obtained from cows milked while on a journey or while at a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard. The third Amendment is drafting, as is the fourth. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the first Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, as a matter of interest, what is the objection to selling milk from a cow which has been milked in the course of a journey?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is a farmer and will know that stringent regulations are made about cowhouses and the standard to which they have to be kept so that the milk produced from the cows is produced under conditions which are clean. A cow which was being transported in a lorry might be in a dirty lorry, with the result that the milk produced might be dirty. This Amendment seeks to prevent that happening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 10, page 11, line 3, after ("registered") insert ("in pursuance of regulations made").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 10, page 11, line 4, leave out ("so obtained") and insert ("to which regulations in force under the last foregoing paragraph apply")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 10, page 11, line 5, at end insert—
(e) for prohibiting the use of milk churns (whether by the persons to whom they belong or other persons) otherwise than as containers for milk, where the churns are in use for the purposes of the business of a dairyman.")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, when the Bill was being passed through this House my noble friend who is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture moved, during the Committee stage, an Amendment similar to this, except that he included in it not only milk churns but bottles. The noble Lord who was then the Parliamentary Secretary refused it, on the ground that if we included bottles in the regulations it would mean a great deal of inspection and what was termed "snooping," and that therefore it was too complicated.

1717
This has coincided with the appointment of my noble friend but it may be that wiser counsels have prevailed and we now have milk churns in the Amendment although bottles are excluded. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 10, page 11, line 5, at end insert—
("(2) Paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection so far as it relates to cream shall be without prejudice to the power of the Ministers under section three of this Act to make regulations applying to cream.")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 10, page 11, line 12, after ("purposes") insert ("of paragraph (c)").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Page 11, line 41, leave out from ("but") to end of line 47, and insert ("nothing in this subsection shall be taken as affecting anything in subsection (2) of section seventy-one of the principal Act (which provides a defence on a charge in respect of milk of which a sample is taken after the milk has left the defendant's possession).")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Leave out Clause 11 and insert the following new clause—
Cream Substitutes
(".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, no person shall sell, or offer or expose for sale, for human consumption—

(a) any substance which resembles cream in appearance, but is not cream; or

(b) any article of food containing such a substance,

under a description or designation which includes the word 'cream' (whether or not as part of a composite word).
(2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to the sale or offer or exposure for sale, of any substance being reconstituted or imitation cream as defined by this section, or of any article containing such a substance, under a description or designation which identifies the substance as such, or to the sale, or offer or exposure for sale, of any substance under a description or designation which indicates that the substance is not for use as, or as a substitute for, cream.
(3) In this section 'reconstituted cream' means a substance which, not being cream, resembles cream in appearance and contains no ingredient not derived from milk, except—

(a) water; or

(b) ingredients (not added fraudulently to increase bulk, weight or measure or conceal inferior quality) which may lawfully be contained in a substance sold for human consumption as cream;

and 'imitation cream' means a substance which, not being cream or reconstituted cream, resembles cream in appearance and is produced by emulsifying edible oils or fats with water, with or without other substances not prohibited by regulations made for the purposes of this section under section three of this Act, or added in quantities so prohibited.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the description or designation under which a substance or article is sold, or offered or exposed for sale, shall be deemed to include the word 'cream' if it includes any other word (composite or otherwise) which is calculated to lead a purchaser to suppose that the substance is or, as the case may be, the article contains either cream or a substance for use as cream.
(5) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.
(6) It shall be the duty of every food and drugs authority within their area to carry into execution and to enforce the provisions of this section.
(7) Section twenty-nine of the 1950 Act shall cease to have effect.")
VISCOUNT WOOLION: My Lords, Section 29 of the 1950 Act which deals with reconstituted cream and imitation cream, left a loophole for the sale of substances not falling within either of these categories under some such description as "mock cream." Section 29

1719
made it an offence to sell under a description including the word "cream" any substance purporting to be reconstituted cream or imitation cream. This left a large loophole. Reconstituted cream and imitation cream are both closely defined, and in Section 29 (as proposed to be amended by Clause 11) it would have been open to a person to manufacture some utterly worthless substance and sell it as mock cream or artificial cream or, with little regard for the use of the English language, to call it "Dairikreem" and avoid the penalties of Section 29 by maintaining that this did not purport to be either reconstituted cream or imitation cream.
This clause closes that gap in the law. It does three things. First, it ensures that the word "cream," whether appearing alone or as part of another word and even if spelt differently, shall not be used unless the substance is either cream, reconstituted cream or imitation cream, the last two being defined. Secondly, it ensures that where the substance is described by an expression including the word "cream" and is either reconstituted cream or imitation cream, it shall be described as such. Thirdly, it extends these provisions to apply not only where the substance is sold by itself but also where it is sold as part of another article; for example, strawberries and cream or cream buns. Provision is made to ensure that the clause will not catch such substances as salad cream or cream crackers, since it only applies where the substance sold or incorporated in some other food resembles cream in appearance. I think this clause will help in the work which we had in mind when we originally discussed this matter. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the object behind this new clause is wholly laudable, and no one would wish to oppose it in any shape or form. I only wonder whether it will, in fact, do what the noble Viscount says it will do. Looking at subsection (4) I know the intention is that however the word "cream" is spelt, if it
1720
is calculated to lead a purchaser to suppose that the article contains either cream or a substitute for cream when it is not, the seller is committing an offence. But the very fact that it is spelt differently would make it possible to argue that it was deliberately spelt differently in order not to mislead a purchaser into thinking it was cream. It may well be that what is happening here is that the noble Viscount is "buying" a series of court cases, rather than making the matter completely clear. I must confess that I do not know what could be done completely to achieve what is wanted, but I must say that I have some doubts as to whether subsection (4) will do it. I am sure that the intention is there, and if the intention could be used in evidence in court, of course there would be no doubt about it. But the words of the noble Viscount will, I am sorry to say, however weighty they may be in this House, carry no weight in a court of law. Therefore, this subsection will have to be interpreted, and it can be interpreted in the way I have indicated.
4.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, I should like to detain your Lordships for one moment in thanking the noble Viscount and the Government for introducing this clause. I was concerned at an earlier stage in your Lordships' deliberations in trying to find a form of words which would prevent the public from being misled by the use of the name "cream." I am bound to say that I think the Amendment which is now before us is a great improvement on the words that your Lordships were kind enough to insert at our instigation at an earlier stage. The Bill has passed through another place and has met with a considerable amount of difficulty. Those of us who have the interests of farming at heart are deeply grateful for the efforts made by the officials of the Ministry of Food to secure what I hope, despite the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will be an effective deterrent. One thing to which I shall look forward with considerable pleasure when the cream season starts next year is to see on the menus in some of the expensive restaurants in London, "Strawberries and imitation cream," because the main difficulty with which we met when it was called artificial cream was that there was little difference in the mind of the public between artificial and re-constituted

1721
cream. I hope that by the use of the word "imitation" the public will definitely be protected and will not be provided with methyl cellulose, which looks very much like the real thing. I am glad to hear that the provision extends to the sale of so-called cream buns. I am most grateful, and I am sure all the farmers of the country and the purveyors of cream will be equally grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause:
Food Hygiene Advisory Council
(".—(1) There shall be constituted a Council, to be called the Food Hygiene Advisory Council, which shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Ministers and such number of other members so appointed as the Minister may determine.
(2) The members of the said Council so appointed shall include—

(a) persons appearing to the Ministers to be qualified to represent the interests of the public generally in relation to matters of food hygiene and related matters,

(b)persons appearing to the Ministers to be representative of persons carrying on any of the classes of trade or business affected by the operation in relation to food of the Food and Drugs Acts, 1938 to 1954, and

(c) persons appearing to the Ministers to be representative of workers employed in any of the said classes of trade or business;

and the terms of their appointment shall be such as the Ministers may determine.
(3) The Ministers or either of them may from time to time refer to the said Council for consideration or advice such questions as they think fit, being questions relating to the Food and Drugs Acts, 1938 to 1954, as they apply in relation to food.
(4) Without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection, where the Ministers propose to make—

(a) any regulations under section five (labelling, marking, and advertising of food), section six (food hygiene), or section ten (licensing of vehicles, etc.) of this Act, or

(b) any order under section nine of this Act (extension of registration),

or to publish any such code of practice as is mentioned in subsection (6) of section six of this Act, they shall (unless it appears to them to be inexpedient to do so having regard to the urgency of the matter) refer the proposals in the form of draft regulations or a draft code of practice or a draft order, or otherwise, to the Food Hygiene Advisory Council for consideration and advice.
(5) The Minister may, out of moneys provided by Parliament, pay to the chairman and other members of the Food Hygiene Ad-
1722
visory Council, and to persons attending meetings at the request of the Council, such allowances as he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine in respect of travelling and subsistence expenses and in respect of other expenses (if any) necessarily incurred by then for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their functions as members of the Council.
(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken as prejudicing the effect of subsection (4) of section ninety-two of the principal Act.")
4.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this Amendment makes provision for the appointment of an advisory council to the Minister on food hygiene. There has been considerable demand that some organisation of this nature should be constituted. The clause provides for the appointment by the Ministers of the chairman and members who shall include persons representing the public generally, as well as persons representing employers and workers in the food trade. The Ministers are empowered to refer to the council such matters as they think fit, and they are required to consult the council in regard to labelling and hygiene regulations, regulations requiring the licensing of street traders, codes of practice on food hygiene and orders extending registration. The Minister, in assigning terms of reference and referring matters to the council, will be careful to ensure that their work will not conflict with the work of that excellent body, the Food Standards Committee. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 12, page 12, line 29, at end insert—
("(2) Where, apart from this subsection, the council of a non-county borough or urban district would become the food and drugs authority for that borough or district in consequence of the publication of any census, and the Minister of Health is satisfied, upon application made by the council of the county in which the borough or district is comprised, that the area or areas in respect of which the last mentioned council would in that event be the food and drugs authority are inconvenient in size, shape or situation for the efficient performance of their duties as such, he may direct that the council of the county shall, so long as the directions remain in force, continue to be the food and drugs authority for the borough or district.")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, the next few Amendments are privilege Amendments. They restore to the Bill, subject to a change in Clause 12 and one drafting Amendment in Clause 13, provisions included in the Bill as it was introduced into your Lordships' House but removed in order to avoid the question of privilege. A provision is being introduced into subsection (4) of Clause 12 which will enable the needs of rapidly expanding districts to be considered exceptionally and, if examination of the merits suggest it to be desirable, permit the Minister to anticipate the publication of the next census. This Amendment does this without upsetting the basic provision that councils of districts whose population is less than 20,000 shall not be food and drug authorities, and its effect will be that once an interim direction has been given it will continue in force notwithstanding fluctuations in the subsequent annual estimates of population until the publication of the next regular census. I do not think I need worry the House with any further explanation. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 12, page 13, line 6, at end insert—
("(4) Where according to the last published census for the time being the population of a non-county borough or urban district is less than twenty thousand, no directions shall be given under subsection (3) of this section that the council of the borough or district shall become the food and drugs authority:
Provided that such directions may be given if it appears from any estimate published by the Registrar General that the population is for the time being more than twenty thousand and the Minister of Health thinks it expedient that the council should become the food and drugs authority in advance of the next census.
(5) Where immediately before the publication of any census the council of a non-county borough or urban district were the food and drugs authority for the borough or district (otherwise than in pursuance of directions given by the Minister of Health after the taking of the census and by virtue only of the proviso to the last foregoing subsection) and the population of the borough or district is shown by the census to be less than twenty thousand—

(a) the council shall cease to be the food and drugs authority, and

1724

(b) any directions in force under subsection (3) of this section in respect of the borough or district shall cease to have effect.")

VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this also is a privilege Amendment. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 13, page 13, line 31, at end insert—
("(2) Any council who become or cease to be a food and drugs authority under the last foregoing section in consequence of the publication of any census shall become or cease to be such an authority on the first day of April next after the expiration of a period of six months from the publication of the census or, where an application for directions under that section in respect of the borough or district concerned is duly made, on such later date, if any, as the Minister of Health may determine.
(3) Any directions given, or having effect as if given, by the Minister of Health under the last foregoing section may at any time be revoked by the Minister as from such date as he may determine; but except as provided by this subsection and subsection (5) of that section, such directions shall continue in force notwithstanding the publication of any subsequent census in respect of the area to which they relate.")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this again is a privilege Amendment. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 14, page 14, line 26, after ("Excise") insert ("and local authorities for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936,").
Page 15, line 18, after ("made") insert ("by the Ministers")
Page 15, line 20, at beginning insert ("and the Board of Trade may, where they are of opinion as aforesaid, institute proceedings for any offence against regulations made by them under the said section five;")
Page 15, line 22, after ("Minister") insert ("or the Board of Trade")
Page 15, line 30, after ("made") insert ("by the Ministers").
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this Amendment and the Amendments up to and including that at line 30 are all consequential. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 14, page 15, line 35, at end insert—
("A certificate of the Minister that tie requirements of this subsection have been complied with in relation to any proceedings shall be conclusive evidence that they have been complied with in relation thereto; and any document purporting to be such a certificate as aforesaid and to be signed by or on behalf of the Minister shall be deemed to be such a certificate, unless the contrary is shown.")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, under subsection (5) of Clause 14, proceedings cannot be instituted by a council for labelling offences unless they have given the Minister of Food fourteen days' notice of their intention together with a summary of the facts on which the charges were founded. This notice and summary of the facts are meant for the information of the Minister to enable him to advise authorities or, in the case of products with a national distribution, to take action himself: they are not meant for the court in which proceedings are to take place. This Amendment provides that if the prosecuting authority produces a certificate from the Minister this will be conclusive proof that the notice and the summary were sent as required. In this way, the defence will not be able to invalidate the proceedings by questioning the summary. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 18, page 16, line 41, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 40, on page 17, and insert ("deal with the sample in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (Provisions as to the manner in which samples taken or purchased for analysis are to be dealt with) to this Act.
(2) The said Schedule shall apply to the purchase of samples by any person who is neither a sampling officer nor a person having the powers of a sampling officer as they apply in relation to the purchase of samples by a sampling officer; and references therein to a sampling officer shall be construed accordingly.
(3) Arty reference in the principal Act or this Act to this section shall be construed as including a reference to the said Schedule.")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment goes with the Amendment to Clause 18, page 18, line 7. All that it does is to remove procedural provisions for the disposal of samples to a Schedule which I shall move in rather more detail later. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, may I take this opportunity once again to thank the Government for this Amendment? It, and the consequential part of the Schedule, will undoubtedly relieve the minds of a great number of dairymen who particularly wanted some provision of this kind inserted and a change made. I am sure that I am speaking in their name when I say also how grateful they are to the Government for introducing this particular form of words.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 18, page 18, line 7, after ("shall") insert ("unless he decides not to have an analysis made").
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, the subsection in which this Amendment appears requires a sampling officer who has procured for analysis a sample of a pre-packed food or drug bearing on the wrapper the name and address of the manufacturer to notify the manufacturer that he has taken the sample. This is to enable the manufacturer to arrange to have the trader's sample analysed if he wishes to do so. If, however, the sampling officer decides not to proceed with the analysis there is no point in notifying the manufacturer. The noble Lord, Lord Waleran, raised this point when we were discussing the Bill in this House before. Indeed, if the manufacturer were notified in such a case he might be put to quite unnecessary expense in having an analysis made. Accordingly, this

1727
Amendment provides that notification need not be given if the sampling officer decides not to proceed with the analysis. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 18, page 18, line 7, leave out subsections (5), (6) and (7).
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 19, page 19, line 24, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) For subsections (3) and (4) of section sixty-nine of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following subsections:
"(3) The public analyst shall analyse as soon as practicable any sample submitted to him in pursuance of this section but may, in the case of a sample submitted by a person not being an officer of the food and drugs authority, demand in advance the payment of such fee as may be fixed by the authority.
(4) If—

(a) the office of public analyst for the area in question is vacant; or

(b) the public analyst determines that he is for any reason unable to perform an effective analysis

the sample shall be submitted or, as the case may be, sent by the public analyst to whom it was originally submitted, to the public analyst for some other area, and he shall, upon payment to him of such sum as may be agreed analyse the sample.
(5) A public analyst who has analysed a sample shall give to the person by whom it was originally submitted a certificate specifying the result of the analysis; and any such certificate shall be in a form prescribed by regulations made by the Minister of Food and the Minister of Health acting jointly.
(6) Where a sample taken or purchased by a sampling officer has been analysed by a public analyst, any person to whom a part of the sample was given under the Schedule (Provisions as to manner in which samples taken and purchased for analysis are to be dealt with) to the Food and Drugs (Amendment) Act, 1954, shall be entitled, on payment to the authority by whose officer the sample was procured of a fee of one shilling,
1728
to be supplied with a copy of the certificate given by the public analyst under the last foregoing subsection".")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is rather a long Amendment. I must confess that I do not think it adds very much, but it does two quite small things. First of all, where a public analyst decides that he is unable to perform an effective analysis, because of lack of equipment or something of that kind, he may send the sample to the public analyst in some other area for analysis without referring to the food and drugs authority. That power was left somewhat in the air by the previous version of the Bill. The second thing the Amendment does is to provide that a person from whom a sample has been procured may obtain a copy of the public analyst's certificate for Is. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, although the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said that the provisions of this Amendment do not amount to very much, one of them—that is, subsection (6)—seems to have aroused the concern of the County Councils Association. They have asked me to place before your Lordships their views on this particular point. Your Lordships may be aware that at the Committee stage in another place an Amendment was moved to add a new subsection that, where any sample of milk is taken by a sampling officer he shall, immediately it becomes possible to do so, notify the person to whom he gives a part of the sample of the contents of the certificate of the public analyst. The reason for this Amendment was that the present system of milk production by machinery was complicated, and there were many possibilities of adulteration—for example, from the rubber tubes or steel pipes of the milking machines, all of which could affect the purity of the milk. It was argued that the farmer should be given information of the degree to which his milk had failed to pass a test so that he could put the matter right. The Government moved the new Amendment which is the subject of our consideration and which not merely accepts the principle I have enunciated relating to milk but

1729
extends it to all food samples. No consultation, I understand, took place on this Amendment with the County Councils Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations or the Society of Public Analysts.
The County Councils Association feel that, for a variety of reasons, this is not a good Amendment, so far as articles of food and drink other than milk are concerned. I need not go into all the detailed points at this stage of the Bill, but they think that there are a number of difficulties of a practical nature—for example, the fact that a large number of articles of food are packed by manufacturers and arrive at retailers pre-packed and ready for sale. At the present stage, I understand that quite a number of tests are made on an informal basis: they are simply taken in the retailer's shop. The test does not really concern him so much as it does the manufacturer, and therefore it is done on art informal basis, whereas if this particular Amendment is accepted the sampling will have to be of a formal nature. The various authorities will have to keep a large number of records, and the whole matter will be complicated and will become formal, official and expensive. In short, that is what the County Councils Association say. I feel it is only right that their objection to this particular subsection should be put before your Lordships so that we may have the reply of the Government to it.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps I may first say that if there was no consultation with these Associations—and I did not know that—I am sure that my right honourable friend the Minister of Food would very much regret it. No doubt, that was due to circumstances over which he had no control. But, on the larger issue that the noble Lord has raised, I gained the impression that he was not entirely convinced of the case he was making; and he did not make much of a case. After all, what he is objecting to is simply that a trader who has had a sample taken from him should be allowed, on payment of 1s., to get a copy of the certificate of the public analyst. I should have thought it would be fair that the trader who has had this sample removed from him should at least be allowed to know the public analyst's opinion of the particular commodity
1730
which he is selling. I cannot see that it in any way reflects on the public analyst, or, indeed, makes his job any the more difficult; and it seems perfectly right that the trader should have this kind of protection. I hope that your Lordships will agree to this Amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 22, page 20, line 42, leave out ("or food and drugs authority")
Clause 22, page 20, line 43, leave out ("area") and insert ("district")
Page 21, line 7, at end insert—
("(2) The power conferred by the foregoing subsection on an authorised officer of a port health authority shall be exercisable also in relation to an area not forming part of a port health district, by an authorised officer of a local authority or county council.")
4.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, I do not think I need trouble your Lordships much here. These are drafting Amendments. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this Horse doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Leave out Clause 23 and insert the following new clause:
Commencement of proceedings
(".For paragraph (a) of the proviso to subsection (1) of section eighty of the principal Act (which provides a time limit for prosecution in certain cases) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
(a) where a sample has been procured under this Act, no prosecution in respect of the article or substance shall be begun after the expiration of—

(i) in the case of a sample of milk, twenty-eight days,

(ii) in any other case, two months,

beginning with the date on which the sample was procured, unless the justice of the peace before whom the information is laid, on being satisfied on oath that having regard to the circumstances of the particular case it was not practicable to lay the information at any earlier date, gives a certificate to that effect; and, if the prosecution is in respect of a sample of milk, it shall not in any case be begun after the expiration of forty-two days beginning with the said date.")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this clause goes together with an Amendment to the Second Schedule,

1731
page 33, line 36. It replaces Clause 23 by new provisions for the beginning of proceedings. Clause 23 extended the period within which authorities had to take proceedings from twenty-eight days to two months, and extended the longer time which could be taken at the direction of a justice of the peace from forty-two days to six months. This Amendment restores the shorter period provided in the 1938 Act for milk samples alone, as milk is particularly liable to deterioration. The Amendment to the Second Schedule deletes an Amendment of Section 80 of the 1938 Act, which is no longer necessary, as a new paragraph (a) is substituted in the proviso to subsection (1) of Clause 80, and has been redrafted in this clause. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 25, page 22, line 40, at end insert (" or, in the case of a contravention of regulations made by the Board of Trade, to the Board.")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Further provisions as to restriction of private slaughterhouses
(".—(1) Subsection (2) of section sixty-one of the principal Act (which enables a local authority to pass a resolution determining upon the closure of private slaughterhouses in their district) shall have effect in relation to any resolution passed by a local authority under that subsection after the coming into force of this section as if for the reference therein to such date as may be fixed by the authority's resolution there were substituted a reference to the appointed date, which shall be a date fixed by the Minister if he approves the resolution.
(2) The Minister may, in giving or withholding his approval to a resolution of a local authority under the said subsection (2) or
1732
under subsection (2) of section four of the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954 (under which a local authority may resolve to restrict in future the grant of slaughterhouses licences in their district), being a resolution passed by the authority after the coming into force of this section, direct the authority to take such steps as he may specify for informing persons interested of the effect of the resolution and his decision thereon and also, in the case of a resolution which he has approved, of the date fixed by him as the appointed date for the purposes thereof and the authority shall comply with any such direction.
(3) It is hereby declared that a person's entitlement under subsection (1) of section five of the said Act of 1954 (which provides for compensation to be paid by a local authority on the closure of private slaughterhouses in their district) to compensation in respect of any interest of his in premises is not to be treated as taken away by any undertaking not to claim the compensation which may have been given in connection with the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence as defined by that Act.
This subsection shall be deemed always to have had effect.")
LORD CARRINGTON: This Amendment and that to Clause 33, at page 27, line 41, relate to slaughterhouses, and they put right a number of defects in the slaughterhouse provisions of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. Under that Act, the local authority are empowered to say that they will grant no further licences and will close existing, slaughterhouses "as from a date to be specified." The Minister, however, has an obligation to approve, or not to approve, a resolution to that effect. In the past, it has been possible for the local authority to fix the date for the closing of a slaughterhouse before the Minister's approval of their resolution. This has led to considerable difficulty owing to the fact that the butchers did not know where they were, whether their slaughterhouses were closed or not. The first of these two Amendments puts that right and prevents the local authority from fixing a date before the Minister has approved the resolution. Also in regard to that Amendment, I believe that in one or two cases in the past local authorities have agreed to a waiver of compensation, and in some cases have forced a waiver of compensation on the owner of a slaughterhouse. This part of the Amendment makes such waivers null and void. They probably are already null and void, but this puts it beyond doubt. The second Amendment makes this new clause come into operation on the passing of this Act instead of on a day appointed by the

1733
Minister of Food. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 25, insert, the following new clause:
Miscellaneous provisions relating to Board of Trade and their regulations
(".—(1) Anything required or authorised by or under this Act to be done by, to or before the Board of Trade may be done by, to or before the President of the Board, any Minister of State with duties concerning the affairs of the Board, any Secretary, Under-Secretary, or Assistant Secretary of the Board, or any person authorised in that behalf by the President.
In this subsection the expression "Minister of State" means such a Minister of the Crown as is referred to in section two of the Re-Election of Ministers Act, 1919, as explained by the House of Commons Disqualification (Declaration of Law) Act, 1935.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of section sixty-five of the principal Act (which relates to the taking of proceedings by county councils and local authorities), no council other than a local authority for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936, shall institute proceedings for an offence against regulations made by the Board of Trade under section five of this Act.
(3) Section seventy-seven of the principal Act (which relates to powers of entry) and section twenty of this Act shall not apply in relation to the enforcement of regulations made by the Board of Trade under the said section five, but section ten of the. Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926 (which confers special powers of entry and inspection on inspectors of weights and measures), shall apply as if the references therein to the said Act of 1926 and to its requirements included references respectively to regulations so made as aforesaid and to the requirements of such regulations.")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this Amendment is really consequential on the Amendments by which the Board of Trade are empowered to regulate the labelling of food as regards weight, measure or number. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
Expenses
(".There shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) any expenses incurred by any Minister of the Crown or Government department in consequence of the provisions of this Act; and

(b) any increase attributable to this Act in the moneys to be so provided under Part of the Local Government Act, 1948, or the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954.")

VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this is a privilege Amendment. The clause provides for the payment out of Exchequer Funds of expenses incurred by the Crown and increases in payments to local authorities incurred as the result of this Bill. The necessary Money Resolution was passed on July 23. It is not possible to make an accurate estimate of the sum involved, but it is of no considerable dimension. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 29, page 24, line 8, leave out from ("any") to ("shall") in line 9, and insert ("place where food is supplied in the course of a business")
Clause 29, page 24, line 11, leave out ("any catering establishment") and insert ("connection with any business in the course of which food is supplied").
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, perhaps I may take these Amendments together, since they are entirely drafting Amendments. I beg to move that the House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Woolson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 29, page 25, line 25, at end insert—
("Provided that subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to the interpretation of section fourteen of the principal Act")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment is to preclude the possibility that registration might be extended by order to businesses in which sales do not take place. There

1735
are various types of business in which, although food is supplied and money given in payment, the transaction may not be a sale in law—for example, in a hospital. It is intended that regulations should apply to such businesses, but it is not intended to apply registration, even though registration may be applied to businesses of a similar class in which genuine sales do take place. For example, we should not wish hospitals supplying ice cream to patients, or making their own sausages, to be registered under Section 14 of the 1938 Act. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 29, page 25, line 27, after ("drugs") insert ("and in subsection (1) of section fourteen of that Act ").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment should be read with the Amendment to the Second Schedule, at page 31, line 44. Both of them are drafting Amendments. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 31, page 26, line 27, after second ("of") insert ("subsection (4) of section eighteen of this Act or of")
Clause 31, page 26, line 28, leave out ("section seventy-seven") and insert ("sections seventy-seven and eighty-three")
Clause 31, page 26, line 31, at end insert("(b) for repealing so much of the said First Schedule as relates to section seventy-seven or section eighty-three of the principal Act, or to section fourteen or sections seventeen to twenty-one or section twenty-four of this Act;").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential, bringing Northern Ireland into line with the Amendments made to the Bill for England. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 32, page 27, line 1, leave out ("and")
Clause 32, page 27, line 2, after first ("Act") insert ("and the Slaughterhouses Act, 1954,").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, these two Amendments, with that to the Second Schedule, at page 37, line 10, are drafting Amendments, consequential on the passing of the Slaughterhouses Act. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 32, page 27, line 20, after ("made") insert ("by the Minister").
Clause 32, page 27, line 25, leave out from first ("and") to ("revoked") insert ("may be varied or").
Clause 32, page 27, line 28, at end insert—(c) any order made by the Board of Trade under the said Regulation 2 and so in force shall continue in force and have effect as if contained in regulations made by the Board under section five of this Act and may be varied or revoked by such regulations accordingly;").
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, May I move together these three Amendments, and refer also to the Amendment to the Second Schedule, at page 35, line 10, to insert "or, as the case may be, the Board of Trade." These Amendments, with the exception of the second, are consequential on the Amendments to Clause 5 which enabled the Board of Trade to make labelling regulations. Clause 32 contains a transitional provision for keeping alive existing orders made under the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations as though those orders were regulations made under this Bill. The introduction of the Board of Trade has necessitated a great deal of redrafting, with the result that some wording now appearing in paragraph (b) of Clause 32 has been transferred to the subsection which is the subject of another Amendment. In the second of this group of Amendments, opportunity has been taken to enable existing orders to be varied by regulation

1737
under Clause 3 or Clause 5 without the necessity of revoking existing orders and issuing entirely new ones. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 32, page 27, line 35, at end insert—
("(4) Any regulations made under Part I or Part III of the principal Act and continued in force by virtue of paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection, and any order continued in force by virtue of paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of that subsection, shall have effect (subject to any variation thereof by regulations under this Act) as if the regulations or order contained a provision making any contravention thereof, or failure to comply therewith, an offence under this Act.
(5) Any such order as aforesaid shall also have effect,—

(a) in the case of an order made by the Minister, as if it specified food and drugs authorities as the authority to enforce and execute within their area the provisions of the order; and

(b) in the case of an order made by the Board of Trade, as if it specified local authorities for the purposes of the Weights, and Measures Acts, 1878 to 1936, as the said authority.")

VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this Amendment is part of the redrafting which has been required by regulations on powers introduced for the Board of Trade. It deals with enforcing authorities for orders made under the Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations specifying the appropriate authorities according to whether the orders are deemed to be regulations made by the Minister or regulations made by the Board of Trade. At the same time the Amendment remedies an important omission in the present clause which contains no provision for penalties in the event of infringement of orders and provides that offences against the Orders shall be deemed to be offences under the present Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amend-ment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 33, page 27, line 41, at end insert—
("Provided that section (Further provisions as to restriction of private slaughterhouses) of this Act shall come into operation on the date of the passing of this Act.")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed with.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Before the First Schedule, insert the following new Schedule—
("PROVISIONS AS TO MANNER IN WHICH SAMPLES TAKEN OF PURCHASED FOR ANALYSIS ARE TO BE DEALT WITH
1. The sampling officer shall forthwith divide the sample into three parts, each part to be marked and sealed or fastened up in such manner as its nature will permit, and shall—

(a) with respect to one part of the sample comply with paragraphs 2 to 8 of this Schedule, and

(b) deal with the remaining parts in accordance with paragraph 9 of this Schedule.

2.—(1) If the sample was purchased by the sampling officer, he shall give the part of the sample to the vendor.
(2) In relation to a sample purchased from an automatic machine, this paragraph shall apply as if for the reference to the vendor there were substituted a reference—

(a) if the name and address (being an address in England or Wales) of a person stated to be the proprietor of the machine appears on the machine, to that person;

(b) in any other case, to the occupier of the premises on which the machine stands or to which it is affixed.

3. If the sample is of goods consigned from outside England and Wales and was taken by the sampling officer before delivery to the consignee, the officer shall give the part of the sample to the consignee.
4.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any sample of milk taken by the sampling officer, except to—

(a) one in relation to which the last foregoing paragraph applies, or

(b) any sample of cream.

(2) If the sample was taken from a container—

(a) having a capacity greater than six pints, and

(b) appearing to the officer to show the name and address (being an address in England or Wales) of any person as consignor of the milk,

the officer shall give the part of the sample to that person.
(3) If the sample was taken from a container—

(a) having a capacity of six pints or less, and

1739

(b) appearing to the officer to show the name and address (being an address in England and Wales) of any person as the person who put the milk into the container,

the officer shall give the part of the sample to that person.
(4) If—

(a) neither of the two foregoing sub-paragraphs apply, and

(b) the sample was taken at a dairy,

the officer shall give the part to the occupier of the dairy.
(5) If none of the three foregoing sub-paragraphs apply, the officer shall give the part of the sample—

(a) to the occupier of the dairy from which the milk was consigned, or

(b) if the milk was consigned from more than one dairy, to the occupier of the dairy from which it was last consigned.

5. if—

(a) none of the foregoing paragraphs of, this Schedule apply, and

(b) the sample was taken by the sampling officer at the request of a purchaser, or taken with the consent of a purchaser by retail,

the officer shall give the part of the sample to the vendor.
6. If—

(a) none of the foregoing paragraphs of this Schedule apply, and

(b) the sample was taken in transit,

the sampling officer shall give the part of the sample to the consignor.
7. If none of the foregoing paragraphs of this Schedule apply, the sampling officer shall give the part of the sample to the person appearing to be the owner of the food, drug or substance of which the sample was taken.
8. In every case to which paragraphs 2 to 7 of this Schedule apply the sampling officer shall inform the person to whom the part of the sample is given that the sample was purchased or taken for the purpose of analysis by a public analyst.
9. Of the remaining parts of the sample, the sampling officer shall, unless he decides not to have an analysis made, submit one for analysis in accordance with section sixty-nine of the principal Act, and retain the other for future comparison.
10. Any part of a sample which under this Schedule is to be given to any person may be given either by delivering it to him or to his agent or by sending it to him by post in a registered packet; but where after reasonable inquiry the sampling officer is unable to ascertain the name and address of the person to whom the part of the sample is to be given, he may, in lieu of giving the part to that person, retain it.")
4.47 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Schedule replaces the bulk of Clause 18 dealing with the disposal of samples
1740
taken for analysis. It incorporates also a revision of the milk sampling procedure in paragraph 4. In deciding this procedure we tried to keep two objects in mind: first, that the trader most likely to be affected if the sample proves to be defective shall get a part of the sample; and, secondly, that the procedure shall be sufficiently clear to minimise the risk of the sampling officer doing the wrong thing. It has proved extremely difficult to satisfy both requirements. We have, however, had prolonged consultations, not only with the milk trade but with the Sanitary Inspectors' Association, and the arrangements now proposed have been accepted by both bodies as satisfactory. They provide, briefly, that if the milk is in large containers, such as churns, the sample shall go to the consignor if he puts his name and address on the churn. If the milk is in small containers, such as bottles, the sample will go to the bottler, if he gives his name and address. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
First Schedule, page 28, line 10, after ("seventy-seven") insert ("eighty-three")
First Schedule, page 28, line 12, after ("Act) insert ("subsection (4) of section (Food Hygiene Advisory Council) of this Act")
First Schedule, page 28, line 13, after ("made") insert ("or to be made by the Ministers")
First Schedule, page 28, line 30, at end inscrt—
("(b) references to the Board of Trade shall be omitted, and references to regulations shall be construed as referring only to regulations made by the Ministers;")
First Schedule, page 29, line 43, column 2, at end insert—
("In subsection (4), for the reference to section ten of the principal Act there shall be substituted a reference to any corresponding Northern Irish enactment.")
First Schedule, page 29, line 45, after ("or,") insert ("and the words 'or use'")
First Schedule, page 30, line 9, column 2, leave out from beginning to ("shall") in line 19 and insert ("Subsections (2) and (5)")
First Schedule, page 30, line 39, column 2, at end insert ("and the reference to regulations shall be construed accordingly.")
First Schedule, page 30, line 40, at end insert—

("Schedule (Provisions as to manner in which samples taken or purchased for analysis are to be dealt with).

Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 shall not apply.

In paragraphs 3 and 4 for references to England and Wales there shall be substituted references to Northern Ireland.

In paragraph 9 for the words "in accordance with section sixty-nine of the principal Act" there shall be substituted the wools "as if the sample had been procured under section thirteen of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875 ".")

First Schedule, page 30, line 41, leave out paragraph 3.
First Schedule, page 30, line 51, at end insert—
("5. Any expenses incurred in the enforcement or execution of regulations with respect to the importation of food (including milk) in Northern Ireland—

(a) if incurred by a health authority, shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses are defrayed under subsection (1) of section twenty-five of the Public Health and Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland), 1946, or under that section as amended or re-enacted (with or without modifications) by any Northern Irish enactment;

(b) if incurred by a port sanitary authority, shall be defrayed in like manner as expenses are defrayed under subsection (4) of section nine of the Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1896, or under that section as amended or reenacted (with or without modifications) by any Northern Irish enactment.")

LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, all these Amendments to the First Schedule are consequential in drafting, to bring Northern Ireland into line. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 31, line 34, at end, insert—
("Section 10
In subsection (1), for the words "An authorised officer of a local authority" there shall be substituted the words "An authorised officer of a council"; and in subsection (4), for the words "an officer of a local authority, the authority" there shall be substituted the words "an authorised officer of a council, the council."")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree, with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 31, line 34, at end insert—
("Section 11
In subsection (1), for the words "The foregoing provisions relating to unsound food," there shall be substituted the words "The last two foregoing sections."
Section 12
For the words "an authorised officer of a local authority," there shall be substituted the words "an authorised officer of a council".")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, Section 11 of the 1938 Act applies the provision of Sections 9 and 10 dealing with unsound food to food given away as prizes or free samples. This Amendment to Section 11 is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that only Sections 9 and 10 relating to unsound food are applied by Section 11. The Amendment to Section 12 is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 31, line 44, leave out lines 44 to 46.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 32, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—
("For subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
"(1) No person shall sell, or offer or expose for sale, or have in his possession for the purpose of sale or of preparation for sale, for human consumption any part of, or product derived wholly or partly from, an animal which has been, slaughtered in a knacker's yard or of which the carcase has been brought into a knacker's yard."")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment modifies Section 19 of the 1938 Food and Drugs Act. The

1743
effect is to make it an offence to sell for human consumption not only part of an animal slaughtered in a knacker's yard but also any product derived from any such animal. There have been suggestions in the past that oil and fat from such animals have been sold to fish fryers and the like. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 32, line 11, leave out ("Subsection (6)") and insert ("The section").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 32, line 34, after ("(2)") insert—
("(a) in paragraph (a), for the word "shall" there shall be substituted the words "may, and shall if so required by the Minister of Food"; and
(b)";
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 32, line 37, at end insert—
("Section 63
The words "belonging to the Port of London Authority or the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board and" shall be omitted.")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is a very small point. There are some slaughterhouses at ports throughout the country under the control of the Ministry of Agriculture and used by them for the slaughter of diseased or wounded animals on importation. As these slaughterhouses are carefully supervised and approved by the Ministry of Agriculture there is no point in making them subject to licensing and by-law provisions. This Amendment
1744
exempts them from these provisions. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 33, line 14, leave out lines 14 to 18.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 33, line 26, at beginning insert—
("Throughout subsection (2) wherever the words "food or drug" occur there shall be added after those words the words "or substance" and for the words "of any food of which" there shall be substituted the words" of any article or substance of which".")
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is a purely drafting Amendment. beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 34, line 4, at end insert—
("In subsection (2) in paragraph (a) for the words "within seven days of the service of the summons," there shall be substituted the words "not later than three clear days before the date of the hearing".")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this Amendment appears in a clause that enables a trader to cite in his defence a warranty provided by his suppliers. The section requires that the defendant who proposes to rely on a warranty shall notify the prosecution of that fact within seven days. It has been represented to us that this time is inadequate, as traders may have to consult their legal advisers, and in the case of multiple shops the branch manager may have to consult his head office. We consider it sufficient if the prosecution has three clear days notice of the intention to rely on a warranty, and this Amendment provides accordingly. The local authorities have

1745
been consulted, and no objection has been raised. The Amendment also brings the clause into line with the corresponding provision in Section 83. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 34, line 4, at end in sert—
("In subsection (2), the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph(c):—
"(c) in the case of a prosecution in respect of a sample of milk procured from him, the defendant either—

(i) has within sixty hours after the sample was procured served such a notice as is mentioned in paragraph (2) of the Third Schedule to this Act, or

(ii) not having served such a notice, proves that he had reasonable cause to believe that such a notice would have been of no effect by reason of the fact that the milk in question was a mixture of milk produced on more than one dairy farm".")

LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to ensure that a defendant will normally be able to plead warranty in the case of a sample of milk produced on more than one dairy farm without invoking the procedure relating to samples of a corresponding milking set out in the Third Schedule to the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendtnent.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 35, line 10, after ("Health") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Board of Trade").
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Carrington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 35, line 12, at end insert—
("Section 94
In subsections (1) and, (2) for the words "a local authority" (wherever they occur) there
1746
shall be substituted the words "a council" and for the words "the authority" (wherever they occur) there shall be substituted the words "the council."
For subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection:
"(3) For the purposes of this section, a public analyst appointed by a food and drugs authority shall be treated as being an officer of the authority whether or not he is employed whole-time".").
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, Section 94 of the 1938 Act provides protection for officers of a local authority or county council acting in the execution of their duty. The first part of this Amendment extends this protection to officers of port health authorities by substituting a reference to a council—which, of course, includes a port health authority—for reference to a local authority, which does not. The second half of the Amendment, which provides a new subsection, has two purposes. The first is drafting, because the first half of this Amendment has made it unnecessary to have a special reference to officers of a county council. The second purpose of the second half of this Amendment is to put part-time public analysts on the same footing as whole-time public analysts as regards the protection provided by Section 94. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Second Schedule, page 35, line 24, at end insert—
("In the said subsection, after the definition of "authorised officer" there shall be inserted the following definition:—
('"catering premises" has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (7A) of section fourteen of this Act'.")
Second Schedule, page 36, line 30, leave out lines 30 to 42.
Second Schedule, page 37, line 2, leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert—
("The section shall cease to have effect.")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Second Schedule, page 37, line 3, at end insert—
("Section 31
For the words "artificial cream" there shall be substituted the words "reconstituted cream as defined by section (Cream substitutes) of the Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954".")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Second Schedule, page 37, line 9, leave out ("sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 1,") and insert ("paragraph 1 for the words 'they shall serve on him a notice' there shall be substituted the words 'they may serve on him a notice' and")
Second schedule, page 37, line 10, leave out ("fourteen") and insert ("twenty-one")
Second schedule, page 37, line 10, at end insert—
("THE SLAUGHTERHOUSES ACT, 1954 (2 & 3 Eliz. 2, c. 42)
Section 3
In subsection (3), for the words from "section thirteen of the said Act" to "preparation and distribution of food)" there shall be substituted the words "any regulations in force under section six of the Food and Drugs Amendment Act, 1954, and made for the purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of that section, or of any byelaws made by the authority and in force under section fifty-eight of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938")
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Third Schedule, page 37, line 25, column 3, after ("(3)") insert ("paragraph (5)").
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Third Schedule, page 38, line, 3, column 3, leave out from beginning to ("thirty-six") in line 5 column 3, and insert ("Sections thirty-four to ").
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the repeal of Section 34 of the 1938 Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Third Schedule, page 38, line 12, column 3, after ("sixty-five") insert ("paragraph (d) and")
Third Schedule, page 38, line 27, column 3, leave out line 27 and 28 and insert—
("In section seventy-seven, in subsection (2), the words from "and, where the justice is satisfied" to "use in the manufacture of artificial cream," and subsection (7).")
Third Schedule, page 38, line 38, column 3, at end insert ("artificial cream.")
Third Schedule, page 38, line 40, column 3, after ("Regulations') insert ("butter").
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Third Schedule, page 38, line 42, column 3, after ("Regulations") insert ("margarine, margarine-cheese, milk-blended butter").
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this Amendment, like the previous Amendment, removes from the principal Act the definitions of butter, margarine, margarine cheese, and milk-blended butter. The definitions are no longer required, as, in consequence of earlier repeals, the words do not now appear in the Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Third Schedule, page 38, line, 47, column 3, leave out from ("two") to ("in") in line 51.
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Third Schedule, page 39, line 12, column 3, leave out lines 12 to 19, and insert ("Sections twenty-nine and thirty.")
Third Schedule, page 39, line 22, column 3, at beginning insert ("artificial cream'").
VISCOUNT WOOLTON: My Lords, these two Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Viscount Woolton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PESTS BILL [H.L.]
4.57 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendments.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (EARL ST. ALDWYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered,
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The references are to Bill 92 as first printed for the House of Commons.]
Clause 8, page 7, line 20, leave out from ("after") to ("either") in line 23, and insert ("the appointed day").
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the first three of these Amendments all serve the same purpose, and I think it would be convenient if, with your Lordships' permission, I were to deal with all three now. Your Lordships will remember that when this Bill was first introduced into this House it provided that a person should be guilty of an offence if, after a date, not earlier than the end of July, 1958, to be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, he used, sold or possessed for an unlawful purpose a spring trap that had not been approved by the Minister. The spring trap which everyone had most in mind was, of course, the gin, and some noble Lords felt that the Bill as drafted did not set a sufficiently definite and early date for the banning of the gin. The point was pressed to a Division and
1750
the House decided that the Bill should remain as drafted.
Since then it has become plain that feeling against the gin trap has hardened and there has been a growing public demand for the Government to impose an earlier ban. Consequently, on May 27 last my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries announced in another place that he proposed, with the approval of Parliament, to fix July 31, 1958, as the date after which the use in England and Wales of spring traps other than approved traps should be prohibited. He also said that the Secretary of State for Scotland and he were setting up a small committee to speed and help the improvement, testing and development, of alternative traps and to advise generally on the approval of humane traps under the provisions of the Bill. This committee held their first meeting on July 21 this year and they appear to have made a very good start on their work, but it would be unrealistic to expect immediate results.
In accordance with his undertaking, my right honourable friend moved these Amendments, which fix July 31, 1958, as the date after which it will be an offence to use, sell or possess unapproved traps. That date can be postponed by order subject to Affirmative Resolution. The order can postpone the date only by one year at a time and it must be laid before Parliament in draft two years before the existing appointed date. That is to say, if no draft order is laid by July 31, 1956, then July 31, 1958, becomes an absolutely fixed date and cannot be changed.
There is one other provision to which I should draw your Lordships' attention. However unlikely it may be, it would be a pity if there were some striking development arising out of the work of the Humane Traps Advisory Committee over the next six months and we were debarred from applying the ban at an earlier date. These Amendments, therefore, provide that an order can be laid to fix a date earlier than July, 1958, but it must be introduced at least two years before the earlier date which it proposes to fix. For example, a draft order fixing the appointed date at July 31, 1957, would have to be introduced before July 31, 1955. An order of this kind would be irrevocable.

1751
That is the purpose of these Amendments. They seem to me to go a very long way to meet the views which the noble Lords, Lord Elton and Lord Merthyr, put forward so forcefully when the Bill was before your Lordships, and I hope they will feel able to support them. We are setting the Humane Traps Advisory Committee a difficult task and they will be working to a very tight timetable, but I hope I have made it clear that the Government are taking vigorous steps to see, so far as it is possible, that the banning of the gin, when it comes, will not leave the farmers without adequate traps, where these are needed, to keep down the rabbit pest. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I think that Her Majesty's Government have made a great mistake, and they have made this mistake upon a falsely understood ground of humanity. There are certain areas where the gin trap is the only method of exterminating rabbits at present known. This step is being taken on an outcry about the inhumanity of the gin trap. Every trap, of almost any kind, entails suffering, but the gin trap, in proper hands, possibly entails far less suffering than any other of the common forms of killing rabbits. The only effect of the trap is to numb, like a great bruise, the leg of the animal, and my observation is that rabbits are generally very quiet when trapped. They do not move much. Of course, they are trapped and they suffer, but they suffer probably much less than in any other case. Anybody who has seen a rabbit in a snare, as I have seen a great many, and knows how long and how agonising is their suffering, would realise that a snare is far, far worse than any gin trap; but no Government will venture to do away with the snare, because if they did, it would offend so many of their political supporters who use them. Experience has shown that in certain areas if people wish to exterminate rabbits they can use only the gin trap, so far as our knowledge at present goes. For that reason I think this is a contradictory provision to put into the Bill, and I regret that the Government have seen fit to put it in.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, let me first apologise to the noble Earl for not having been present during his speech. He was good enough to tell me in advance that he intended to make his arguments on this clause on the first Amendment, and I should like to follow his example. I think these Amendments are an improvement on the Bill: indeed, they will give what many noble Lords asked for when the Bill was before your Lordships on a previous occasion. At that time, as noble Lords will remember, the Government refused a request that was made from both sides of the House to put a fixed date in the Bill for the prohibition of the gin. I am extremely glad that they have had second thoughts about this matter. It is not the first occasion when pressure of opinion in another place has been more effective than the pressure of opinion here.
What we wanted, and what we now obtain, is the fixing of a date in the Bill after which the use of the gin will be prohibited. The date when this ban will come into force, as is proposed in these Amendments, will be July 31, 1958, a date that cannot be altered, I think very rightly, without the express consent of Parliament. This new proposal is highly satisfactory to those of us—and I think this represents moderate opinion in all quarters—who are anxious for the gin trap to be banned so far as this can be done without depriving farmers of a legitimate and effective weapon against rabbits. The clause as it stands leaves the fixing of the date to the discretion of the Minister, provided—and this limits his discretion—that it is not fixed before July 31, 1958. It must be fixed for a date after that date, if the Minister chooses to use the discretion given to him by Parliament. This makes the future of the gin trap a matter of profound doubt and uncertainty. These Amendments, however, will remove that uncertainty. They will show that Parliament has decided to prohibit the gin trap at the earliest practicable moment, whereas if the decision had been left to the discretion of the Minister, as the Bill intended, he might have used his discretion to postpone it indefinitely.
One tremendous advantage of putting the date in the Bill is that it will oblige everyone concerned with gin traps to look for alternative methods of destroying rabbits. I do not believe that that

1753
Would have happened so long as the use of the trap might have continues for many years to come. I have put the humanitarian point of view repeatedly in this House, but I have always agreed with the Government (and in this respect I differ from some noble Lords opposite) that the prohibition of this trap must depend upon the availability and general use of a humane trap of roughly equal efficiency. I wish I thought that all other ways of catching rabbits—I do not altogether agree with the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that all ways are equally disagreeable to the rabbit—were equally effective but—and here I do agree with the noble Lord—I very much doubt, even if myxomatosis greatly reduces the number of rabbits in the country, whether farmers will be able to dispense with some sort of trap altogether. Therefore, the really essential thing is to find a humane equivalent of the gin.
I do not think anyone has accused the present Minister of not doing his best to this end, and I certainly cannot suggest anything further that he can do to expedite the production of a suitable alternative type of humane trap. The Minister now has his advisory committee to do the experimental work; and also he has—as I was glad to notice not long ago—offered a money reward to a successful inventor. Nothing has been said about the amount of the reward, and I imagine that it would not be desirable. I do not suggest that we should go into that now, but I hope it will be a substantial reward, because I feel that it should be a reward worth having. A humane trap may not decide the fate of nations but, unlike some new lethal weapons or some improvement on an old weapon of destruction, it can be used only to lessen suffering and to ease the consciences of those who are obliged to inflict it. I feel that anyone who invents this type of trap will be a real public benefactor.
I do not regard the two provisos in the new subsection (6) as being in the least unreasonable. I think the Minister should have the power, with the consent of Parliament, to advance or, if necessary, to postpone the date. I, for my part, hope—and I am sure most of your
1754
Lordships will share my opinion—that it may prove possible to advance the date. I realise that the testing and production of a new trap will take considerable time; but if the Minister is luckier than he appears to expect to be in hitting on the right design during this trial period, I trust that he will not hesitate to ask Parliament to advance the date, even if it can he brought forward by only a few months. I am certain that if the Minister proposed action of that kind, he would find a warm welcome for his proposal in Parliament. I support this Amendment and the following Amendment to Clause 8, and I strongly commend them to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 8, page 8, line 10, at end insert—
("(6) The appointed day for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section shall be the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight:
Provided that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries—

(a) may by order appoint a day earlier than the said thirty-first day of July (but not earlier than two years after the date of the order); or

(b)if no order has been made under the foregoing paragraph, may from time to time by order postpone the appointed day for a period (or further period) of one year;

but no order shall be made under paragraph (b) of this proviso, unless, a draft of it has been laid before Parliament two years or more before the day for the time being appointed and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 8, page 8, line 11, after ("section") insert ("(other than an order made under the last foregoing subsection)'').
EARL ST. ALDWYN:My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
Spreading of myxomatosis
(".A person shall be guilty of an offence if he knowingly uses or permits the use of a rabbit infected with myxomatosis to spread the disease among uninfected rabbits and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or, if he has been previously convicted of such an offence, a fine not exceeding fifty pounds:
Provided that this section shall not render unlawful any experiment duly authorised under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.")
5.14 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is more than seven months since this Bill left your Lordships' House and during that time myxomatosis has spread to every county in Great Britain except Selkirk. Much publicity has been given to reports of farmers deliberately introducing the disease to their farms; and although I believe these reports to have been greatly exaggerated they have led to a growing public demand for the wilful spreading of myxomatosis to be made an offence. The Myxomatosis Advisory Committee considered this position on July 26 and again at their meeting on October 20, and, while reaffirming their view that no attempt should be made to assist the spread of the disease or to introduce it into uninfected areas of the country, the Committee unanimously recommended that, in view of the course the disease had taken and might be expected to take in the future, no good purpose would be achieved at present by making it an offence for any person to take steps to spread the disease.
This new clause was put down by an honourable member in another place and there was obviously strong feeling in the House in favour of it. My right honourable friend, although he had accepted the recommendation of the Advisory Committee, recognised the strength of the feelings which were expressed that something more should be done to discourage the deliberate spreading of myxomatosis than just a statement of the Government's disapproval. Perhaps I may quote the actual words which he used when giving his reasons for accepting this new clause. He said he accepted it:
"so that there should be no doubt whatever about the Government's attitude towards the practice and to meet the sincerely held views of many honourable members who are reflecting the views of a wide section of public opinion."
1756
I must be frank with the House. I do not think this clause will generally affect the course taken by myxomatosis in this country, since it will inevitably spread widely next spring and summer from the many centres of infection that are now established in Great Britain. The time when there was a possibility of preventing the establishment of this disease was twelve months ago, when the first outbreaks occurred, and it is well to remind the House that the Government then took every possible step to stamp out the disease, but found itself unable to do so. We do not know, though research continues, the many causes which may have led to the spread of this disease this summer, but it would be quite wrong to suggest that human agency has been the main factor in its spread to every part of Great Britain, any more than human agency led to its spread throughout France a year ago.
Reports of farmers spreading the disease have inevitably attracted a great deal of public attention, but I myself am convinced, from what I know of the farming community, that such cases must have been very few indeed. Certainly the Government's acceptance of this clause should not be taken as implying that we think the practice which it prohibits is widespread. I am sure the House will agree with me that the countryman is no less humane than his brother in the towns, and that there is no reason to suggest that farmers generally have played a major part in the spreading of this disease. It has spread inevitably; and, whatever action we may take, it will continue to spread. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
5.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it is a matter of great regret to me that circumstances should oblige me to address your Lordships for the first time on a subject like this; indeed, I can think of hardly anything in the world on which I should more greatly prefer not to make a speech than the subject of myxomatosis. I have felt very strongly indeed, however, that it is my duty to give your Lordships and Her Majesty's Government at least

1757
an opportunity of reconsidering a decision to create an entirely new offence in criminal law, taken on the spur of the moment, at the tail end of a Parliamentary Session, only a few days before this Bill was due to reach the Statute Book, after the most perfunctory discussion in another place lasting only some twenty minutes, and in complete disregard of the carefully considered and unanimous advice which had been repeatedly tendered to the Government by all those who were most qualified to advise the Government on this subject and who had, indeed, been appointed by the Government for the specific purpose of doing so. The advice of the committee that the spread of the disease should not be made a penal offence was first given to the Government in July, and it was agreed unanimously at our recent meeting on October 20, three or four weeks ago.
The decision of the Government to accept this new clause has taken everybody completely by surprise. It was entirely unexpected. I myself read of it for the first time in a newspaper a few days later, and I have not had time to consult any of my colleagues on the advisory committee. However, I received the day before yesterday a letter from the Secretary of the National Farmers' Union which he asked me to bring to your Lordships' attention. He says in this letter that the Parliamentary committee of the N.F.U. were very much disturbed and concerned by this decision of the Government. He ends up by saying:
"… as a result of the Minister's action in ignoring the considered advice of his own Advisory Committee, Mr. Woolley "—
that was the N.F.U. representative on this Committee—
"has sent a letter to the Minister resigning from membership of the Myxomatosis Advisory Committee and indicating that neither he, nor I as his deputy, will attend any further meetings of the Committee. I thought that you ought to know this, particularly as Mr. Woolley's resignation from the Committee may well be misinterpreted as being based upon resentment among farmers at the creation of the new offence. In fact that is certainly not so; it is simply based upon a feeling that no useful purpose would be served by continuing to attend meetings of a Committee whose unanimous recommendation is ignored."
There was no representative of the Scottish N.F.U. on this Committee, and I think I was the only non-official Scottish member on it. No one at all representing
1758
any interest or responsible body of people concerned has ever been consulted about this by the Government. I hope your Lordships will agree that if it is a good thing to make this a penal offence, it really ought not to be introduced in the last two or three days of the Session in the form of a private Member's Amendment to the Pests Bill. I earnestly hope that the Government will at least agree to withdraw this new clause and then, if they still think that the matter should be pursued, first consult with the representatives of those who will be most closely affected by it. I am sure that the representatives of the farmers are always eager to agree with the Government about the right course of action to take.
Myxomatosis is a very complicated subject, for there are so many different questions which may be confused and which, indeed, very often have been confused in discussing it. There is the question of whether or not we think it a good thing to have any rabbits at all. There is the question of whether this disease is likely to be effective in ridding us of the rabbit pests, and there is the question of the suffering of the animals. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to begin by saying something about this question of animals suffering, because I think it is one which has made the strongest impact on the minds of most people of this country, and certainly upon my own mind. I have been making a close study of the effect of the disease on infected rabbits within the last few weeks, and if your Lordships will allow me I will tell you the result of my investigations in a minute. But when I first agreed to serve on the advisory committee I had never seen an infected rabbit, and I had to rely on what I was told by my colleagues who knew more about it than I did. They included the Deputy Director of the National Institute for Medical Research, the Deputy Chief Scientific Officer, Ministry of Agriculture, the President of the Royal, College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Chief Veterinary Officer, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. I do not think that, in a Parliamentary debate, it would be right either to quote any of these gentlemen directly or refer to them by name, butt I am sure that if any of your Lordships would like first-hand information front them they would be glad to give it, no doubt with as much

1759
caution and circumspection as they did to me.
The only Member of your Lordships' House, apart from the Chairman and myself, who has been serving on this committee is my noble friend Lord Merthyr, who also knows a great deal more about this subject than I do. I hope the noble Lord will not hesitate to interrupt me if he hears me say anything which he thinks is not quite accurate. When I first heard about this disease, it was reported to me by everybody that it inflicted severe and prolonged pain on the rabbit. Indeed, I had been assured by many people that the pain was so great that the rabbit ran about screaming with agony. I was therefore both surprised and relieved to learn that in fact this disease has a narcotic effect on the rabbit, which renders it at least partly insensible to pain. These distinguished scientific gentlemen who were my colleagues were not able to assure me that the rabbit suffers no pain at all. They told me, for one thing, that it does have difficulty in breathing which may be compared to that experienced by a man with a heavy cold.
Of course, it is even more difficult to assess or measure animal discomfort or the mental concern of an animal about itself, if there is such a thing, than it is to measure the actual physical pain which an animal feels and of which we can at least observe the visible and audible symptoms. But the fact which impressed me most strongly at that time, which was still before I had had an opportunity of studying the subject for myself, was that the diseased rabbit continues to feed normally until the end of its life. As a rule, a diseased wild animal in mortal pain cannot feed, and it dies fairly soon, but these rabbits go on eating until they are killed by the disease, and they are found dead with grass in their mouths. While their cheeks and eyes are badly disfigured by the disease itself, their bodies are still in a plump and well-fed condition.
Within the last two months this disease has become particularly rife in my neighbourhood, and I have spent a great deal of time in the last few weeks observing the movements and behaviour of the infected rabbits. I did this, of course, in the hope that my own observations, although unskilled, might be of
1760
some help to my colleagues on the advisory committee. What people see most of is the diseased rabbits which wander on to the road and, since they cannot see or hear the approach of motor vehicles, get run over. I have tried to spend as much of my time as I could spare in watching the rabbits feeding on grass fields and in the stubble fields, and as they are quite unconscious of the proximity of a human being it is possible to observe their behaviour at very close quarters. I have spent a great deal of time in the last week or two watching rabbits, sometimes in the most advanced stages of the disease, feeding within a few inches of my feet. They feed quite normally, nibbling and munching the grass until they have finished all they can reach, and then they move on a little and start on a fresh patch in the same way as a healthy rabbit would do. I lifted up a great many of these rabbits as gently as I could, examined them and put them back on the ground. In every case after a minute or two they settled down and started feeding again, none of them having shown any signs of alarm at being handled.
I am not a skilled naturalist. I am a completely untrained observer. I certainly should not be rash enough to say that those diseased rabbits which I had been studying were suffering no pain at all because they appeared to be enjoying their meal. For all I know, they may have been suffering some pain, or at least some discomfort, though not enough to prevent them from feeding normally. What I can be sure of, though, is this: that I have never seen—and I do not suppose that any of your Lordships has seen—a rabbit eating grass when its leg is held and lacerated in the jaws of a steel trap. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, suggest just now that the trap, too, may have some numbing effect. I think I can say this with perfect confidence; that the pain suffered by a myxomatised rabbit, if any (I am quite prepared to believe there may be some), is far less—in fact, I should say incomparably less—than the pain suffered by a rabbit which is trapped, by a rabbit which is snared or by a rabbit which, owing to an unskilled shot, gets away with its hind quarters full of pellets. If we exclude gassing, which kills a rabbit almost instantaneously in the burrow, it would be true to say that the pain endured by

1761
a rabbit with myxomatosis is less than that inflicted upon it by any of the normal methods of killing rabbits in this country.
It is not only a question of the pain which may or may not be suffered by the rabbit itself; it is also a question of the distress which is felt by the people who see it. Again and again we have seen letters in the Press demanding some legal action because of the unhappiness which is caused to people by seeing great numbers of blind, deaf and disfigured rabbits crawling about the lanes and public roads. Lord Macaulay said that the English Puritans objected to bear-baiting, not because of the pain suffered by the bear but because of the pleasure derived from it by the spectators. I have always thought there was something to be said for this Puritan attitude, although Macaulay may have meant it as a parody, because we do not really know how much real suffering a bear is capable of feeling but we do know that human enjoyment of the spectacle of animal suffering is a bad thing. Therefore, it is not entirely absurd to say that you object to bear-baiting primarily because of the entertainment which it affords to the spectators; and, conversely, it is certainly not at all absurd to say that, even if the rabbit with myxomatosis suffers no appreciable pain, you may still wish to punish the people who spread the disease simply because of the revulsion which is experienced by people who are compelled to witness the spectacle of a disfigured rodent.
I am not seeking to dissuade your Lordships from giving the fullest weight to that argument. I only ask your Lordships to remember that pain and ugliness are not the same thing. It is quite possible to be very ugly without suffering continual agony—which is a fortunate thing for most of us. If it should be found that the spread of myxomatosis would bring incalculable benefits to agriculture and forestry but that we could obtain those benefits only at the expense of inflicting great pain on a great number of dumb creatures, then that would be a very strong argument against doing it. If, however, we find that the only price we have to pay is the disgust which we ourselves feel when we see the diseased rabbit, that also is an argument against it, but, in my submission, not so strong as the former one. I have thought it right to dwell at some length on this question of animal suffering. I apologise
1762
for taking up so much of your Lordships time on it, but I think it is a question which strongly appeals to most of us. But, of course, it is not conclusive either way. Even if the myxomatised rabbit suffers no pain—which I hope may be the case—I could still imagine circumstances in which it might be right to make the spread of the disease a penal offence; and, even if it suffers a great deal of pain, which I hope and believe is not the case, I could certainly imagine circumstances in which it would still be justifiable to spread the disease. May I, therefore, try to put before your Lordships the considerations which I think ought to govern our decision in this matter?
When myxomatosis kills very rapidly, as it sometimes does, all the rabbits which are capable of being killed by it, there are usually one or two left behind—I think usually about 1 per cent.— because they have anti-bodies which render them immune to the disease; and there is a widespread popular impression that the progeny of those immune rabbits is also immune. That is not so. The progeny of the immune rabbits is no more immune and does not contain a higher percentage of immunity than any other rabbit. So that, if this one in a hundred, or ten in one thousand—which is quite a considerable proportion—which are left behind are not dealt with, if they breed very quickly, as rabbits always do, then, when their numbers increase the disease will come back again and we shall have the same thing all over again in the course of time. It may even be that in the course of centuries a rabbit will be evolved which is not immune to the disease but which does not die of it. That is what has happened in South America, whence this disease has been imported in the twentieth century, to Australia and to Europe. In South America, myxomatosis has existed probably for centuries, and now the South American rabbit, though it still gets the disease, recovers without permanent injury to its health. But it would take a very long time for that to happen in Europe.
Meanwhile, the disease has become endemic here. It is not possible to eradicate it. As my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn told us just now, a year ago we

1763
did try, with the approval of the advisory committee, to contain and stamp out the first outbreak in Kent; but that effort was quite futile. The reason we did so was that even those people who thought that myxomatosis would do good did not want to have it here until we knew a great deal more about it. We did not depend on human decision. In 1952, the aged French scientist, Dr. Armand Delille inoculated only two rabbits, which he let loose with the virus; and in three or four months, over two-thirds of France, most of the rabbits had been destroyed. But very soon afterwards the disease spread to Holland, Belgium, Western Germany, and now has reached Great Britain. There is nothing that human agency can do to eradicate it. Among the many demands for action by the Government which have come from the public was one letter in the Press a few weeks ago from a lady who claimed that it was the plain duty of the Government to capture all the wild rabbits in Great Britain, to inoculate them all against myxomatosis and to let them go again. But even if the entire Cabinet, assisted by all the Under-Secretaries and Ministers of State, could spare enough time from their other duties to perform this operation successfully, you would still not get rid of the disease, because by the time you had caught and inoculated the last rabbit the progeny of the first ones would have started getting the disease and spreading it again. The only way to get rid of the disease is to exterminate rabbits entirely.
The disease does not behave in the same way in every area. Its behaviour is sometimes unpredictable, because it depends partly on the weather, partly on the insect carriers, and partly on a great number of other factors which are so numerous and which can interact in so many ways with each other that it would not be possible to discuss them comprehensively in a debate. But whether the disease spreads quickly or slowly, it never seems to spread evenly. If your Lordships will try to imagine a clearly defined area, say of some 5,000 acres, over which this disease has spread with its maximum effect, you will then probably find 500 acres completely clear; then perhaps a pocket of 50 acres which the disease has not touched at all, pos-
1764
sibyl owing to some peculiarity of the ground which makes it unlikely that the rabbits will move in and out of it; then another 500 acres completely clear, and then perhaps some very small pockets of only 10 or 5 acres which are completely immune. If those pockets are not dealt with, what will happen? They will not remain immune permanently; sooner or later the disease will reach them, and for a long time—possibly for months, possibly for years—the people in the district will have the worst of both worlds: they will still have some healthy rabbits, which will be a pest to the farmer, and also diseased ones which cause disgust to everybody. If I may quote the words of Professor Andrews of the National Institute for Medical Research, in a pamphlet he published a short time ago in Nature he said:
"Maximum suffering over a long period would be caused if the disease kept going spontaneously around the country like a travelling circus."
What can be done about this matter? If there is in the district some wealthy person who can afford to employ 7 or 8 gamekeepers (not a very common thing now), and if he can spare half a dozen of them for six or twelve months, they may be able to "mop up" these temporarily unaffected pockets by trapping, gassing and shooting, so that the whole area will be cleared. If there is no such surplus supply of gamekeepers, it is possible that the local farmers and landowners, by clubbing together, may afford to take on six or seven casual labourers at £7 or £8 a week to do the job. But if any number of people were trying to do this at once you would not be able to get the labour. Casual labour in the country is very scarce and the job of "mopping up" rabbits is tedious and unpopular. I have not yet had an opportunity of examining the areas, but it is reported to me from several places that, by spreading the disease more evenly through these uninfected pockets, by distributing infected carcases among them, the local farmers have in three or four months succeeded in completely clearing the area of rabbits.
My Lords, I wish I did not have to give an opinion on this question now, because I have been entirely in agreement with my colleagues on the committee in deprecating the spread of the disease in any circumstances. I should not have wished

1765
the committee to make any change in that recommendation until we knew a little more about it. But the Government have forced the issue by accepting this new clause, and I am therefore compelled to say now that, so far as our present knowledge goes, I think that in some circumstances this practice of evening out the spread of the disease throughout the temporarily uninfected pockets within an area already infected, with the purpose of shortening the duration of the disease, may be thoroughly justified, both on grounds of humanity and on grounds of common sense. But if this new clause is accepted, the farmer may be liable to be prosecuted and fined £20 or £50 for doing something which is both humane and sensible.
More than that, he may have neighbours who are not as well qualified as he to judge the position. Some of those neighbours may perhaps have a grudge against him and, whether or not he himself is actually doing it, he may find himself continually subjected to spying by snooping busybodies who are doing their best to collect enough evidence to bring a prosecution against him. I think your Lordships will agree that there is an obvious distinction between accelerating the disease within an area which is infected anyhow and importing it from a great distance into an area which is entirely uninfected, but I do not think it is possible to frame a law which will make it a criminal offence to move the disease from one county to another, but not a criminal offence to move it from one field to another. Therefore, I do not think we ought to make it a criminal offence at all.
I am not going to evade the question of whether it might be a good thing to spread this disease as a matter of policy. I have been told by many people that in 1955 this disease may spread through the country like wildfire, and it will not make a great deal of difference what the Government may do. People say, "Let the Government make their mistakes. now; they will probably not have very much effect in the course of events." I do not think it a very courageous attitude, that we should try to shuffle off our own responsibility in this matter, in the expectation that nature may do more slowly and painfully what we perhaps ought to do more quickly and mercifully. We do
1766
not know enough to anticipate a decision. We have learned a lot, we are learning more every day; but we have a great deal more to learn.
Last summer I hoped very much that this disease would not make its appearance in Scotland, because I thought that in our Scottish climate, which as your Lordships may sometimes have noticed is not very much better than the English climate, it would kill not more than about half the rabbits, which of course would be worse than useless. It was introduced into Scotland and for the first few months it seemed that I was right. Large numbers of healthy rabbits were still to be seen in the infected areas. But since the autumn began there has been a complete change in some parts of the country, and it now seems probable that I shall be proved wrong. Not only has the disease begun to spread much more quickly, but in some places it has destroyed 95 per cent. and in others, according to the people who live there, 100 per cent. of the rabbits. This has happened only in the Eastern parts of Scotland and within the last two months, and I do not yet know whether the same thing is likely to happen in Argyll, where the climate is much wetter, or in Caithness, where it is much colder.
I think there is one condition which would have to be satisfied before we recommended the deliberate spreading of the disease, and it is that effective measures should be taken before, and not after, we do it, to "mop up" the remaining 1 per cent. of immune rabbits, so that the disease can never come back. That depends, in great measure, on another part of this Bill which provides for clearance areas, and I hope very much that the Ministry are faking advance measures to consult with agricultural executive committees to prepare schemes for effective clearance of rabbits within those areas.
I say to the farmer: You will be sadly undeceived if you think that, because your land has been cleared of rabbits by myomatosis, you can now sit back and do nothing. The Government are to give a grant for scrub clearance and for wire netting, but nothing more; and as it will be necessary to have squads of mobile anti-rabbit police somebody will have to pay for it, and the farmers will have to put their hands in their pockets.

1767
Agricultural executive committees will have to organise the administration. I do not yet know whether that will be done, and therefore cannot yet know whether it will ever be right that we should deliberately spread this disease; but I do know that it is utterly wrong to prejudge this now by making it a criminal offence. Noble Lords should put themselves in the position of the farmers and imagine how this new penal clause must strike a good many of them. They are encouraged by the Ministry of Agriculture to poison their rats with War-farine or similar concoctions which cause the rat to develop a painful tumour of which it dies. But the rat behaves like a gentleman, and does not come out to show off his disease to the public. He dies decently in his home, and therefore there is no public agitation. But what is the farmer to think, when he is told and encouraged to use an artificial poison to rid himself of a comparatively minor pest like the rat, but is forbidden to spread a natural disease to rid himself of a major pest like the rabbit?
The farmer may be puzzled by the attitude of the Ministry on this question. In a Press statement on April 9 the Ministry stated:
"This disease should be allowed to take its full toll in any given area—and every advantage should be taken of this unique opportunity."
So the Ministry recommend that the disease should be allowed to take its full toll, so long as it is not made any fuller by the acceleration of an outside agency. Then in another place, when this Amendment was accepted, the Minister stated that he had tried his best to find some method of marking the disapproval of the Government of the spreading of this disease, apparently so long as it fell short of actually stopping it; but he said he thought it very unlikely that there would be many prosecutions because it was so difficult to get evidence. He ended by expressing the hope that the moral effect of the new clause would be to prevent farmers from transgressing, so that in fact there would be no prosecutions. I wonder whether the Law Officers of the Crown have given any advice to the Government on the principle which seems to be involved in making an important addition to our criminal law which does not seem seriously intended to be enforced
1768
but which is meant only to be a kind of moral gesture whose morality is open to most serious question by anyone who has taken the trouble to study the problem.
One other matter will puzzle farmers: the alteration in this new clause made on the Report stage in another place. The clause lays down that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he knowingly uses or permits the use of a rabbit infected with myxomatosis to spread the disease among uninfected rabbits. Then comes the proviso added on Report:
"Provided that this section shall not render unlawful any experiment duly authorised under the Cruelty to Animals Act of 1876."
My Lords, what experiments involving the infection of rabbits with myxomatosis to spread the disease among uninfected rabbits are authorised by the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876? I know of only one such experiment; that is one which the Scottish Department of Agriculture have been carrying out for several years in a remote Hebridean island where, year after year, they have been inoculating rabbits with myxomatosis and letting them loose to see what happens. I have no doubt that that may be a useful experiment, although its usefulness is somewhat diminished by the fact that the climate of the island bears no resemblance whatever to the climate of any other part of the British Isles. The Department, however, have continued with it, although they have not yet managed to communicate any useful result to anybody. I do not know whether any similar experiments are being conducted in England, but farmers can hardly fail to perceive that, while they are now made liable to a penalty of £50 for doing something which may be sensible and humane, the Government have been careful to protect themselves against a similar penalty, so that there will now be one law for the farmer and another law for the bureaucrat. The laws which we make should not only be good laws but should be laws of such a kind as to maintain the confidence of the people in the wisdom of their rulers. It is dangerous to enact a law which fails to appeal to the conscience of those who know most about the subject and which is, at the same time, unenforceable by the police.
It is hardly necessary to do more than just mention the final point, whether or not we want to have any rabbits in this

1769
country, because, although it has sometimes been disputed, probably most people are convinced that it would be a good thing if we had no rabbits. The value of rabbit meat and rabbit fur together has been estimated at about £15 million a year. It has also been estimated that the damage which rabbits do to agriculture, or the amount of additional food which would be produced if we had no rabbits, amounts to some £50 million a year. I believe that that is a conservative estimate, because we know that four or five rabbits eat as much as one sheep, and that fifteen or eighteen eat as much as one bullock. I am told on good authority that the Agriculture Research Council are rather concerned because they think that if, next year, myxomatosis spreads as quickly as is anticipated by some people, we may be unable to increase our stock quickly enough to eat up all the abundant pastures which will become available to us.
In regard to forestry we have often been given figures of the amount which would be saved in the cost of wire netting to the Forestry Commission and to private planters, but that is a small item compared with the great wealth in natural tree regeneration that we should enjoy, often in those indigenous types which have become much more difficult to regenerate in this country since we became a great rabbit farm. Whether or not myxomatosis will have the effect of exterminating rabbits we do not yet know—and I hope that I am not trying to pre-judge this question. But, for the sake of argument, let us suppose for a moment that myxomatosis, aided, as it would have to be, by other methods, does relieve us of the pest of rabbits. And let us suppose that in ten years' time a foreign visitor who had not been in this country since 1954 were to come back here, and see thousands of acres of ground which had been covered with ragwort and thistles converted into rich pastures for sheep and cattle, and hundreds of acres of what had been useless scrub and bracken growing thriving young woods. He might perhaps say to us: "What a wise and efficient Government you must have had to bring about this wonderful transformation in the appearance of your country." Would it not be rather a pity if we had to reply: "No, the Government did not do that. What the Government tried to
1770
do was to punish anyone who helped to bring about this transformation by fining him £50. Fortunately, no one paid very much attention to the Government; therefore, we have now doubled our food production."
I have only once in my life been privileged to visit the United States of America—that was when I was an undergraduate at Oxford. At that time, the Eighteenth Amendment had not yet been repealed, although it was repealed almost immediately after my visit—not, of course, on account of it. I remember that at that time two opposing views—as there often are on questions of great public importance—were held by the Americans. One opinion was that of the American who said. "I think this is a bad law; but since I am a good citizen of the United States, I feel bound to obey the laws of my country, however bad they may be. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot offer you anything to drink. "The other opinion was held by those who said, "I think this is a bad law, and consider it so unreasonable that it is not binding on the conscience of a good American citizen. Therefore, I hope you will allow me to offer you…" and then, of course, they mentioned the available drink, whatever it was. But no one said—or, rather, very few people said— "This is a good law." If your Lordships accept this new clause, there will be a great many farmers—in my view, the vast majority—who will say: "This is a bad law, but since we are good and law-abiding citizens we will scrupulously observe it, even though it may mean protracting the duration of this ugly disease in our own neighbourhood." There will be others—I think the minority—who will say: "This is a bad law, and since the Government have almost hinted that there are not likely to be any prosecutions, perhaps it may be that this law is intended merely as a moral gesture to placate some good and well-meaning persons who may not be fully acquainted with the subject." But no one will say: "This is good law." Therefore, I earnestly beg your Lordships not to enact it.
6.4 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, if I heard the noble Earl aright, he informed us that this was the first occasion upon which he had addressed the House. I think it is just as well that he should tell us that, because I ant sure your Lord-

1771
ships will agree with me when I say that no stranger to the House to-day could have detected that the noble Earl was anything other than a practised and an experienced debater—indeed, almost an orator. Your Lordships will, I know, agree with me when I say that it is to be hoped that he will address us on many occasions in the future. I think your Lordships will also agree that the noble Earl stated his case with moderation and in no way spoilt it by over-statement. That made it, to my mind, the more formidable to answer. But I will say at once that there is a great deal to be said on both sides of this question, and I would just give as shortly as I can one or two reasons why I think, on balance, your Lordships should agree with the Commons in this Amendment.
In the first place, speaking as another member of the Advisory Committee on Myxomatosis—to which fact, the noble Earl was good enough to refer—may suggest that members of an advisory committee should not be in any way disturbed if a Government choose to reject their advice. After all, it is an advisory committee and no more. If it was more, then clearly that would have been stated before it was set up. And I must admit that the Government are not bound to accept my advice as a humble member of that committee. Much as I should like them to do so, I do not think they are in any way bound to. The noble Earl spoke at some length upon the question of whether the effects of this disease were painful and cruel. All I want to say about that question is that I think none of us knows very much about it either way. What I think has happened is that there has been a great public outcry in this country. I believe that that is the main reason why the Government have introduced this Amendment into the Bill. There has been a great public outcry because the effects of this disease are—unlike the effects of the gin-trap—visible and open to the world.
I think the noble Earl is almost certainly right when he says that the cruelty of myxomatosis is less than the cruelty of gin-traps. The fact is that the effects of gin-traps are not visible to the public. I have said before in your Lordships' House, and I may have occasion to say it again, that if you had gin-traps set all round Parliament Square, a Bill to abolish
1772
them would pass through Parliament in a day. But the consequences of the use of gin-traps are hidden from the public gaze and, mostly, fortunately, from the public hearing. The consequences of myxomatosis are not, Rabbits come out on to the roads and are visible to all of us. I think that one reason for not rejecting this Amendment is that, quite apart from the question of cruelty to rabbits, the effects upon the public are very unpleasant. That is a point that should be taken into consideration. I believe that in reality there will be little difference whether this Amendment is passed or not. The noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, who moved that we should agree with it, made that point, but I think he overstated the case somewhat when he said that in all probability there was little deliberate spreading of myxomatosis. My information is to the contrary. I cannot prove that I am right any more than the noble Earl, if I may say so, can prove that he is right. I think that he has underestimated the deliberate spreading of myxomatosis in the country to-day. But, be that as it may, I still believe that whether this Amendment is accepted or not, the difference in practice will be very slight indeed.
That leads me to my final point, which is this. If the Commons Amendment were not accepted, what would happen to this Bill? It might, I presume, mean that the Bill could not be passed this Session. If that were so, I think it would be a bad reason for accepting the Commons Amendment, although it would be a real and practical reason for doing so. Sorry as I am to say it, I believe that there are occasions when it is desirable to accept Amendments, or reject them, as the case may require, merely for the purpose of getting a Bill through Parliament. And I want this Bill to pass because I think, on balance, and whether this Commons Amendment is in or out, that this Bill will do a great deal of good. So I would urge your Lordships, for those reasons—which frankly I do not think are very worthy reasons, though they are real and practical reasons—to agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
6.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to join in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on his maiden speech. I think your Lordships will agree that we listened to a maiden

1773
speech of exceptional interest, exceptionally well-informed and carefully considered; and we are grateful to the noble Earl for addressing the House, on a subject of which he has made a thorough personal study. I agree with him in the plea that this is a matter which should be reconsidered by the Government. In saying so, let me make it plain that I do not regard this issue, or any issue connected with myxomatosis, as a matter of Party politics. I shall express my own personal view. I am sure that there are opponents and supporters of this clause in all political Parties. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, put the case for reconsideration from the farmer's and from the humanitarian points of view, from what I might call the practical and the humane points of view. I should like to put the case from a different angle. I should like to put it from the logic of the Government's arguments for and against this clause when the matter was considered in Parliament. I should like your Lordships to judge whether the arguments used by Ministers, when the Bill was in this House and up to and during its Second Reading in another place, were not stronger than the arguments used during the second stage in another place when this new clause was brought forward.
I do not think the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, has suggested for a moment that making this action into a criminal offence will prevent the spread of the disease throughout the country. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, gave us a graphic description of the state of affairs at the moment and of how the disease is likely to spread. I think it will not be an inaccurate summary of the situation if I say this—I hope the noble Earl will interrupt me if I am not correct. There are patches of the disease now in almost every county of Great Britain, and within a not very distant period of time most of these patches will have joined up—that is to say, nature will continue to carry the infection into those parts of counties which are not at the moment infected, and this will happen whatever we do to try to stop the disease. Thai, I think, was the first argument put by the Ministers when they said that there was no point in making this matter an offence, because, whether it was made an offence or not, the disease would continue to spread.
1774
Nor would the noble Earl deny (though he did not refer to this explicitly in his speech) that the taking of this action, when it is made into an offence, would be extremely difficult to prove, and that in a court of law it would be almost impossible to make a strong enough case for a judge to decide that an offence had been committed. That is almost painfully obvious. If a man picks up a dead rabbit, puts it in his pocket, takes it home and drops it in a field of his farm, who but the man himself will know? The only chance of proving the offence, so far as I know, would be if farmers got into the habit, peculiar to rabid Communists, of making public confession of their misdeeds. I cannot conceive of any other way in which sufficient evidence would be available to other people by which they would know what had happened and on which a conviction could be given in a court of law. I thought the Parliamentary Secretary in another place put the case very fairly when he said:
"It would be virtually impossible ever to secure a conviction."
So that is the kind of offence which is to be made into a criminal offence, while the Government themselves are aware that it would be virtually impossible ever to secure a conviction. I ask your Lordships: is this the standard of legislation which is customary in Parliament? Is this what the public expect of Parliament'? If it is not, should we not ask the Government to reconsider this matter, in the light of comments made in another place and elsewhere, and from the point of view of a reasonable person who is anxious for an efficient and effective code of law?
What were the reasons given by the Minister for changing his mind. He gave, I think, two reasons. One was the moral or deterrent effect of making the spread of this disease an offence. Although I should like to believe the best of human nature, I find it rather hard to believe that people are deterred from certain actions simply because they know them to be illegal. I believe that as a general rule people observe the law more from the fear of being found out and punished than because they regard the law as an extension of the Ten Commandments. When people realise that they can break the law with impunity, they will certainly disregard it. What will be a matter of general experience will not apply in a

1775
particular case. The very mischief of a law of this kind is that it tempts people to become law-breakers because they think they can do so with impunity; and that brings law generally into disrepute.
The other reason given by the Minister for this change of front is the strong feeling in another place, which of course reflected public opinion, against the deliberate infection of animals with a painful disease. The degree of pain is a matter of argument, but it is generally admitted that the probability is that the animals do suffer a degree of discomfort or pain. I think I am right in saying that Parliamentary opinion, and public opinion outside Parliament, would be predominantly against an infliction of suffering, even if it were only a certain degree of suffering, and not very acute suffering, on animals. But surely it does not follow—and I think this was the conclusion which the Minister wrongly drew—that, because we disapprove of certain behaviour or regard it as morally wrong, that action should be made a criminal offence. In many cases it is possible, and in some cases it is even desirable, that behaviour of this kind, of which we disapprove. should not be made a criminal offence. Most people disapprove of drunkenness and lying; but they are not offences, and nobody would make them offences against the law. Surely, the spreading of this disease—which is really a moral question, about which there are sincerely held moral judgments, some of which have been expressed in the debate this afternoon—is a matter that should be, and I am confident could be, safely left to the moral judgment and humane instincts of our fellow countrymen. That is how I had hoped the Government would leave it. I very much hope that the Government will be willing to reconsider the matter in the light of the discussion we have had this afternoon.
6.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT HUDSON: My Lords, I venture to approach this subject from a slightly different angle. We have been told for many months, indeed years, past that there is a predominant need for increasing food production and for reducing. so far as we are able, the handicaps under which farmers inevitably suffer in this climate of ours. The original object of the Bill was the more effective control of rabbits, and I feel that
1776
it would have been far better if the Government had taken their courage in both hands and said that the supreme need in this country to-day was to control rabbits more effectively, and had taken advantage of every means in their power to do so. It would have been better openly to have said that this was a first-class opportunity in this country substantially to diminish—I would almost say to exterminate—the menace of and the damage done by rabbits. That is what I believe they ought to have done.
Had they done that, they would have met the point so rightly put by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, instead of advancing no real reason in favour of accepting this change in the other place—because, with all respect, the right honourable gentleman the Minister of Agriculture made no attempt to defend this change. What he ought to have done, and what the Government ought to have done—and in that way they would have gained more respect—was to explain to the country at large why it was desirable to extend the spread of this disease, and to disabuse people's minds of the idea that its spread necessarily involved great suffering and was inhumane—a point which the noble Earl rightly dealt with, in the light of his experience. The British public, on the whole, often give way to sentimentality; but in the final result usually they are sensible, and if the Government had explained what a great advantage it was from the point of view of food production and of reducing the cost of the food we require, I am sure that they would have received the overwhelming backing of the nation, and this, what I may call, weak-kneed acceptance of the Amendment in another place at the last moment would not have taken place.
I am not going to weary your Lordships by reciting—because I imagine you all know; you heard the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, explain it at great length the last time—the damage done by rabbits in this country. I am bound to say that I am sorry for the Parliamentary Secretary, the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, at having on his maiden speech in that position to get up and throw over what his predecessor said on two occasions about this disease. I commiserate with him, because in the nature of things he had no arguments with which to defend the change of heart

1777
of the Government. As I see it, one of the real dangers of the procedure which is being adopted to-day, if we agree to the Commons Amendment, is that these pockets of free animals will, at all events in the immediate future, spread and coalesce all over the country.
Take, for example, the position on Salisbury Plain in the county of Wiltshire, where I live. There is a large area around Imber which has been taken over by the military as one of their training grounds, where, up till comparatively recently, the trappers were catching, I am told, a matter of 10,000 rabbits a week. Since this scare about the spread of myxomatosis people have refused to buy them. Therefore, around Imber the population of rabbits is increasing by at least 10,000 a week, and these would otherwise have been caught. In my view, it is expecting rather a lot to ask farmers living around that area, who see this immense increase in the rabbit population and who know that in the comparatively near future these rabbits will spread all over the neighbouring farms, to accept this decision of the Government with any equanimity. It would have been better for the Government to say that they admitted the danger of the myxomatosis-free rabbit, and that they would deliberately spread myxomatosis as part of Government policy. There was a reasonable chance, then, that you would have rendered Imber relatively free and reduced the danger to surrounding farmers.
I do not know why the Government have had this change of heart. Surely, among the leaders of the Government there are men who are farmers, or who profess to be farmers. I should have thought that they would realise the danger of the rabbit plague, and do everything in their power to try and diminish it, instead of accepting an Amendment the result of which may be substantially to increase the danger. I know that in a matter of sentimentality like this it is not easy for your Lordships to take an opposite point of view from Members in another place; but, after all, we have a certain moral obligation towards the country at large, and I think we ought to protest against this wave of false sentimentality. The most reverend Primate, in a speech the other night at the Pilgrim
1778
Club, describing his recent tour in America, said that he discussed with an American bishop the question of pacifists, and the American bishop said: "You must always remember that a pacifist has such a warm heart that it has melted his backbone." I am not at all sure that the sentimentalist in England is not in much the same sort of case. Therefore, despite the possible political danger of refusing to accept the Commons Amendment, It hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will realise that all the speeches so far have been against accepting this Amendment, and that he will change his point of view and allow us all to vote against it with a free conscience,
6.28 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I rise a little unhappily to say that, against my will, I have been convinced by the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and if he presses this matter I shall support him. There is only one remark that he made that I should like to challenge. He said that if the rabbit population was very much diminished it would be the duty and the task of the county rabbit officers to kill off the remainder. I submit that, with wire netting costing what it does today, and the necessity to plant large areas, no rabbit officer is likely to see even traces of the last rabbits, and certainly will not deal with them. The only person who can deal with them is the man whose whole business and heart and soul is set on getting the last rabbit out of that planting. I have had some experience of that, and I believe it is incontrovertible. That is one reason why I oppose the coming abolition of the gin-trap—but I need not elaborate on that matter. I was quite determined to oppose the noble Earl until I heard his speech, but after the pains he has taken to ascertain the facts I will certainly support him if he presses the matter.
6.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl and others who have spoken against this Amendment. I do not think I need detain your Lordships long, because the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in his remarkable and comprehensive maiden speech, has covered so many of the points which one might ordinarily have wanted to make. What is quite clear is that this change and this

1779
new Amendment we are considering has been dictated rather hastily by pressure of public opinion. That public opinion was motivated largely, it would appear, upon humanitarian grounds. What we have heard makes it quite clear that the grounds are extremely doubtful. It can certainly be argued that, far from it being humanitarian, it is indeed the opposite to try to prevent the spread of myxomatosis. I would say that at best the case is non-proven, and under those conditions I would ask most earnestly that the Government reconsider the position before they make this a crime. Surely, it is a serious matter to decide that something is criminal in a case where the whole of the balance, one way or the other, is so uncertain.
We have been told that if we press our opposition to this Amendment we may find that the whole Bill is in danger. I am ignorant on these questions, but I should like to put forward one suggestion for the Government to consider as a possible way out of the difficulty which we face. That is that something should be done similar to what has been done in relation to the gin-trap: that the Government should tell us that they are pre-pared to pass an Amendment which would make this a crime at a date to be determined or, if you wish, at a date laid down but some little way off. It would then be for the Ministry of Agriculture, perhaps with the Secretary of State for Scotland—because Scotland is particularly concerned with this matter—to decide when the law should be introduced and when this deliberate spread of the disease should be a crime, if it should be a crime, in the light of any recommendation received from the Advisory Committee on Myxomatosis. It seems to me that, when the Government have a committee specially set up to advise them, it is a valuable thing, unless there are very good grounds to the contrary, to follow their advice. In this instance, we know that the only ground, or the main ground, has been public opinion which, I submit, is ill-founded or built up on a case that is non-proven. I hope, therefore, that the Government may consider (I do not know whether this would meet the wishes of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee) saying that they will not press the Amendment as it stands, but will be prepared to consider a time limit such
1780
as has been put in effect upon the gin-trap, which I think is a parallel case.
6.34 p.m.
LORD SEMPILL: My Lords, I will detain your Lordships only a few minutes. I should like to agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. While paying a high tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on his maiden speech, I am sorry to have to disagree with him, particularly since my forbears fought beside Bonnie Dundee, and the noble Earl is the Hereditary Standard Bearer for Scotland. None the less, I feel in full agreement with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and I believe that Her Majesty's Government are perfectly correct in taking the action which they have on the grounds of humanitarianism, and on the grounds referred to by previous speakers. The children of to-day see much that is ghastly in these horror comics and other things, but for those in the countryside to go about the lanes and roads and see these ghastly, crawling, swollen-headed objects once called rabbits, is a terrible thing, and every attempt should be made to stop the deliberate spreading of this disease.
6.36 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, first I should like to add my humble congratulations to those already expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, on his maiden speech. I sincerely hope that we shall hear a great deal from him in the none too distant future. I am extremely sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, cannot support this new clause, and I am even sorrier that he should have found in the Government's acceptance of it a reason for resigning from the Myxomatosis Advisory Committee. As your Lordships know, my right honourable friend originally accepted the committee's recommendation on the subject of the deliberate spreading of the disease, and he said so on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place. Since then, it has become clear that the very strong public demand for legislation, which has found such successful expression in Parliament, should not go unheeded. May I remind the House again of the last recommendation which the

1781
committee made to my right honourable friend on this subject? They said that no attempts should be made to assist the spread of the disease or to introduce it into uninfected areas of the country. There is no disagreement on that point. I am not quite sure whether the noble Earl is now advocating the spreading of the disease or a qualified spreading. I can only say that this was never in any form a recommendation of the advisory committee of which he was a member.
The committee recommended that, in view of the course the disease had taken and might be expected to take in the future, no good purpose would be achieved at present by making it an offence for any person to take steps to spread the disease. I hope the House will agree that there is no great issue of principle at stake that would have justified my right honourable friend in resisting the undeniable public outcry in favour of prohibition, The noble Earl is displeased with the Government, for not sticking to the letter of the committee's recommendation. I submit that we have not departed very far from it. If, in his opinion, we have erred on this occasion, I really cannot accept that as evidence that my right honourable friend has treated the committee's advice lightly. On the contrary, with this one exception, he has in the past consistently accepted the committee's advice entirely.
Indeed, on this occasion he accepted the committee's advice until it became clear that the advice was not acceptable to the House and that the House truly reflected a strong feeling in the country. He has, in fact, specifically asked me to stress how much he has valued the committee's work in the past—and in this he would wish me to include my noble friend who, I know, has given up a great deal of his time and made most valuable contributions to the committee's work. Myxomatosis will continue to present us with difficult problems, and the Minister will greatly need the advice of this committee in the future. I am only sorry that in future the committee will not have the help of my noble friend.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, also referred in his speech to the question of suffering and went into considerable detail on that subject. May I draw his attention to the findings of the self-same Myxomatosis Advisory Committee which
1782
went into this subject very carefully? They said that
"a myxomatous rabbit" —
I hope I pronounce "myxomatous" rightly; I am never quite sure about it—
"is unsightly and is plainly in distress, and strong representations have been made to us on humanitarian grounds against a policy of spreading the disease. We are satisfied that there are clear and obvious objections on humanitarian grounds to infecting an animal deliberately with an unpleasant disease in order to reduce its numbers."
My right honourable friend accepts this view, and I must say it seems to me a sensible view to take. The noble Earl also asked me what was happening with the advisory committees in the various counties. I am afraid that I cannot give him any specific information on that matter, but I do know that already they have met in a number of counties and are all ready to operate as soon as this Bill is passed.
The noble Earl further asked me what was likely to happen under the latter part of this new clause:
"Provided that this section shall not render unlawful any experiment duly authorised under he Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876."
I would refer the noble Earl to what my hoonurable friend the Parliamentary Secretary in another place said on the Report stage of the Bill. He said [OFFTICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 533 (No. 180), col. 162]:
"As the House will know, we have been doing a certain amount of work in order to learn more about the behaviour of the virus. Despise its existence in our country, we still know very little about it and, therefore, a certain amount of work is going on in regard to that and for the development of an effective vaccine to give full protection to domestic rabbits."
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is apparently convinced that this new clause is unworkable. I would not wish to argue with him at length on that point. I think it will be difficult to enforce, but to dwell too much on its enforceability is to misunderstand my right honourable friend's purpose in accepting the Amendment. His purpose is threefold. He wishes to show his recognition of the public demand for prohibition; he wishes to make absolutely plain the Government's attitude towards the deliberate spreading of this disease; and he hopes that the passing of legislation on the subject will act as a deterrent to any who might otherwise be tempted to spread the disease.
6.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not know whether, with the leave of the House, I am allowed to say a further word. I am most grateful to my noble friend for his exceedingly courteous reply, but, while it is painful to me to differ from him, there were two points in his reply with which I could not quite agree. My noble friend said that the main reason for the change in the Government's views was the strength of feeling in another place. I do not know how far lit is in accordance with the Rules of the House to refer to what happens in another place, but in the short time available to me I have done my best to consult my friends there and they have all told me that they knew nothing about this; they were not aware of any pressure in another place and, if they had known about it, they would have supported the Government in standing firm on this question. I beg the noble Earl to reconsider what appears to be a "snap" decision after a very short discussion.
The other point is this. My noble friend said—and I think it is right—that there is no great division of principle on this matter. I entirely agree. Surely that is the best reason why this should not be made a criminal offence. There is a division of principle about most criminal offences—for instance, there is a division of principle about whether or not one should be allowed to steal. It is quite clear that there are some people who think they should be allowed to steal; therefore it is made a criminal offence. So it is with all other legal crimes. But, because there is no great division of principle about this question I urge the Government to consider that that is the hest reason for not imposing a new criminal offence which will not be acceptable to the consciences of a great number of loyal subjects of this country. I beg the Government to see whether they cannot still reconsider their attitude on this clause.
6.45 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, perhaps I ought to say a few words—and they will be few, because my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn, replying for the Government, dealt effectively with the points which were raised. I have listened carefully to the debate, as indeed I am sure we all
1784
have, for it raises very difficult and thorny questions. I cannot say that I was convinced by the arguments used by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, powerful and extremely well expressed, if I may say so, though they were. The majority of them have already been dealt with by my noble friend, but there was one point about which I should like to say an additional word, because it seems to me to have a certain importance in the House's assessment of the rights of the Government in this matter.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, made a complaint that an advisory committee of which he was a member had given certain advice to the Government not to make this a penal offence. He said that the advice of this committee had not been accepted. I would entirely agree with him that the advice of a committee as important as that was a relevant factor, and the Government have, in any case, every reason to be grateful to the committee for their advice, which I understand they have taken in almost every point except the one at issue to-day. But surely the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who himself has been a member of a Government, would not suggest that Governments are morally bound to accept the advice of any advisory committee. That would be an entirely new constitutional doctrine, which I should not expect him to support. The Government represent the country as a whole, and they are bound to come to their own decisions, and to assume responsibility for their own decisions on considerations which are, very often, as we all know, very much wider considerations than those that can be before any technical advisory committee.
It would in any case, I think, be quite wrong to assume, as did the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that the advisory committee were in entire agreement with the views on myxomatosis which were expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, to-day. I have a copy of the committee's report here. One sentence has already been quoted, in which the Committee said:
"We… are satisfied that there are clear and obvious objections on humanitarian grounds to infecting an animal deliberately with an unpleasant disease in order to reduce its numbers."
Whatever may be said—whether or not, the disease is painful for the rabbit I have no knowledge. and therefore I do not

1785
wish to pontificate on the subject—the fact remains that it is undoubtedly an unpleasant disease. The committee said that
"there are clear and obvious objections on humanitarian grounds to infecting an animal deliberately"
with the disease. To that statement the noble Earl lent himself only about six months ago. Then the next paragraph, paragraph 36, of the committee's report says this:
"… there are also legal reasons for not recommending deliberate spreading of the disease. Whatever may be the position in law of a person who transports a diseased rabbit from one place to another, we are advised that it is likely that a person who deliberately takes a rabbit and inoculates it with the virus would be committing one or both of the offences of 'doing an act causing unnecessary suffering to an animal' and 'administering a poison to an animal without reasonable cause or excuse'."
Then the committee quote the Acts involved and say:
"Furthermore we are advised that, under Civil Law, a person who deliberately spreads such a disease on his own land might be held liable for damage caused to a neighbour as a result of the disease spreading on his land or to his stock of domestic rabbits."
So that, if it were merely a question of a civil prosecution, I take it that there would not be the same objection; the issue is narrowed down to the question of whether it should be a civil or a criminal prosecution.
Nor can I quite accept the argument which was put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, in favour of delaying the decision to-day. As I understood it (he will correct me if I am wrong), the point he made was that this Amendment was likely to be quite ineffective, and that ineffective laws are bad laws. Broadly speaking, that is the gist of his argument. Personally, I would agree with him—as I think would everybody else—that this clause is not likely to be entirely effective, if by that we mean that every offender against this law is likely to be apprehended or punished. I think that opinion has been expressed by numerous other speakers. On the other hand, I could not follow the noble Earl, and those who feel like him, if he holds that the Act will not, for that reason, be a deterrent, because many laws which are constantly broken yet act as a considerable deterrent to large numbers of our fellow citizens. In spite of what the noble Earl said just now, we all know that there are large
1786
numbers of people who are, on the whole, naturally law-abiding—they simply do not like breaking the law; and when something becomes law their instinct is to keep it. There are others, as he said, who are not so law-abiding but who, after even a few prosecutions, might find that enough to deter them. Therefore, I cannot accept the view that, because the law is difficult to enforce, it is for that reason a bad or a useless law.
It seems to me that the real point we have to consider this afternoon is: would it be right for your Lordships, on the broadest ground, to disagree with the other House on this Amendment? Obviously, as we all recognise, when we get an important issue, it is not only our right but our duty to disagree with another place; we have not hesitated to do it when we have been placed in that position. Is this such a matter? Without seeking to pre-judge the issue or the arguments (I hold one view and some noble Lords hold another) I ask: is this, on the broadest grounds, one of those occasions when your Lordships' House should decide to disagree with another place? I do not think it is.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has undoubtedly (I expect on very good grounds) modified his views since the committee of which he was a member reported this spring. Certainly none of us would blame him for that. But the views which that committee expressed, the views which I have read out, are still widely held by great numbers of people in this country who have been repelled by what they have seen; and no doubt that fact has had a considerable influence upon the decision of the House of Commons. Moreover, it appears to be generally agreed by the critics of the Government—they have practically all said it—that even if it does act as a deterrent, this clause will not make a great difference to the spread of the disease one way or another, simply because human agencies are not the only agencies that spread the disease, and probably are not the most important, and that even if everybody was put off by this clause the disease would still spread.
In those circumstances, whatever our personal views may be, I cannot feel that it would be wise or justifiable for your Lordships, in what we see is a very thin House (a very small representation of

1787
your Lordships is here at present), to outrage large sections of public opinion and take a big step towards provoking a dispute between the two Houses, which might well mean, I would say to our peril, losing a Bill on which your Lordships have spent many hours of most valuable debate, and which I believe most noble Lords feel contains very much that is good. Therefore, I hope that, having rightly expressed their views, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and those who think like him, will not press this matter to a Division. If that is done, I should have no option but to advise your Lordships to vote against the noble Earl. I think this is a difficult problem—there is much to be said on both sides; but the arguments which I have urged, especially those which I urged at the end of my speech, are those which, to my mind, should prove decisive in this particular case.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
6.56 p.m
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
MINES AND QUARRIES BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

B.O.A.C.'S AIRCRAFT PURCHASES
6.58 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, before assenting to the purchase of further American civil aircraft by B.O.A.C., a White Paper can be issued setting out the most recent information on comparative estimated performances, delivery dates and costs of the British and American types under consideration, together with a summary of the main causes of delay so far affecting forecasted
1788
delivery dates of the British types. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name. In doing so I should like to make some brief observations on the issues raised therein. I put down this Question as an unstarred Question in order to give those of your Lordships who might wish it an opportunity to say something on the matter. I believe that the issue raised in this Question, namely, the purchase of American equipment, goes beyond the highly important British Overseas Airways commercial operational considerations, but a decision will have to be taken on those wider considerations about which the noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, spoke just now in connection with another matter.
This is a question which affects the prospects, present and for several years ahead, of Britain's wellbeing in the operational and manufacturing aircraft field. By Statute, and by public opinion, British Overseas Airways are expected to fly on British equipment. Command Paper No. 6712 of 1945 says that
"it will be the general policy of His Majesty's Government to require the Corporations to fly British types."
Any decision to extend to future years, probably well into the 1960's, the use of American equipment on the North Atlantic route, is a major decision for Her Majesty's Government to take. I believe that only Her Majesty's Government can take that decision because only Her Majesty's Government have full knowledge of, and can weigh up, the issues and decide the matter after considering all those issues. If the decision is to be for the use of American equipment, I submit to the Minister that the Government must carry public opinion with them in such a decision. Public opinion cannot be carried by the Government unless public opinion is informed on the matter. Hence the request in my Question for a White Paper.
I suggest that the White Paper should come before the decision is taken, but I should naturally be content if the Minister could reply that there would be an education of public opinion at the time of, or concurrently with, any decision. Neither we in this House nor those in another place, nor yet the public, can take a view on this very important question without more light on the issues than we at present possess. We appreciate the view of the

1789
British Overseas Airways Corporation that they must operate commercially and competitively in the world's markets. They must serve the travelling public to whom they have their first responsibility, and must serve them with the best and most suitable aircraft. They must be free to do this, preferably, with British aircraft, but also they must be free to look elsewhere if they feel that British industry cannot meet their needs. With the delays in the Britannia aircraft, and the Comet III only in the development stage, B.O.A.C. are looking to the United States for the new aircraft which they are to operate in 1957 on the North Atlantic, the Blue Riband route. These aircraft, built by the Douglas firm, would have British Rolls-Royce engines.
Those critical of this proposal say that British manufacturers can satisfy B.O.A.C.'s needs by 1958. They say that the delays with the Britannia are not due to serious trouble; that the Britannia is doing well in her trials, and that such delays as have occurred are not entirely the fault of the makers and may to some extent be the fault of, prospective customers. Critics say that if we speeded up our effort we could have British aircraft by 1958 which would be better than the United States can offer us at the present time. The critics of this decision say that the Comet III, with a suitable engine, should be a "winner" by about that time. Finally, they say that before going to America B.O.A.C. should look to other British sources such as Handley-Page and Vickers. who have various projects in hand. The critics say: "Insure the future in Britain, not with the United States. Why not trust British industry for something by 1958, rather than American industry?"
A few conclusions are obvious. A decision must be based on an assumption of what is to happen a good many years ahead, and in dealing with aviation it is dangerous to make assumptions on the future. Secondly, if the order goes to the United States, it will have an effect on British prestige and prospects, particularly in world export markets, affecting the sale of British aircraft, probably until 1970. It may be a bad effect in one direction and yet good in another, allowing Rolls-Royce to sell engines in the world's markets in
1790
American airplanes. The next obvious conclusion is that if the order does not go to the United Stales it will be for the Government to insist upon, and to assist in, a tremendous effort on the Britannia, and possibly other British types, on a scale which has not hitherto been in force. If the order does not go to the United States there should be a review of what I would call British insurance types as regards other possible types.
I have tried briefly to summarise and balance the main issues here. I have not given any view as to whether giving an order to America is right or wrong, because I am not competent to do so, and I do not believe that anyone in this House is competent to express that view. But whatever the decision may be, for the sake of the British operator and the manufacturing industry, let it be a swift and definite decision, understood by the parties affected by it and also by the wider public.
7.5 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am very glad the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has asked this Question, and, despite the fact that the hour is, by our standards, somewhat late, I feel we can well afford a few minutes to consider this very important matter, one vital for the future of the British aircraft industry. My first knowledge of this development was a statement to the Press by, I believe, the chairman of B.O.A.C.—at all events, a statement of the interest of B.O.A.C. in the Douglas aircraft which would be equipped with powerful new British turbo-propeller engines produced by the Rolls-Royce Company. I myself, and presumably everybody else, was surprised at this development, especially as the public concluded that B.O.A.C. were perhaps not entirely confident in the Britannia.
I asked myself the reason for this loss of confidence, if such it were, in the Britannia. It has been extraordinarily difficult to get any information at all on this question. The information I have—and I have been to great trouble to get it—has been contradictory and conflicting. The noble Earl the Paymaster General, who is, I understand, to reply, would be performing a great service this evening if he could give us concrete information on this subject. I entirely agree

1791
with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that it is almost impossible for us to form an adequate view of the situation when we lack any information upon which to form that view, and that the only people who have such information are Her Majesty's Government. The position is that less than a year ago Sir Miles Thomas was making public speeches on this subject and addressed the Institute of Transport on the Britannia and other aircraft. He said that the long-range Britannia was one of the most important aircraft then on the order book for B.O.A.C., and added:
"and we confidently expect to be operating by 1958 an aircraft that will carry more than eighty people at a speed in excess of 400 miles per hour with a still air range of greater than 5,000 statute miles. The aeroplane will have a profound impact on international routes. Flying on great-circle courses, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, it will make modern standards of East to West travel seem comparatively short hops. One of the features of high altitude jet-flying is that the atmospheric conditions do not vary so much as between the Pole and the Equator as they do at lower altitudes."
Later, Sir Miles said:
"When we have our B.O.A.C. twin round-the-world routes established as we mean to establish them with our already-ordered Comet IIs and IIIs and Britannias; when we can confidently see their successors to meet impending competition; and when we are consistently making a profit—then I think we can really feel that British Airways have made a worth while impact with gas turbines on civil aviation."
There seems now to be a distinct difference between the view of B.O.A.C. and that optimistic spirit.
I remember two or three years ago talking to Sir Miles Thomas on more than one occasion, and it was a matter of public knowledge at the time that B.O.A.C. were looking to the Comet for the long-range aircraft and to the Britannia for the Empire routes and also for the tourist-type travel across the Atlantic—that would mean with one stop, possibly two. Now when you go to the two parties, as it were, to B.O.A.C. and to the aircraft industry, you find distinct differences of view as to whether this particular aircraft was ever intended for the Atlantic route. A good deal turns on that question. The makers of the aircraft, I believe, would say: "In the beginning this aircraft was intended for use on the Empire routes—that is, for comparatively short hops to the Far East
1792
or to Africa—and it was not intended for the North Atlantic route. But, as the result of changes of policy, by B.O.A.C. or by the Government, this aircraft has come into the North Atlantic travel sphere at a later stage, because of the necessity to use these aircraft on the North Atlantic route. This has meant that we have had to make a large number of alterations, and these alterations have caused delay."
This is, in fact, the crux of the whole matter. Was the aircraft intended in the beginning for the North Atlantic route? As I have said, there is a difference of opinion on that question. Has change of policy meant that during the last five years or so the company have had to make a large number of alterations in the design? In a statement issued by B.O.A.C. to the Press, dated November 12, the Corporation said:
"B.O.A.C.'s original contract for 25 Britannia aircraft was signed in July, 1949. Since that date, more than five years ago, no individual Britannia aircraft has yet flown pressurised for more than a total of 120 hours … No order for the Britannia in any of its various forms has ever been cancelled or reduced…Since the Britannia contract was placed five and a half years ago no material changes in the air frame specification have been requested by B.O.A.C."
So there is a distinct difference of evidence, so to speak, between B.O.A.C. and the aircraft makers. On that point it is only the Government who can really give us the final word—and a very important word it is. Whatever the reason may be, can they enlighten us on B.O.A.C.'s apparent lack of confidence in the Britannia, whether it is lack of confidence in the aircraft—and I do not believe that is so—or whether it is lack of confidence in the ability of the Bristol Company to supply the aircraft at the date they have undertaken. Whatever the reasons may be, the decision of B.O.A.C. to purchase American aircraft or even the inquiry by B.O.A.C. in America for American planes is a devastating blow at the British aircraft industry, though I admit that, as the noble Lord has said, it is also a proud feather in the cap of the great firm of Rolls-Royce, which, I presume for the first time, would be supplying Rolls-Royce engines for American civil planes.
I also want to point out that independent buyers are doing exactly the same

1793
as B.O.A.C., and they have not come under any criticism at all. The statement by B.O.A.C. has undoubtedly had an effect on overseas and on home buyers. It is for that reason that I think a statement from the Minister should, if possible, be forthcoming to-night. It may be said that it is only a question of insurance by B.O.A.C.; that they have not really lost faith in the Britannia, and that the fact that they are going to America for aircraft does not mean that they have not got faith in British aircraft. But, in fact, it will be represented, and it is being represented abroad, that one of the great State airlines in this country has no longer confidence in a great machine produced by a great British company. That is calculated to have a bad effect and is having a bad effect, and although there is no evidence whatever, I am glad to say, of lack of faith in the aircraft, I think we should be told whether there is lack of confidence in the ability of the makers to deliver in time or whether it is a question of insurance.
May I turn to this question of insurance, in the sense that B.O.A.C., owing to the difficulty with regard to the Comet, want to have an aircraft that can fly the North Atlantic in 1958 to 1959. Presumably, they are not quite sure whether the Britannia will be ready to fly in that time. They want to be assured that they can have modern aircraft at that time, especially in view of the fact that independent operators are now ordering—as I understand it—American machines with Rolls-Royce engines. Is it possible, I should like to ask, for British aircraft manufacturers to produce aircraft which will take these new Rolls-Royce engines and have them ready at the time when the American company will have their Douglas machines ready and equipped with Rolls-Royce engines? If our aircraft industry can do that, it will meet all the difficulties. It is a challenge to the British aircraft industry and I cannot see why the British aircraft industry does not meet the challenge.
In the first place, the Rolls-Royce engine which is to be used in the American machine is available for anyone to buy. Anyone can order such an engine. Any British manufacturer who wishes to equip his aircraft with this engine can order it from Rolls-Royce. Therefore I am wondering whether the Minister could
1794
give us some enlightenment on whether it is possible that some British manufacturer will come along and say: "Very well; we will accept the challenge. We will produce for B.O.A.C. in the middle of 1958 (which is as soon as the Americans will be able to do it) a machine with these new Rolls-Royce turbo-propellor engines which will be as good as anything the Douglas company can produce—and, possibly, better." If they can do that, I feel certain that it will meet all requirements in this matter. First of all it will be a British machine, and there will be no reflection on the British aircraft industry. Secondly, it will mean that the Rolls-Royce Company will be able to test their engine some 6,000 or 8,000 miles nearer to Derby than if it is fitted into the American Douglas machine which is going to be tested in Los Angeles or some other place in California. That, of course, will he a tremendous initial advantage. It will be an enormous advantage to the British aircraft manufacturer on the spot.
I would suggest that even if he cannot reply to-day the Minister should look at that point carefully and seek to find out from the aircraft industry whether they can meet the challenge in that way. The question the noble Lord has asked is whether the Government will publish a White Paper. I think it would be an excellent thing if they would. But in addition to publishing a White Paper, it is important that the Minister should give us as much information as he possibly can to-night, so as to squash the rumours which are flying around both as to the Britannia and also as to the ability of the. British aircraft industry to meet the challenge of our times.
7.20 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, that it would be most regrettable if a British airline should have to purchase further American aircraft, even if those aircraft were fitted with Rolls-Royce engines. I consider that it should not do so unless it is absolutely essential. I certainly think it would be a set-back to our aircraft industry for such a thing to happen, though I cannot agree that it would be a vital blow, as I think both the previous speakers have said. After all, in spite of the failure of other British types, Vickers Viscounts are

1795
"selling like hot cakes" all over the world, including America.
There is another point of view to be considered. Both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have built up a fine reputation for safety, comfort, punctuality and good service, and they cannot afford to jeopardise this reputation which they now have with the travelling public through not having the right aircraft at the right time. Running an airline is a very competitive business, and if good service does not continue it is easy to lose passengers to the many foreign lines who are waiting to take them. I think there is still another point of view to consider. My experience in the travelling world is that our clients do not ask who built the aircraft, any more than they ask who built the ship in which they travel. When a ship or aircraft is in service it becomes a Danish ship or an Argentinian ship, even though the vessel was built on the Tyne or at Barrow. In other words, passengers care much more about the flag under which they sail or fly, and the service which a particular line gives, than about the constructor.
I should like to ask one other question. Has the intermediate course been considered—that is to say, in the case of a hiatus before the arrival of the new British types, is it possible to tide over that period by chartering American or other aircraft? I know that this suggestion may not be practical, but it is one which should not be lost sight of. To sum up, I hope that it will be possible to avoid any further purchase of American aircraft, which I feel would be most regrettable. On the other hand, I trust that no undue pressure will be put on B.O.A.C. which might result in a deterioration of the quality of their services, which have such a high reputation at the present time.
7.23 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I very much appreciate the anxieties which noble Lords necessarily have on this subject. The noble Lord used the words "lack of confidence" in the Bristol company. I would emphasise, with all the force I can, that there is no lack of confidence in the Bristol company; and anyone who advances that argument has to face up to the fact that there has been no cancellation by B.O.A.C. of twenty-
1796
five aircraft which they have on order. I think that is sufficient to show that there is no lack of confidence. I think it is fair to say that to-day we are all very proud of the services which B.O.A.C. provide all over the world and to recall that they have received no financial assistance from the Government for three years. In the course of the next few years, it will be found necessary to replace the Strato-cruisers and Constellations on the North Atlantic route by more competitive aircraft. This route, of course, is of quite special importance to us because it links North America with Europe and because nearly half the passengers between North America and Europe go by air. As my noble friend Lord Gifford has said, the competition in air transport there is more keen than in any other place in the world. During the summer an average of somewhere between sixty and seventy aircraft cross the Atlantic every single day. No aircraft built in the United Kingdom has ever been in regular commercial operation on the North Atlantic route.
Moreover, in the course of the next few years it is likely that the piston engine will give way to the jet engine, and that will be a very important step. We have planned two outstanding aircraft for that purpose, the Comet III and the Britannia Mark 300. Of the first, for obvious reasons, I can say nothing, and of the second I will say a word in a minute or two. But I want to emphasise now that noble Lords need not have any illusion that Her Majesty's Government do not fully appreciate the importance of this subject. The noble Lord who raised this matter has asked for a White Paper giving information in regard to the relative performance of certain British and American types of aircraft.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Estimated.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Obviously, it will be estimated; but even so I am afraid that I must try to dissuade the noble Lord from such a course, because it would be neither desirable nor appropriate. Before doing so, however, may I refer to the original White Paper Comd. 6712, which the noble Lord mentioned, which preceded the legislation setting up the air corporations. It indicated that it would be the general policy of Her Majesty's Government to require the corporations to "fly British," but

1797
your Lordships will recall that, as a result of war-time impediments, it was recognised that some alternative temporary arrangements might have to be made for routes for which no suitable British aircraft was available. Naturally, that remains their general policy to-day.
I should like to look at this proposition. In the first place, the choice of aircraft is primarily the responsibility of the board of the corporation concerned. They have been charged by Statute with certain duties, and one of those is to exercise their commercial judgment in the light of their experience in seeing that the equipment is suitable for its purpose. The purchases of aircraft are subject, of course, to Government approval of capital expenditure, but this does not mean that Her Majesty's Government select the aircraft which are to be purchased. However, if the expenditure involves the use of foreign currency, then the approval of Her Majesty's Government will be necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore mentioned the question of independent flying. British aircraft are not now available for that type of service. What we are really talking about is the future. The second point I should like to emphasise is that figures of performance and delivery of aircraft which will be two or more years ahead are necessarily far from firm, and decisions as between competitive types must rest on those best capable, in the light of their experience, of reaching a considered and expert judgment which takes account of both ponderables and imponderables. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said that it was difficult to make assumptions, and we think that it would be going too near the realm of prophecy for the Government to commit themselves on this now. Moreover, a wide range of factors have to be taken into account. The noble Lord is quite aware of that and emphasised this wide range, fully recognising that it goes far wider than simply a comparison of performance figures. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, mentioned the question of insurance and I quite agree that that is one of the factors that will be taken into account, amongst others, when these factors are considered.
It is for all these reasons that I feel it would be undesirable for the Government to give a full declaration of the sort of considerations which might come into their minds at this time. What I can say,
1798
however, is this. No decision has been reached, and no decision will be reached except after the most careful consideration of all the factors, including those which have been mentioned by noble Lords and those which have been raised in the Press. I can say this, too: that if any decision is made, it will be the Government's business to bring the public with them and to explain the reasons which have brought them to their conclusion.
The noble Lord referred in the course of his speech to delays in the production of the Britannia. I do not think I need remind him—he is well aware of it—what an exceedingly complicated business it is to produce a modern aircraft. But I should like to emphasise one point, because I think it is one which can be underestimated. It is that the rapid scientific development which is constantly taking place at present makes it most difficult to know how far these ideas can be incorporated. Any development which comes along may bring with it a whole range of other ideas, and at some point in the process of manufacture the manufacturer has to say that he must stop accepting any new ideas because, if he does not, the aircraft will virtually remain a prototype for all time. It is that point which makes is so difficult to know at what time the manufacturer is to standardise and produce the aircraft. That difficulty faces every aircraft manufacturer, and it is not one which can be got over, because it is impossible to anticipate what science is going to make practically available in a year or two. The Britannia has this problem like any other aircraft.
I should like to show the sort of effect this problem has, partly with the development of engines and other things. The Britannia, when it started in 1947, was an aircraft of gross weight of 90,000 lb.; to-day it has a weight of 150,000 lb. Originally it was designed to carry 32 passengers; it is now to carry 90 passengers. It had a piston engine, in the first place; now it has a gas turbine. In fact, there are three different types of gas turbines which may he incorporated in aircraft in the course of the next two years.
LORD OGMORE: In view of that fact, of which I was aware, how is it that B.O.A.C. have put out a statement that

1799
there have been no changes in construction and design in the last five and a half years?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I should not like to be responsible for everything said on behalf of B.O.A.C. I hope that the noble Lord will excuse me if I do not take up that point.
LORD OGMORE: It is most important.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: If the noble Lord wants an answer, I must ask him to tell me where the statement comes from, so that I can judge the circumstances. I hope he will not press me, because I do not know the full answer at the moment. However, I can give some explanation. I am given to understand that the aircraft did not reach its final form as a fuselage until 1951. I cannot think that the statement was made in that form, referring to five and a half years ago. I must get the whole background before I can give an answer.
In 1949 B.O.A.C. ordered twenty-five aircraft. In May, 1953, it was decided that fifteen of the aircraft should be Mark 100, with Proteus engine mark 705, and ten Mark 300, with the improved Proteus engine mark 755. Delivery dates have been postponed from 1954 to 1955. This gives a delay on present estimates of some fourteen months. Of this, I think six months can be attributed to the loss of the Britannia in the Severn early this year, and the remaining eight months are attributable to changing requirements, in part due to the need to incorporate the fruits of later development and design. The manufacturers hope that the Mark 100 aircraft will be delivered to B.O.A.C. next year and the Mark 300 the year after. This means that the time taken from the drawing up of the initial specification to the granting of a certificate of airworthiness will be rather over eight years. This is not an unusual period of development for a large and advanced type of aircraft, especially having regard to the very special evolution of the de-
1800
signs that have taken place. Moreover, this is only a month or two longer than two other United Kingdom post-war civil aircraft, both of which took over eight years for the same process of development. I understand that the figures for well-known American aircraft are not dissimilar. But here we are dealing with a new type, rather than evolving a new machine from an older model. It is, therefore, I think, fair to say that the period of development, though of course slower than some people would like, has not been unreasonable. I should like to make this point. Important as delivery is, it must always be subordinate to the requirements of higher quality in the final aircraft.
I should also like to say that we have real reason to hope that the Britannia will show itself to be an important land-mark in the development of British civil aviation, and the long and distinguished record of the Bristol Aircraft Company lends support to that. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, will remember the Bristol fighter, which was, I think, the finest aircraft of its day; and he will remember the Blenheim, also the finest aircraft of its time. There is no reason to suppose that a company with a long and distinguished record of this sort will not succeed in maintaining the position which it has occupied in the past. I feel that we may re-echo—and I hope that those engaged in working at Bristol will also re-echo—the words of Sir Miles Thomas, when he said: "We need and believe in the Britannia." I have endeavoured to answer the points put to me by the noble Lord. I have said that no decision has been made, and that if a decision is made information will be made available as to the reasons which have brought the Government to their conclusion. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eight o'clock.