Sitting of 31 May 1948

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.
  LAW REFORM (PERSONAL INJURIES) BILL. [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with amendments.
DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.

ANIMALS BILL. [H.L.]
4.6 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.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Power to order slaughter or castration of stallions.
7.—(1) The Minister may, by notice served in the prescribed manner and in accordance with this section, require that any stallion which has attained the prescribed age at the
2
date when the notice is served and in respect of which no licence or permit is for the time being in force, shall be slaughtered or castrated within such time after the notice takes effect as may be specified in the notice:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to—

(a) any stallion which attained the age of four years before the coming into operation of this Part of this Act; or

(b) a stallion being a thoroughbred or a pony of a prescribed breed.

LORD DOWDING LORD DOWDING moved to add to the proviso to subsection (1),
"and provided that such castration shall not be effected otherwise than under a local or general anæsthetic."
The noble Lord said: It may be maintained that this Amendment should not be made to the Animals Bill but to the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act, 1919, to which it is perhaps more appropriate. In answer to that, I would say two things. First, there seems no reasonable probability that an opportunity will arise of making an amendment to that Act and, secondly, the fact that this clause is not part of that Act is, in my opinion, a grave and serious omission. The Animals (Anæsthetics) Act protects some animals almost to a ridiculous extent. Puppy dogs are protected when their tails are cut off, or their dew claws are cut; horses are protected against the pain of operations which are much less painful than those which we are discussing. It seems quite inexplicable that there should be no protection for them in this agonising operation. Nor do I think our recent deliberations on the Veterinary Surgeons Bill have tended towards the reduction of operations which unqualified persons may conduct. When we notice that the castration of horses may

3
be carried out up to the age of two years by unqualified persons, I hope that I may have the opinion of your Lordships' House behind me in pressing for the insertion of this Amendent into the Bill. Even if this Bill is not the ideal place for such an Amendment, at any rate it deals mainly with horses and the permission which is granted for the keeping of stallions. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Dowding.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): I think we all have sympathy with the principle of the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dowding, but I do not think this is the appropriate place to insert it; nor is this the Bill to carry the Amendment. The Bill deals only with certain classes of stallions. It does not deal with horses generally; it does not deal with thoroughbred horses, wild ponies and other breeds of stallion. I think it would be injudicious—and unfair—to bring this Amendment into a Bill which does not deal with all stallions. The obvious place for this Amendment, as the noble Lord himself suggested, would be the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act of 1919, which covers the whole field. It may well be argued that that Act should be revised, but this is not the right time for such an argument. I should also like to point out that under the Veterinary Surgeons Bill, which is now in another place, no stallion over the age of two years may be castrated by anyone except a qualified veterinary practitioner or a qualified veterinary surgeon. This would put the matter in the hands of expert men who, one understands, would have the duty of using an anæsthetic if the case demanded it. There is a further safeguard under the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, Section 1 of which says:
"If any person…shall subject, or cause or procure, or being the owner permit, to be subjected, any animal to any operation which is performed without due care and humanity, such person shall be guilty of an offence of cruelty within the meaning of this Act, and shall be liable, upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds, or alternatively, or in addition thereto, to be imprisoned, with or
4
without hard labour, for any term not exceeding six months."
I would suggest that to a very large extent that covers what the noble Lord has in mind. If at some later date it is found necessary to introduce further provisions, I suggest that the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act should be amended, rather than that this Amendment should be inserted in this Bill.
LORD DOWDING: I have only two points to add. The first is that, unless I have misread the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act, the situation which has been described by the noble Earl exists at the present time; that is to say, that the operation of castration may not be performed on an animal which is over two years old, but may be performed on an animal which is under two years old. The second point is this. With all due respect, I do not see that the last part of my noble friend's statement covers the case at all. The question is whether or not an operation of castration on a horse is a cruel act. If the horse does not receive protection under the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act, or some other Act such as this, it must be assumed that the act of castration is not a cruel act and, therefore, it would be impossible to bring a prosecution under that heading.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: Does the noble Lord propose to withdraw the Amendment? The Protection of Animals Act uses the words "without due care and humanity." If, in particular circumstances and at a particular age, it were deemed to be inhumane or without due care not to give the animal an anæsthetic, I should have thought that an action would lie. I would not like to pronounce on the law, of course, in front of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, or the other noble and learned Lords opposite, but it seems to me that it would cover the particular point. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment as I do not feel that this is the appropriate measure in which to include it. It may later be possible to amend the Protection of Animals Act.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, as it does not seem quite relevant to this Bill, or to this particular clause in the Bill. I am certain that if, as the law is at present or as it will be shortly, none

5
but a qualified veterinary surgeon may undertake an operation of this character, he will, in the light of the quotation from the other Act, using due care and out of humane considerations, ensure that in such a case an anæsthetic is used. In any case, I do not think that this is the right Bill in which to insert this rather one-sided Amendment.
LORD DENHAM: I would like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he can give us any assurance that the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act will be amended in the near future. If he can assure us that that will be done, then many of us will be quite content for my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment. If, on the other hand, the matter is to sink into oblivion I, for one, shall be loath to let it go, even though I agree that this is not the best measure in which to insert the Amendment.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord that assurance. The amount of legislation before both Houses, as the noble Lord will know, is enormous, and, obviously, without consultation I cannot give any assurance as to when that Act may be amended. I would like to stress the point that this is not a suitable place for the Amendment, as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, has said; and even if it were—and this is the main point—it would deal only with a limited category of stallions. It would seem to be unwise to put in an Amendment which would not cover stallions in general.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I have only recently come into the House. I had hoped that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor could give us an assurance. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill, quite rightly, spoke in a tentative manner. I apprehend that the proceedings would be proceedings of a criminal character—it is for cruelty—just as I suppose such proceedings are possible under the existing law if, for example, a dog's tail is docked in an inhumane way. I should have supposed that the same considerations would exist, even though there is authority here to perform the act of castration. I am offering no opinion to
6
the House—I am not the right person to do so—but I think there are a good many noble Lords who feel most acutely, and rightly so, on the subject of unnecessary cruelty to animals. It would be a great relief to be told authoritatively, on behalf of the Government, whether that is the view which is taken.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): I cannot speak in any authoritative way, because I did not know about this matter until I heard it just now. I should certainly have thought that if you could eliminate and avoid pain in any particular case by giving a local anæsthetic, and you performed the operation without giving such anæsthetic, you would be guilty of causing unnecessary suffering. I should be prepared so to advise, on the spur of the moment.
LORD DOWDING: If I may say so, I feel that the matter has not been dealt with very logically. If it is a cruel act to perform this operation without an anæsthetic, surely it ought to be stated in some Act. A puppy dog is actually protected by the Animals (Anæsthetics) Act. After the puppy has opened its eyes you are not allowed to cut off its tail without giving it some form of anæsthetic. Castration is a much more serious operation, causing a great deal of pain, and I should have thought the mere fact that the animal is not protected by the law prevented any action for cruelty. If I must, I will reluctantly withdraw my Amendment, but I would do so with greater pleasure if I thought that there was some chance of this gap in the law being filled in some way in the near future.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL. [H.L.]
4.23 p.m.
House in Committee on recommitment of the Bill (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
CLAUSE 12 [Matters to be set out in premium receipt books, and to be published]:
LORD AMMON: My Lords, during the Committee stage a new subsection to Clause 6 was added, making ten the minimum age of insurance under the Government Annuities Act, 1929, so as to be consistent with the minimum age for insurance by friendly societies, industrial assurance companies and trade unions. This Amendment and that on page 24, line 23, are designed to secure that the new subsection to Clause 6 need not be included in the approved statement to be published in the Press. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, after ("effect") insert ("of subsections (1) and (2)").—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
CLAUSE 20 [Change of designation of "public auditors" to "approved auditors"]:
LORD AMMON: My Lords, during the Committee stage in this House an Amendment was moved dealing with the qualifications of persons to be appointed by the Treasury to be approved auditors, hitherto called "public auditors." The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland was at first omitted as it was then doubtful whether that body was established in the United Kingdom. This doubt has now been dispelled and the name is being added to the list. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 20, at end insert ("The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland").—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Matters to be set out in premium receipt books]:
LORD AMMON: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 23, at beginning insert ("Subsections (1) and (2) of").—(Lord Ammon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

COMPANIES BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

BRITISH NATIONALITY.
4.28 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will publish as soon as possible a White Paper containing information as to the requests made by and the assurances given to each of the countries mentioned in subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the British Nationality Bill; what degree of urgency attaches to such legislation by this country; and how far it may be expected that a similar provision will be enacted by each of the other countries concerned. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Altrincham is not in the House, and perhaps I may be allowed on his behalf to put this question. I was in consultation with him in "brewing up" this question, and therefore I think I know the circumstances in which he wished it to be put and answered.
The British Nationality Bill, to which the House has already given a Second Reading, is beyond all question a very important measure. The first clause of that Bill has been referred to as the key clause and is, as we are informed, a clause which it is desirable to see as the basis of some new common understanding between ourselves and the other great nations which are themselves completely self-governing but which are within the British Commonwealth. Somebody has to begin, and I understand that it has been decided by His Majesty's Government that this Parliament should take the first step. It is undoubtedly much to be hoped that after this country has taken that first step it may be followed by corresponding action by the independent Parliaments of the great self-governing areas, which are loosely called Dominions. The question is:
"To ask His Majesty's Government whether they will publish.… a White Paper containing information as to the requests made by and the assurances given to each of the

9
countries mentioned in subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the British Nationality Bill"—
that is, Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, and other areas which are loosely called the Dominions, and so forth—
"what degree of urgency attaches to such legislation by this country; and how far it may be expected that a similar provision will be enacted by each of the other countries concerned."
I venture to add one other observation. When I spoke on the Second Reading I suggested that the Bill, dealing as it does with the extremely important circumstance of what is British nationality, had come before us rather more suddenly than did proposals for changing the basis of the British Constitution, such as were made in the Imperial Conference of 1930 and the Imperial Conference of 1937. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House—speaking, of course, with an authority with which none of us could compare on this subject, because of his position as Minister for Commonwealth Relations—replied that there had already been a consultation which must be regarded as with the heads of the Governments concerned. Naturally I accept that at once, though it is still the case that the Bill has come on your Lordships' House and on those who have been deeply interested in this subject, some of us for many years, rather more suddenly than one might have expected. It was introduced, in fact, on February 17. It is, moreover, an exceedingly complicated measure. Therefore I think the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, was justified in putting down the question; and I have not the least doubt that it will be given by the noble Viscount opposite the full and clear answer that it justifies.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): I entirely agree with the description of the Bill by the noble and learned Viscount, and I welcome his observations. As he is well aware, consideration of the Bill had been adjourned for some considerable time after its original introduction in order that we might have further consultations with certain members of the Commonwealth, particularly with Pakistan and India. As a result of this consultation we can, happily, proceed as we describe.
As explained in the White Paper already published, there has been full consultation with the other Commonwealth countries, who are expecting that
10
the United Kingdom will legislate on the lines of this Bill, and who have all agreed with the principles as stated in the White Paper. Some of these countries are already preparing similar legislation and are awaiting the passage of the United Kingdom Bill, and others will find it easier to come into the scheme if and when this Bill is passed. A White Paper containing such information as is suggested in the noble Lord's question could not be prepared without further consultation with each of the self-governing countries; and delay for this purpose would have the most regrettable result of causing the abandonment for this Session of this important measure. It is therefore most desirable that this Bill should be passed into law as soon as possible and certainly within the present Session.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I thank the noble Viscount for his answer.

BUSINESS OF TEE HOUSE.
4.35 P.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, before the House adjourns, it might be convenient to add a word about tomorrow's sitting. I have not had an opportunity of consulting noble Lords opposite and hope, therefore, that I shall be forgiven for raising this matter. Just before I came into your Lordships.' House I found that there was already a list of twenty-one speakers—and it appeared to be growing almost every moment—on Lord Llewellin's Amendment to Clause 1 of the Criminal Justice Bill which is to be taken to-morrow. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is eminently desirable, seeing that we have already had a long discussion on this matter, that we should dispose of the Amendment to-morrow; at any rate I sincerely hope so. In that case, I hope your Lordships will agree that, in order to dispose of the Amendment, we shall, if necessary, adjourn for dinner and then resume. As I have not had an opportunity of consulting noble Lords opposite, I think it is only fair, in view of the rather staggering intimation that has been given to me, that the fact should be communicated to your Lordships' House. I hope your Lordships will be willing to agree with my suggestion. I am quite sure we do not want this Amendment to drag on for more than one day.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I am bound to say that the proposal which the noble Viscount has just made—though I realise that he has had no opportunity of consultation—has staggered me as much as the list of speakers has staggered him. I do not know whether, without some further discussion, we on this side could agree to the proposal. It is not that we want to be unreasonable about sitting after dinner but, as the noble Viscount knows, large numbers of noble Lords do not live in London, and hitherto we have always had ample notice when it was proposed to sit after dinner. This is a clause of outstanding importance, and although I do not know how noble Lords are going to vote in the event of a Division, every noble Lord who takes part in the debate will wish to record his vote on one side or the other. That would be quite impossible if noble Lords were faced with a proposal that we should sit after dinner to-morrow. The speeches on this subject, judging by those which were made during the Second Reading (they could not, of course, have been shorter) will be lengthy. A great deal remains to be said on this Bill, and a decision may have to be taken very late. I hope the noble Viscount will not press this proposition. At any rate we cannot to-day consent to it. I think the noble Viscount knows that there is no question at all of obstruction. I am sure that we can so arrange business that the decision can, if necessary, be taken on another day.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, the noble Viscount knows that I am always ready to enter into any arrangement which is most suitable to the convenience of your Lordships' House. I said in my previous remarks that I had not had an opportunity of consultation. I will, of course, consider what the noble Viscount says, and I have no doubt that between now and to-morrow we shall be able to have a conference on the subject and to arrive at some arrangement. I would point out, however, without any desire to curtail any speech, that the list I saw contained the names of a considerable number of noble Lords who spoke on the Second Reading. I have no doubt they will say the same thing again—their
12
convictions will not have altered in the meantime. Therefore, we have already had the advantage of their views. I will not press the matter any more now, and I hope we shall have a chance of arriving at some arrangement.
VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, I have a suggestion to make, which seems a practicable one. There are other important clauses, which do not yet command the same attention as Clause 1. Would it not be possible for us, after a reasonable time to-morrow, to adjourn the debate on the first Amendment to Clause 1, and to proceed with the rest of the Bill, taking the other clauses and Amendments after dinner? That suggestion came to me from a very high quarter, but I now gather, from an equally high quarter, that it is not possible. I hope that we shall certainly not take the Division on this Amendment late to-morrow night, and that we shall, if necessary, take the Bill again on Wednesday and have a Division well before dinner on that day. We can then sit after dinner on Wednesday to deal with the other parts of the Bill. That would be giving the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, I will not say an all-night sitting but a night sitting. I think that would probably suit everybody's convenience.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I have been through most of the proposed Amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill and, apart from those affecting the first two or three clauses, I do not think that much time need be taken by this House on most of the Amendments. Of course, there are some important Amendments but they are of the kind which I hope can be dealt with expeditiously by your Lordships' House. I ask the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House whether he would not be prepared to see how we progress. Even if we do not reach a Division at a reasonable hour to-morrow upon my Amendment to Clause 1, we should be able to get through the Committee stage within the four days allotted to the Bill.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: I shall be glad to have the opportunity of consulting with noble Lords opposite upon the suggestions that have been made.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (DETER- MINATION OF NEED) REGULA- TIONS, 1948.
Draft Regulations made by the Minister of National Insurance, under the National Assistance Act, 1948:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

WIGAN GAS ORDER, 1948.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Wigan:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

ST. HELENS GAS (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1948.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of St. Helens:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTION OF RIBBON DEVELOPMENT ACTS)
(SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1948.
Laid before the House on Thursday last, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before five o'clock.