Lords Sitting of 22 May 1958

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the Cock, The LORD MERTHYR On the Woolsack.
Prayers

  PIG INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LEVY SCHEME (APPROVAL) ORDER, 1958
  2.35 p.m.
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN)THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL ST. ALDWYN) rose to move That the Pig Industry Development Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order, 1958, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lord, your Lordships will recall that Part III of the Agriculture Act of 1957 provided for the creation of the Pig Industry Development Authority. The Authority, which is responsible for promoting technical developments in the production, processing and marketing of pigs and of pig meat, has been set up, and the need for it to get ahead with this task is fully recognised in the industry. To do this needs money, and the purpose of this Order is to provide the Authority with the means of getting it.
  The Act provides that the Authority's funds shall be raised by a levy on the industry. As the Authority will serve the whole industry, it is only fair that contributions towards the cost of its work should be made by all sections of the industry. In seeking a practicable scheme, however, the Authority was faced with three main problems. First, the industry is a very complex one, and to collect fair shares from producers, dealers, processors and others concerned in it would be a formidable task. Secondly, until the Authority has an income it cannot set up an organisation which would be necessary to negotiate and implement any complicated scheme. Thirdly, and perhaps most important, any such negotiation would inevitably take a long time and would seriously delay the Authority in getting on with its job.
  The Scheme set out in the Order has the special virtue of being simple in its
  550
  essential features and in its administration. If the Order is approved, the Authority will start to collect money at the beginning of next month. The Scheme provides for a charge to be payable to the Authority by every person who presents a pig for certification under the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. This person may have reared the pig, or he may have bought it at a price including the guarantee payment which will be made on the pig. Provision is also made for the charge to be shared between buyers and sellers, calculated in the way described in the Order, which includes a form of ready reckoner.
  The way in which the charge is to be collected by the Authority is simple. The charge is payable to the Authority by the person who receives the guarantee payment. The Government will deduct from this payment the amount due to the Authority and pass the levy on to the Authority, less a sum to cover the cost of doing this. That then will be the machinery.
  As for the amounts of money involved, the Order provides that the charge shall be at the rate of 2d. a score deadweight and at an appropriately reduced rate for liveweight. The ratio between the two rates is that which is already used for payments under the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. With the number of pigs on which guarantee payments are now being made, the proposed rates of charge will give the Authority about £470,000 a year. This is rather less than the Reorganisation Commission for Pigs and Bacon thought the Authority would need for the proper discharge of its functions, but the Authority considers that this rate of income will be enough for the first year or two, and the Agricultural Departments have no reason to dispute this assessment. It is likely that as the Authority extends its activities more money will be required, and it intends to examine the possibility of alternative methods of collection which could be adopted later if necessary. The present Scheme, my Lords, has been widely publicised by the Authority and commands, I believe, solid support in the industry. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Pig Industry Development Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order, 1958, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwvn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PLOUGHING GRANTS SCHEME, 1958
  2.41 p.m.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN EARL ST. ALDWYN rose to move, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1958, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Scheme, which is the eighth to be made under the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Act, 1952, in effect re-enacts the previous scheme. The only change is the necessary advancement of dates. Your Lordships will remember that the Scheme was modified last year in two respects. First, grass was included as a crop which could be sown without permission; and secondly, the qualifying date for old grassland under Part II of the Scheme was brought forward from 4th May, 1939, to 1st June, 1946. No further changes are called for this year, and we wish so far as possible to avoid successive changes in a Scheme which is by now well known to farmers. It would, moreover, be premature to make further changes in the Scheme until we have received the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Grassland Utilisation, which was set up last year, under the chairmanship of Sir Sydney Caine, and will report later this year.
  It is rather early to assess the effects of the modifications which were made last year. There has been no marked change in the amount of old grassland coming forward under Part II of the Scheme; indeed the very slight decline confirms the necessity we recognised last year of reducing the qualifying age of old grassland from eighteen to twelve years. The abolition of the reseeding proviso has, as one would expect, led to some switch from tillage to temporary grass in 1957 as compared with 1956, and this no doubt reflects in part the fact that we had been granting reseeding certificates freely for some time. The abolition of the reseeding proviso has, however, undoubtedly contributed to one of the major objects of the Scheme, which is to encourage the practice of ley farming.
  In general it may be said that we are maintaining a reasonable degree of stability in the area under crops and grass. This is a fundamental objective of our agricultural policy and there is no doubt that the ploughing grants are a major instrument in achieving it. My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme, 1958, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  PLOUGHING GRANTS (SCOTLAND) SCHEME, 1958
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this is a similar provision for Scotland. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme, 1958, be approved.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  OPTICIANS BILL
  2.44 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
  Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4:
  Lists of bodies corporate carrying on business as opticians
  (2) A body corporate shall be entitled to be enrolled in the appropriate list—
  (c) if it satisfies the Council that the greater part of its business consists of activities other than the testing of sight and the fitting and supply of optical appliances and that so much of its business as consists of the testing of sight is carried on under the management of a registered ophthalmic optician and that so much thereof as consists of the fitting and supply of optical appliances is carried on under the management of a registered optician; or
  LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: I will try to speak with the greatest care and responsibility in moving this important Amendment. I am very conscious that if I succeeded in gaining the support of your Lordships for my Amendment, and if the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, were to move a more restrictive Amendment on the Report stage of this Bill, my

  553
  possible success might have dire consequences to this Bill, for it would then have to be sent back to another place for approval of the Amendment. With the pressure on Parliamentary time this Bill, which has many great merits, might then well be lost, and I believe that that is the last thing that we should wish to happen. I will therefore, with your Lordships' permission, move my Amendment, and after receiving, as I hope, the necessary assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, and the Government. I will then, by leave of the House, withdraw it. I may say that I have informed the noble Lord who speaks for the Government on this matter of my objections to this particular subsection. I regret that it was only at the last moment that I was able to inform the noble Lord who is promoting this Bill in your Lordships' House of those objections.
  The reason for moving my Amendment is that I fear that paragraph (c), as it is now framed might create circumstances which I do not believe were intended by the promoters of this Bill. Paragraph (c) was inserted in the Bill in another place as a result of an Amendment moved on Report stage on April 18 by Mr. Russell, who I am sure we should all wish to congratulate on introducing such a complicated Bill as this. I think it is right and proper to point out that the principle underlying this paragraph is quite contrary to the Crook Report, which is the basis of the Bill. I should like to take this opportunity of joining other noble Lords who on the Second Reading of the Bill paid their tribute to my noble friend Lord Crook and his Committee for their great service in producing a Report which is clear and understandable to all.
  I should like to read paragraph 96 of their Report, which deals with "bodies corporate concerned solely with the supply of glasses." They say:
  "We feel, however, that as in the case of ophthalmic optical companies, legislation should provide that—

  (a) companies corporate engaging in the business of dispensing optics should engage in no other business, and

  (b) a majority of the directors should be registered dispensing opticians."

  I personally have no complaint that the promoters of the Bill departed from that principle. It was felt that reputable
  554
  stores who have operated optical departments properly and successfully in the past should not be debarred from continuing their business or from extending their service by opening other departments in the future. Before this paragraph was inserted the Bill would have debarred these stores from enrolling their branches in the appropriate lists.
  I should like now to refer your Lordships to the speech made by Mr. Russell in moving his Amendment. I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, of April 18 [Vol. 586 (No. 91), col. 540]:
  "The Bill in its present form might create difficulties for firms or societies which are formed in future and whose main business is not that of opticians but something quite different. It was never intended to prevent such societies or bodies from being enrolled subject to the required conditions."
  In answer to a query raised by another Member of another place, Mr. Russell further stated (col. 542):
  "I think I can give him the assurance that the number of cases which will arise of this will be comparatively small. It is, I agree, a slight departure from the Crook Report in that respect. It is really to cover, in the case of bodies corporate, not co-operative societies, a large store, for example, which might open a branch in another city under another name."
  I think that it is clear from these last few words that the intention of the promoters was that this paragraph (c) should cover a comparatively small number of companies. However, the insertion of this provision has caused considerable concern amongst opticians, both dispensing and sight-testing, and equally, I would submit, it would give concern to those reputable stores who provide optical services.
  The concern arises from the fact that this paragraph is framed in such a way as to enable limited companies, large or small, to claim enrolment even if they have no interest in, or previous experience of, optics and even though the optical practice forms an insignificant part of their trade. It is possible that companies who trade in cycle accessories, butchers, teashops and the like might open an optical department. I am sure that that never was the intention of the promoters and that the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, will confirm this.
  Further, paragraph (c) makes it possible for disreputable firms, who may see an opportunity to make quick profits

  555
  by selling shoddy goods to the public, to secure the status and protection given by this Bill merely by ensuring that they employ a registered optician. Let us face it: a professional person need not have the highest integrity. We have had a recent case which shows that even Harley Street has its black sheep. I maintain that the paragraph, as it is now framed, while safeguarding the existence and interests of reputable and established stores, also makes it possible for disreputable companies to engage in the optical business. It seems to me regrettable that, while individual opticians and bodies corporate, whose business is solely concerned with the supply of optical goods and sight-testing, should all be subject to the rigid supervision and control detailed in paragraph (a), paragraph (c) provides a loophole by which unscrupulous organisations could profit, to the disadvantage of the public and of the reputable dispensing ophthalmic opticians.
  I have spoken generally on the clause and subsection and I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, one detailed question. I would refer him to the words in paragraph (c)
  "under the management of a registered ophthalmic optician ",
  and, later:
  "under the management of a registered optician".
  I would ask the noble Lord: what is the promoters' interpretation of the word management"? My interpretation is that it means a general control, particularly over policy. In paragraph (a) a body corporate must have a majority of its directors registered opticians. In that case, we can say that management, including policy, is under the control of registered opticians. But under paragraph (c) a company whose business consists of activities other than the testing of sight and supply of optical appliances would surely be controlled and managed by individuals who have no optical experience. I cannot see how a registered optician who is an employee of a company—I stress the word "employee"—can be held responsible for the management and policy of the optical department. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give me that definition. As I have said, I shall be prepared to withdraw my Amendment if I receive an
  556
  assurance from the noble Lord and from the Government, who, of course, will be responsible for the implementing of the Bill once it is passed, that, should the operation of this paragraph prove that optical practice is being abused because of the wide drafting of the clause, then the Government and the General Optical Council will not hesitate to come to Parliament to have this clause re-written in a more restricted form. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 34, leave out paragraph (c).—(Lord Shepherd.)
  2.58 p.m.
  LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I should like to thank the noble Lord for the reasonable way in which he has moved this Amendment, which is an important one. As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says, paragraph (c) departs from the original proposals of the Crook Report, which envisaged that there would not be any new firms setting up in the optical industry. But, of course, the Bill does not go nearly so far as that, and I think the noble Lord will agree that the Crook Committee, in making their recommendation did not base it on the ground that there was any evidence of great abuse at the moment. This paragraph (c) was inserted on Report stage in another place, for two main reasons—namely, that it was proper and customary for a store to offer the services of an optician; and secondly that arrangements which are sometimes made for the optical department to be sub-contracted to firms of opticians do not always work. Therefore, it was felt that stores should have power to have an optical department. The question really is: are the provisions in paragraph (c) sufficient to ensure that there is no abuse of this practice?
  I think that the question turns on the important point of management raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. An optical department must be "under the management of a registered ophthalmic optician," or, in the case of dispensing opticians, "under the management of a registered optician." In our view, "under the management of" means that the registered optician must be effectively in charge, and would himself be responsible to the General Optical Council for unethical conduct which was or ought to be within his purview as the manager of the

  557
  branch of the stores. That being so, he would come under the disciplinary powers of the General Optical Council and he, or the department, could be struck off the register. If they committed certain offences under Clauses 20 and 21, which deal with the testing of sight and the dispensing of glasses by unregistered people, any directors of the firm, if there was any collusion, would all be subject to prosecution under the criminal law and would be liable to a fine, on summary conviction, of £100 and, on conviction on indictment, of £250.
  The General Optical Council have powers to make all the regulations, and one hopes that the methods by which they proceed will allow them, in a case where there was the sort of abuse the noble Lord has mentioned, to act with reasonable speed. One cannot really give an assurance as to what a body will do in the future, but if there was the wide. spread abuse which the noble Lord fears, then the Council would, I think, have to ask Parliament to do something about it. I hope that that deals with the main arguments for this paragraph and indicates why I feel that it would not be right for us to delete it, as the noble Lord suggests. It was put in, as I said, at a late stage in another place and received general support on both sides of the House. I hope that the noble Lord may find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the manner in which he presented this Amendment, but I am afraid that we cannot recommend the Committee to accept it. As the noble Lord has already said, we want to get this Bill, and we might lose it if the Amendment was pressed. However, I am in a position to give him an assurance: that the Government will watch this matter carefully and, should there be any abuse such as he foresees, would take steps, as and when it arose, to deal with it. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord.
  LORD SHEPHERD: The purpose of moving the Amendment has, I think, been achieved by the assurance I have received from the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. As I have said, there might possibly he abuses, but in view of the assurance I have received from the noble Earl and
  558
  from the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clauses 5 to 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11:
  Erasure from the register and list for crime, infamous conduct, etc.
  (4) If it appears to the Disciplinary Committee that—

  (a) a registered optician or enrolled body corporate is engaged in the fitting and supply of optical appliances and

  (b) that the arrangements made by the optician or body corporate for carrying on his practice or his or its business are not such as to secure that the fitting and supply of optical appliances in the course of that practice or business are carried out by, or under the supervision of, an ophthalmic optician registered in the register of ophthalmic opticians engaged or proposing to engage both in the testing of sight and in the fitting and supply of optical appliances or a registered dispensing optician,

  the Committee may, if they think fit, direct that the name of the optician or body corporate shall be erased from the register or list
  3.7 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in subsection (4) (b), to leave out "supervision" and insert "direction". The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I would assure the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that I am wholly in favour of the Bill in what it purports to do. But I want to refer to a different aspect of what I would term, with great respect, muddled thinking from that expounded by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. To save your Lordships' time, might I also speak to the only other Amendment in my name on the Martialled List, which is to Clause 21, because the principle is the same.
  Clause 11 says:
  "If it appears … that

  (a) a registered optician or enrolled body corporate is engaged in the fitting and supply of optical appliances, and

  (b) that the arrangements made by the optician or body corporate for carrying on his practice or his or its business are not such as to secure that the fitting and supply of optical appliances in the course of that practice or business are carried out by, or under the supervision of, an ophthalmic optician registered in the register of ophthalmic opticians engaged or proposing to

  559
  engage both in the testing of sight and in the fitting and supply of optical appliances or a registered dispensing optician …"

  My noble friend Lord Shepherd has questioned whether a department in a general store could be carried on "under the management of". In Clause 11 the whole operation is to be carried on "under the supervision of". Under this clause the Disciplinary Committee can take action and erase the name of the individual or the concern from the register unless all these acts of testing, fitting, sale and supply are carried on "under the supervision of an opthalmic optician". In Clause 21, to which I also have this Amendment down, the sale cannot take place unless it is "under the supervision of a registered medical practitioner or … optician"; otherwise a fine of anything from £100 to £250 may be incurred.
  What is meant by "supervision"? The literal interpretation of "supervision" is to supervise, to overlook, to oversee; and the learned advice that I have received tells me it means that the registered optician must be in physical and personal attendance while all these operations of fitting, adjusting, supplying and selling are being carried out. I am sure that the noble Lord and the promoters of the Bill do not mean that. The same expression is used in the Pharmacy Act, and I am informed that it has been enforced in law. That is why the dispensing chemist cannot dispense medicine in another room or in another department which has a physical obstruction. The dispensing of medicine, and the testing of eyes and eyesight and the fitting of glasses and frames, is a little different. I feel that neither the noble Lord nor I would like to undergo an eyesight test or an adjustment to our glasses, and have the registered ophthalmic practitioner dashing backwards and forwards to supervise the making out of the invoice, or the tinkling up of the cash on a cash register. But that is literally what this means in both these clauses.
  The noble Lord, who is blessed with good eyesight, does not have to wear glasses—I see that he has some, but he keeps them well disguised. If he went to an ophthalmic optician, had all his tests and obtained his glasses, and then went back to have the side pieces adjusted because the glasses slipped down his nose,
  560
  according to the literal interpretation of this clause an auxiliary in that firm could not just bend the loop unless the registered optician was there physically to supervise the doing of it. I am sure the noble Lord does not want that.
  My noble friend Lord Shepherd has illustrated, if I may say so without offence, the careless draftsmanship of this Bill. Clause 4 says that the business of sight testing must be "under the management of" a registered optician. The management can sit in a room far apart from the operation, and it is legal so to do. This clause uses the words "under the supervision of", the literal interpretation of which is the bodily and physical presence. Just lately we have had quite a number of cases where legislation with which we have been quite satisfied has passed through this House but the High Courts have ruled against our intentions. Two examples are the construction and use of motor vehicles and the delivery of summons by registered post. If the courts take the same view of the word "supervision" in this Bill as they did of it in the Pharmacy Bill, then it means that the process of testing which is quite right—the fitting, the supplementary fiting, the making out of an invoice and the physical sale, must be under the supervision of the registered ophthalmic practitioner.
  I do not think it is necessary to go as far as that. I think it will be a colossal inconvenience to the public, and I believe the noble Lord's purpose, which I support —I am not trying to quarrel with his purpose—could be achieved by, if I may use the expression, a slightly looser definition. I suggest that it should be "under the direction or control" —and my second thoughts on this matter tend towards the word "control" rather than the word I have in this Amendment, "direction". What the noble Lord really seeks to do is to ensure that the testing and the proper fitting of spectacles and optical aids is carried out under the control or responsibility of a qualified individual. That is what the noble Lord wants, and I agree with him. But he does not mean to say "the supply and sale". Those are the words used. What does he mean by "supply" and "sale"? Technically and legally, the sale of an article takes place only when the bill of sale is made out. Does he want the registered optician standing by the girl

  561
  who writes out the invoice? That could be the literal interpretation. He does not want that.
  In one clause, he hits upon—and I think very sensibly— the word, "management". If it is carried on under the management of a reputable man, a registered practitioner, that is what the noble Lord wants. I am not going to press this Amendment this afternoon, but I think it is an important point, and I should like the noble Lord, between now and the next stage of the Bill, to consult his advisers and see whether a better definition, a slightly looser definition, one which will not cause inconvenience to the public but which at the same time safeguards the interests he wants to safeguard, can he thought of.
  I will not go into a lot of other arguments. I think I have made my point clearly. I do not quarrel with the purpose. I believe the noble Lord may find himself in difficulties later on through a rather too tight supervision, which literally means physically overseeing. He does not want that. It is either "management" or "control" the noble Lord is desirous of having. If he can think of a better phrase than mine, I am perfectly willing to withdraw the Amendment and return to it on the next stage of the Bill, when he has had time for consultations. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 17, line 26, leave out ("supervision") and insert ("direction").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: As the noble Lord said, there is little between us here in intention. It is really a question of whether one word is better than another to carry out that intention. As the noble Lord said, "supervision", in a similar context, is used in the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, and has been the subject of various decisions in the courts which have held it to mean that normally the supervisor must at least be about so as to know what is actually taking place when the sale is in progress: it is not enough for him to do it by remote control from somewhere else on the premises. "Direction", so far as I know, has not been defined, and I am informed that if it were substituted here it might mean a much tighter control, and that each action had to be done under express instructions. It might, on the other hand, require the authority of
  562
  an optician who was elsewhere, maybe in another branch, or even on holiday. Obviously, the noble Lord's intention is that the action should be controlled or supervised.
  The intention of the clause as it is at present drafted is to ensure that the qualified man does not leave unqualified assistants by themselves to fit glasses, and thus to do work for which his training is specially required. As the noble Lord will agree, fitting is an important part of the work and has great influence on the comfort of the wearer and the effective power of the lenses. I am informed that this paragraph, as drafted, is reasonably elastic; that quite a lot of work could be done by unqualified assistants under the optician's supervision. His receptionist can join in advising a patient on the frames or selecting the frames—all that side of it. The requirement applies to the arrangements for the fitting and supply of glasses, not to every detail of each case, provided that the general arrangements are proper ones. Of course in the case of Clause 11 it operates only when the disciplinary committee finds out that there is ground of action, and there has been some form of negligence. Those are my points on the Amendment which the noble Lord moved.
  I will not repeat most of them in dealing with the second Amendment in the noble Lord's name. The essential thing here is that it turns on the meaning of the word "selling". "Selling", I am informed, covers the essential processes of sale but would not prevent an unqualified person from handing over, while the optician was away, a package already purchased. So long as there is some supervision by the optician at the time the essential part of the sale is done, the actual handing over apparently could be done when the optician was not there. And it does not cover repairs to glasses. I have tried to show the noble Lord that with the word "supervision" the clause is not quite so rigid as he implied, and that it leaves reasonable latitude for assistants to do various jobs, which I think he wanted them to be able to do, but that it does mean the physical presence of the optician on the premises, which I think "direction" does not necessarily mean. I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord; but if I have not, I will, of course, have discussions

  563
  with him between now and another stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I hope that he will find it possible to withdraw his Amendment.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: On behalf of Her Majesty's Government I, too, am grateful for the way the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, presented this Amendment. I will not weary the House by repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney has just said, but I am advised that in his drafting the word "supervision" is really a better word than Lord Lucas of Chilworth's word, "direction". Therefore we hope that, to speed the Bill, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his Amendment at this stage.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: With great respect to both noble Lords, I do not agree with what they have said —I suppose the same adviser has operated in both cases. If I may, with temerity, enter one word of protest, I would say that I am not interested in the argument about speeding the Bill that was used to my noble friend Lord Shepherd. Is your Lordships' House only a rubber stamp? Surely, if your Lordships come to the conclusion that you wish to amend the Bill, it is no sensible argument to say, if your Lordships are to carry out the functions for which this House is in being, that you must not do it because you want to speed the Bill.
  If the noble Lord had withdrawn the word "supply" I could have understood it better. But may I tell him that I have been engaged in the selling side of industry for so many years that I am very well versed in the legal terminology of "sale" and "supply". What his advisers have told him is completely wrong. The literal interpretation of both the words, in Clause 11, and in Clause 21, is that in the process of sale there must be a registered ophthalmic practitioner in attendance to supervise it. The literal interpretation of that in the case mentioned by my noble friend Lord Shepherd is that he should be at the side of the girl who types out the invoice on the machine and also when the invoice is literally handed over to the purchaser, because that is when the sale is effected and the supply is effected. The noble Lord does not want that, and neither do I.
  564
  It is this kind of advice that is put to your Lordships' House, and which your Lordships' House accept, and then the High Court, later on, says "Well that is just a lot of nonsense." I asked the noble Lord. Lord Mancroft, in this House the other day what the Government were going to do to alter the law because, in regard to a recently enacted Bill through your Lordships' House, the Court of Appeal had come to a completely different conclusion from what Parliamentary draftsmen stated in the Bill. So I do ask the noble Lord, for his own sake, to have another look at this point between now and the next stage.
  I said that my second thoughts on this matter were that "direction" was not as good a word as "control". "Direction", I quite agree with him, could be as narrowly construed as "supervision". "Control" is something different. This is not a silly point; it is no more silly than the one the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned in your Lordships' House yesterday afternoon when he told your Lordships how a local Act effected a divorce between a town clerk and his wife because a provision was slipped into the local Act. The noble Lord does not want, in some months to come, the same rigid application as under the Pharmacy Act, where the dispensing chemist may not have a door—he may have a curtain, but he may not have a door—between the dispensary and the shop. Is it not worth while preventing that by a little tidiness and thought before this Bill gets on to the Statute Book? I do not want to weary your Lordships this afternoon. I will withdraw this Amendment, and I will not move the next one. I will return to this matter on the Report stage of the Bill, because I think it is very important to sec that legislation which we pass through your Lordships' House is as tidy as it is possible for us to make it. With those words, and on the assurance of the noble Lord, if he will give it to me, that he and his advisers will come into contact with me and my advisers to see if we can get a better definition, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: I am certainly very ready to do that, if the noble Lord wishes. I did not use the argument that I was resisting the Amendment on the ground of speeding the Bill. I tried to argue that "supervision" was a better word than "direction".
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My remarks were not levelled at what the noble Lord said but at what the Government spokeman said.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think the noble Lord slightly misinterpreted me. I merely echoed what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said in withdrawing his Amendment, so that the Bill would be speeded; and I hoped the noble Lord would follow the same course as his colleague.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clauses 12 to 20 agreed to.
  Clause 21 [Restriction on sale and supply of optical appliances]:
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On the undertaking which the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, has given, I will not move my second Amendment.
  Clause 21 agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clauses 22 to 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
  LORD CONESFORD: I wish to raise only one point. If the wording of the Bill is going to be looked at again between now and a later stage, it seems to me that, if the words are not too well established in existing legislation, what really deserves consideration is the extraordinary phrase "ophthalmic optician". An optician is one who is versed in optics or the laws of sight. "Ophthalmic" adds that he must be concerned with the eyes. "Ophthalmic optician" seems an extraordinary phrase because it is really scarcely conceivable that any optician should not be concerned with the eyes. Therefore, I think it is worth considering whether what is really meant is not "sight-testing optician".
  Clauses 22 to 31 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.
  LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
  Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, are we not going to have a separate Report stage?
  THE EARL OF ONSLOW: I think my noble friend did not intend to move that Motion.
  LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY: My Lords, I withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MARGATE) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.

  MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (CHILDREN) BILL
  3.33 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Ogmore.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Duty of Divorce Court to consider arrangements for children's welfare before final decree]:
  LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
  "(3) In subsection (2) of section two. of the said Act (which requires the judge in determining an application for leave to present a petition for divorce before the expiration of three years from the date of the marriage to have regard to the interests of any children of the marriage) the reference to any children of the marriage shall be construed as including a reference to any other child in relation to whom the court would have jurisdiction by virtue of subsection (1) of the said section twenty-six in proceedings instituted by the petition."
  The noble Lord said: The first Amendment standing in my name is consequential on the expansion by Clause 1 of the Bill of the classes of children in respect of which the Divorce Court will in future be able to make custody orders. Section 2 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, requires the leave of the court to be obtained before a divorce petition can be presented within three years of the marriage, and under subsection (2) of that section the judge is required, in considering the application for leave, to have

  567
  regard to the interest of any children of the marriage. The effect of the Amendment is that the judge must have regard to the interests not only of the legitimate children of the marriage, but also of any illegitimate child of both parties to the marriage as well as of any legitimate or illegitimate or adopted child of either party which has been accepted as one of the family by the other party. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 39, at end insert the new subsection.—(Lord Ogmore.)
  LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has introduced this Amendment very clearly. I rise only to say that it is quite acceptable to Her Majesty's Government and, I hope, to your Lordships.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD OGMORE: The second Amendment is consequential on the first. As the new subsection (3) applies only to applications for leave to present a petition, it clearly cannot affect proceedings instituted before the commencement of Part I of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 40, at beginning insert ("Subsection (1) of").—(Lord Ogmore.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Extension of jurisdiction of Divorce Court where husband neglects to maintain his wife or children]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
  LORD LATHAM: In regard to Clause 4, I should like to raise a point for clarification. May I first, however, say, in parenthesis, that I congratulate my honourable friend in the other House on the success that he is having with this wholly admirable and beneficent Bill. I will not refer to him as the promoter of it, having regard to the conception of promoters which emerged in the discussion in this House yesterday. The point of inquiry which I hope my noble friend Lord Ogmore or the noble Lord having supervision of the measure for the Government can satisfactorily
  568
  answer is this. It does not appear that there is in the Bill as drafted any power of the court to order maintenance to be paid to a local authority in cases where an infant child has been committed to the care of the local authority under Clause 4 of the Bill. Cases may occur where a child is so committed by a court having jurisdiction to make provision as to the custody of the child under Clause 4 of the Bill—namely, in cases of proceedings under Section 23 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, for an order for maintenance, brought by a wife in respect of wilful neglect to provide reasonable maintenance for the infant child of the marriage.
  The power of the court under Section 23 of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, is to order the husband to make to the wife such periodical payments as may be just. I am sure the Committee will agree that if the local authority has to incur expenses in respect of the maintenance of children committed to their care under the Bill, it is not unreasonable that there should be power in cases of custody for the court to make an order that that payment should be made to the local authority. I should be glad if some clarification of that point can be given to the Committee.
  LORD OGMORE: My noble friend gave me notice that he was going to raise a point dealing with the ability of a local authority to obtain money for custody of the children, but I rather thought he was raising it under Clause 5 of the Bill. Under Clause 5 there is full power, should a court commit a child to the care of a local authority, for that local authority to obtain the maintenance which the court has ordered. But under Clause 4 I am rather afraid that the noble Lord is right. At the moment, as the Bill stands, there is not the power to which the noble Lord is referring, and in this case we can only ask him to be good enough to let us have a look at it before the Report stage; and in conjunction with our friends in another place and advisers we will see whether we can do something to put this right.
  LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5:
  Committal of child by court to care of local authority
  5.—(1) Where the court has jurisdiction to make provision as to the custody of a child, either by virtue of section twenty-six of the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950, or of this Part of this Act and it appears to the court that there are exceptional circumstances making it impracticable or undesirable for the child to be entrusted to either of the parties to the marriage or to any other individual, the court may if it thinks fit make an order committing the care of the child to the council of a county or county borough (hereinafter referred to as the local authority) and thereupon Part II of the Children Act, 1948 (which relates to the treatment of children in the care of a local authority), shall, subject to the provisions of this section, apply as if the child had been received by the local authority into their care under section one of that Act.
  (5) In the application of the said Part II of the Children Act, 1948, under this section—

  (a) the exercise by the local authority of their powers under sections twelve to sixteen of that Act shall be subject to any directions giver by the court, and

  (b) section seventeen of that Act (which relates to arrangements for the emigration of a child under the care of a local authority) shall not apply.

  3.41 p.m.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "received by the local authority into their care under section one of that Act," and insert:
  "committed to the care of the local authority as a fit person under section sixty-two of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933."
  The noble Earl said: For the benefit of those of your Lordships who may not be familiar with the law relating to children, I should explain that the local authority may have in their care two separate categories of children. The first category, sometimes referred to as "subsection (1) children" are children of parents who are temporarily incapacitated from caring for them. When illness or some other misfortune strikes the head of a household and the children cannot be properly looked after, they are brought to the local authority, and until the home can be reconstituted and the children resume their normal home life the local authority has them in their care. In such cases the parental rights remain undisturbed. The parent has to be consulted on all major decisions connected with the child; and the parent has the right to withdraw the children from the care of
  570
  the local authority when the parent chooses.
  The second category of children may be described as being permanently in care and are sometimes called "subsection (2) children", because in their regard the local authority passes a resolution assuming parental rights. In the case of children for whom, humanly speaking, it is impossible to see any resumption of normal domestic life, parental rights (if the parents are alive) are extinguished and those children belong entirely to the local authority. In contradistinction to the first category, these may be described as permanent cases. They are not completely permanent, since it is always possible for the local authority to rescind its resolution regarding parental rights. Nevertheless that is a procedure which, unfortunately, can seldom be adopted, and normally parental rights remain with the local authority until the child attains the age of eighteen years.
  The children dealt with under this Bill are those for whom permanent arrangements are being made by the court. There is no need for the court to make temporary arrangements and no need to legislate for that; the court would only have to call the attention of the local authority to some temporary need to look after the children who come before it. This measure deals with permanent provision by a court for the welfare of certain categories of children. The Bill appears, however, to create a hybrid category of children in the care of local authorities —that is to say, children permanently in care but for whom the local authority cannot assume parental rights.
  I am going to point out to your Lordships that this position entails some very serious disadvantages. There are a number of decisions which have to be made concerning children which cannot be made except by a person or authority possessing parental rights. There are some fairly normal incidents in the life of a child in which the parent has to signify consent if action is to be taken. Parental consent is required for vaccinations, immunisations, any serious dental treatment, surgical operations and the administration of anæsthetics. A case occurred within the last few years of a child in the care of the local authority under subsection (1) who had to have an operation for appendicitis. The parents had moved

  571
  to London. This child was brought to the hospital, and the surgeon, before he operated, asked whether parental consent to the operation had been given. No doubt if the danger had been very great and imminent, the surgeon would have waived parental consent and operated on the spot; but, as things were, the child was kept waiting in the ante-room to the operating theatre while police in London were contacted and the parents found, in order that they might give verbal consent to the operation.
  To pass from medical topics, there are a number of other matters in which parental consent is absolutely necessary. I believe the Boy Scouts' Association have a very sensible rule by which a boy must get parental consent if he is to go swimming at a boys scouts' camp. Similar consent is required by the Air Cadet Corps before a cadet goes flying. And if a child is to go abroad—and in these days of school journeys a great many children are taken abroad—a parent must sign the child's application for a passport. Again, a parent is required to join in a deed of apprenticeship, and there may be a question of parental consent to sending a child to a grammar school until the completion of his General Certificate course. There are also the exceptional incidents such as enlistment in Her Majesty's Forces and marriage, and in those cases, too, parental consent is required.
  Under this clause, as I read it, the local authority will not possess parental rights, and there will be at least some delay—I believe serious delay—in obtaining that parental consent. I am aware that under subsection (7) of this clause it is made the duty of any parent or guardian of a child committed to the care of a local authority to secure that the local authority are informed of his address for the time being. I have grave doubts as to the efficacy of this clause. The parents or guardians with whom we are dealing are, so to speak, by definition rather irresponsible people: the court has already found that they have not enough sense of responsibility and good citizenship to look after their own children. Can we rely on such persons meticulously to inform the local authority, perhaps a very distant local authority, every time they go away on a visit? Are we to be sure they will not go off abroad
  572
  and move from hotel to hotel, rendering it quite impossible to obtain their necessary parental consent for decisions affecting the child?
  Finally, will your Lordships please consider what this consent is worth when it is obtained? The parent has not the right under this clause to regain possession of the child. He is a parent who has been found unfit to have the custody of the child; a parent who has permanently disposed of any duties in connection with the child. Is this consent of great value? I am asking your Lordships, I am well aware, to make an important change in the Bill. But I beg that consideration may be given, before the Report stage at any rate, to some means (I do not know whether I have adopted the right means or not) by which the local authority, without infringing the order of the court, may in some circumstances pass a Section 2 resolution under the Children Act and assume parental rights, for I am gravely troubled as to the difficulties of administration which will otherwise be apparent and which will certainly affect the children in question very adversely.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 33, leave out ("received by the local authority into their care under section one of that Act.") and insert ("committed to the care of the local authority as a fit person under section sixty-two of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933.")—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
  LORD CHESHAM: Before the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill replies, I should like quickly to make two points which I hope will show that the noble Lord should resist this Amendment and that your Lordships should not accept it. They are both in connection with the purpose of this Bill. That purpose received the approval of your Lordships in all parts of the House, and it was in these divorce cases to make proper provision for the children. If the Amendment that has been put down by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, were accepted, the effect would be that the children would have been transferred, as it were, to the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which Act provides, in Section 84 (4) that the Secretary of State may at any time in his discretion discharge a child either absolutely or conditionally from the care of the person to whom he has been committed. It would therefore clearly be inappropriate

  573
  that an order of the Divorce Court should become subject to discharge by the Secretary of State in this way.
  Secondly, under the same section, subsection (6), an order such as these children would then come under may, on the application of any person, be varied or revoked by a juvenile court acting for the petty sessional division or place within which the child lives. Experience of juvenile court justices is not, surely, such as would fit them to exercise the powers of the High Court over these children; and, frankly, it would clearly be wrong to give an inferior court power to vary or revoke an order of the High Court. For these reasons I certainly hope that the Amendment in the form in which it is will not be pressed.
  LORD OGMORE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for putting two important points, and I should like to put a third point against the Amendment. However, before doing so, may I say, in reply to the noble Earl who moved the Amendment, that the provisions of Section 1 of the Children Act, 1948, are more appropriate in the circumstances of the sort of case envisaged by this Bill than are the provisions of Section 62 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. Under Section 1 of the 1948 Act the local authority have a duty to receive into their care a child under the age of seventeen who has no parents or guardian or who has been abandoned by his parents, or whose parents are unable to provide for his proper accommodation, maintenance or upbringing. The local authority must then deal with the child in accordance with Part II of the Act. This means that the local authority must exercise their powers so as to further the bests interests of the child and afford him an opportunity for the proper development of his character and abilities.
  I do not think the noble Earl was quite right when he dealt with the authority of the parents. Where a child is received into care under Section 1 of the 1948 Act, his parents are not deprived of all responsibility for the child, whose legal custody remains with them. In the case of the 1933 Act, which the noble Earl wishes to be applied to this Bill, a juvenile court, if satisfied that the child is in need of care and protection, may among other things commit him to the care of a fit person, including a local
  574
  authority. In such a case the local authority are bound to deal with the child in accordance with Part II of the 1948 Act. So, strictly speaking, all that the noble Earl's Amendment does is to make the 1948 Act apply in another way, going around the mulberry bush instead of straight to the spot.
  The other disadvantage of the noble Earl's Amendment is that under the Act of 1933 it imports the consequences which follow on the making of a "fit person" order, and these consequences are inappropriate in the case of a child who has been committed by the Divorce Court. A "fit person" order usually is made where there is some element of neglect or moral danger to the child, and where the child is in need of protection because there is an element of neglect or moral danger; and that is not the sort of case which would normally come before the Divorce Court. In the sort of case with which the Divorce Court is concerned there is not necessarily any element of neglect or moral danger. it could be that the parents are not in a position to deal with the child in the way that the Divorce Court thinks is right and proper, and in those circumstances it is not felt proper that the rights and duties of the parents should be displaced as they would be under the 1933 Act, and would not be, I submit, under the 1948 Act. For this reason (and that reason is the third reason against the Amendment of the noble Earl), in addition to the two reasons already given by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, I hope that the noble Earl will not press his Amendment. If he does, I hope that your Lordships wilt resist it.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: In view of the speeches that have been made, I shall not press the Amendment. I admit the validity of the arguments that have been used against me, but, at the same time, I have received no answer to the points that I made which bore on the grave disadvantage that will occur to the child if parental rights are not exercised. I maintain my opinion that, in some circumstances at any rate, if not in all cases, it would be possible for the local authority to pass a resolution under Section 2 of the Children Act in respect of these children, and I beg the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to consider whether anything can be done at a later stage of the Bill to meet the

  575
  practical points which I have made. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  LORD OGMORE: Before the noble Earl withdraws his Amendment, may I say that I am very ready to look at this point again, because dealing with all these Acts under application is a very complicated matter. As I have already indicated, the views I have expressed are entirely contrary to those of the noble Earl. Both of us cannot be right. It may be that I am wrong, and I should like to look at the point again before Report stage. If the noble Earl is right, I will see whether something cannot be done about it. On the other hand, if I am right, nothing can be done about it.
  THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD LATHAM LORD LATHAM moved, in subsection (5), to leave out paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment, to leave out paragraph (a), is to remove a dichotomy between powers and responsibilities. Under the clause as drawn, whilst local authorities have the responsibility for the maintenance of children dealt with under the Bill, nevertheless they are subject to the direction of the court. I am moving this Amendment at the request of the London County Council. I would not say that the London County Council's powers or responsibilities in this connection are any different from those of any other local authority, but the extent of their responsibility is certainly unique. At the present time, under various Acts of Parliament they have no fewer than 9,000 children in their care, for the maintenance of which they are responsible. These children are not all citizens of this country. They include citizens and in some cases, I suppose, denizens of the various parts of the Commonwealth.
  I think your Lordships should appreciate that the maintenance of children under this admirable Bill is only a part of the general responsibility of local authorities for the care and maintenance of children under various Statutes. I am advised that in none of these Statutes is there any requirement that a local authority, in discharging the responsibility cast upon it, must act in accord-
  576
  ance with the direction of a court. It was felt that if that were the case, the care and maintenance of children would be impeded. If these children have to be dealt with as a category of their own, the local authorities feel that as regards that category, but not as regards any other category, they cannot act except within the precise (whether rigid or flexible) directions of the court. In these circumstances, it is the view of the London County Council that this provision could operate seriously to the disadvantage of the child.
  Looking after children is a complicated and specialist business. In dealing with young human beings what is needed, apart from other qualities, is the ability to adapt one's care and solicitude for the child to the circumstances and needs of the child. The London County Council think, and I have no reason to doubt their wisdom in this matter, that the provision that they should be subject to the direction of the court is an unwise one and would not inure to the benefit of the child. It would create, as it were, a separate sector of children within the care and maintenance of local authorities. I hope that my noble friend Lord Ogmore or the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who has not the conduct but, shall I say, supervision of the Bill from the point of view of Her Majesty's Government, may be able to accept the deletion of this paragraph, which I submit does no harm to the admirable general provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 8, leave out paragraph (a).— (Lord Latham.)
  LORD SILKIN: I do not want to say anything about the merit of this Amendment—my noble friend Lord Latham has adequately explained it—but I should be glad of an explanation of why it is now found necessary to impose this restriction on local authorities. When we passed the Children Act in 1948, it was not imposed. It is a new restriction. It is imposed either as a result of the experience since 1948 (and if so, I should be glad to know what that experience is and why this is thought necessary) or because of an omission in the 1948 Act which it is now desired to correct. Except for one or other of those contingencies, it is difficult for me to understand why it is

  577
  thought necessary now, after nine years of experience of the Children Act, to impose this 'additional restriction on local authorities.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, while I do not feel that I can accept the suggestion contained in the noble Lord's Amendment, I can accept that there is some force in what he says. I can understand why he should put this matter forward. If I may reply to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I think that I can more or less deal with both points at the same time. I believe that the local authorities and the London County Council, for whom the noble Lord. Lord Latham, speaks, are rather squealing before they are hurt in this matter.
  LORD LATHAM: Surely that is the time to squeal.
  LORD CHESHAM: But it seems to me that you look such a fool when you yell loudly and are not hurt afterwards. We are talking of divorce cases, and in the result I think the judge should be able to give directions to the local authority if he thinks fit.
  I do not believe—and this is where the point about squealing before being hurt comes in—that any court will give complicated and controversial directions. What I think is more intended in this matter is that, where the parent wishes to continue some arrangement already in existence for the child, and for which he or she is willing to pay the cost, the judge should be able to order that the child to be cared for by the local authority should be subject to the continuance of that arrangement. An example might be if a parent was maintaining a child at a public school and the judge felt it desirable that that arrangement should continue. In that case, he might direct that the child should be maintained at the public school by the local authority, subject to the proper payment by the parent. In the same way, it might be desirable to give some kind of directions about the access which the parents are to have. There is there, in a way, some departure from the previous provision of the Act about which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has inquired. But that creates a difference only to this extent: that there are probably certain factors
  578
  which would apply, such as the access by parents, as a result of the making of these orders following a divorce.
  The other thing we have to bear in mind is that before he makes an order under Clause 5 of the Bill the judge is bound, under subsection (2), to hear any representations which the local authority may wish to make. The local authority will then be able to put its views to the court about any directions which the court has in mind to make. Further, the local authority is entitled to apply to the court for a variation of the direction if, for any reason, it turns out to be impracticable or to be not in the child's best interests. I think it would be difficult to take away from the Divorce Court the power of controlling the upbringing of these children, which is the purpose of the Bill. The Court would, I think, know best the circumstances of the family background, and I am sure can be relied on to take full account of the views of the local authorities. That should make for a situation more like that which the noble Lord requires.
  LORD LATHAM: I confess that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has gone some way to dispose of the doubts and misgivings which I personally have in regard to this subsection; but whether that be the case so far as the L.C.C. are concerned, I cannot pre-judge. However, what the noble Lord did confirm, in his admirable explanation, is that there could be—and it might in some circumstances be desirable, though I doubt it—a kind of separate category among the many children, such as the 9,000 children looked after by the London County Council, entitled to special rights and special directions. I am not sure that that is desirable, notwithstanding the fact that the local authorities will have the right of audience before the judge when he is making his order, because circumstances change so quickly in regard to children. I regret that this flexibility should be removed from local authorities with regard to this category of children. However, I should not wish to do anything to impede the free and speedy passage of this Bill on to the Statute Book, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 6 to 16 agreed to.
  4.16 p.m.
  LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE moved, after Clause 16 to insert the following new clause:
  Application of enactments regulating the enforcement of maintenance orders
  ". Any order for maintenance or other payments made by virtue of this Act or any corresponding enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall be included among the orders to which section sixteen of the Maintenance Orders Act, 1950, applies (which section specifies the maintenance orders which are enforceable under Part II of that Act) and, in the case of an order made by virtue of Part I of this Act, shall be a maintenance order within the meaning of the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958."
  The noble Lord said: This is a rather technical Amendment, and its object is to ensure that orders for payment of maintenance or other financial provision for the benefit of a child made under the powers conferred by Clauses 1 and 3 of the Bill are treated as maintenance orders for the purposes of the Maintenance Orders Act, 1950, and the Maintenance Orders Bill now before Parliament, so as to be registrable and enforceable under either of those Acts. The Maintenance Orders Act, 1950, enables a maintenance order made by a court in any part of the United Kingdom to be registered and also to be enforceable in the corresponding courts elsewhere in the United Kingdom, so that an order made by the Divorce Court under the powers conferred by the Bill will be capable of being registered and enforced in Scotland and also in Northern Ireland. Under the Maintenance Orders Bill, which, as I have said, is now before Parliament, maintenance orders made by the Divorce Court will be registrable and enforceable in magistrates' courts, and the Amendment will extend this situation to orders relating to financial provision for children under the present Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 16, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Ogmore.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
  LORD OGMORE: This Amendment is consequential on the new clause, which will enable orders made under any legislation corresponding to the present Bill which may be passed by the Parliament of Northern Ireland to be registered under the Maintenance Orders Act, 1950,
  580
  which makes reciprocal provision for the enforcement of maintenance orders throughout the United Kingdom. It is therefore necessary to provide, as this Amendment does, that the Bill should apply to Northern Ireland so far as it affects registration under the Act of 1950. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 10, line 6, after ("Act") insert ("(except so far as it affects Part II of the Maintenance Orders Act, 1950)").—(Lord Ogmore.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.

  SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL
  4.20 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair]
  Clause 1:
  Licensing of slaughterhouses—general
  1.—(1) Section sixty-Four of the principal Act (which provides that except with the consent of the Minister a slaughterhouse licence shall not be granted or renewed in respect of any premises not previously used as a slaughterhouse) is hereby repealed.
  LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved to omit subsection (1). The noble Lord said: It has been suggested to me that my first Amendment is of the nature of a wrecking Amendment. I wish at once to deny this: it is nothing of the kind, as I hope to show your Lordships in a moment. It is, however, the fact, which all of us who have been interested in this Bill will have had good cause to observe, that it is an exceedingly complicated Bill. I therefore venture, in order to explain exactly what it is intended to do by this Amendment, to read to your Lordships an extract from Section 64 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, which it is proposed under this Bill to repeal but which I

  581
  suggest should not be repealed. Section 64 of that Act provides:
  "Notwithstanding anything in this Part of this Act no slaughterhouse licence shall, except with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as 'the Minister'), be granted or renewed by a local authority unless the premises in respect of which the application for the grant or renewal is made have previously been used as a slaughterhouse under the authority of a licence under this Part of this Act, or, not having been so used,

  (a) were, at any time When the Food and Drugs Act, 1938, was in force, used as a slaughterhouse under the authority of a licence under section fifty-seven of that Act, or

  (b) were, at any time during the period of five years immediately preceding the commencement of that Act, in use as a slaughterhouse and registered or licensed as such under any enactment repealed by that Act."

  To take the repeal of that section from this Bill does not seem to me, and certainly I do not intend it to be, a wrecking Amendment. There is good in this Bill, though not so much as I could have wished to find.
  On the other hand, this particular Amendment deals with what I believe to be possibly the only really objectionable feature of this Bill. Your Lordships will conclude, from the fact that I have other Amendments on the Paper, that I have other criticisms of the Bill; but they are, I think, almost entirely criticisms of sins of omission and not of sins of commission. In effect, this particular subsection which I seek to delete is the subsection under which this curious free-for-all period will operate. On Second Reading, I ventured to criticise this period, and on further inspection of the Bill I find no reason to withdraw that criticism. On the contrary, I believe the period to be wholly bad, and I cannot help thinking that Her Majesty's Government have included this provision owing to a misunderstanding of the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee.
  In defence of this appeal Her Majesty's Government have called in aid the White Paper on Slaughterhouses, paragraphs 5 and 6, which I will read in abbreviated form, though I do not think I shall alter the sense.
  "In the light of the position which developed after decontrol, the Committee recommended a fresh approach to the problem. It concluded that, having regard to the developments which had taken place in the marketing of fatstock
  582
  …it was no longer advisable to aim at a moderate concentration of slaughterhouses by means of central planning.
  "The Committee considered that the main purpose of concentration, namely, to ensure that slaughterhouses conform to standards which meet the requirements of public health and hygiene and that consumers can be satisfied that they get clean meat, could be achieved in England and Wales by more flexible arrangements. It recommended that for a limited period, and subject to the normal town-planning requirements and to the premises conforming to prescribed statutory standards, private traders should be free to provide slaughterhouses of the design and size and in the places that best suited the needs of their individual businesses. After this period a measure of control should be reimposed."
  I find myself profoundly puzzled by these two paragraphs. They seem to me to have singularly little connection with one another, and I am unable to understand why the original proposition should have been followed by the proposal for this "free-for all" period.
  I think I have discovered the explanation, which appears—and I did not read it out to your Lordships—at the beginning of paragraph 5, where it says:
  "In June, 1954, before the Committee had completed its investigation, Government control over the marketing and slaughtering of home produced livestock came to an end."
  I can only suppose that the reason for this suggestion was that the Committee, in view of the decontrol of meat supplies of this country, concluded that a rapid increase in slaughterhouse accommodation would be needed. But, of course, that was four years ago. During those four years. something like 4,000 slaughterhouses have, in fact, been opened in this country. Unless it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to return to the unmitigated chaos of 12,000 slaughterhouses which we had before the war, surely it is no longer a reasonable policy to encourage by all means in one's power, in a general sense, unplanned building and construction of slaughterhouses; and, moreover, slaughterhouses to which it is to be inferred, from the wording of the White Paper, that the proposed new standards will not be wholly applicable. The words used in the White Paper:
  "the design and size and in the places that best suited the needs of their individual businesses"
  seem to me to be almost contradictory to the previous phrase
  "subject … to the premises conforming to prescribed statutory standards …"

  583
  Those two phrases seem to me to be inconsistent, and they certainly suggest (indeed, it is a suggestion which has already been acted upon, as we all know, in various parts of the country) that there will be singularly little control of slaughterhouses in any way whatever.
  It is suggested—Her Majesty's Government suggested it in another place—that this will be the function of the planning authorities. That may be so. These planning authorities have always existed, but I think some of us may be excused if we regard their activities with something less than enthusiasm or, at any rate, with something less than confidence. We have all had some experience of exactly the kind of thing that we may expect. Two of my own neighbours recently found themselves so extremely embarrassed by a new slaughterhouse that had been opened in their own village that they bought up the slaughterhouse and closed it down. They were in a financial position which made that possible, but one would like to know how it came about that planning authority for that slaughterhouse, which made the neighbourhood so completely intolerable—and neither of my neighbours' houses actually adjoined the slaughterhouse; they were on opposite sides of the village in which the slaughterhouse was set up—came to be given. If that can happen, as it did in that case, I think we may all be excused if we do not view with much enthusiasm the prospect of having no one on the planning authority to protect us against the indiscriminate setting up of slaughterhouses.
  But above all I believe that the major defect of this Bill is just this "free-for-all" period which it suggests. I cannot myself find any good reason or excuse for this policy, and, as I said before, I am bound to believe either that Her Majesty's Government are giving a display of doctrinism and a demonstration of their profound faith in the perfection of unrestricted free enterprise, or else they are, as I have suggested, mistaken in what the Interdepartmental Committee desired when it made this particular recommendation. I am convinced that this period is a profound error on the part of Her Majesty's Government. It is, as I say, the major blot on this Bill which, though it may not come up to the standards which we should like
  584
  or up to the hopes that many of us have from a Slaughterhouses Bill, none the less does not contain many other actively objectionable clauses. Therefore I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government, if they are not prepared to consider this particular Amendment or something like it, at least will give us some explanation for this, as it seems to me, quite irrational, thoroughly ill-advised and, from the point of view of the public, possibly extremely dangerous provision. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 6, leave out subsection (1).— (Lord Faringdon.)
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, does not like this subsection. I do not quite follow his dismay about what he feels is our misinterpretation of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Interdepartmental Committee's Report. Frankly, I feel that we are interpreting those two paragraphs correctly, and I believe that the interpretation which he would like to put on them cannot really be read into them. This Amendment would mean that the granting of any new licence or the extension of any existing ones would at all times have to be subject to the approval of the Minister. That is, frankly, quite contrary to what the Government have declared as their policy in this matter. We have said that we support the Interdepartmental Committee and we feel that there should be this period of freedom—a limited period, mind you—during which new slaughterhouses can be built and old ones brought up to new standards; and in spite of what the noble Lord has said about planning consent, I feel that that is one of the three important safeguards. The second is that the premises should conform to the provisions of Clause 5 of this Bill: namely, that the slaughter hall does not form part of a building another part of which is or can be used as a dwelling. That relates to new construction. And the third is that the premises conform to the new standards of hygiene and with the prevention of cruelty to animals.
  The Government's view is that the principal aims of the slaughterhouse policy, namely, the slaughtering of livestock under hygienic and humane conditions, can best be achieved by prescribing statutory minimum standards and by

  585
  measures that will ensure that those are reached in the shortest possible time. This, we feel, will best be done by enabling the private traders for a limited period to be free to build their slaughterhouses in the places best suited to their needs for their particular businesses. The limited period—it is pretty limited—begins with the passing of the Act and ends with the submission by the local authority of its report on the slaughterhouse facilities in its district. We firmly believe that this is the right approach, and I regret I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
  LORD FARINGD0N: The noble Earl would not like to tell me why he is so certain that this is such a good idea? He has not done so.
  EARL, ST. ALDWYN: The pattern of the meat trade has changed considerably since decontrol, as the noble Lord is aware. There has been creation of various new forms of trading and it seems only right that traders should be given the chance to set up slaughterhouses where it suits them best, where there may be considerable concentration of stock within easy reach of which they would like to have their slaughterhouses, the products of which may not be consumed locally at all; they may all be exported to other areas. But the local authority might feel that there were sufficient slaughterhouses for their particular interest already there. That is the main reason.
  LORD FARINGDON: Would the Minister be likely, when it was referred to him, as it can be at present, to turn down such suggestions?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: Frankly I do not see what is to be gained by bringing the Minister in at this stage.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My noble friend Lord Faringdon, in his introduction of this Amendment, drew the Committee's attention to a particular slaughterhouse that was opened in his friend's village, and he asked whether the noble Earl could give us some information on the powers of the planning committees to prevent this nuisance. I had it down in my notes to ask the noble Earl whether there was any provision in this Bill or in any other legislation giving the public and the community the right to protest if a slaughterhouse was reopened or
  586
  buildings were converted into a slaughterhouse. I ask this specifically, because some days ago I was listening to the debate on the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill and I noticed on one or two occasions that the noble Viscount who sits on the Woolsack was more or less asking the noble Lord, Lord Denning, whether the people had a particular right. If the noble Viscount has doubts on that matter, how does the general public know what its rights are? Could the noble Earl tell us whether the public have a right to protest and object to the opening of slaughterhouses in their vicinity?
  The noble Earl in his speech has based his case on freedom. I should like to quote a speech that was made in 1954 by his noble friend Lord Tenby on the Second Reading of the Slaughterhouse Bill in another place. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 526, col. 1636]:
  "However, at this stage—and this is very important—we do not regard it as desirable that either local authorities or private interests should build new slaughterhouses which might conflict with the long-term siting plan which is now being prepared."
  These are the important words:
  "We have to take care we do not reproduce in a different and in a more costly form the unorganised pattern of the pre-war years."
  On the Second Reading of this Bill my noble friend Lord Faringdon gave us a very clear picture of the deplorable conditions that existed before the war. Then there were 12,000 slaughterhouses, and we all know, from our own reading, of the very poor standards of hygiene. We also know that the 4,000 slaughterhouses we have now are still in poor condition. Does the noble Earl really believe that, during this period of "free-for-all", private capital is going to be put into slaughterhouses without any protection? Will private capital be put into a slaughterhouse with the possibility that, in the next street, another slaughterhouse will be put up by a competitor? I understand that the cost of improving slaughterhouses is quite considerable. We live in times of dear money and a shortage of money. Does the noble Earl really believe that private capital is going to be put into this industry without any form of protection? My own feeling is that it will not.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: On that last point I agree, in that I do not think any business will put up a slaughterhouse

  587
  unless those concerned are reasonably certain that others, and particularly their competitors, are not putting up one next door. There is this limited period in which they say what they want to do, and they can, if they wish, start; but they need not start until the end of the period.
  LORD SHEPHERD: In other words, the noble Earl is suggesting that there is going to be a standstill period?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: No; I am not suggesting anything of the sort. In most cases there will probably not be any question of another slaughterhouse going up. The types of body which I think we all have in mind are not on such a "cut-throat" basis that they will not have consultation with each other. I think they will, and I believe the noble Lord would agree with that. He quoted from a speech made by my noble friend Lord Tenby, when he was in another place. As I have explained before, and as has been explained in another place, the Government changed their mind and said quite clearly that they had changed their mind. The speech to which the noble Lord is referring was made before, not after, the Government changed their mind, as again the noble Lord is fully aware. He also asked me what protection there was for the individual citizen who objected. I agree that there is no direct appeal to the Minister, but the local citizen has his representatives on the local planning authority and he can make representations through them in the ordinary way.
  4.43 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: I want to intervene only on the point of the protection of the ordinary citizen. We all agree, I think, that a slaughterhouse, although it may be very necessary, is not a desirable place to have next door to your residence. I do not suppose, in the large majority of cases, that a local planning authority would permit a slaughterhouse to be put up in a residential area. But there are exceptions, and my noble friend has given one. The difficulty is that an application is made to the local planning authority for consent to the putting up of a slaughterhouse, and the ordinary citizen who may be affected knows nothing at all about it. There is no obligation on
  588
  anybody to give notice to anyone other than the local authority that this application is being made, and the application could be granted without anybody knowing anything at all about it. It is true that at the next election the citizen could turn out the authority or the particular member who had been misrepresenting him in that respect; but that is very cold comfort for what might amount to a serious depreciation in the value of his property.
  I am sure the noble Earl will agree that to have a slaughterhouse quite close to your property would not by any means add to its value, and a citizen would have no redress. It is for that reason that it is desirable that a licence from the Minister should be required, or that he should be notified of the proposed setting up of a slaughterhouse. That is a protection; but that protection is being taken away by the first clause of this Bill. I would not be particular as to whether the protection to the individual was given in the form of requiring notice to be given to the Minister or in some other way. If I could be certain that there was an obligation on the local authority, or on the applicant who applies for permission to build a slaughterhouse, to give notice of the application, so that any person affected could take the necessary action and could ask for a public inquiry to be held, I should be perfectly satisfied. But that would require amendment of the Bill, and there is no Amendment of that kind before us. I would ask the noble Earl to give careful consideration to this dilemma: that it could happen—I admit in a limited number of cases—that a slaughterhouse might go up in a part of the town or village where it would be most undesirable and without the people affected knowing anything at all about it until it was too late. If only there could be introduced some machinery by which the person affected could be informed in good time, so that he could take action, I think that would meet the case that my noble friend has in mind in moving his Amendment.
  VISCOUNT MARGESSON: I have been much impressed by the debate to which we have listened this afternoon on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, and particularly by the contribution now given to the Committee by Lord Silkin. I would ask the Minister

  589
  to reconsider this point. I am not familiar with the contents of the Bill, but it seems to me, having spent many years in village life, that the possibility that, without any knowledge of the matter, one might suddenly find that a slaughterhouse had been agreed to; that it was "dumped" in a particular neighbourhood, and that one might be told "It is too late; it has all been agreed," is worthy of consideration. I would ask the Minister whether, in some form, such as an advertisement in the paper, notice could be given to let the people know what is proposed. If they have no objection, all right, go ahead. But it is not right that a slaughterhouse should be erected without the people concerned being fully aware of what is happening. It is not only a question of the erection of a slaughterhouse—that may or may not be desirable; it is a question of the animals being driven in, of children seeing this, and all the rest of it. I feel that it is a point that the Minister should reconsider before we are asked to defeat this Amendment.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I am impressed by what noble Lords have said on this matter. There is protection to this extent: that the local authority, when putting in its report on the slaughterhouse facilities, will include in it any proposals for new slaughterhouses; and that report, of course, will be open for public inspection. But I am not sure that that goes quite so far as the noble Lord would like. Without committing myself in any way, I will certainly look at this point again to see whether there are some means of ensuring that the public have the information which the noble Lord requires.
  LORD FARINGDON: I am grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said and to other noble Lords for their support. I think we have an important point here, and I hope that the Minister may, by some means, be able to meet us. I can see that there may be considerable drafting difficulties, but all the resources of the Department are at his disposal and I am sure that they are well able to meet even the most difficult problems. The noble Earl has still not told me why it is so important to have this "free-for-all" period. During that period he does not want matters referred to the Ministry —and incidentally, the period is to be at least two years, which is not quite
  590
  nothing: yet as soon as local authorities have their reports in, everything will be referred to the Minister. Why is it that during the first two years the Minister wants to be quit of any responsibility, or that Her Majesty's Government desire he should not be consulted? I still can find no reason whatever in anything that has been said by way of reply. I remain puzzled.
  I made a suggestion as to what might have happened. The noble Earl repudiated that, and was certain that he had read correctly the Report of the Interdepartmental Committee; but I am still left in a state of puzzlement. If the noble Earl will look into the matter, at any rate so far as the planning side is concerned, by leave of the House I will withdraw my Amendment now, but on the understanding that, failing some Amendment being put forward by Her Majesty's Government, I shall raise the matter again on the Report stage.
  VISCOUNT MARGESSON: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, may I say this: the noble Lord has said he hoped that the Minister "may" find a way out of this difficulty. I would put it a little stronger and say I am sure that the Minister will find a way out of the difficulty, because the House feels very strongly upon this point.
  LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Viscount and, accept his amendment.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I should like to correct an impression which I may have given. When the report of the local authority goes to the Minister it will include details of slaughterhouses, so that the public will have access to those details. I did not make it clear that at the same time the local authority must publish the details in one or more newspapers, so that at that stage they would be available.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.53 p.m.
  LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved to add to the clause:
  "(6) A slaughterhouse licence shall not be granted or renewed under this section or at all in respect of any premises adjoining or forming part of a building used as a dwelling."
  The noble Lord said: This is so obviously desirable that I do not think I need take up much of your Lordships' time

  591
  upon it. It is in line with a recommendation of the Interdepartmental Committee and it is a little difficult to see why Her Majesty's Government have not incorporated it in their Bill. I believe that nowhere amongst those who are interested in this subject are there any two opinions as to the undesirability of having slaughterhouses in, or attached to, dwelling-houses. It is an unfortunate fact that slaughterhouses tend to attract vermin, flies, insects and the like; and on that ground and on the ground that the processes which take place in slaughterhouses are extremely inconsistent with anything like reasonable living conditions, I believe it will be agreed by practically everybody that to have slaughterhouses in, or attached to, dwelling-houses is highly undesirable.
  That is the object of this Amendment. In another place, when resisting a similar Amendment Her Majesty's Government gave as their excuse that to close down at once all these slaughterhouses, which are admittedly of a highly undesirable character, would prejudice the supplies of meat in this country. I would ask the noble Earl when he replies for Her Majesty's Government, if it is his intention to resist this Amendment, whether he can give me any estimate of how much meat is treated in the type of slaughterhouse whose closing I propose in this Amendment. I know that there has been a substantial increase in the consumption of meat in the last four years—of that we are all fully aware, and glad of it. But, clearly, only a certain percentage of that meat is treated in these highly undesirable places. Even if it were a very considerable percentage, I should still consider the conditions so undesirable, so dangerous to the health of those who work in the slaughterhouses and also to public health owing to the probable or possible (I would say probable rather than possible) contamination of meat supplied from those places, that those places should not be permitted. That being so, I believe this is such an undesirable practice, one prohibited in almost all civilised countries, that, even though the proportion of meat affected may be substantial, I press upon Her Majesty's Government the desirability of closing these slaughterhouses immediately, even at the cost of
  592
  a little temporary inconvenience I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 46, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Faringdon.)
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I fully appreciate the reasons which have led the noble Lord to move this Amendment, but I hope that when I have given the reasons of Her Majesty's Government for not accepting it he will appreciate that we have a strong case. This Amendment goes a great deal further than Clause 5 of the Bill which deals with the same subject. If the Amendment were accepted, a slaughterhouse licence could not be issued or renewed for any premises either adjoining or forming part of a dwelling. Let us consider what this would mean in practice. If a person built a dwelling adjoining slaughterhouse premises, the local authority would not be empowered to renew that licence when the current licence expired—and no licence can run for more than thirteen months. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, laughs, but this is quite a serious matter.
  LORD SILKIN: Has the noble Earl considered the fact that one cannot build a house without getting the approval of the local authority, and that the local authority would hardly give approval to the building of a house on top of a slaughterhouse?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: It is with some regret that I must tell the noble Lord that, in fact, that has happened. It happened in Cornwall not very long ago, and something similar is happening in the North at the moment. This is not hypothetical; it is based on fact. Under those conditions it would mean that the occupier of a slaughterhouse would have to control all adjoining property in order that he could ensure that none of it would be used for dwelling purposes.
  My right honourable friend, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has looked very carefully into this question and considered how far it is reasonable and practicable to require that dwellings should be separated from slaughterhouses. He did consider the possibility of including in what is now Clause 5 a provision similar to that put forward in the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord; but this is not a practical proposition. In the first place,

  593
  it would mean that many existing slaughterhouses would have to be closed. Secondly, it would mean that whenever someone wanted to erect a new, modern slaughterhouse he would have to get control of all the adjoining property. That is not a practical way of improving slaughterhouse standards, and I think the noble Lord would agree that it would put an unreasonable burden on private traders. The noble Lord asked whether I could tell him the amount of meat that went through slaughterhouses which might be closed if this Amendment were passed. I am afraid that, at short notice, I cannot give him the facts, but I will let him have them later on. I must ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.
  LORD FARINGDON: The noble Earl has made a reply on the position, but not an extremely convincing one. I looked again at the wording of my Amendment and all it says is:
  "… in respect of any premises adjoining or forming part …"
  It is perfectly true, I suppose, that the word "adjoining" is dubious. It might extend, as the noble Earl suggested, to a house built fairly close to a slaughterhouse. However, it would be the simplest matter in the world to find a form of words which would cover that point. In any case I should be prepared to drop "adjoining or" from the Amendment; What I am really desirous of doing is closing down immediately all slaughterhouses which are in fact attached to or actually situated in a dwelling-house. That, I am convinced, is the least that any country which presumes to have, I would not go so far as to say a modern slaughterhouse policy, but even a decent slaughterhouse policy, could and should do.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7:
  Safety, health and welfare of persons employed in slaughterhouses and knackers' yards
  7. In subsection (1) of section one hundred and fifty-one of the Factories Act, 1937 (which relates to the interpretation of the expression "factory" for the purposes of that Act), at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words "or
  (d) the slaughtering of cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, asses or mules".
  5.3 p.m.
  LORD FARINGDON: I beg formally to move this Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 43, at the end, insert ("and for the purposes of this section slaughtering should include the confinement at slaughterhouses of such animals awaiting slaughter and the keeping or subjecting to any treatment or process products of the slaughtering of such animals".—(Lord Faringdon.)
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: With the permission of the House, I will speak to this Amendment and also to the next one standing in my name. The Amendment which the noble Lord has just moved seeks to ensure that Clause 7 brings within the scope of the Factories Acts, 1937 and 1948, two kinds of premises which are ancillary to slaughtering. I will, if I may, deal with the second kind of premises mentioned in his Amendment. These are premises where the products of slaughtering are subject to treatment or processing. This provision is not necessary because such premises come under the Factories Acts already by virtue of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) of Section 151 of the Factories Act, 1937. These paragraphs bring within these Acts premises where articles are made, altered or adapted for sale. And already premises where bacon or sausages are prepared, where tripe is boiled, or at which similar operations are carried on, are within the scope of the Factories Acts. These words in the noble Lord's Amendment are therefore not necessary.
  The other premises dealt with by the noble Lord's Amendment are the premises where animals are confined while awaiting slaughter; premises usually known as lair-ages. Here I would urge on the noble Lord not to press this part of his Amendment, for two reasons. In the first place it refers to the confinement of animals "at slaughterhouses". The difficulty here is that it has been suggested in another place that if a door is put between the lairage and the slaughterhouse then the lairage may come to be regarded as separate premises for rating purposes and could be regarded as separate for the purposes of the Factories Acts. But I fear that the noble Lord's Amendment may fail to bring the lairages within the Factories Act, just as Clause 7 may fail, as it is at present worded, on the grounds that the lairage premises are not "at" the

  595
  slaughterhouse but, though adjoining, are still separate premises.
  When Clause 7 was being prepared it was thought that the clause would satisfactorily apply the Factories Acts to lair-ages, because they usually form part of the same premises as the slaughterhouse; and a slaughterhouse is defined for the purposes of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, as including the lairage. But a slaughterhouse is not defined for the purposes of the Factories Acts, and it is not certain that Clause 7, as it stands in the Bill, means that lairages which are not attached to slaughterhouses will be brought within the scope of the Factories Acts. I have therefore put down the Amendment that stands in my name to make it clear that lairages which are used particularly for confining animals awaiting slaughter shall come within the scope of the Factories Acts. That Amendment will bring within the Factories Acts lair-ages which adjoin a slaughterhouse and detached lairage buildings, possibly across the road, where animals are confined before slaughter.
  There are, however, some premises which may at times be used as a lairage and to which by their nature it would be unreasonable, and possibly even impracticable, to apply the Factories Acts. Such premises are agricultural land and premises used for holding a market; and the Amendment provides that the Factories Acts shall not apply to them. It does not seem necessary to bring markets within the scope of the Factories Acts, because the workers who attend the cattle there do so for only short periods. They go there just to feed and water the stock and to see that they are properly confined. These workers can use the sanitary and washing facilities at the slaughterhouse unless, as may be the case, the public facilities at the market are handier. And as the market premises have to be cleaned, the provisions made by or under the Factories Acts are not in fact necessary. As to agricultural lands, again the slaughterhouse workers would be going there only occasionally, just to feed and water the animals, and it does not seem necessary to have those included either.
  LORD FARINGDON: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. With that explanation, and having read his next Amendment on the list, and
  596
  thanking him very much indeed for meeting my point, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 13, line 43, at end insert "or
  (e) the confinement of such animals as aforesaid while awaiting slaughter at other premises, in a case where the place of confinement is available in connection with those other premises, is not maintained primarily for agricultural purposes within the meaning of the Agriculture Act, 1947, or, as the case may be, the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, and does not form part of premises used for the holding of a market in respect of such animals."—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8:
  Amendment of Slaughter of Animals Acts, 1933 to 1954
  8.—(1) For so much of subsection (1) of section one of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, as precedes the proviso to that subsection there shall he substituted the following—
  "No animal to which this Act applies shall, in a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard, be slaughtered otherwise than instantaneously by means of a mechanically-operated instrument in proper repair unless—

  (a) by stunning effected by means of a mechanically-operated instrument or an instrument for stunning by means of electricity, being in either case an instrument in proper repair, it is instantaneously rendered insensible to pain until death supervenes; or

  5.10 p.m.
  LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, in subsection (1) (a), after "instrument" where that word occurs a third time, to insert "of a design approved by the Minister and". The noble Lord said: I shall not detain your Lordships long on this Amendment, because it deals with a point that I raised on Second Reading. The noble Earl gave me an answer then, and I have put down the Amendment in the hope that he might have reconsidered the matter. If the Ministry gave a certificate of suitability to equipment and implements, it would be for the convenience both of manufacturers and slaughterers. I have read carefully the debates in another place, and the answers given there, and I do not follow the objection which Her Majesty's Government seem to have to this proposal. May

  597
  I remind the noble Earl that this type of approval is not peculiar or unusual? In other connections other Ministers approve certain apparatus, implements and equipment, and inform the general public that they have had these instruments tested and approve of them. This in no way sets up any kind of monopoly. Anybody else is perfectly at liberty to produce another instrument to do the same work, and to submit it to the Ministry for testing and approval. I urge on the noble Earl the convenience to all concerned, both on the supply and on the consuming sides, of having ministerial approval. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 14, line 11, after "instrument" insert "of a design approved by the Minister and".—(Lord Faringdon.)
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: The Slaughter of Animals Acts require that stunning instruments must be either mechanically operated or electrical, and the Minister is advised that powers already exist in these Acts which would enable him to require that only instruments of an approved design should be used by slaughtermen. Moreover, the Slaughter of Animals (Prevention of Cruelty) Regulations lay down that every person shall use such instruments for slaughtering any animal and adopt such methods of slaughter as may be requisite to secure that as little pain and suffering as possible is inflicted. It is also an offence against the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, to indict any unnecessary suffering on an animal.
  It is not worth a slaughterman's while to use had instruments and risk severe penalties when good ones are on the market. It is not worth the butcher's while to allow him to do so. Nor are we justified in assuming that these people are unconcerned for the feelings of the animals. Therefore I think that the risk of had instruments coming into use is very small. I assure your Lordships that officers of my Department, who have powers of entry to slaughterhouses to see whether the Regulations about cruelty to animals are complied with, take note of the instruments being used, and the humane societies are also extremely vigilant in this matter. On Second Reading, when the noble Lord raised this point, he said he did not think it an adequate answer to argue that there would be risk of creating a monopoly. I have shown
  598
  that there are other arguments—and I feel strong ones—against the control he would have the Minister impose. As I have said, the Minister has the power to make these regulations if at any time he feels that they are necessary; but frankly at the moment he does not feel that they are required.
  LORD FARINGDON: I am considerably consoled by the noble Earl's reply, particularly by the first part of it. I had not realised that the Minister already has power to do exactly what I want him to do. On the understanding that he would exercise this power I will withdraw my Amendment, but I should like to point out that, whilst one naturally assumes (and I think rightly) that the most humane and efficient instruments will be used by slaughterers, nevertheless it could happen that an extremely persuasive salesman might sell an inferior instrument to a slaughterer, who might then find that he had a considerable amount of money invested in it and would therefore continue to use it. That is a possible occurrence, and I still remain of the opinion that if the Minister has power to say which instruments he approves, he should do so. But since he has the power I desire to give him, I will, by leave of the House, withdraw my Amendment.
  LORD DOWDING: May I say a word before the Amendment is withdrawn? One of the reasons which the noble Earl gave for resisting this Amendment was that the humane societies were very vigilant in this matter. I just want to make the point that no outside society has the right of access to slaughterhouses. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has permission unofficially to enter and inspect slaughterhouses, but it has no legal right to do so. It seems to me that, with the well-known difficulties of finding sufficient inspectors to see that all is well in the steadily growing number of slaughterhouses, it may well be that a thoroughly unsatisfactory instrument may continue in use for some time before the fact is detected by inspectors.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: Frankly, I cannot agree with the noble Lord that there is that risk. If I thought that there was that risk, and if my right honourable friend the Minister thought so, I feel fairly confident that he would consider

  599
  making regulations; but until we have reason for thinking that that is likely to happen, I could not suggest that we should make them.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Like my noble friend Lord Faringdon, I feel much reassured, in the main, by the answer given by the noble Earl. But if the existing Statutes governing the slaughter of animals give this power, and if the practice is to have approved weapons, would it not be possible for the Minister to have ready for publicity a list of the instruments that have been approved?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: Perhaps the noble Viscount misunderstood me. The Minister has power to make these regulations, but he has not made them. To the best of my knowledge, we have never been approached by manufacturers to give approval; but if we were, we should certainly consider it.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: The farmers I meet, like myself, have animals that become familiar friends. They respond to their names and come up the field when called. They are real friends, and sometimes, though they do not go to market, they have to be disposed of to the ordinary knacker. Farmers like to feel that an animal which has been a friend is humanely treated, and I should have thought that if there was an approved list, made under existing regulations, of instruments known to the Ministry to satisfy their requirements, that would be of great guidance to the practice of slaughtering.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: If the noble Viscount could produce evidence for me of instruments being used which have not been in use for a considerable time by everybody concerned, I would certainly look into the matter, but to the best of my knowledge only standard implements are being used in any slaughterhouse or knacker's yard.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  5.20 p.m.
  LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved after Clause 8 to insert the following new clause:
  Prohibition of slaughtering on Sundays
  ". Every slaughterhouse shall be closed for the purpose of slaughtering on Sunday save
  600
  as the Minister may by regulation otherwise provide, and any person who contravenes the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both."
  The noble Lord said: I attach a great deal of importance to this Amendment. It is supported by the Public Health Inspectors' Association, who point out that it is practically impossible to maintain decent standards of cleanliness in premises that are in continuous use throughout the week. They maintain —and I think it is almost certainly true—that, however much you may clean out a place immediately after it has been used, unless you give it a period of quiescence you do not allow baccilli to work in the way they should do. Continuous use, in fact, however cleanly and careful your methods may be, mitigates against the efficacy of the methods you are taking. Sunday killing has been abolished in certain places in England. I would ask the noble Earl, if he is going to resist this Amendment, to tell me two things: first of all, whether it is not a fact that he has received representations from the Public Health Inspectors' Association; and secondly, whether he has received any complaints of the fact that in certain places the slaughterhouses are not operated on Sundays.
  I strongly urge on the Government the desirability of accepting this Amendment. Noble Lords will notice that there is, as it were, an escape phrase in the Amendment which says:
  "save as the Minister may by regulation otherwise provide".
  It has been claimed that Sunday slaughtering is essential in certain country areas because the butchers have not refrigeration conveniences in their shops so that meat may not be available for the housewife on a Monday, after the week-end. I feel that by this time such refrigeration ought to be standard equipment in all butchers' shops. Electricity is almost universally accessible in this country now, so I do not think the objection I have mentioned is a great one. However, if it were, there is in my Amendment the escape clause by which the Minister can make regulations to cover this particular difficulty. I hope that Her Majesty's Government may see fit to accept this, as I believe, most

  601
  important Amendment from the point of view of public health. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 8, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Faringdon.)
  LORD BURDEN: I should like to say a word or two, on behalf of the local authorities, in support of this Amendment which has been so ably moved by my noble friend. Does the noble Earl recognise that in many instances a seven-day week is being imposed for some employees, and that it has to be paid for by the local authorities? Then I would ask him to bear in mind that there is a shortage of public health inspectors, as was shown in the Report in regard to the profession some time ago; in fact, the shortage was such that I remember that from the other side it was proposed that butchers should be employed to do the job, and we on this side protested. These men conscientiously endeavour to carry out their duties to the public and to their local authority. I hope that, taking into account these factors and those put forward by my noble friend, the noble Earl will at least give reconsideration to the matter, even if he cannot accept the Amendment to-day.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I would, first of all, tell the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, that he is quite right in thinking that the Public Health Inspectors' Association have made representations. Powers already exist which would enable Sunday slaughtering to be restricted if it should be found that this is desirable for the purpose of securing that all meat is inspected. These powers are in paragraphs (a) and (f) of Section 13 (2) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. In addition, Clause 9 of this Bill would enable any regulations which were made for this purpose to be applied to different areas at different dates, if it were thought desirable.
  The effect of this Amendment would be to prohibit, as soon as this Bill is passed, the use of slaughterhouses for killing animals on Sunday, save as the Minister may by regulation provide. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture feels that, even if he believed that this was essential, such a requirement could not be imposed without proper consultation with the interested organisations, and this Amendment would not afford the time needed for such consultation. But under the existing powers there would
  602
  be time for such consultation, and I feel that your Lordships will agree that this is the proper way to approach the matter.
  We are all concerned that these slaughterhouses should be conducted in the best possible way. The amount of Sunday slaughtering obviously varies between one part of the country and another. Frankly, we have no information that there are any largish areas where at the moment it would be practicable to prohibit Sunday slaughtering. As I said, my right honourable friend is concerned about the matter, and he does wish to have these consultations with the organisations primarily concerned.
  LORD BURDEN: Will he convene a conference of the interested organisations?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I can say that recently the Department have held discussions with twenty-two interested organisations on matters that might be adopted to secure 100 per cent. meat inspection, which does nearly meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Burden. I cannot commit my right honourable friend at this moment to call a conference of the sort the noble Lord envisages, but I can assure the noble Lord that he has this point very much in mind.
  LORD FARINGDON: Perhaps I might ask the noble Earl a question, because I am not quite clear about this matter. While he has been speaking I have been re-reading Clause 9, under which, I understand, he claims that the Minister can by regulation introduce any such policy as I suggest within any such areas as he may consider suitable.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: It is under Clause 9 (2).
  LORD FARINGDON: I thought that must be so. That is, of course, some consolation to me. On the other hand, I wonder whether the noble Earl is aware that a number of local authorities have wished to give themselves this power to close slaughterhouses on Sundays, and that they have been informed by his Ministry that it considered that this was a matter for general legislation and not for Private Bill legislation. To some of us, at any rate, it seems that this Bill would be a good place in which to make this legislation, which is now considerably overdue. Will the noble Earl press

  603
  upon his Minister the desirability of operating under Clause 9 (2) at the earliest possible moment? On that understanding, I should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I will certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to what the noble Lord has said.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.
  5.31 p.m.
  LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved, after Clause 10 to insert the following new clause:
  Meat inspection in slaughterhouses
  ". The Minister shall make regulations which shall make provision for securing—

  (a) the inspection of all animals intended for slaughter for sale for human consumption, and

  (b) of all carcases of animals so slaughtered and no meat shall be sold for human consumption unless there has been such inspection:

  Provided that where by reason of accidental injury illness or exposure to infection it is necessary that an animal shall be slaughtered without delay and notice is given to the local authority as soon as is reasonably possible, whether before or after the slaughtering takes place, the said animal but not the carcase thereof shall be deemed to have been inspected."
  The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment with whose object I imagine everybody in the House will be in sympathy. I do appreciate, however, that it may not be immediately feasible—that is to say, as my noble friend Lord Burden mentioned a moment ago, we all know that the supply of inspectors is sadly deficient, and it might be impossible immediately to make this Amendment operative. However, I was rather consoled by the remarks of the noble Earl about the consultations which appear to have been going on in his Ministry on exactly this subject of 100 per cent. inspection. I wonder if I might ask the noble Earl whether he can give us any further details as to the point which those negotiations have reached, and also whether they are likely to eventuate in anything like the provisions which I have set down in this Amendment. I will not take up more of your Lordships' time. The Amendment is really the heart of the matter. What we all want, above all, is good, clean, humane, hygienic slaughterhouses, from which will emerge meat in which the
  604
  public can have complete confidence; and the public cannot have that confidence until they have 100 per cent. inspection both of the animals and of the carcases. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 10 insert the said new Clause.— (Lord Faringdon.)
  LORD SHEPHERD: I will detain the Committee for only two minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, has stressed the importance of the inspection of meat. I should like to stress the equal importance, when you inspect the meat, of inspecting the premises at the same time. I would refer the Minister to Command Paper No. 243, which was issued by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in August, 1957. Paragraph 8 says:
  "The rooms used for the preparation and storage of meat shall be constructed so as to prevent, as far as is reasonably practicable, any risk of infestation by rats, mice and insects and the entry of birds."
  I am not very happy about the words "as far as reasonably practicable." If it is the case that it is impossible to construct rooms for the preparation and storage of meat which are going to be completely free of rats and mice, I would say that it is essential, before meat is sent to the retailers, and particularly to factories which process the meat into pork sausages and meat pies, that the meat is inspected, and, at the same time, that the premises from which that meat is issued are also inspected to see that everything is free from any disease.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government appreciate the general concern there is that all meat should be inspected in our slaughterhouses as soon as possible. But we must not introduce statutory obligations on this point until we can be quite sure that they are in fact practicable. The amount of home-produced meat to be inspected has much increased during the past years, and qualified staff are not available at this moment to inspect all the animals and all the meat throughout England and Wales. Although at least 80 per cent. of the meat is inspected, the advance to 100 per cent. presents considerable administrative problems. I can assure your Lordships that we are tackling these with a sense of urgency, but it is, unfortunately, out of the question to prohibit immediately the sale of uninspected meat.

  605
  The Minister has power, jointly with the Minister of Health, to make regulations for securing the inspection of animals intended for slaughter, and also of the carcases of animals, under the Food and Drugs Act. Both those Ministers; have undertaken to Parliament that they will use those powers as soon as practicable. The consultations which have been going on have been with the object of sorting out what the obstacles are to 100 per cent. inspection and how we could possibly get over them. Those consultations are not completed yet, and I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Lord any more about it at the moment. All I can say is that we are extremely conscious of this problem and are anxious to see 100 per cent. inspection at the earliest opportunity. I am afraid I cannot go further than that.
  LORD FARINGDON: I appreciate the noble Earl's difficulty and, as I said when I moved the Amendment, I appreciate also the general difficulty, owing to lack of inspectors. I am wondering whether the noble Earl would be more likely to accept an Amendment if I could put some kind of temporal clause into it at the Report stage. I feel that the matter is important. The noble Earl has said, and I accept, that the Minister is very concerned about it, but I am not by any means happy about the 20 per cent. of uninspected meat. To start with, I should like the figures broken down to show to what extent live animals are inspected and to what extent carcases are inspected. Is it counted as an inspection if one or the other is inspected, for example? The reason I ask this question is that the figure is considerably higher than that. Whilst 20 per cent. is alarming enough, anything higher of course becomes increasingly alarming. I wonder whether it would be possible to place a firmer obligation on the Minister to fulfil this duty which lies with him. I will try to think of some means of meeting the time difficulty, and if I can I will move something on the Report stage. With your Lordships' permission, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I should like to give the noble Lord some encouragernent there, but, frankly, I cannot. We have all the powers that are necessary to do this and it is merely a question of pressing on and doing it as quickly as we reasonably can. We circularised all
  606
  the local authorities to ask them exactly how much of their meat they had inspected during 1957, and I can tell the noble Lord that the great majority replied that they were inspecting 100 per cent. To introduce actual legislation for this purpose when the powers already exist before we can say we can have 100 per cent. inspection everywhere, would be premature.
  LORD SHEPHERD: Is the shortage of inspectors due to a shortage of available trained people or shortage of finance or funds available to local authorities?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I believe that the shortage is due largely to lack of skilled personnel. Certainly I have not any figures as to how many applications there have been which have been withdrawn because of shortage of finance.
  LORD BURDEN: Would it be true that the shortage of finance applies to the people concerned in view of the long and technical course of training they have to undergo in order to qualify, and that the remuneration offered is not commensurate with that sacrifice? I do not ask the noble Earl to reply.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 11 to 15 agreed to.
  First Schedule agreed to.
  Second Schedule:
  MINOR AMENDMENTS OF SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1933 TO 1954
  The Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933 (22 & 24 Geo. 5. c. 39)
  1. In section three (Which prohibits the slaughter or stunning in a slaughterhouse or knacker's yard of animals as defined by the Act except by licensed slaughtermen)——

  (a) in subsection (1), for the words "No animal" there shall be substituted the words "'No animal to which this Act applies";

  (b) in subsection (5), after the word "operation" there shall be inserted the words "within their area"; and

  (c) subsection (8) shall be omitted.

  2. In section six (which empowers a local authority who have provided or established a slaughterhouse to employ persons to slaughter or stun animals as defined by the Act in accordance with the provisions thereof)—

  (a) for the word "animals" there shall be substituted the words "animals to which this Act applies";

  (b) without prejudice to subsection (1) of section seventy-three of the principal Act, the words from "arid" onwards (which empower the making of charges for the services of persons so employed) shall cease to have effect except in relation to the administrative county of London.

  5.42 p.m.
  LORD FARINGDON LORD FARINGDON moved to omit paragraph 2. The noble Lord said: This is a small technical point on which I hope Her Majesty's Government may be prepared to meet me. They have, in fact, half sold the pass in the Bill, because what I am asking is that the local authorities shall be permitted to continue as at present to make their charges under Section 6 of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, rather than Section 73 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955. At the moment they can make their charges under either of those two sections of those two Acts. In fact they operate usually under the Slaughter of Animals Act because it is much easier and much quicker for them. They may make reasonable charges for the services which they render. If, however, they operate under the procedure of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, Section 73, the procedure is much longer and they are obliged to consult the Minister. The reason why I suggest it is desirable that they should have this quicker procedure is that it is inevitable, at a time like the present, that there should be constant changes in labour costs, costs of electricity, costs of raw materials and so on, and it may well act as a considerable injustice to local authorities if they are unable to change their charges rapidly, in view of such rises, and may have to continue to operate at a loss because they are awaiting Ministerial consent.
  I say Her Majesty's Government have half sold the pass in this matter because in this Bill London is excluded from the Schedule's proposed regulations and can continue to operate under the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933. I hope the noble Earl will be able to tell me that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to allow other local authorities the same privileges as London. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 41, leave out paragraph 2.—(Lord Faringdon.)
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: The paragraph which the Amendment of the noble Lord proposes to leave out amends Section 6 of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, in two ways: first, by substituting for the word "animals" the words "animals to which this Act applies"; secondly, by repealing (except in relation to London) that part of the section which gives power
  608
  to local authorities to make charges for the services of persons employed by them to stun or slaughter animals in public slaughterhouses. The first is purely a drafting Amendment to bring the section into line with the rest of the Slaughter of Animals Acts when amended for consolidation. Animals to which the Act applies are described in paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to the Bill. There is no change in substance and I feel it is unlikely that the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, in moving the Amendment can have any objection to sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2.
  The reason for the second part of paragraph 2 (b) is that Section 73 (1) of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, gives comprehensive powers to local authorities to make charges for the use of public slaughterhouses or for any services provided there; this includes stunning or slaughtering animals. It is therefore unnecessary to continue the separate and limited power in the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, to charge merely for stunning or slaughtering. It is this limited power which is to be repealed except for London. The reason for the exception is that the general power under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, does not apply to London.
  Under Section 73 of the 1955 Act a local authority can revise any of their charges at any time and apply them without delay, subject only to a copy of the revised charges being sent to the Minister and published locally for the information of all concerned. There is no delay. The Minister's prior approval is not required, although he can, if he considers the revised charges unreasonable, direct the authorities to alter them. This procedure has worked smoothly. It enables the authority to revise its charges whenever it thinks it necessary, and at the same time it safeguards the interests of the users of public slaughterhouses by enabling them to make representations to the Minister if they consider the revised charges unreasonable. In practice very few representations have been made and the Minister has never found it necessary formally to direct alterations in charges. I feel that really the local authorities are better off under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, than under the 1933 Act.
  LORD FARINGDON: I thank the noble Earl very much for that reply. I think I owe him and the House an

  609
  apology, because I seem to have misread the Food and Drugs Act; but perhaps the House, in view of the rather complicated nature of this Bill, will excuse me. May I say that I am extremely satisfied with this one answer at least, and with pleasure I ask permission to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Second Schedule agreed to.
  House resumed.

  DISABLED PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT) BILL
  5.50 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BATHURST: My Lords, this is an enabling Bill. It enables my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour to carry out, so far as legislation is concerned, the recommendations that were laid before your Lordships in the Piercy Report. I know that your Lordships would wish me, at this stage to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Piercy and his Committee on the Report that they gave to my right honourable friends the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health. The Committee was set up in 1953 and in 1956 reported to my right honourable friends upon the rehabilitation, training and resettlement of disabled persons. That Report received acclaim from your Lordships' House and generally throughout the country.
  But legislation alone cannot help to solve the tragedy of the disabled person; what is needed is rather a united effort by every fit member of society to help to find a place for the disabled person. Again, at this stage I would wish to pay tribute to all who help disabled persons in any way. My right honourable friends and their staffs, at all levels in their Departments, the voluntary organisations, the officers and members and the staffs of those organisations, both ex-Service and civil, for both adults and children, all play a tremendous part in the resettlement of disabled people. Finally, let us not forget the relatives and friends, and the countless numbers of ordinary people who, in some way or another, help disabled persons, be it by their own efforts or by subscribing on a flag day to one of the organisations that I have men-
  610
  tioned. The noble Lord, Lord Piercy, and his Committee pay full due and appreciation to these bodies and these people, and describe their work in great detail in their Report.
  Clause 1 of this Bill enables industrial rehabilitation and training under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944, to be given to a boy or girl immediately upon leaving school on attaining the minimum school leaving age of fifteen. Previously those courses could be given to the boy or girl only at sixteen. In no way does it affect the school leaving age of a special school, the minimum age of which is left, as at present, at sixteen. Clause 2 (1) makes it a condition for registration that a disability must be expected to last at least one year, instead.of the six months as is at present the case. The reasons for that are fully described in paragraph 161 of the Report of the Committee. Subsection (2) allows a disabled person voluntarily to remove his or her name from the register. That is not the case at present.
  Clause 3 and the Schedule are the complicated and possibly wordy part of this short Bill. The Report of the noble Lord, Lord Piercy recommended, in paragraphs 201 and 207, that all provisions regarding registered disabled persons who are gainfully employed should be transferred under the auspices of this Bill to my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour, and, at the same time, that they should be separated from the provisions for disabled persons for whom employment, owing to the nature of their disability, could be only but a welfare occupation or treated as some phase in their recuperation and treatment. The provisions for this latter class of people will continue to be under the National Assistance Act or the National Health Service Acts, and they will continue, as at present, to be the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Minister of Health. When I referred a moment ago to persons "gainfully employed" I meant persons working in a sheltered workshop for disabled persons, or working on their own for gain in their own home and in their own time. In conjunction with the Schedule, Clause 3 puts these recommendations from the Report into effect.
  The relevant powers to local authorities under the National Assistance Act,

  611
  and the National Health Service Act, 1946, are therefore cancelled and transferred to this Bill under the auspices of my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour. All the existing schemes which are carried on by local authorities or other bodies will be carried on in exactly the same way as at present, including the duty which is delegated to local authorities to provide sheltered employment for the blind. Your Lordships have warmly commended the Report of the noble Lord, Lord Piercy, and I think you will agree that Her Majesty's Government, and especially my right honourable friends and their advisers, deserve great credit for so promptly implementing the legislative recommendations that this Report advised. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be given a Second Reading.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Earl Bathurst.)
  5.58 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for the concise and clear way in which he has explained this Bill, which is in some ways rather abstruse, because the majority of your Lordships are not, I think, deeply acquainted with all the legislation, Reports and investigations that have gone into the treatment of disabled persons. As was pointed out in another place, I think, the mere fact that the word "cripple" is hardly ever heard nowadays—we use the term "disabled person" or "handicapped person" and so on—is an indication of the changed attitude on the part of our society, which we believe to be more or less civilised, and possibly getting more civilised.
  The Bill itself and the Report of my noble friend Lord Piercy are evidence of the responsibility that society feels for those who, by some misfortune or other, are physically disabled. I think it should be noted that the Report that was the forerunner of this Bill is entitled, The Rehabilitation, Training and Resettlement of Disabled Persons. We should remember that the ultimate aim is always to rehabilitate such people—in other words, to give them a chance of living as nearly as possible normal lives. It appears from what the noble Earl has told us that the provisions
  612
  of this Bill implement the remaining recommendations of the Report. I believe that there were forty-six recommendations in the Report, of which forty required no legislative action; therefore, the passing of this Bill will, we hope, see the fulfilment of all the recommendations in the Report. We on this side wholeheartedly support the Bill and should like to be associated with the words of appreciation used by the noble Earl of those concerned with assistance to disabled persons.
  LORD BURDEN: My Lords, since this Bill is likely to impose additional costs on local authorities, in view of what we believe will be the restrictive character of the block grant. I would ask whether, if and when the block grant comes into operation, consideration will be given to this point. It is not, of course, a matter that we can discuss now, and I mention it only in passing.
  LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, I wonder if I might take up your Lordships' time for one moment—because I was privileged to be Joint Parliamentary Secretary, with Mr. George Tomlinson, to the Ministry of Labour and National Service in 1944 when the first Bill and the whole scheme was introduced; and it was to Mr. George Tomlinson, above all others, that this country owes its modern conception of the rehabilitation and reinstatement of disabled persons. For it is under the Act passed in 1944 that this work has been carried on for fourteen years, and if Mr. George Tomlinson were here today I am quite sure he would bless these Amendments and improvements in his Act and would hope that the work would continue and prosper even further.
  6.2 p.m.
  EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and gallant Earl for his kind remarks about this Bill. It was for the very reasons he mentioned that the Piercy Report recommended that rehabilitation should be treated differently from welfare and those cases which could never recover. That is exactly the object of this Bill and I am most pleased that the noble and gallant Earl brought forward that point. It may interest the noble Earl if I give one example of how far rehabilitation is progressing. The Remploy firm, for

  613
  instance, have 250 men leaving their services every year and going out into industry. I am afraid that that is the only figure I have, but there must be many other similar figures applying to voluntary societies. I want to give the noble Lord, Lord Burden, a hearty assurance that neither block grants nor any other kind of grant will affect the provisions of this Bill. The finance will be carried out in exactly the same manner as at present, except that it will all be done by my right honourable friend the Minister of Labour and National Service.
  LORD BURDEN: I thank the noble Earl.
  EARL BATHURST: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, for his kind remarks with regard to Mr. George Tomlinson. I did not feel it was fitting that I should make those remarks—
  LORD BURDEN: Why not?
  EARL BATHURST: —being such a very junior person, but I should like to say that a very near relative of mine was most closely involved with the noble Lord, as he now is, and with Mr. George Tomlinson, with this Act in those days in another place.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  FIRST OFFENDERS BILL
  6.4 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  6.5 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the consideration of the Commons Amendments read.
  LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Keith of Avonholm.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [The references are to Bill (86) as first printed for the House of Commons.]
  Clause 1, page 2, line '13, at end insert—
  ("(3) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall prejudice the power of the Court to admit a person as a solicitor in pursuance of the Colonial Solicitors Act, 1900, Or under section fourteen or section fifteen of the Act of 1933.")
  LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: My Lords, may I move the first Amendment on the Paper and say a short word in explanation of that Amendment? It is a safeguarding Amendment to make sure that nothing in the Bill will impair the jurisdiction of the Court to admit solicitors under the provisions of the Colonial Solicitors Act, 1900, or under the Act of 1933. It was not the intention of the Bill—and I do not think the Bill would have so operated—to take away this power of the Court; but the object of the Amendment is to make assurance doubly sure. I bog 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 Keith of Avonholm.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 13, line 39, at end insert—
  ("(2) A reference in any enactment to a solicitor's being entitled to practise in the Court of Session or in any other court, or to act in any matter, by reason of his being enrolled in, or of his having subscribed, the list of solicitors practising in the Court of Session or the list of solicitors practising in any sheriffdom shall be construed as a reference to his being entitled so to practise or act by reason of his name being included in the appropriate list furnished under the foregoing subsection.")
  LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: My Lords, I now beg to move the second Amendment on the Paper. This is a technical Amendment to provide that any reference in a Statute to solicitors who were enrolled as solicitors under previous legislation shall be read as referring to solicitors holding practising certificates under the Bill. The explanation for that is very simple. There are certain Statutes under which reference is made to solicitors who were enrolled under the old procedure, and the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that such references shall be read as

  615
  references to solicitors who are holding practising certificates under the present Bill. 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 Keith of Avonholm.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 14, line 1, after ("thirty-nine") insert ("after the words 'Faculty of Advocates' there shall be inserted the word 'or', the words 'or a notary public' shall be omitted, and")
  LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment which is purely technical. It deletes a reference in Section 39 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act, 1933, to notaries public—a reference which is now obsolete. The reference in that Act refers to solicitors and notaries public. There are now no notaries public in Scotland who are not solicitors, and the reference to notaries public in that section is now obsolete and unnecessary. 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 Keith of Avonholm.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  Second Schedule, page 14, line 38, leave out ("(e)") and insert ("(c)").
  LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: My Lords, this Amendment merely corrects a printer's error. 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 Keith of Avonholm.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Reported, with Amendments.

  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL TEES VALLEY WATER BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.