Sitting of 29 April 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Royal Mint Extension (Re-housing)
    Mr. W. Edwardsasked the Minister of Works what alternative accommodation he proposes to offer to the families whose housing accommodation will be demolished as a result of the Royal Mint extension proposal.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. Hugh Molson): I am under no statutory obligation to offer alternative accommodation to these families. I have asked the London County Council to find them accommodation.
    Mr. Edwards: If the London County Council cannot find accommodation for these people, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is one lady of over 70 years of age who has lived in this area for most of her life and that she cannot get any sleep at night because of the fear of eviction arising from the compulsory purchase order? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter instead of relying upon the London County Council? Will he also take into account the case of the son-in-law of the freeholder? He has sold his property with vacant possession, leaving him with nowhere to go when the property is delivered to the Ministry of Works?
    Mr. Molson: This land was designated for compulsory purchase in the County of London Plan, 1948. There were no objections to the designation. The compulsory purchase order was made on 7th March, 1958, and there have been no objections so far. The proposals to do this were published in January, 1958. Therefore, these people have had full
    162
    warning that this property was to be taken over for the extension of the Royal Mint.
    Mr. Gibson: While it is true that this piece of land was scheduled years ago to be taken for this purpose, surely the Minister feels that he has a moral obligation to make sure that the people who are turned out shall be re-housed. Is he aware that it is no use waiting for the London County Council, because it has more on its plate already than it can deal with? Should not some special effort be made by the Department which is taking the land for the development of the Mint, which is a proper development? Will not the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?
    Mr. Molson: No, Sir. Full notice was given of this proposal ten years ago. The London County Council is the housing authority. I am under no obligation to provide alternative accommodation for these people, who have had long notice that the land was to be acquired.

    New Government Offices (Expenditure)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Works how much has been spent on building new Government offices in London since April, 1952; and how much is to be spent in the current financial year.
    Mr. Molson: £2,400,000 and £445,000.
    Mr. Lipton: In the light of those frightening figures of bureaucratic megalomania, will the right hon. Gentleman say why, with fewer civil servants, we need more Government offices, even allowing for derequisitioning? Why do Her Majesty's Ministers expect everyone to economise except themselves?
    Mr. Molson: Expenditure upon Government offices has been less under this Government than the expenditure under the previous Government during a comparable period. This Government take the view that it is necessary that even civil servants should be provided with adequate and sanitary accommodation in order to carry on their work.

    Carlton House Terrace
    Mr. Robert Cookeasked the Minister of Works when Carlton House Terrace will be cleaned, painted and restored.
    Mr. Molson: I refer my hon. Friend to my Answer of 10th December last. The exterior of the Terrace will be repainted in the autumn.
    Mr. Cooke: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for his sympathetic reply, may I ask if when this work is done he will give consideration to the removal of certain temporary structures and the replacement of certain missing balustrades and other features?
    Mr. Molson: As my hon. Friend is aware, it is intended to reconstruct the whole of this place behind the present façade in order to provide an office for the Foreign Office. It is not likely that this will be begun before 1963 or 1964 at the earliest, but, naturally, we are not doing anything more than maintain the present structure until the main rebuilding is undertaken.

    Stonehenge
    Captain Pilkingtonasked the Minister of Works whether he will make a statement on the progress of the work being carried out at Stonehenge.
    Mr. Molson: The work has proceeded according to programme. Preparations for the re-erection of the fallen trilithon and two stones on the Outer Circle have now been completed, including the temporary removal of these stones to another part of the site. The re-erection of the stones will begin this week starting tomorrow with stone No. 22 in the Outer Circle. The whole operation should be completed about the middle of June.
    Mr. Dudley Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend think it would have been a good idea to have left this reconstruction of Stonehenge until there was less danger of inflationary pressures being caused by intensified Government expenditure?
    Mr. Molson: No, Sir. While I am all in favour of economy, I think it should be made with due regard to the importance of various works. In any case, I would point out that as a result of these works there has been a very substantial increase in the number of visitors to this site, which is one of the most remunerative of all our ancient monuments.

    Palace of Westminster (Members' Lift)
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Works if he will extend the lift service from the Members' Lobby to the Committee and Upper Committee Lobbies from 7 p.m. to later in the evening.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harmar Nicholls): As this would necessitate the employment of an additional attendant, I prefer to leave the matter as set out in my Answer to the hon. Gentleman on 15th April.
    Dr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this lift serves the busiest Lobby in the House, and that hon. Members were grateful to him for putting back the morning service until they discovered that he had done so by cutting down the evening service? Is not all that is at stake the putting back of the time to 9 o'clock, which would give a couple of hours' overtime for the disabled ex-Service men who render such excellent service on the lift?
    Mr. Nicholls: I think the hon. Member will agree that we are trying hard to meet the wishes of hon. Members on these matters, and that that was shown by my last Answer to him on 15th April. There is a likelihood that during the long Recess this lift may be made automatic. Then perhaps we can overcome the problem.

  SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

    Consumer Goods
    Miss Burtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what comparative information about consumer goods is in the records of the 45 grant-aided research associations of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; why such information is not made public; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: Research associations receiving grant-aid from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research do not as a rule undertake routine testing and, therefore, have little, if any, comparative information on consumer goods.
    Miss Burton: I think the Parliamentary Secretary is missing the point. Is

    165
    he aware that these research stations refuse to make available the results of their tests, for example, to the Consumer Council of the British Standards Institution? Does he not agree that, as public money is being spent on these research stations and on the B.S.I. to obtain this information, it is important it should not be duplicated?
    Mr. Nicholls: I know of the keen interest of the hon. Lady in consumer standards, but this particular service is on fundamental matters of research. The various members of the associations get together to do fundamental research and the associations receive grants in aid. One of the ways in which they can get together to carry out this research work requires that it should be confidential. The comparison between one group of goods and another does not come out in research and this is not in the line of country in which the hon. Lady is usually interested.

    Diesel Engines (Crankcase Explosions)
    Dr. Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what research has been carried out for the prevention, rather than the cure, of crankcase explosions in diesel engines, notably large marine diesel engines.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The British Shipbuilding Research Association, supported by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, has carried out fundamental work in collaboration with the Imperial College of Science and Technology on the causes of explosions in the crankcases of large marine diesel engines. This work has led to the development of a photo-electric automatic device to give early warning when dangerous conditions are arising, so that remedial action can be taken.
    Dr. Bennett: Are these devices yet being manufactured for general use? In the light of the recent loss of yet another ship from a crankcase explosion of this sort, will my hon. Friend ask the Minister of Transport to make some recommendation that for the safety of British shipping these devices might be fitted?
    Mr. Nicholls: I will draw the attention of my noble Friend to the last part of
    166
    my hon. Friend's supplementary question. This device is now being commercially manufactured following extensive trials at sea. There is another device for the same purpose, as was mentioned in my Answer, which is being developed independently and will also be commercially available.

    Soft Fruit, Scotland
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what results have come from researches of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research on the transport of soft fruit to enable Scottish growers to sell their produce in markets further south.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The Ditton Laboratory of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, in co-operation with others, has shown that Scottish soft fruit can reach the big industrial areas of Britain in first-class condition by pre-cooling and transport in an atmosphere enriched with carbon dioxide and by the use of insulated containers that have been developed for this purpose.
    Sir J. Duncan: Are special containers required? Does the method apply to perishable food like raspberries and strawberries? Could this sort of process be developed for carriage of this fruit by air as far as America?
    Mr. Nicholls: The containers could be converted meat containers; they need not be special ones. This process would be very applicable to soft fruit like raspberries. I should require to have notice of the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

    Solids (Hydraulic Transport)
    Mr. Braineasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what inquiries are being sponsored by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research into commercially useful methods for the hydraulic transport of solids.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The British Hydro-mechanics Research Association, supported by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, has, through research on the hydraulic transport of solids, considerably advanced the basic

    167
    knowledge necessary before this form of transport can be a commercial proposition, and the results are being applied by British industry.
    Mr. Braine: Can my hon. Friend say to what extent these results have been applied by British industry in any detail?
    Mr. Nicholls: They are being applied, and a good example at the moment is the removal of spoil from the new tunnel which is being constructed at Purfleet. Experiments are going on, and have been for some time, in the mining industry, and they show some promise.

    Sulphur Production (Sewage Sludge)
    Mr. Braineasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what stage has been reached in research by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research into the production of sulphur by bacteria.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: The Chemical Research Laboratory of the Department has developed a process for the production of sulphur from raw sewage sludge to which calcium sulphate has been added. This has operated in a 50-gallon plant at Beckton successfully. The work has been undertaken in collaboration with the London County Council, which is now considering the installation of a 100,000-gallon plant for full-scale development trials.
    Mr. Braine: Can my hon. Friend take the matter a little further? Can he say whether the process is likely to prove economical, and whether, in view of the experiments of the London County Council, it can now be recommended to all local authorities?
    Mr. Nicholls: It is not yet at a stage at which it should be recommended to all local authorities. We must await the final results of the tests at Beckton. It has proved economical in the sense that the system removes a large amount of water, which means that the amount to be carried away is about half the quantity it would otherwise be. This means a great saving.
    Mr. Hastings: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether sulphur is actually produced in elemental form or in what way?
    Mr. Nicholls: I should be grateful if the hon. Member would put that question on the Order Paper.

    Russian Scientific and Technical Literature (Translation)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, whether he is aware of the inadequacy of translations into English of Russian scientific and technical publications, with the result that top-grade research scientists are being compelled to spend a substantial portion of their time in learning the Russian language; and whether he will set up a scientific bureau for Russian translations or take other steps to deal with the position.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: As I have already indicated in answer to Questions, considerable thought is being given by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to the difficult problem of obtaining, translating and disseminating Russian scientific and technical literature. The D.S.I.R. Lending Library Unit now has a collection of material unique in Western Europe and the Department runs a co-operative translation scheme on a limited scale. The Department is urgently considering ways and means of expanding the translation effort and getting the translations disseminated. My noble Friend cannot accept the implication in the Question that it is a waste of time for research scientists to learn Russian.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister realise that it is difficult for scientists of the present generation to learn sufficient Russian to be able to cope with publications which come forward? Whilst admitting that more facilities for the learning of Russian in schools and so on should be provided, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to ensure that translations shall be available in the same way as, for example, Russian translations of English works are available in the Russian Institute of Information, in a matter of weeks, so that our scientists shall not be placed at a disadvantage by having to wait something like six months before they can get the information?
    Mr. Nicholls: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend recognises the great importance of this matter, and that everything that can be done will

    169
    be done to speed up the service for which the hon. Gentleman asks. Whether or not this work should be translated by ordinary people or by scientists has been argued in Question and Answer in this House over past weeks. I must reiterate that, normally, it is found that the best translations of scientific and technical papers are produced by working scientists with a knowledge of Russian. It is the only way in which one can be certain that the translations will be effective.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that a monopoly has been given to a private translating bureau in the United States of America for cover to cover translations from Russian into English of at least 18 scientific journals which have to be purchased here; and what steps he proposes to take that such journals shall be translated in Great Britain in future.
    Mr. H. Nicholls: While my noble Friend has no knowledge of the detailed arrangements in the U.S.A., he is aware that some Russian scientific and technical journals are being translated by commercial agencies there. There would seem to be no advantage in separate translations of the same documents into the English language taking place on both sides of the Atlantic. As I indicated in my reply to the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) on 1st April, discussions are taking place between the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the United States National Science Foundation regarding co-operation on the production of complete translations of Russian scientific and technical journals, with a view to avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister bear in mind that it costs anything from £2 10s. to £3 10s. per thousand words to obtain a translation? That is a hopeless waste. Does he not think that, in the circumstances, it is highly desirable that these translations should be made here, it at all possible?
    Mr. Nicholls: Naturally, we must play our part, and I can say that we are playing an important part, but there is really no point in duplicating the effort, when there is a chance of getting together to share the information that each other has.

  SCOTLAND

    Fishing Industry (Territorial Waters)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the proposed extension, from three to six miles, of the sea territorial limits and the loss which will thereby be inflicted on the Scottish fishing industry, if he will state his proposals to compensate that industry by increased subsidy, ameliorating terms for ship building and repairing and taxation and freight reduction.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply given to him yesterday by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that that reply does not cover the Question, that this threat to the British and, in particular, to the Scottish fishing industry still exists, and that the time to protect the industry is now, and not after the event?
    Mr. Maclay: As my right hon. and gallant Friend said yesterday, the position at the moment is that the only generally recognised rule of international law is that the breadth of territorial waters is three miles. All waters outside those limits are high seas, and Her Majesty's Government have reserved all rights to the freedom of the high seas.

    Tourist Industry
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state his plans for assisting the extension of the Scottish tourist industry during 1958.
    Mr. Maclay: Assistance for the tourist industry is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I shall continue to keep in close touch with him and with the Scottish Tourist Board. I would also draw the hon. and learned Member's attention to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 1st April.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that at the beginning of the tourist season that reply is too vague and general, and that now is the time to assist the tourist industry in Scotland? Does he not further recognise that it would bring valuable foreign currency there, which would be of benefit, not only to Scotland but to Sassenachs as well?
    Mr. Maclay: I am anxious the whole time to do everything I can to help the Scottish tourist industry. I have even made speeches pointing out the merits of Scotland outside the tourist season.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a plan to pull down a very large hotel in Strathpeffer, and will he bring that to the notice of the Scottish Tourist Board?
    Mr. Maclay: That is another matter that I should like to look at.
    Mr. Hoy: Is it not a fact that the Scottish Office has set up the committee which was suggested last year by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), and that a meeting has been held? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what conclusions that committee has reached, and what recommendations it has made with a view to aiding the Scottish tourist industry?
    Mr. Maclay: I think that it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would table a Question on the subject.
    Mr. Woodburn: Did the right hon. Gentleman see the report of the small sums that some local authorities contribute to the Scottish Tourist Board? As the Board depends largely on the local authorities for its finance, would not he give some official encouragement to them to pay more appropriately to their means and not be so skimpy?
    Mr. Maclay: I sincerely hope that they will note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I made this point very strongly some time ago at the annual meeting of the Scottish Tourist Board.

    Potato Harvest (Children)
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will state his intentions with regard to children assisting with the next potato harvest.
    Mr. Maclay: While it will still be necessary to call on school children this year, the policy of the Government is to reduce the numbers progressively, and we intend to reduce the number of exemptions required to 20,000, from 24,000 last year. The transport of children under departmental arrangements will also be much curtailed.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that his early decision in this matter is very welcome to all parties?

    Royal Highland and Agricultural Society
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society was first given a grant out of public funds; how much it has received each year, and what is the total amount of money it has received in this way; what conditions were and are attached to these payments; and how far any of these conditions relate to the place in which the Society's show shall be held each year.
    Mr. Maclay: The only grant from public funds to the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society is one given by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in aid of prizes at the Society's annual show to encourage the breeding of Highland ponies and goats. The grant has been paid since 1913, except in the war years. The annual rate of grant from 1922 to 1939 was £52, and from 1948 to 1957, £70; the aggregate over the whole period since 1913 being £1,996. No condition is attached as regards the location of the show.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware of the expressed intention of changing the usefulness of the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society by giving it a permanent showground in, or near, Edinburgh, thereby depriving the other parts of Scotland of the benefits that they have hitherto enjoyed? Will he do something to protect the other parts of Scotland from this threat?
    Mr. Maclay: That supplementary question, while related to the original Question, hardly arises from that Question.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is no

    173
    reason whatsoever why the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society should not hold its show wherever it likes in Scotland?

    Witnesses (Loss of Earnings Allowance)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that miners attending public inquiries receive an allowance of only 30s. per day; that this allowance is based on such figure as would be allowed to a witness attending on citation the High Court of Justiciary; and, in view of the fact that the cost of living and earnings have risen substantially since the sum of 30s. was fixed, whether he will now review the rate of such allowances.
    Mr. Maclay: I agree that there is a case for reviewing the present limit on the loss of earnings allowance for witnesses cited in criminal proceedings. Such a review is now in hand, and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as a decision is reached.
    Mr. Hamilton: For once, that is a very satisfactory reply. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the report will be available, and whether consideration has been given to securing a relationship between the earnings and the sum granted to these men, who, after all, are compelled to attend these inquiries?
    Mr. Maclay: I hope that the decision will be given fairly soon, but all these points are being looked at.

    Cruden Houses
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that several local authorities have had to undertake costly repairs to their Crudentype houses owing to the deterioration of certain materials in the roofs; how many such authorities have requested financial assistance in the carrying out of these repairs; and whether, in view of declared governmental policy on the desirability of maintaining all houses in a good state of repair, he will reconsider his decision not to grant such assistance.
    Mr. Maclay: A number of authorities have had to carry out repairs to the roofs of Cruden houses, and seventeen have asked for financial assistance. Local authorities are, however, responsible for repairs to their houses of whatever type,
    174
    and I am not prepared to make any exception in this case.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this rapid deterioration of the roof materials was quite unforeseen? In the circumstances, and in view of governmental policy to keep houses in repair, could he not be more forthcoming in order to help local authorities do that?
    Mr. Maclay: In general, it is really the duty of the owners, public or private, to keep houses in good repair, and the Government cannot accept financial responsibility for this work.

    Tenants (Agreements)
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to extend the protection of the courts to tenants who have already entered into what they regard as oppressive agreements under threat of eviction; and whether he is prepared to nullify such agreements so as to bring such tenants within such protection as the new Bill provides.
    Mr. Maclay: It is not proposed under the Bill to interfere with agreements negotiated between landlords and tenants.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is this quite fair to those people who took for granted what the Government said—that they would not introduce amending legislation—and, therefore, gave up any hope of having any amelioration of their conditions? Would it not be fair to make the Bill retrospective so that all those affected by it would be protected, and not to make a distinction between one tenant and another?
    Mr. Maclay: There is no justification for re-opening agreements made between landlords and tenants, and I must point out that by the agreements the tenants got security of tenure for at least three years, which is not the same as under the Bill.
    Mr. Woodburn: Where the agreements are unduly oppressive, and where any court would say that they were unfair and arrived at under duress, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider giving the tenants some right of appeal?
    Mr. Maclay: It would open up the widest possible issues if we started reopening agreements already made.

    40 m.p.h. Speed Limit
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he proposes to introduce 40 miles-per-hour speed restrictions; and whether he has yet selected suitable stretches of road.
    Mr. Maclay: The provisions in the Road Traffic Act, 1956, enabling a 40 m.p.h. speed limit to be imposed outside the London Traffic Area cannot come into operation until a report has been made to Parliament on its experimental use in that area.

    White Fish Authority (Scheme)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on the scheme submitted to him by the White Fish Authority.
    Mr. Maclay: I am unable to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 27th March.
    Mr. Hoy: This is most unsatisfactory. Is it not a fact that this report has been in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman for a considerable time now and that the industry would like a reply in order to know what it is to do in the future? This industry is in a petty parlous plight and desires to know the recommendations of the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Maclay: The implications of the scheme must be carefully considered before a final decision is reached. Many interests are involved, and recent considerations must be looked at very carefully.
    Mr. Hoy: But when can we expect a decision?
    Mr. Maclay: I should not like to give a firm indication this afternoon.

    Tay Road Bridge
    Sir J. Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authorities will be involved in the promotion of a provisional order in preparation for the construction of a Tay road bridge.
    Mr. Maclay: I have discussed the proposed Tay bridge with representatives of Dundee Corporation, Fife and Angus County Councils and Kirkcaldy, Dunfermline and Arbroath Town Councils.
    176
    It would be for the promoters of any provisional order relating to a Tay road bridge at Dundee to consider what provisions it might suitably contain for a joint board of local authorities.
    Sir J. Duncan: Would my right hon. Friend ask the local authorities of Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire whether they would like to join the scheme? I have reason to believe that at least one of them might be interested in coming in, in view of the benefits they are likely to receive from a Tay road bridge?
    Mr. Maclay: That is a matter in the first instance for the promoters of any Provisional Order.
    Mr. Hamilton: In view of the unemployment situation which is developing in Scotland to a serious extent, would not this be one of the public works schemes which it would be desirable to get on with as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Maclay: The initial stages are going on at the moment.

    Anti-poliomyelitis Vaccine (Supplies)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to ensure that there will be ample supplies of anti-poliomyelitis vaccine for all persons desiring vaccination by June of this year.
    Mr. Maclay: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health to the hon. Members for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) and Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner). The Great Britain figures which my right hon. and learned Friend quoted include due provision for Scotland.
    Mr. Hoy: What has that to do with Edinburgh? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the medical officer of health in Edinburgh has expressed concern that supplies will not be available for those people who have registered for vaccination in Edinburgh? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the vaccine will be available in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of the people of Scotland, and can he assure the chief medical officer for Edinburgh that there is no ground for doubt about the adequacy of the supplies for that city?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member did not mention Edinburgh in his Question. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health said yesterday, we have taken steps to ensure that there are quantities of the American Salk vaccine to safeguard the supply position. There are so many unpredictable factors that it would be wrong to forecast the position on 30th June or any other date. I suggest that we await the debate on Thursday.
    Mr. Hoy: As the right hon. Gentleman is Minister of Health for Scotland, and in view of the unsatisfactory nature of his reply, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Cancer Treatment
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are his plans for establishing more high-power units for the treatment of cancer; and how far these plans also include the use of radioactive cobalt and caesium.
    Mr. Maclay: The intention is that one of the two new radiotherapy departments proposed in Glasgow should be equipped with a linear accelerator and the other with a major treatment unit which may be a cobalt unit. The third department, proposed in Aberdeen, is likely to be equipped with a cobalt unit. I am advised that the use of caesium for this purpose is still at the experimental stage.
    Mr. Hannan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the opinion which has been expressed in many quarters in Scotland that more attention should be paid to the need for providing these facilities urgently? Will he use his influence to see that the addition to the Western Infirmary is proceeded with as soon as possible?
    Mr. Maclay: Certainly, Sir. As the hon. Member knows, I have been working on this matter very closely for some time past.

    Boarded-Out Children
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children have been removed from foster parents in Mull, and other islands in Argyllshire, since 1948; and for what reasons.
    Mr. Maclay: According to our records, 112 children since the Children Act, 1948,
    178
    came into operation. With permission. I shall circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the information requested in the second half of the Question.
    Mrs. Mann: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a statement, similar to that issued for England and Wales, regarding children boarded out by local authorities, voluntary organisations and so on?
    Mr. Maclay: I will certainly look into that.
    The following is the information:

    To go to employment

    67

    Unsatisfactory foster-homes

    16

    Behaviour difficulties

    15

    To attend schools on the mainland

    10

    Domestic difficulties of foster-parents

    4

    112

    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is informed by local authorities of decisions taken to remove children from foster parents on grounds of remote geographical location; and to what extent in such cases the parents or children are consulted.
    Mr. Maclay: According to the information which local authorities have since 1948 been obliged to give me whenever a child has moved from a foster home, no child has been removed solely because the foster home was geographically remote. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Grant children and the Johnstone children in Mull were removed, and that it was not on the grounds of education? Can it be that at that time all the foster parents in the Isle of Mull were bad?
    Mr. Maclay: No, I do not think that that conclusion should be drawn. Again, I should be grateful if the hon. Lady would put down a detailed Question on these cases.

    Criminal Lunatics (Release)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what precautions are taken to ensure public safety before detainees for criminal lunacy are released from mental hospitals.
    Mr Maclay: I assume that the hon. Lady is referring to persons found insane

    179
    and ordered by the courts to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure. In considering such cases I examine not only full reports by the Medical Commissioners of the General Board of Control, who have had the patient under observation during his detention, but also the whole history of the case and the proposed arrangements for the patient's future, which generally include further supervision by responsible guardians and by the Board of Control.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one patient was released in December, 1957, and by October, 1958, had murdered an old lady? Is he aware that between December and October the patient regularly failed to report? How did the patient get away with failing to report?
    Mr. Maclay: I should like the hon. Lady to send me details of that case.

    North Isles Shipping Services
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has for the north isles shipping services in Orkney.
    Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Member is aware, the service has already been improved in a number of ways in fulfilment of the recommendations in the Macgillivray Report, and I am also making an offer of increased assistance towards the maintenance of the service to North Ronaldshay. Any question of further improvements is primarily a matter for the shipping companies concerned with Orkney, but, though I cannot give any definite undertaking of Government assistance at this stage, I am willing to consider any proposals that the companies may put forward for assistance towards the provision of new ships, if it is clear that they cannot be provided in any other way.
    Mr. Grimond: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for some of that reply. May I remind him that the vital part of the Report was on the question of the replacement of ships, and that the matter is becoming very urgent? May I remind him that freights on the services have gone up, and unless the ships are repaired very soon, expenses in general will be much higher? May I urge the right hon. Gentleman to give his personal interest
    180
    to finding a solution in the very near future?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member will realise that I have taken a close personal interest in this matter at all stages, and I appreciate the urgency of it.

    Mobile Hospital Units, The Highlands
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider using small mobile hospital units in the Highlands to serve patients who require regular or intermittent treatment and who cannot afford the expense and loss of time involved in journeys to Inverness, Edinburgh, or Glasgow.
    Mr. Maclay: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, and I am taking it up with the Regional Hospital Boards concerned.

    Trees, Mauchline (Disposal)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what quantities of trees have been recently disposed of by the Forestry Commission to landlords in the Mauchline district of Ayrshire; and at what price.
    Mr. Maclay: Since 1st October, 1957, the Forestry Commission has sold 18,300 transplants to landowners within ten miles of Mauchline. All sales were made at the retail prices agreed for the various species by the nursery trade.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: As Lord Strathclyde is a constituent of mine, may I ask the Minister whether he was overcharged? Can the right hon. Gentleman also tell me what quality of trees they were that needed to be planted on good agricultural land without giving the farmer more than 24 hours' notice?
    Mr. Maclay: I do not see the name of my noble Friend on the Order Paper. I understand that the trees sold in the area were Sitka spruce and Norway spruce.

    Slaughterhouses Bill
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to introduce the Bill in respect of slaughterhouses.
    Mr. Maclay: A Scottish Slaughterhouses Bill will be introduced as soon as this becomes practicable.
    Mr. Hannan: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance, in his own interests and the interests of his right hon. Friends, that this legislation will be introduced before the next General Election?
    Mr. Maclay: At this moment I cannot give any assurance of the precise time.

    Mental Illness
    Mr. Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now received the views of all the organisations he consulted in respect of Command Paper No. 9623, relating to mental illness and mental deficiency in Scotland; whether he has now received the report from the Scottish Health Services Council Committee on the same subject; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclay: I have received comments from most of the organisations consulted, and expect to receive the report from the Scottish Health Services Council very soon. I shall have to consider the views of all these bodies very carefully and I cannot, therefore, make a statement at this stage.
    Mr. Hannan: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this report was expected in February of this year? Since two-fifths of the National Health Service beds in Scotland are in mental hospitals and mental deficiency institutions, is not the urgency of the matter clear to him? Will he do something to hurry up these reports?
    Mr. Maclay: There are one or two important organisations which have still to convey their views to me. I am hoping to receive them very soon.

    Hospital Staffing
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Scottish Joint Consultants Committee.
    Mr. Maclay: Yes, Sir. It has been agreed that the study of hospital staffing structure referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health in his statement on 21st April will be conducted on a Great Britain basis, and that interim arrangements for senior registrars will be made; the actual arrangements are to be discussed at a further meeting.

    Tenancy of Shops (Report)
    Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the Committee considering the Tenancy of Shops (Scotland) Act, 1949, to make its Report; and if this Report will be made available to hon. Members.
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received a Report from the Committee which he appointed to inquire into the Tenancy of Shops Act.
    Mr. Maclay: I expect to receive the Committee's Report during the summer; it will be published
    Mr. McInnes: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Committee invites evidence from appropriate organisations or individuals involved?
    Mr. Maclay: May I have notice of that question? I should like to give an accurate answer.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the absence of cases of exploitation of shops is attributable to the success of the Act, and that the mere fact that they do not exist does not mean that they would not recur if the protection were taken away?
    Mr. Maclay: I am very conscious of that point.

    Deer
    Mr. N. McLeanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) whether, in view of the fact that there is increasing damage done by red deer to hill farming interests in certain districts in the Highlands and also that the numbers of cases reported of poaching red deer or the wounding of red deer by gangs of poachers gives cause for disquiet, he will now, as a result of his further consideration of the matter, say what he intends to do; and if he will make a statement;
    (2) whether, in view of the fact that a basis for agreement had been reached on legislative measures for the protection and control of red deer as long ago as the autumn of 1956 by farming, sporting and landowning interests in conjunction with the Nature Conservancy, he will now, as a result of his further consideration, introduce legislation in order to put a stop to the serious damage caused by red deer to

    183
    hill farming interests in certain districts in the Highlands and in order to stop the continued suffering to deer wounded by gangs of poachers.
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, having read the Ross-shire Police report on deer poaching, a copy of which has been sent to him, he will, as a result of his further consideration, immediately bring in a Bill to protect deer from the brutality and suffering inflicted on them by gangs whose inhuman methods maim and wound many more deer than they kill.
    Mr. John MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he now proposes to take to deal with the control of deer in the Highlands of Scotland, as a result of his further consideration of this matter.
    Mr. Maclay: The Government are progressing with their examination of the proposals put forward by the interests concerned for legislative Measures to strengthen the law on the poaching of deer and to ensure effective conservation and control of deer. The subject has difficult aspects, but I hope to be able, to make a statement within the next month or two.
    Mr. McLean: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, which shows that he is aware of the seriousness of the problem, but is he aware of its urgency, in view of the fact that the amount of damage done to hill farming interests has been increasing and is likely to increase, especially as the Forestry Commission encloses more land for planting and thus denies winter grazing to the red deer, which are forced down on to marginal farms? In view of the further fact that the incidence of poaching by night with shotguns, which causes great suffering to red deer in the Highlands, has been giving great concern to very many people, will he advance as far as possible the plan for drawing up legislation to deal with the problem?
    Mr. Maclay: I assure my hon. Friend that I realise the importance and urgency of the matter.
    Sir D. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance, in view of the brutality which has been revealed by the Ross-shire police report, that he will bring in a Bill to put a stop
    184
    to these things before the House rises at the beginning of August for a further three months?
    Mr. Maclay: No, Sir, I could give no such assurance; but the Bill will be brought in as soon as all the considerations have been looked at and it is decided that it is practical to produce an adequate Measure.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. John MacLeod.
    Sir D. Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As legislation to deal with the subject has been in the form of a Bill, a withdrawn Bill or a Bill in embryo, for six years, is it not thoroughly unsatisfactory for the House to be told that we cannot have an assurance that a Bill will be brought in before the House rises?
    Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order at all. Anyhow, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. John MacLeod) has a Question on the Order Paper which was answered together with that of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson).
    Mr. John MacLeod: As there has been such long discussion on this matter, what is holding things up? What are the points of difference?
    Mr. Maclay: The whole matter raises very complicated issues involving not only poaching and a close season but very complicated matters of entry on to land and other points which require the most careful examination if we are not to produce a very doubtful proposition.

    Unemployment, Caithness and Sutherland
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider reclaiming 1,000 acres on the causewaymire in Caithness, using the 50 per cent. grants which are now available and the savings which will result from the employment of men who are now among the 7.2 per cent. of unemployed in Caithness and Sutherland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. It is the Government's policy to provide incentives by means of various subsidy schemes to encourage landowners and farmers to reclaim such land as they are satisfied can be successfully reclaimed and

    185
    worked. In the present financial situation, I could not consider carrying out, wholly at the Government's expense, a large-scale scheme of capital works, such as I know my hon. Friend has in mind.
    Sir D. Robertson: But is it not within the compass of the Government, even though we are rather hard up at the present time, to construct one farm of 1,000 acres in an area which once carried a large number of people and which has now gone back to the moor? Is it not particularly desirable, when our unemployment is running at the rate of 7–2 per cent. and, further, is it not within the full approval of the House, that something like this should be done?
    Mr. Maclay: As my hon. Friend knows, I examine with the greatest care the various propositions he puts forward from time to time to deal with problems in his part of the world, but I could not at this moment say that I could entertain this particular proposal.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that much of this land in the Highlands is not held by individuals who themselves could, or would be willing to, proceed with reclamation schemes, and that if this land is to be reclaimed to provide farming opportunities for people in the Highlands it will have to be done by the Secretary of State? Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision and see whether, in the case mentioned in the Question asked by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) and in other cases, he could himself initiate the reclamation of large tracts of land in Highland areas?
    Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Member knows, many schemes of this kind have been examined in the past, and some were carried out. I shall go on looking at all these proposals very carefully to see whether they would be economic and would really result in the effective reduction of the unemployment figures. But I am not satisfied that the particular scheme put to me would meet these requirements.

    Police (Recruitment)
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many additional recruits are necessary to bring the police force up to the required establishment.
    Mr. Maclay: Five hundred and one at 31st March, 1958, which is just under 6 per cent. of establishment.
    Mr. McInnes: Can the Secretary of State indicate in which towns or counties there is an extreme shortage?
    Mr. Maclay: I think that Glasgow is in the most difficult position, being 314 short of the authorised male establishment, but I am glad to say that in the first quarter of this year the deficiency was reduced by 43.

    Surplus Herring, Shetland (Price)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to see that the herring fishing season in Shetland can open on 1st May with reasonable prices for herring going to oil and meal.
    Mr. Maclay: The arrangements for the purchase of surplus herring for reduction to oil and meal are a matter for the Herring Industry Board. I am, however, asking the Board to review the situation in the light of the representations I have received on the subject.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that this is really causing great dismay in Shetland and that his Answer, although I appreciate his difficulty, will not be taken as a great encouragement by the men on the deck of a herring boat? Does he not realise that if there is not an outlet for herrings in Shetland there is grave danger that this fishery will be permanently impaired? Will not the time be ripe on Thursday, when the Herring Industry Board meets the fishermen's representatives, for him to use his influence with the Board to see that it finds some outlet for herring? It is the Board's business to foster the industry and, at the moment, this is not being done and the position is extremely serious.
    Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Gentleman clearly indicates in his supplementary question, I asked the Board to review the situation, and this meeting is to take place. I sincerely hope that something useful will come out of it.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Herring Industry Board will be able to review this decision only if it is given some definite encouragement from the Exchequer? In

    187
    view of the threat to the herring industry in Shetland, will the right hon. Gentleman make clear that the Exchequer will find the money needed to enable the Herring Industry Board to accept herrings for fish meal as from the beginning of May? There is no time to lose.
    Mr. Maclay: I do not think that that question arises. There is a herring subsidy scheme working at the moment, and I sincerely hope that the meeting next Thursday will produce some satisfactory results. We cannot tell yet.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Does this question not show the unhappy relationship between the Herring Industry Board and the fishermen?
    Mr. Maclay: I sincerely hope that the relationship is not too bad. I know that there have, from time to time, been difficulties, but I believe that the Herring Industry Board does its best to retain the closest and most friendly contact with the industry.

  NUCLEAR WEAPONS

    Surprise Attacks
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the recent protest of the Soviet Government on the carrying of hydrogen bombs by Western aircraft, he will agree to the meeting of technical experts proposed in his recent letter to Mr. Kruschev working out the kind of arrangement necessary to provide safeguards against surprise attacks of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Her Majesty's Government proposed last July, and on a number of subsequent occasions, that there should be an early meeting of experts to discuss the practical details of safeguards against surprise attack. I repeated this proposal in my letter of 16th January to Mr. Bulganin, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary confirmed it in the House on 20th February last. The offer still stands.
    The United States Government have now suggested an international inspection zone in the Arctic. This is an area from which the Soviet Government have professed to fear attack. I hope, therefore, that they will make a positive contribution to today's Security Council
    188
    discussions and agree to collaborate with the other countries concerned in working out the details of an inspection system.
    Mr. Henderson: Will not the Prime Minister agree that the establishment of an international system of aerial inspection would greatly reduce the anxieties which appear to exist both in the Soviet Union and in the United States as to the possibility of surprise attack by bombers carrying nuclear weapons? Further, would the proposal put forward yesterday by President Eisenhower, which the right hon. Gentleman also has himself proposed, for the appointment of a technical committee to consider this problem, delay the proposed Summit Conference?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the first part of that supplementary question, certainly the system of international aerial inspection would reduce anxieties, but it is, of course, by itself, only of limited use. It cannot, for example, show whether an aircraft is armed or not. That is why our proposals of last August stipulate that in all cases aerial inspection with ground observation posts would be necessary. Regarding the second part of the supplementary question, certainly if the Russians participated in these technical talks that would not hold up, but would rather be a happy augury for, a summit meeting.

    Aircraft (Patrol Flights)
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether, on his forthcoming visit to the United States, he will propose to the President that patrol flights beyond territorial limits of aeroplanes carrying nuclear weapons should be suspended pending the Summit Conference.
    Mr. Masonasked the Prime Minister if he has yet studied the reports of the discussion in the United Nations Security Council regarding the alerting of the Strategic Air Command based in the United States, particularly the statement by the Russian representative that in the event of war, the United Kingdom would be also immediately involved; whether he will make representations to the United States to reconsider the value of these patrols; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: I do not consider it would be appropriate for me to make representations of this kind to the United States Government.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the control system that he mentioned earlier as desirable should be linked to an agreement by both sides to refrain from sending planes in the direction of each other's territory? Is it necessary to assume, as part of the preparations for a Summit Conference to discuss peace, that the United States is in danger of a bolt-from-the-blue attack from the Soviet Union? Is there not a violent clash between that assumption and the assumption that may underlie a Summit Conference?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I could not accept any of those observations.
    Mr. Mason: Does not the Prime Minister agree that if war broke out, perhaps accidentally, because of American nuclear-armed bomber patrols, we should be immediately involved? Is not he aware of the great concern in the country about this problem? Would it not be advisable, at least, to make representations to the American Government to have these nuclear-armed bomber patrols grounded pending the outcome of the Summit Conference?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I studied carefully the Soviet accusations against the United States in the Security Council and have observed that they failed to secure any support there.

    British Tests
    Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister whether the bomb to be exploded in the forthcoming British tests will be a clean bomb.
    The Prime Minister: The weapons and devices which we test, and the methods of testing, do not add significantly to the existing level of radiation; but I am not prepared to disclose the nature of these weapons and devices.
    Mrs. Castle: Is the Prime Minister aware that American scientists now admit that there is no such thing as a clean bomb? Dr. Libby of the Atomic Energy Commission admitted the other day that the bombs to be tested in the Pacific this year will be twice as dirty as the Hiroshima bomb, from which Japanese citizens are still dying. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Government's decision to conduct a British test, which has just been held, before
    190
    exploring the Russian offer to suspend tests and thus wantonly throwing away the chance of international agreement to end the tests, has shocked public opinion in this country?
    The Prime Minister: I find it difficult to follow the hon. Lady's logic. If the scientists are right in saying that there is no such thing as a clean bomb, I do not know why she asks if our bomb is a clean bomb.

    Hydrogen Bomb (Radioactivity)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Prime Minister how the radioactivity of a hydrogen bomb compares with that of an atomic bomb.
    The Prime Minister: It is impossible to give a general answer to a question of this kind. It would all depend upon the design of the particular bomb.
    Mr. Johnson: While accepting that, is it not a fact that the H-bomb has an atomic bomb core? Consequently, no H-bomb can be cleaner than the bomb which fell at Hiroshima. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what Dr. Teller means when he speaks of having a 96 per cent. clean bomb? Does it mean a 96 per cent. atomic bomb, or does it mean 96 per cent. of 100 atomic bombs, which, of course, means as dirty as four atomic bombs?
    The Prime Minister: The matter is rather more complicated than that. The amount and behaviour of fall-out would depend on such variable factors as the design of the weapons, the height of the bursts and the weather.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Does not the dirtiness of the hydrogen bomb primarily depend upon whether uranium 238 is used as an outer sheath? Can the Prime Minister say whether we are continuing or whether we have abandoned the practice, as the Americans have?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has advanced the argument a little, but he has not clarified it. I would not allow myself to be drawn into ex cathedra statements on scientific matters on a supplementary question.
    Dr. Summerskill: At the risk of the Prime Minister trying to slap me down, may I ask him this? Is he aware—and I think this is important for both

    191
    sides of the House—that when he last told us that the tests in the Christmas Islands were going to be clean, Dr. Libby, the American expert and adviser to the United States Atomic Energy Commission, said that the British people had been deceived, and that it had been alleged in this country that the tests were clean, but the bombs were, in fact, as dirty as any of the Soviet megaton bombs?
    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of slapping the right hon. Lady down. I have a Private Notice Question from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, and I think it would be more courteous of me to leave it until that stage than to try to answer these detailed scientific matters in reply to supplementary questions on this Question.

    Inspection and Control
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his proposal to Mr. Khrushchev that experts should now be appointed to work out an agreed system of inspection and control of hydrogen bomb tests, he will intimate to the Soviet Government that Her Majesty's Government is prepared to implement such a system in an agreement banning tests.
    The Prime Minister: I have made clear the hope of Her Majesty's Government that a Summit Conference may reach some agreement on disarmament, including the question of nuclear test explosions. It is certainly our intention that such agreement should include effective measures of international control. It is very disappointing that Mr. Khrushchev should now have flatly rejected President Eisenhower's proposal, similar to mine, for preparatory technical study of this control.
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that the President's proposal was that there should be technical discussions without any preceding agreement to banish tests in a separate treaty? Is that not the real issue? Will the Prime Minister state whether the technical discussions, if the Soviet Union agrees to them, will take place on the basis of an agreement to ban tests, apart from anything else?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the hon. Gentleman has quite missed the point. It was proposed in several quarters, in this House and elsewhere, that, while the signing of a final agreement might have to be left, and should be left, to a summit agreement or an agreement between the Powers, it would save time and would be helpful if the technical investigations took place immediately. I am sorry that that proposal, made by both the American and the British Government, has not, as yet, been taken up.

    NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENTS (BRITISH AND FOREIGN CONTACTS)
    Mr. Masonasked the Prime Minister to what extent Her Majesty's Government have taken steps to facilitate contacts between British firms and those in Europe who have shown a desire to build the Calder Hall type of reactor; and what steps have been taken to help train scientists and engineers for Euratom.
    The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's representatives overseas do everything in their power to keep British industry fully informed about developments and opportunities in the nuclear field. But contacts between British and foreign firms are usually established without the need for intervention by Her Majesty's Government.
    As regards the second part of the Question, a high proportion of the places in the Harwell Reactor School and the Calder Reactor Operations School has been filled by students from the Euratom countries.
    Mr. Mason: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for part of that reply, is he aware that the American Atomic Commission is forging ahead in making more concrete the alliances between Euratom and the Commission? Should not we be taking more positive steps in that direction?
    The Prime Minister: As I told the hon. Gentleman the other day, we are studying whether any further advance is necessary. When it comes to commercial arrangements, they tend to be decided on a commercial basis.

    EUROPEAN NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY
    Mr. P. Noel-Bakerasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work, progress and functions of the European Nuclear Energy Agency, the statute of which came into force early in 1958.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal described the purpose of the Agency in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) on 4th February. The first joint project to be set up by the Agency will be a chemical separation plant, known as Eurochemic, for processing irradiated fuel elements from reactors. Two other possible joint projects are under discussion, and a Health and Safety Sub-Committee has been set up.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Prime Minister say why it is desirable to give this limited Agency the duty of inspecting nuclear disarmament when, if nuclear disarmament is ever agreed to, inspection must be the function of the United Nations, as the Government have so often said?
    The Prime Minister: I think that that is a rather different question which I should not like to answer off-hand. If the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to table a Question or get in touch with me, I shall do my best to answer him.

NUCLEAR DEVICE (EXPLOSION)
Mr. Gaitskell(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about the explosion of a British nuclear device which took place over the Central Pacific yesterday.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply announced last night, a British nuclear device was successfully exploded, at a high altitude, over the Central Pacific yesterday. Scientific measurements are being collected for accurate evaluation. Early indications are that the fall-out will be negligible. All that I can add to this statement is that the test was in the megaton range.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Prime Minister whether this is an isolated test, or the beginning of a new series of test explosions? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is really necessary to proceed further with tests before the summit talks? Is it not a fact that agreement on the suspension of tests is one of the best hopes for a lead into general disarmament, of which he himself has spoken so hopefully, and would not the continuation of tests involve the real risk of the Soviet Union resuming their tests and all hope of multilateral agreement on these being abandoned?
Finally, would not the Prime Minister agree that, however advantageous a further test may appear to be from the point of our own nuclear knowledge, what really matters here is the balance of nuclear power, and that if the Soviet Union continues with tests that may be very gravely to our military disadvantage?
The Prime Minister: There are a number of questions which I will do my best to answer. This test is one of a series of tests which is not yet completed. I am not prepared at present to make any further statement than that.
With regard to the timing of the test, it has not escaped the House that the Soviet Government made the announcement of their proposal to suspend tests immediately after the completion of one of the largest series of tests in the history of—[An HON. MEMBER: "And before."]—and I would have thought, and still think, that the proper method, and, I hope, the method by which this matter may be settled, is by agreement between the three Governments concerned.
The value of the test, is, of course, of importance to us—and, indeed, I would have thought it of importance to the right hon. Gentleman because, as I understand the position of, at any rate, a section of his party, it is that we ought to have the bomb and not abandon it, but use it as an instrument of negotiation, so it is just as well we should have had this last test.
Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that, since we have the bomb already, that last argument is entirely irrelevant? Is he further aware that though it is, of course, perfectly true that the Soviet Union concluded a series

195
of tests before announcing their suspension, nevertheless they had, prior to that, made an offer for the all-round suspension of tests which was not accepted by the Western Powers? Does he realise that if, following the continuation of this series of tests by the United Kingdom, all hope of an agreement on this comes to be abandoned, a very grave responsibility will rest on Her Majesty's Government?
The Prime Minister: I do not believe that the holding of these tests will make the slightest difference to the possibility of negotiating an agreement on a satisfactory basis with the Soviet Government. On the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman says that we have the bomb. If he had accepted my invitation to discuss these matters a little more intimately he would have spoken with a greater degree of responsibility. What I would say is that I certainly would not have taken the responsibility, either last year when he asked me or this year, to have refused my consent to the holding of this test.

MALTA (DISTURBANCES)
Mr. Callaghan(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statment on the disturbances taking place in Malta.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): There have been a number of demonstrations in the last few days and there was a strike yesterday, organised by the General Workers' Union. A number of incidents have been reported, although these were not of a major character. The police dealt very efficiently indeed with the demonstrators and the situation was back to normal this morning.
Mr. Callaghan: Would the Colonial Secretary convey to the dockyard workers that the House shares their anxiety about the future of their jobs, but that it is not our view that violence will in any way solve this problem and that, in fact, it can be solved without resort to rioting? Would he tell us how the suspension of public meetings will affect preparations for a general election? Is it still the intention of the Government, as I hope it is, to carry on preparations for a general election at the earliest possible moment, so that these matters can be brought to public issue?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will certainly convey what the hon. Gentleman has said in the first part of his supplementary question. I share the sentiments he expressed.
The Constitution provides for elections in the normal course of affairs, and there will, of course, be elections, but I think that the House will agree that as long as the present disturbances continue there are bound to be delays.

BUDGET PROPOSALS (CHANGES)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): I would like, Mr. Speaker, with permission, to make a statement about the Finance Bill.
I said last week that I would give further thought, before the Finance Bill, to the proposal that the legislation to deal with dividend stripping should be made retrospective to 26th October, 1955. I have done so, taking into account the views which have been expressed in this House and all other relevant considerations, including the need to be sure that the warning given in 1955 was wide enough to cover the sort of cases now in question. In all the circumstances, I am proposing in the Finance Bill, published today, that these Clauses shall take effect from Budget day.
I should, at the same time, inform the House of one other change in my Budget proposals. After considering the representations which have been made to me, I have decided to restore in the Finance Bill the exemption from Purchase Tax of miners' and quarrymen's protective boots and helmets. Tax accruing due since 16th April under the Budget Resolution has not yet been, and will not be, collected.
Mr. H. Wilson: While we welcome the Chancellor's second thoughts on the question of safety boots and helmets, which should never have been included in his first thoughts, anyway, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the country will note with dismay this surrender to an extremely unscrupulous group of tax dodgers in this country?
Is he aware that it is the general feeling in the House about retrospective legislation that dividend stripping has been a quite deliberate tax-dodging invention over the past two years, and that a number of legitimate traders and businessmen

197
desisted from introducing these methods because of the warning given by the previous Financial Secretary?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, in view of his statement, the whole House will have to take the view that if retrospective legislation of this kind is ruled out we shall need much more thorough-going methods in the Finance Bill of controlling tax-dodging methods of this kind, which might interfere—
Mr. Pickthorn: On a point of order, Sir. May I ask whether all this implicit argumentation would be in order from other than Front Benchers merely by having added to it a little perfunctory interrogation in the last two or three syllables?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the right hon. Member is entitled to ask a supplementary question—
Mr. Pickthorn: It is not a supplementary question—
Mr. Speaker: Order. He is entitled to ask a supplementary question on the statement that has been made. I would point out to the House that this is a matter for legislation, which will appear in the Finance Bill in due course, when all the relevant considerations can be debated to the heart's content of hon. Members who hold different views on this subject. It is not a matter that we can pursue now.
Mr. H. Wilson Mr. H. Wilson rose
Mr. Speaker: Has the right hon. Gentleman another question to ask?
Mr. Wilson: Further to that point of order, Sir. Perhaps it would be right, at this stage, to say that when we come to debate this matter the arguments that we shall use will go into a great deal more detail than anything which can be said at Question Time.
To finish the question which was interrupted by the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn)—and I must start at the beginning so that the Chancellor can get the drift of it—is the Chancellor aware that this will mean that since the House clearly failed in its duty in October, 1955, despite our warnings at that time, it will now be necessary to go into these provisions in the Finance Bill with infinitely greater care than might have been
198
necessary if the Chancellor had stuck to his guns?
Mr. Amory: There were very difficult considerations which had to be taken into account in this case and I did not find this an easy matter on which to reach a decision. The representations which I took into account came by no means from one direction, but from many different directions. I mention among them the doubt as to whether the warning was sufficiently wide to cover the new methods which have been discovered in the meantime. I am not sure. It was my view to start with that it was wide enough, but there is a doubt about that. Another consideration to which I felt bound to give great weight—and this is one which I personally view very strongly—is that, in general, restrospective legislation is highly undesirable.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: We can debate this matter on the Finance Bill.
Mr. Jay Mr. Jay rose—
Mr. Speaker: Has the right hon. Gentleman a question to ask?
Mr. Jay: Why has the Chancellor omitted from this concession shopping baskets made by the blind? Is it his intention to persist with raising the tax on these products of blind persons?
Mr. Amory: I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that is the sort of question which we shall have a very full opportunity to discuss later.
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order. As there have been questions from two Front Bench Members opposite, could not a back bencher put a question?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Lady has a question, I will listen to it, but we must get on.
Dame Irene Ward: It will be very short, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether I shall be able to have a quid pro quo for the small fixed income group, which will give me very great pleasure?
Mr. Amory: It has been my experience that my hon. Friend always gets quids pro quo.
Mr. H. Wilson: On a point of order. I submit that this is not a point which can wait until the Finance Bill.
Mr. Nabarro: It is not a point of order, either.
Mr. Wilson: That is a matter which we will leave, as usual, to you, Mr. Speaker.
As a result of a decision of the Committee of Ways and Means, taken on a recommendation of the Chancellor on Budget day, tax has been levied on a small group of goods from which the Chancellor is now removing the tax. I am referring, of course, to the miners' helmets and boots, and so on. As a result of his statement today, it is now clear that that tax is to be withdrawn, but people have paid tax on those goods in the shops, because prices have been raised as a result of our decision. What steps will the Chancellor take to ensure—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not a point of order."] Yes, it is a point of order. I want to ask you, Mr. Speaker, what decision the House can take to ensure that there is a refund to people who have paid tax because of a decision of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker: As this point of order was addressed to me, I must try to answer it. The position is that a decision has been taken by the Committee of Ways and Means which embodies a general Budget Resolution. The Finance Bill has been introduced and will come up for Second Reading, and anything which is in order can be put down as an Amendment to the Finance Bill, when there will
200
be an opportunity to discuss it and to come to a conclusion upon the matter.
Mr. Wilson: The Resolution does not cover any question of a refund of tax which has been wrongly paid and it will therefore, be impossible to move Amendments to the Finance Bill to give effect to a proposal to refund the tax. If we are to have these temporary forms of taxation introduced on Budget day and withdrawn a fortnight later, will the Chancellor tell the House—the House has a right to be informed—what steps can be taken to put the matter right?
Mr. Amory: There are precedents in this matter. This will be an easy case, because the tax, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is paid at the wholesale stage. I am informed that it is extremely improbable that goods of this nature, which have attracted the higher rate of tax, will have been sold by retailers, so that the tax has not yet been paid. However, that matter, as on past occasions, is being investigated and appropriate steps will be taken if it is found that goods which have attracted the tax at the higher rate have, in fact, been sold.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

HOUSE PURCHASE (TENANT' CLAIM TO EXCESS PRICE)
3.48 p.m.
Mr. R. T. Paget: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs to prescribe, either generally or district by district, a multiplier of the gross rateable value of dwelling-houses decontrolled under subsection (1) of section eleven of the Rent Act, 1957; to provide that where such a dwelling-house is sold for a price in excess of the prescribed multiple of its gross rateable value, the tenant at the time of sale or, if the dwelling-house is untenanted at the time of sale, a tenant evicted prior to and for the purpose of effecting a sale with vacant possession shall be entitled to claim from the landlord an amount equal to the said excess; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
May I begin by expressing an apology both to you, Sir, and to the House for my absence from my place on Thursday? It was entirely through my own fault. I thought that this matter would arise after the Budget Resolution and I was behind your Chair at the time.
The Bill I seek leave to introduce is designed to deal with what both sides of the House have described as profiteering, that is, profiteering from the scarcity of houses and taking the opportunity to profiteer from what has resulted from decontrol. That this profiteering is taking place I had evidenced to me by a letter which I received from my constituency only yesterday, saying that no fewer than four houses were being offered for sale at between sixty and eighty times the gross value. I believe that that situation can be reproduced all over the country. The Bill would also serve in some degree to measure the genuineness of the supporters of the Government who have expressed disapproval of this form of profiteering.
What I propose is that the Minister shall have the right, either generally or district by district, to select a multiplier of the gross value of houses. I say district by district, because what is a fair price expressed in terms of a multiplication of the gross annual value of a house may vary from district to district. That multiplier would be designed to arrive at a fair price for a house in a free market, but a genuinely free market
202
which is not inflated by the scarcity element.
In the event of a house being sold for more than that, the tenant at whose expense the inflated price had been obtained would have a claim against the landlord for the excess. I can put it in simple figures. If we have a house in London, say, with a gross value of £60 and the multiplier fixed by the Ministry were 20, the fair price would be £1,200; that is to say, twenty times £60. If the house were sold for more than that, say, for £1,800 or £2,000—and they are being sold for more than that—the £600 or £800 difference would be paid to the tenant at whose expense it had been obtained.
It might be payable to the tenant himself if he had been forced to pay an excessive price to preserve his home, or if he had been ejected to facilitate a sale. Then, he would have a share in the price obtained for the house, which would be some compensation to him at least for having lost his home. It seems to me that he is the person to whom the excess should fairly go. After all, he is the sufferer.
There is another principle which we on this side of the House, at any rate, recognise, and that is that the owner is not the only person who has an interest in somebody else's home. The man who lives there, whose children have been born there, has an interest, and if an excessive price is to be obtained and that man is to be deprived of his home, or is forced to expend all his savings to preserve his home at an excessive price, he is the person who ought to get that compensation.
I hope that the Government will accept the Motion, which will certainly give effect to the sentiments which they have been expressing. It will be a test of their sincerity and their genuineness, but there is another purpose for the introduction of the Bill. We have heard about warnings with regard to retrospective legislation. I hope that this may be a clear warning that if landlords do seek to profiteer in this situation, then, when another Government come into power, they may have to disgorge some of their profits to some of the tenants at whose expense they gained them. That is a warning which they might very profitably bear in mind.
3.54 p.m.
Mr. Philip Bell: It is really rather cheerful to find one kind of debate in which a back bencher does not have to compete with Privy Councillors in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, but as I have been sitting here quite relaxed, watching the ritualistic dance put on so kindly this afternoon by the Opposition, I realised that despite the didactic delivery and the flashing eyes, the technique is still very much the same. It might have been suitably addressed to a bench of magistrates, provided that they were elderly and slightly deaf, because this matter of fitting compensation or fixing a price by reference to the rateable value of property is very old.
It was, in fact, suggested in 1945, by the Morris Committee, and paragraph 20 of its Report gives good reasons why it is impracticable and unfair. There was this to be said for the argument; it absolutely convinced hon. Members opposite, because they never brought in any legislation on that basis, nor, indeed, did they bring in any on the basis which the Morris Committee did suggest, for reasons which are quite simple, but which we have not had the opportunity of hearing, and which I find I have just about got time to give to the House.
The first is that when we take the value of old property for selling it is quite different from the way we value property for rating purposes. We do not pay much attention to rating in the case of old property, though it is true that we do to the state of repairs. When we are assessing property for rating purposes, we do not make the sort of inquiries we make about repairs. There is also the difficulty of leasehold properties, which gather the same rateable value as freehold properties.
Then, there is the experience of anybody who has considered the question of maximum price, namely, that what we think is the ceiling turns out very shortly to be the floor; that is to say, we do not have any competitive price, but the maximum price becomes the minimum price. These are reasons which anyone can find in the Report of the Morris Committee, which are as sound now as they were when they convinced the Morris Committee.
There are wider considerations. In this proposed Bill, no account is taken,
204
or ever is taken in these matters, of the balance of resources or of needs between the landlord and tenant. It is always assumed that tenants are weak, powerless and bankrupt, and that landlords are wealthy and smoke long cigars. All this is assumed, although it is not proved, and the real point is that some consideration might be given to the position of people who badly need houses. If, in fact, this method of assessment of a ceiling price only fixes a fair market value, then we do not want to waste our time with all this complicated legislation. If, on the other hand, it fixes what I suspect it is intended to do, something less than market price, there is a margin which is to be confiscated or taken away.
Why should it be taken away from one citizen and not the other? Have we considered, for instance, the claims of a landlord who wanted to sell his house so that he might buy a house to which to retire? No. He will have his margin taken away. What about the case of a house in trust, a house forming part of an estate which has to be wound up and the proceeds used? More exciting possibilities occur to me. One of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite might possibly want, and very laudably, to send his boy to a public school before the T.U.C. closes them all down. He might require the proceeds of the sale of his house so that he can send his boy to Winchester. These are possibilities, but nobody considers what the money may be wanted for by the landlord.
I am not beyond saying that in certain circumstances it might be right to have purchase prices fixed for houses in times of great scarcity, say, of a muddled Socialist Government, with perhaps a housing programme such as that which staggered and staggered until it brought defeat at the polls to the party opposite. These may be occasions when, for a short time, we might have that price, but what convinces me most is that the party opposite had the power and also had the Morris Report, but did not bring in such legislation for old houses, as it could have done, but only for new houses.
There is something to be said for that, but what is to be said for the proposition that a margin of the price is not to be given to the State, is not to be given to the poor or given away on the basis of any

205
sense of justice at all? What is to be said for it? One thing only, and it is not very pleasant, but somebody had better say it. It would buy votes. This is the sort of manœuvre that might buy votes, and that is all it is for, though I myself do not believe that votes can be bought quite as easily as that. At any rate, I do not believe that they will be in the end.
Therefore, I advise my hon. Friends to reject this Motion on the grounds that this
proposed Bill is impracticable, that it is arbitrary, that it is spiteful, and, in my opinion, despicable.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 187, Noes 243.

Division No. 97.]

AYES

[4.0 p.m.

Ainsley, J. W.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Parkin, B. T.

Albu, A. H.

Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

Paton, John

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Holman, P.

Pearson, A.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Holmes, Horace

Peart, T. F.

Awbery, S. S.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Pentland, N.

Bacon, Miss Alice

Hoy, J. H.

Popplewell, E.

Balfour, A.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Prentice, R. E.

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Hunter, A. E.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Benson, Sir George

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Boardman, H.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Probert, A. R.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Proctor, W. T.

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Rankin, John

Boyd, T. C.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Redhead, E. C.

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St. Pncs. S.)

Reid, William

Brockway, A. F.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Burke, W. A.

Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras N.)

Burton, Miss F. E.

Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Short, E. W.

Callaghan, L. J.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Lawson, G. M.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Champion, A. J.

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Chapman, W. D.

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Chetwynd, G. R.

Lindgren, G. S.

Snow, J. W.

Clunie, J.

Lipton, Marcus

Sorensen, R. W.

Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

Logan, D. G.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Sparks, J. A.

Cove, W. G.

McCann, J.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

MacColl, J. E.

Stonehouse, John

Crossman, R. H. S.

McGhee, H. G.

Stones, W. (Consett)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

McGovern, J.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

McInnes, J.

Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Deer, G.

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Delargy, H. J.

McLeavy, Frank

Sylvester, G. O.

Diamond, John

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Dye, S.

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thornton, E.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mallalieu, J. p. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

Tomney, F.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Usborne, H. C.

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Mason, Roy

Viant, S. P.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

Mayhew, C. P.

Weitzman, D.

Fernyhough, E.

Mellish, R. J.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Fletcher, Eric

Messer, Sir F.

West, D. C.

Foot, D. M.

Mikardo, Ian

Wheeldon, W. E.

Forman, J. C.

Mitchison, C. R.

White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Monslow, W.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Moody, A. S.

Willey, Frederick

Gibson, C. W.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mort, D. L.

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Moss, R.

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Grey, C. F.

Moyle, A.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Winterbottom, Richard

Griffiths, William (Exchange)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

Woof, R. E.

Hamilton, W. W.

Oram, A. E.

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Hannan, W.

Orbach, M.

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

Oswald, T.

Zilliacus, K.

Hastings, S.

Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Healey, Denis

Palmer, A. M. F.

Mr. Janner and Mr. Paget.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Pargiter, G. A.

Herbison, Miss M.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Gresham Cooke, R.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Aitken, W. T.

Grimond, J.

Nabarro, C. D. N.

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Alport, C. J. M.

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Neave, Airey

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Gurden, Harold

Nicholls, Harmar

Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Nicolson, N. (B-n-m'th, E.& Chr'ch)

Atkins, H. E.

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Al an

Baldwin, A. E.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Balniel, Lord

Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

Oakshott, H. D.

Barber, Anthony

Harrison, Col. J H. (Eye)

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Barlow, Sir John

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'd)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Barter, John

Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Osborne, C.

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Page, R. G.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Pannel, N. A. (Kirkdale)

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Hesketh, R. F.

Peel, W. J.

Bidgood, J. C.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Peyton, J. W. W.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Bishop, F. P.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Body, R. F.

Hirst, Geoffrey

Pitman, I. J.

Bonham-Carter, Capt. M. R.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Hope, Lord John

Powell, J. Enoch

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Hornby, R. P.

Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

Braine, B. R.

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Ramsden, J. E.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Rawlinson, Peter

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Redmayne, M.

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Hurd, A. R.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Bryan, P.

Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

Renton, D. L. M.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)

Ridsdale, J. E.

Burden, F. F. A.

Hyde, Montgomery

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Robertson, Sir David

Campbell, Sir David

Iremonger, T. L.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Carr, Robert

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Cary, Sir Robert

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Roper, Sir Harold

Channon, Sir Henry

Jennings, Sir Roland (Hal am)

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Chichester-Clark, R.

Johnson, Eric (Black ey)

Sharples, R. C.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

Shepherd, William

Cooke, Robert

Kerby, Capt. H. B.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Kershaw, J. A.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Kimball, M.

Speir, R. M.

Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

Lagden, G. W.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Currie, G. B. H.

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Dance, J. C. G.

Leather, E. H. C.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Davidson, Viscountess

Leavey, J. A.

Storey, S.

Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement(Montgomery)

Leburn, W. G.

Studholme, Sir Henry

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Summers, Sir Spencer

Deedes, W. F.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Teeling, W.

Doughty, C. J. A.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Temple, John M.

du Cann, E. D. L.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Duncan, Sir James

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Duthie, W. S.

Longden, Gilbert

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne. N.)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

McAdden, S. J.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Erroll, F. J.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Vane, W. M. F.

Farey-Jones, F. W.

McKibbin, Alan

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Finlay, Graeme

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Fisher, Nigel

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Wade, D. W.

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Wakefield, sir Wavell (St. M'lebone>

Fraser, sir Ian (M'nmbe & Lonsdale)

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Freeth, Denzil

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Wall, Patrick

Galbraith, Hon. . G. D.

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynsmouth)

Gammans, Lady

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Garner-Evans, E. H.

Maddan, Martin

Webbe, Sir H.

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Gibson-Watt, D.

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Glover, D.

Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Marshall, Douglas

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Godber, J. B.

Mathew, R.

Woollam, John Victor

Goodhart, Philip

Mawby, R. L.

Yates, William (The Wrek n)

Gower, H. R.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Graham, Sir Fergus

Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

Sir Herbert Butcher and

Grant, W. (Woodside)

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Mr. Philip Bell.

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(Nantwich)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Green, A.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL

    Clause 6.—(SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE OF PERSONS EMPLOYED IN SLAUGHTERHOUSES AND KNACKERS' YARDS.)
    4.10 p.m.
    Mr. Alfred Robens: I beg to move, in page 11, line 25, at the end to 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".
    It may be within the knowledge of the House that the Clause that we are now discussing is a new one, taking the place of the two or three pages which the Clause occupied in the original Bill. While the Bill was in Committee decisions were being taken elsewhere which had a bearing on the question of the Factories Act and slaughterhouses. It would be inappropriate for me to discuss the legal decision taken but, as a result, at no time in Committee did we discuss the Clause. There was a mutual agreement that it would be inappropriate to do so then.
    The Government have now given us a new Clause 6, which adds to the Interpretation Clause of the Factories Act these words:
    "the slaughtering of cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, asses or mules."
    This means that for the purpose of the Factories Act the whole of the slaughterhouse is now covered by the regulations made under that Act.
    The Amendment seeks to add words to include the lairage—the place where the animals await slaughter—and also to cover
    "the keeping or subjecting to any treatment or process products of the slaughtering of such animals."
    We feel that when we are considering the welfare of workers in industries covered by the Factories Act we should extend the provisions as far as reasonable and as widely as possible. Anyone who has studied the Factories Act will understand why so many people, including the Minister of Labour, I am sure, place such tremendous emphasis on the regulations
    210
    made under it. He will also understand why, in the Minister's Department, inspectors have duties which include making certain that Factories Act regulations are carried out.
    In Section 151 of the Factories Act, which deals with interpretation, many kinds of premises are covered which are outside the premises upon which the usual manufacturing processes are conducted. For example, they include
    "any yard or dry dock."
    We do not usually regard a dry dock as a place where a manufacturing process occurs, yet something is made there. Therefore, all the workers employed in a yard or a dry dock, where vessels are not merely being constructed but are often being broken up, are covered by these regulations. I shall not quote any of the other places which are covered. I merely use the dry dock as an example to illustrate my point that the regulations apply not necessarily to a building in which manufacturing processes take place, but also to many other kinds of places. It shows that the Factories Act is widely spread to catch and protect as many workers as possible.
    The Amendment seeks to make sure that all the functions of slaughtering are brought within the provisions of the Factories Act. Hon. Members on this side of the House do not take the view that we can very easily divide up the various operations concerned with the slaughtering of animals. They begin from the moment when the animals are taken to the spot to be slaughtered. They begin from the moment when those responsible for the care of the animals begin to look after them, perhaps overnight, when the animals are in the lairage before being slaughtered. All that forms part of the slaughtering operations, otherwise the animals would not be there.
    4.15 p.m.
    Therefore, we take the view that the Factories Act should cover all those people who are in any way concerned with the slaughtering of animals or the preparation of products derived from the carcases. We say that the Act should apply to the lairage, which, I should think, would be regarded as the first stage in the slaughtering operations, and all the way to the production of the end product, processed meat obtained after slaughtering.

    211
    We feel that this is important by reason of the provisions of the Factories Act itself. It would be inappropriate to go into all the provisions of that Act now, but I think that it is important that I should draw attention to those provisions relating to health. Those provisions are particularly appropriate for application to a slaughterhouse, not only the hall where the slaughtering takes place but to all the other parts of a slaughterhouse, which include the lairage. It is very important that the health provisions of the Factories Act be applied to them.
    For example, it is laid down under that Act that a factory must be kept in a clean state and free from effluvia arising from any drain. One can imagine the importance of this, because the drainage for the slaughterhall, the lairage, and all the buildings pertaining to the slaughterhouse would be interconnected. It would seem most inappropriate to enforce this provision for keeping drains from effluvia in one part of the drainage system and not to impose the same strict standard to the other part of the drainage extending to the lairage and other buildings, and which would not, so it seems to us, be covered by Clause 6 of the Bill at present.
    Another very important provision of the Factories Act is that accumulations of dirt and refuse shall be removed daily. I should think it most appropriate to apply that provision to any place where live animals are and where inevitably there will be deposits of refuse. It may be that in a modern factory that provision would not be as necessary for the sake of health as it has been up to now, but in a place where live animals are, in a lairage, the daily removal of excreta and refuse must obviously be important.
    The words which we suggest in the Amendment may not be the appropriate words. One would leave it to the Minister to determine what the appropriate words would be, but it seems an obvious necessity to include some such words in the Bill to make it certain beyond any doubt that the provisions of the Factories Act apply to the lairage and other parts of the slaughterhouse.
    I could go on quite a while indicating what the regulations provide, or ought to provide, for ensuring the general health not only of those working in slaughterhouses, but of those whose habitations
    212
    are round about slaughterhouses. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has discoursed at great length upon the evils of bluebottle flies. I should think there is no place more likely than a lairage to produce large quantities of bluebottle flies.
    As I said just now, I do not need to go in detail through all the provisions dealing with cleanliness, and those I have taken I have not chosen deliberately so much as because they happen to be among the first provisions laid down under the relevant Part of the Factories Act. It would be a mistake to apply the Factories Act as it is applied by Clause 6 without making it perfectly clear that we regard buildings like lairages as being within the scope of the operations of the slaughtering of cattle and sheep, and so on.
    I myself do not see that in that new Clause all that we would seek to cover is covered. It may be that the Minister will be able to tell us that our fears are groundless, in which case we should have another look at it, but it seems to me, as far as I have been able to ascertain the matter, that unless some words like these in the Amendment, even if not precisely these words, are inserted in Clause 6 we shall not get that coverage which we want for those who work in and around slaughterhouses and knackers' yards.
    The Clause deals not only with health, but also with safety and welfare. I do not want to take up the time of the House, and certainly not more than is necessary to make the case, or I could with facility draw attention to those provisions in the Factories Act relating to safety and welfare, provisions which, in our view, should cover all those who are working in and around slaughterhouses. However, I shall not do that, but say only that I think it is well known to those who take an interest in these matters that the Factories Act provides rather stringently for the protection of the safety and welfare of the workers. We feel that it is highly important that they should be comprehensive, and that Clause 6 should make it clear beyond a shadow of doubt that this House wants the Factories Act to cover all persons associated with the slaughtering of animals.

    213
    It is highly important that these health provisions should be applicable to all who have anything at all to do with the work of a slaughterhouse. It is known that quite a lot of meat goes to the public without being inspected. It is not our purpose to argue the reasons why. We have discussed it before during our debates on the Bill. However, meat which is inspected by a worker who is himself infected in some way, or is a carrier of infection, can have serious repercussions upon the health of the consumers of the meat when it arrives at their homes. So we are talking now not only of the health of the workers themselves.
    It is highly important that the health safeguarding provisions should be related to the individual worker fairly stringently, because he or she is in a position to pass on ill-health to vast numbers of the population. In certain parts of the country there is 100 per cent. inspection of meat. Therefore, if there is infection from a carrier of ill-health in a slaughterhouse there is the possibility that it will be discovered by the inspection, but we have much evidence from medical officers of health throughout the country that in specific areas the proportion of meat not inspected is quite alarming. It is due to a variety of causes which we must not go into now, because they are not related to this Amendment. Nevertheless, no one can dispute the facts; there are those reports by medical officers of health, although I am not going to quote them because that would take up the time of the House unnecessarily. The health of the worker is important not only for his own sake, but for the sake of the consuming public, and that is a very good reason for the Amendment.
    I have no doubt that the Minister, or the Minister of Labour, if he is going to deal with this matter, will say that there will be difficulty in applying the Factories Act in this way, but what I have just said is a very good reason why we should not be deterred by the problems of applying the Factories Act. I recognise that there may be difficulties. What I ask the right hon. Gentleman is: will he consider the administrative problem of applying that Act in relation to the great danger to the consuming public as a whole who, having received their meat unexamined, uninspected, then find it has been infected, because we
    214
    have failed to provide stringent provisions relating to the health of the workers?
    That is the case for the Amendment. It is designed in the interests of public health, because of the lack of adequate inspection. It is designed in the interests of the workers themselves, and in the interests of those who, for the time being, have to have their abode in and around slaughterhouses, which sometimes can be quite offensive. Even if the words of our Amendment do not prove to be the correct words to achieve our object, I hope that the Minister will be persuaded by the spirit of the Amendment and will say that its principle is worth adopting, and that he will produce other words, if these are not the right ones, to achieve the object.
    Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I do not intend to go into this matter at any great length because my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has covered practically all the matters at issue. It would be folly to apply the Factories Act simply to that part of the buildings pertaining to a slaughterhouse which we ordinarily call the slaughterhouse without applying the Act to the other buildings, which may, necessarily, be separate from the slaughterhouse. It is essential that the Factories Act be applied to those buildings, too, as to the slaughterhouse itself.
    The processing of the meat takes place in some of those buildings. For instance, there is the well-known Lancashire dish which is known as tripe. Facetiously, I could apply that to the Government, but I shall not. It is a by-product of cattle, and in some parts of the country it is looked upon as one of the most nourishing of foods. Tripe is certainly not cleaned in a slaughterhouse, and it is essential that to the processing of tripe, as, indeed, to the preparation of other meats, for instance, sausage, the greatest mystery of all, black puddings, and things of that description, the Factories Act provisions should apply. They should apply to the manufacturing outside of a slaughterhouse of the by-products of the slaughterhouse itself. That is essential in the interests of public health.
    I have made probably thousands and thousands of pounds of sausage in places where it is quite easy to contaminate the sausage, and in my opinion it is essential

    215
    that the provisions which are applied to the place of the slaughtering of the beasts themselves should be applied to those places where the carcases are processed in any way. I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment so that the general public will have the guarantee that all the buildings, not only for the slaughtering of the cattle but for the processing of the meat, the buildings which are necessarily ancillary to the main business of slaughtering, shall be within the scope of the Factories Act.
    4.30 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): Clause 6 has had a somewhat chequered career, as the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) is aware. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will at least acquit us in respect of this Clause of some of the charges they have made about other Clauses. Clause 6 is easier to understand now than when it first appeared in the Bill. We claim that it is fairly simple.
    I listened with care to the points made by the right hon. Gentleman and by his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom). I assure him that it is our wish and intention that lairages shall come within the Factories Act, 1937. There is nothing therefore between the two sides of the House on that point.
    The right hon. Gentleman feared that the wording used in the Clause to relate slaughterhouses to the Factories Act did not cover lairages, and that the point may be open to doubt. I am advised that what we have done clearly brings them in. I must refer to Section 151 of the Factories Act. The right hon. Gentleman gave examples of other cases; I think that he mentioned a yard or a dry dock, but that was a very narrow point. I think he will agree if he looks at the Clause again, that Section 151 (1) sets out to make three general classifications of premises that come within the terms of the Act.
    Paragraph (a) covers premises used for
    "the making of any article or part of any article."
    Paragraph (b) covers premises used for
    "altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, cleaning, or washing, or the breaking up or demolition of any article",
    216
    while paragraph (c) covers premises used for
    "the adapting for sale of any article".
    Those paragraphs are designed to embrace a very large number of premises and to make certain that those types of premises are brought within the scope of the Factories Act.
    In Clause 6, we have not sought to bring premises within the terms of Section 151 in the way it has been done in the case of many other premises, by expecting that they would come within those three paragraphs and then writing in a Clause later to explain fully that they do. We have done a more definitive, clear and precise thing than that. We have brought them in by a new paragraph (d), which reads:
    "the slaughtering of cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, asses or mules",
    These premises are, therefore, in a clearer position than if we brought them in at a later stage. They are directly related to the subsequent words of Section 151 (1), so that at that point the subsection will read:
    "(d) the slaughtering of cattle, sheep, swine, goats, horses, asses or mules;
    being premises in which, or within the close or curtilage or precincts of which, the work is carried on by way of trade or for purposes of gain and to or over which the employer of the persons employed therein has the right of access or control."
    Those words are directly related to the work of slaughtering and, I am advised, clearly include lairages within slaughterhouses, which is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. Winter-bottom) are seeking to do by their Amendment. It seems a clearer definition than the right hon. Gentleman is asking for. I assure him that by doing it as we are, we are securing exactly what he wishes. He will see that the matter should be clear beyond a peradventure, which is the appropriate phrase to use here.
    Mr. Robens: I will accept all that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says, except for the interpretation of the words in the Factories Act, 1937. At one time I took a particular interest in derating from a business point of view and it gave me a good deal of experience in advising people how they could get de-rating where the work of processing was

    217
    tied up with other work which was not entitled to derating.
    The Section says:
    "within the close or curtilage".
    All that one had to do to get derating of, say, the baking part of a confectioner's shop, was to make a separate entrance to the manufacturing part of the shop so that it could be let as a separate hereditament. In other words, we broke the curtilage by making that very small alteration.
    We could, in fact, break the close or curtilage for a lairage quite easily and there would be no difficulty about it. For derating purposes that is frequently done. A sliding door is merely left open, and while, physically, the curtilage is not broken at all the fact that there is a sliding door, which may be closed so that part of the premises can be let separately within the derating Act, provides the separate curtilage.
    If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's interpretation of "curtilage" is correct, one could be satisfied, but one could still make a separate curtilage within the same group of buildings and under the same roof for the lairage or some other aspect of slaughtering. We are trying to provide against that, and I am endeavouring to secure a definition for the manufacturing process, but steps taken to secure derating would put the lairage outside the Factories Act. In many premises a good deal of separation of curtilages took place at the time of the derating Act, and many productive enterprises went on alongside retail enterprises in the same building in order to secure derating for the manufacturing side. Artificial breaking of the curtilage was carried out. These observations are based upon a good deal of personal experience.
    Mr. Godber: This is a very important point and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments, which are extremely helpful. I should have thought that
    "within the close or curtilage or precincts"
    would have embraced that point, but in the light of what he has said I assure him that I will take careful note and look into the matter very carefully. If there is any element of doubt, I will see that it is cleared up. There is nothing between us; we want the matter to be covered.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I know that establishments which are distinct from the slaughterhouse and deal with the processing of the meat are already covered by the Factories Act, but I have in mind premises like a tripe shop, where tripe is boiled, scrubbed and cleaned, which is usually done well away from the processing of articles like sausages. We should have an assurance from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that he will look at this point to see that this type of shop is covered by the Factories Act.
    Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman is very astute. He is trying to lead me astray. I would remind him that this is a Slaughterhouses Bill, and not tripe shop Bill.
    Mr. Winterbottom: Tripe arises out of slaughtering.
    Mr. Godber: It is a process consequential upon slaughtering. I could not give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking which he wishes. I am not certain, without notice, whether a tripe shop building comes within the Factories Act or not, and it would not be right and proper when dealing with this Bill to say otherwise. I agree that tripe is a by-product of slaughtering and has to be considered in relation to the Bill, but we had better stick to slaughterhouses and lairages.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I am not being subtle in any form. I only want the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to avoid creating an anomaly where the processing of tripe takes place within the curtilage of a slaughterhouse and in a building separate from the slaughterhouse. It may be miles away from the slaughterhouse and not be covered by the Factories Act. There is a contradiction between the two.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Member should not fall into error by speaking more than once without leave.
    Mr. Godber: If I have the leave of the House to speak again, I would say that while I am interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Brightside I can hold out no hope of taking his point any further in the Bill, but I should have thought that these premises would he covered. I will merely repeat what I have said to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth, that I will give very great care to investigating the point he

    219
    raised. I understand that it is covered, but if it is not absolutely covered I will see that steps are taken to ensure that it is covered when the legislation reaches the Statute Book.
    Mr. George Darling: May I ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether his proposals include cold storage?
    Mr. Godber: I should have thought not. If it did not come within the Bill before, it would not come within it now. It is not a matter of processing but purely of storing, and it would not come within the terms of Clause 6, which relates to slaughtering. I do not think that I could give any assurance in relation to premises of that type that are not now covered.
    Mr. Darling: May I make an appeal to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to consider this matter? Are we to understand that a worker who passes through a doorway from the slaughtering hall to the cold storage passes out of the realm of the Factories Act although he remains within the same building? I hope that the promise that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given, to look at this marker generally, covers the point I have raised about cold storage.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: I am concerned not with lairages or cold storage but with ordinary meat, which I understand is covered by the Clause.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Godber: Yes, any products of slaughtering, until they go into the butcher's shop, where they come under a different consideration, would be in the precincts of the slaughterhouse and, as such, would be covered.
    Mr. F. H. Hayman: In relation to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) and the reply of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I assume that slaughterhouses would be in the same position as bacon factories, which, I believe, already come under the Factories Act, as they have cold storage facilities.
    Mr. Godber: Yes, I imagine that that is so.
    Mr. Robens: In view of the assurance of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary,
    220
    which I value very much because I agree with him that we are not at difference here and all want to establish the same thing, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Robens: I beg to move, in page 11, line 25, at the end to insert:
    Without prejudice to the powers of the Minister to make regulations under the Factories Act, 1937, the Minister, after consultation with the trade unions representing slaughterhouse workers and such organisations as appear to him to represent the interests concerned, may by regulation make provision for securing the safety health and welfare of, or any class of, persons employed under a contract of service or apprenticeship in any slaughterhouse.
    It will be within your knowledge, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that the Factories Act, 1937, is very largely based on powers given to Ministers to make regulations. If that were not so it would be hardly possible to administer the Act because of the changing conditions in industry which obviously, from time to time, must need a revision of regulations. With the inclusion of Clause 6, and particularly with the assurance the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given, it is quite clear that the regulations the Minister will now have to provide to deal with these matters must be very exact. They must be exact because of the consequences on public health, which I described earlier.
    The only purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that in making regulations the Minister shall have the best advice available. That is not meant in any way as a reflection on the advice tendered to him by the Civil Service, which, I am sure, is excellent advice, based on a great deal of research and consultation with others well able to help with advice, but it is very important that in an industry in which a joint industrial council, representative of both workers and employers, their views should be sought before regulations are made.
    Perfectly proper and good regulations sometimes come to naught because they are not entirely observed. They are not entirely observed because, if they were carried out, that would be found highly inconvenient. Many safety regulations are not entirely ignored but are circumvented because they are highly inconvenient, sometimes to the employee and sometimes to the employer.

    221
    If an accident occurs, the party which has disobeyed the regulations can be summoned in the courts and, if the allegation is proved, that party can suffer heavy damages. Nevertheless, all of us with experience of industry know perfectly well that if all the safety regulations were carried out, on the railways and in industry generally, industry would begin to move at 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. more slowly. Good common sense is applied to regulations. In the old British way we get along and good comes out of them.
    It is important that regulations should not be based on a theoretical approach to the problems of safety, health and welfare in industry, but guided by what is practical, what is possible and what might be tolerated. That is always very important. It must be in the mind of the Minister of Labour, when dealing with these matters, that the question is more often what will be tolerated than what is desirable. The Joint Industrial Council, I understand from both sides of the industry, works exceedingly well. The whole history of industrial peace in this industry indicates that that Council has worked extremely well. On it are represented the Federation of Wholesale Fresh Meat Traders of Great Britain and Ireland, the Fatstock Marketing Corporation, and the Co-operative Union.
    Those three organisations have considerable knowledge and managerial experience in ownership and use of slaughterhouses. Then there is the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations, which handles the meat on the distributive side. There are two trade unions, the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers which, perhaps, has the bulk of slaughtermen and others associated with the industry in membership, and the Transport and General Workers' Union, which also has membership in the industry. Those are two very big unions which have staff and expert officers who are well aware of the difficulties of employers and the practicability of carrying out safety regulations.
    There lies immediately to hand a body of people very experienced and representing both workers and employers who have worked together most amicably through the years. I understand that they would be most ready to give what advice
    222
    to the Minister they thought would be useful to him in framing regulations. It may well be that the Minister of Labour will advise the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that when making regulations under the Factories Act he should consult people of that kind. It may be that assurances on those lines would be adequate, but, in order that we might have something from the Minister it is necessary to put down words in the form of an Amendment to deal with this question.
    I do not say that this is by any means exclusive. Because I am so anxious that the Bill should reach the Statute Book as speedily as possible, I refrain from mentioning a whole host of other people, bodies and organisations most willing to give advice of a character which the Minister would find most useful. I do so only because I am certain that within the confines of the Ministry of Labour lies all the information and a lot more than I possess on this matter. I merely cite the people associated with the Joint Industrial Council as a body which comes to my mind and about which I have some knowledge. It is composed of people with great responsibilities in the trade, who undoubtedly would help, and would be glad to do so.
    I hope that the Minister can see fit to accept an Amendment of this character. It makes quite clear that it is obviously without prejudice to the power of the Minister to make regulations, but we think that regulations which will be really useful in industry, particularly in this industry, are those which have been made with the help and assistance of those who have to work from day to day in the industry. In these terms of helpfulness on our part to make the Bill a workable one, although we have expressed views about it from time to time, I commend the Amendment.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I have great sympathy with what the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has said, but for reasons I can put forward and which, I hope, he will agree upon, I do not think it necessary that this Amnedment should be accepted. As I think he realises, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has already got extremely wide powers, under both the 1937 and the 1948 Factories Acts, to make regulations adequate to meet the safety requirements

    223
    which I think both sides of the House have in mind.
    I do not think that there is very much doubt that the right hon. Member will agree with me in that. He spoke on this Amendment chiefly about proper consultation with interests concerned. He said that we wanted to have a practical, common sense approach towards safety regulations and that they must be regulations which are sensible and not an intolerable burden on the industry; that generally speaking, they should be practical rather than theoretical. That, I think, was the burden of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. The right hon. Member knows that under the present powers the Minister of Labour is responsible for carrying out the procedure set out in the Second Schedule. Under that Schedule, he has to publish draft regulations in the London Gazette and in such other way he thinks proper to ensure that people are informed of his intentions.
    The matter does not stop there. In practice, the Minister of Labour produces preliminary drafts of the regulations he has in mind which are sent to the trade unions, the employers and other interested associations. The comments of those various bodies are invited and carefully considered before the next stage in drafting occurs. If strong objections are raised for practical reasons, the Minister of Labour is prepared to initiate discussions with organisations on points they have in mind. I think that the House should be satisfied that the existing procedure under the Factories Act works well. So far as I know, both the trade unions and employers and other interested associations are satisfied with the way in which the present machinery is working. They find that it provides them with proper opportunity to put forward their views and to have those views considered before regulations are laid before Parliament.
    Both sides of the House are at one on this matter. I sympathise with the fears that the right hon. Member had in mind, but I am satisfied that the existing procedure covers what, in fact, we both want.
    Mr. Eric Fletcher: It seems to me that the Minister has completely missed the point. If he refers to the Second Schedule of the Factories Act, to which he has made reference, he will
    224
    see that it deals merely with procedure for making special regulations under Sections 71, 73 and 129 of that Act.
    I do not want to weary the House, although it must be admitted that this is the first time I have taken part in these discussions. If the Minister will look at Section 71 he will see that the Second Schedule provides machinery for regulations merely referring to reduction of hours of work of young persons. Section 73 deals with the overtime employment of women, and young persons under 16.
    5.0 p.m.
    I support, and emphasise, my right hon. Friend's argument, with which the Minister has not dealt at all. What my right hon. Friend is stressing is that there should be an addition to Clause 6 which is, in effect, an addition to the Factories Act, 1937, giving the Minister, after consultation with the appropriate trade unions, power to make provision by regulation
    "…for securing the safety, health and welfare of … persons employed under a contract of service or apprenticeship in any slaughterhouse."
    If the Minister looks at this again, he will see that there is nothing in the Second Schedule of the 1937 Act which deals with this matter at all. It is perfectly true that by Section 60, the Minister has power to make certain regulations for safety and health, but there is nothing in that Section to bring the Second Schedule into operation at all. What all of us on this side want is to secure some appropriate addition to the provisions of Section 60 in relation to the operation of slaughterhouses.
    Those of us who have had any experience of the operation of the Factories Act, whether relating to the regulations made by Ministers or to the administration of the inspectors for the safety, health and welfare of persons employed in factories, are aware that loopholes do, from time to time, arise. We have all had occasion to review circumstances in which the regulations made for the safety of the workpeople employed in a particular factory or to deal with general standards of health, hygiene and welfare, are defective.
    In my experience, those defects and omissions very often arise, as my right hon. Friend has said, because of the

    225
    Minister's failure to have adequate consultation with the persons who have day to day experience of work in these factories. Now that we are incorporating slaughterhouses in the general application of the Act, it is most important that the wide experience of employees in slaughterhouses, and of the trade unions that represent them, should be harnessed so as to ensure that these regulations are made as effective as possible.
    I hope, therefore, that the Minister will not reject this proposal in the rather cavalier manner, if I may so term it, with which he treated it just now. I think that he has completely missed its point. It is a proposal of great substance, and I cannot see that it can possibly do any harm. It does not fetter the Minister's hands at all. It is expressed to be without prejudice to any existing regulation making powers that he may have. It really is intended to give him some additional powers and I think that it is totally unreasonable that the Government should resist such a moderate and sensible Amendment.
    Mr. Frederick Willey: I fully agree with the Minister when he says that we share the objectives of Clause 6, and for that reason I think that his reply is thoroughly unsatisfactory. I will explain why, but, first, I should like to say that we are very much obliged to the Minister of Labour for being with us today.
    It has been generally agreed that the provisions for making regulations under the Factories Act are far from satisfactory. I recall, in aid, an illustration with which the right hon. Gentleman is thoroughly familiar—safety regulations for wet docks. Under the present procedure, that matter has been under consideration for seven years. I should have thought that the Minister of Labour would agree that, nowadays, the best way to deal with delegated legislation is the way in which we customarily deal with it; by having provision for regulation-making powers and provision for consultation. It is generally agreed that the procedure under the Factories Act is unsatisfactory and out of date. That is my first point.
    My second point is that the actual powers themselves have been open to good deal of criticism. In fact, as the ight hon. Gentleman himself said, the
    226
    provisions of the 1937 Act were amended in 1948. Our experience of the amended provision shows that they are far from satisfactory because of their detailed definition. There has been a very important change in our approach to delegated legislation. We now avoid any detailed definition.
    I think that the Minister of Labour will concede that the present provisions are unsatisfactory and, in turn, I would concede the difficulty of amending for one particular trade, the piecemeal amendment of general legislation. I concede that at once, but, at the same time, the House has to make a decision, and say that if there is no provision for a general agreement we must safeguard the interests of the trade by making such a provision as is contained in the Amendment.
    My third, and last, point—and it is not without substance—is that we are quite deliberately giving the Minister of Agriculture regulation-making powers. I can quite understand the Minister of Labour fiercely resisting this. I can well appreciate his point of view, but we have to recognise that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has wide powers in relation to slaughterhouses and that many of those powers overlap provisions that will be made for safety, health and welfare. For those reasons we think it appropriate and proper that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should have these powers.
    We realise too, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) pointed out, that in exercising such powers for safety, health and welfare, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would go beyond the provisions of the 1937 Act, and our views are indicated by an Amendment which we realise is out of order, and will not, therefore, be called.
    We quite recognise that if this Amendment is accepted, the Minister will have powers such as we have indicated we want him to have. Quite frankly, on such questions as medical examination, we cannot draw a line between health, safety and welfare—strictly so called—and the general position with regard to the welfare of the trade, and the protection we should afford to people who eat meat.
    I therefore hope that the Minister will agree that his reply was inadequate, that

    227
    there are very good reasons for our pressing this Amendment, that he should resist the understandable approach made to him by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour by saying that his primary duty is to safeguard the industry for which he is responsible, and that he will, therefore, accept the Amendment.
    Mr. John Hare: With the permission of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker I should like to comment on the speeches of the hon. Members for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) and Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). I hate to argue with so learned a gentleman as the hon. Member for Islington East, but if he looks at Section 60 of the Act he will see that, as he says, it deals with special regulations for safety and health. If he then looks at

    Division No. 98.]

    AYES

    [5.13 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Albu, A. H.

    Fletcher, Eric

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Aliaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Foot, D. M.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Forman, J. C.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Allen, Soholefield (Crewe)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    McGovern, J.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Gailskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

    McInnes, J.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Gibson, C. W.

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Balfour, A,

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    McLeavy, Frank

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Grey, C. F.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mahon, Simon

    Benson, Sir George

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Blackburn, F.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Boardman, H.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hannan, W.

    Mason, Roy

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Hastings, s.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hayman, F. H.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Healey, Denis

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Monslow, W.

    Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Moody, A. S.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

    Burke, W. A.

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Mort, D. L.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Holman, P.

    Moss, R.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Holmes, Horace

    Moyle, A.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Houghton, Douglas

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Noel-Baker, Franois (Swindon)

    Carmichael, J.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby. S.)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Oram, A. E.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Orbach, M.

    Chapman, W. D.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Oswald, T.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Owen, W. J.

    Clunie, J.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Padley, W. E.

    Coldrick, W.

    Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

    Paget, R. T.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Janner, B.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St. Pnos, S.)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Paton, John

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Pearson, A.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Peart, T. F.

    Deer, G.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Pentland, N.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Jones, J. Idwai (Wrexham)

    Popplewell, E.

    Diamond, John

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Dye, S.

    Lawson, G. M.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Probert, A. R.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

    Rankin, John

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Evans, Edward (Lwestoft)

    Lipton, Marcus

    Reeves, J.

    Logan, D. G.

    Section 129 (1, b) he will see that it reads:
    "the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to this Act shall apply to all such regulations as are in this Act referred to as 'special regulations'."
    I therefore think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that the regulations to be made under Section 60 are covered by the procedure laid down in the Second Schedule—and that should also allay certain fears expressed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North. I honestly do not think that there is a great deal between us, and I hope that the assurance I have given can be accepted.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes Noes 244.

    Reid, William

    Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

    Wheeldon, w. E.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Willey, Frederick

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Ross, William

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Silvenman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Thornton, E.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Tomney, F.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Woof, R. E.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Usborne, H. C.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Sparks, J. A.

    Viant, S. P.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Weitzman, D.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Stonehouse, John

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    West, D. G.

    Mr. Short and Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Finlay, Graeme

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Al ken, W. T.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kimball, M.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Frase, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Freet, Denzil

    Leavey, J. A.

    Anstru her-Gray, Major Sir William

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Gammans, Lady

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Balniel, Lord

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.

    Barber, Anthony

    Glover, D.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Barter, John

    Godber, J. B.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Good art, Philip

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Gower, H. R.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Green, A,

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    McKibbin, Alan

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Grimond, J.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Bishop, F. P.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Gurden, Harold

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Braine, B. R.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Macmillan. Rt. Hn. Harotd (Bromley)

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Bryan, P.

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Maddan, Martin

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Carr, Robert

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Mathew, R.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Cooke, Robert

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Cooper, A. E.

    Rill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spe thorne)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Neave, Airey

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Hope, Lord John

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Alian

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hu bert, Sir Norman

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hutchison Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)

    Osborne, C.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Page, R. G.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Duncan, Sir James

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Peel, W. J.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pilking,on, Capt. R. A.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Pitman, I. J.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    230

    231

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Speir, R. M.

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Wade, D. W.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Rawlinton, Peter

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Redmayne, M.

    Storey, S.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Wall, Patrick

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

    Robertson, Sir David

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Rob nson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Teeling, W.

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Temple, John M.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Sharples, R. C.

    ThorneycrofI, Rt. Hon. P.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Shepherd, William

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Mr. Oakshott and

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Mr. Hughes-Young.

    Clause 7.—(AMENDMENT OF SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1933 TO 1954.)
    Mr. Darling: I beg to move, in page 11, line 36, after "instrument", to insert:
    "of a design approved by the Minister and".
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This Amendment may be discussed with the next in the same line in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), after "instrument", to insert:
    "of a type approved by the Minister and".
    Mr. Darling: Here we are on what might appear at first sight to be rather a narrow issue. In effect, the Amendment says that when an animal is to be slaughtered and is first stunned, the instrument used—this is what we wish to say—
    "shall be of a design approved by the Minister …"
    Though that is a narrow point, if—as was clearly brought out during the Committee stage discussions—we can establish the principle here that equipment in slaughterhouses should be of a design approved by the Minister, this will eventually go much wider. But now I wish to confine myself to the point of the Amendment.
    We supported with some strong arguments the view advanced during the Committee discussions. Indeed, so strong were they that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agreed to look at the matter again between the Committee and the Report stage and give us the benefit of his second and, I hope, deeper thoughts. We await that with interest. We believe that important equipment such as these instruments for stunning, and so on, used in slaughterhouses and abattoirs should for a number of reasons be of a design approved by the Minister. Such approval would keep off the market
    232
    inefficient instruments and also instruments which might not be humane in their operation. We consider that of great importance.
    In the Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary did not think it important that there were many designs. He argued that abattoirs and slaughterhouses would get the best and not go in for the poorer designs. Hon. Members on this side of the House feel that there can be too many designs. Only a few manufacturers are engaged in this business, and I understand that they are willing to accept fewer designs because it would help them. They would manufacture only one or two designs of each type of equipment and would have the benefit of longer production runs. The inefficient, inadequate and inhumane equipment would be kept off the market. For these reasons we consider this a very sensible proposition.
    Manufacturers would be helped in their export activities were this Amendment accepted. Not only could they have more standardised designs but, by being able to advertise that their equipment was approved by the Ministry of Agriculture, their export trade would be greatly helped. Above all, we are concerned with efficiency and humane activities in slaughterhouses and abattoirs. On both these counts we think that it is necessary to have some degree of standardisation of equipment and that the best thing to do is to insist that the most important equipment shall be of a design approved by the Ministry. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary received a barrage of criticism when he tried to oppose the Amendment during the Committee stage discussions. The hon. Gentleman said he would think over the matter again, and we await with interest his remarks on the subject.
    Mr. Hayman: I support the Amendment. We should not even allow vested interests in an existing instrument to stand in the way of humane slaughtering. The country and all hon. Members believe that. When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replied to the arguments advanced during the Committee stage discussions he seemed to rely on the fact that certain instruments and methods had been in use for some time. But I have been shaken by the doubts now expressed about the efficiency of the Electrother operated in bacon factories. We have had to rely on these methods being more or less foolproof, but my faith was shaken by what I heard in the Committee discussions. I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister will think again.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Godber: We discussed this point, or one closely related to it, at considerable length during the Committee stage, and I said that I should like to think about the matter again in relation to the arguments advanced then. It is common ground that we want to find the most humane methods of slaughter possible. The existence of Clause 7 in the Bill indicates the desire of the Government not only to ensure that that is so, but also to take advantage of newer methods of slaughter as and when they come along. We have been impressed with the possibilities of the new method of carbon dioxide anaesthesia. A change in the legislation is required to enable us to authorise it, and that is what we seek in Clause 7.
    It is clear that if, in regard to any other specific matters of slaughtering apparatus, a case is made out, we should obviously want to look at it very sympathetically indeed. It was in that context that I gave the undertaking in Committee about approval by the Minister of these particular designs. The Amendments ask us to say that the design shall be "approved by the Minister". Although I have looked at the matter most carefully, I cannot recommend the House to accept either of the Amendments, and I will try to explain why.
    First of all, we already have powers enabling us to make regulations to deal with the point. Section 2 (1, b) of the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954, gives us power to make regulations
    234
    to provide exactly what hon. Gentlemen want us to do. There is, therefore, no need to insert it specifically here. The subsection provides that such regulations may
    "prescribe conditions to be observed in connection with the confinement and treatment of animals while awaiting slaughter in such premises, and in connection with the slaughter of animals therein".
    I should not regard it as necessary to approve existing designs of equipment used in slaughtering. We are aware of all the existing designs. We believe that the ones in use at the present time are satisfactory. We have no knowledge of new designs coming forward, certainly none which would be unsatisfactory. I will deal with the comments of the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) on the electric tongs in a few minutes. However, I give the House an immediate assurance that, if we became aware—hon. Members would be free to inform us about it at any time—of any new apparatus coming on the market which we felt did not meet the requirements of humanity which we all desire, my right hon. Friend would be perfectly ready then to make regulations under Section 2 (1, b) of the 1954 Act in order to prevent the use of inappropriate equipment. I give that unqualified assurance.
    The powers are there and we are ready and prepared, if necessary, to use them. We do not consider that at the present time we should make this a normal regulation. I am somewhat fortified in this by the words of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), who, I am sorry to see, is not here at the moment.
    Mr. Darling: He is in Strasbourg.
    Mr. Godber: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not with us, because I valued his expert knowledge on these subjects. In Committee, the hon. Gentleman said:
    "I am always concerned about putting a limitation on the type of instrument to be used for any purpose, lest monopolies are created."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A. 27th February. 1958; c. 812.]
    There is a valid argument there. I do not pitch it unnecessarily high, but it is an argument of which the House should take account. We do not wish to put into the hands of existing manufacturers monopolistic powers, and I am sure that the House would not wish to do that.

    235
    We want to encourage new manufacturers and new designs which are good, sound and effective, and will promote—as I hope that this new type of carbon dioxide anaesthetising will promote—more humane methods of slaughtering.
    I sympathise entirely with the objects which hon. Gentlemen have in mind. New legislation, however, is not necessary, because provision is in the 1954 Act. I give the undertaking that if, or when, occasion arises to justify taking action under that Act to prohibit the use of any equipment which we do not think sound and humane, we shall immediately take that action. In the meantime, it is better not to take such action because it is not necessary, and it is not right to put any existing manufacturer in a monopolistic position. For these sound and practical reasons, I do not feel that it would be right to accept the Amendments.
    I come now to what the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne said about electric tongs. I have considered the matter very closely. I have consulted various welfare societies about it and listened very carefully to the arguments put to me. It is only right to inform the House that one welfare society still feels slightly unhappy about the method. I have come to the conclusion that it would be wrong for us to do anything about electric tongs, because, in general, I believe that they are not only effective but are humane if properly used. That is the whole point. As far as I can ascertain, nobody has said, certainly in relation to pigs, that there is any danger. The argument in Committee related to sheep, mainly long-wooled sheep.
    I looked into the matter most carefully, and my right hon. Friend caused a letter to be sent to all local authorities about it on 31st March. I should like to quote a passage from that letter:
    "The Minister is advised that the following precautions should always be observed by persons stunning animals by means of electricity:—

    (a) Sponge rubber electrodes should be kept moist by frequent immersion in a saline solution.

    (b) Electrodes should be applied firmly to the animal's head and so placed as to ensure that the brain lies between them.

    (c) Scientific evidence indicates that the voltage should be not less than 75 volts and that the current should be applied for not less than 7 seconds.

    236

    (d) Care is needed when stunning sheep, and particularly long-wooled varieties, because wool acts as an insulator and impedes the flow of current through the brain. This can be avoided if the wool is clipped from the sides of the head before the electrodes are applied. Alternatively, the stunning should be carried out with a captive-bolt pistol.

    (e) After stunning, animals should be bled with a minimum of delay".

    If these particular instruments are used properly, the results are satisfactory. It is only in improper use that there is any danger.
    I myself hope that, if the carbon dioxide method proves satisfactory on pigs, we shall have experiments on sheep and we might see developments which would, in time perhaps, obviate the use of the other equipment there. That seems to be something which we should try to encourage, as, indeed, we shall, so far as we can. It would, in the meantime, be wrong to give the impression that the electric tongs are not effective or humane if they are used properly. That is the key to the matter. It is up to local authorities to ensure that the instructions are carried out, but there is provision for penalties for improper use and for any cruelty caused as a result. That is really the way to deal with it. We believe that the various forms of equipment we have are the best available and, for that reason, as well as the others I have mentioned, I cannot commend the Amendments to the House.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I appreciate all that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, but he could have said it all and still accepted the addition to the Clause we suggest without in any way interfering with Governmental experiments or with the present method of slaughtering animals. Even though the power may be in another Act of Parliament, it would do no harm to have it in this Bill. It would reinforce what is said in the other Act.
    I believe that the slaughtering of animals is a matter not only of humane killing—that is to say, rendering insensible before actual killing—but of preserving the quality of the meat afterwards. I am very suspicious of the method of producing insensibility electrically in the case of sheep or pigs, especially when the pigs are going through a tunnel. I have much more faith in the captive-bolt for sheep than I have in the electric

    237
    method of stunning. As I said in Committee, I have every reason to know that a very severe blow on the head produces insensibility immediately, because I am the only "coshed" Member of Parliament. I was rendered insensible immediately; my throat could have been cut quite easily with a good Sheffield blade, and I should have known nothing about it. That is precisely the method of the captive-bolt, but, even though I approve at the moment of the captive-bolt for killing sheep, that is not to say that, at some time, somewhere, somebody will not discover something which will be more humane than the equipment now in use.
    We want the Minister not only to have power to say whether these new mechanical instruments for stunning are acceptable as a result of tests which he himself would institute but also to have power, if necessary, to eliminate ultimately those which at the moment seem to us satisfactory. The Minister would be wise to accept these words for that reason. It will not take away any of his power. They will be supplementary to the provisions of the other Act.
    When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary resists an Amendment and everything he says at the Box is in favour of the insertion of the words proposed by it, he makes us suspicious that somewhere behind the line is something not quite as savoury as we should wish. We ask that the Minister should be able to look at any new invention brought out, examine it carefully and say whether he is satisfied, after his examination, that it fulfills the two requirements of slaughtering, namely, the proper stunning of the animal and the proper preservation of the meat. He would be wise to accept this addition to the Clause in order to give him that power supplementary to what is provided in the 1954 Act. Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said today has shown anything to prevent it, and there is everything in its favour. It is most regrettable that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should try to hide behind the 1954 Act when the insertion of the words proposed would be merely supplemental to it.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Sidney Dye: I was very interested in the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary. I realise that he has taken a great personal
    238
    interest in this matter and has had consultations with various people who have a particular interest in the humane slaughter of animals and who still see some difficulties under present regulations and even under the Bill if it be passed in its present form.
    The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the effectiveness of the electric tongs in stunning sheep depends on the operator. There may be 400 or 500 operators in the country. Millions of sheep are slaughtered. In the letter the Parliamentary Secretary quoted, the Minister speaks about sheep on which the wool has grown around the head and covers that part of the head where the brain is. He suggests that the wool should be clipped off before the electric tongs are applied. Is not it asking rather a lot that the slaughterer should take clippers and go round the sheep, giving it a haircut before applying the tongs? It is not exactly pulling the wool over its eyes, but rather taking it from its eyes so that it shall not see the knife when produced.
    The purpose of the Bill is stated quite clearly; it is instantaneous stunning. Even in the letter which the Parliamentary Secretary quoted he mentions that the tongs, after having been applied, should be held in position for at least seven seconds. They had previously said ten seconds. Now, that is not quite instantaneous. Bearing in mind the conditions in slaughterhouses, the number of sheep passing through and the fact that everything depends on how the operator uses his instruments, I think that under present circumstances it is asking too much. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) said, speaking from experience, the use of the captive bolt pistol on sheep is and can he instantaneous. What we are asking for in this Amendment is that the Minister shall, by regulations, certify certain instruments as being up to the standard of causing instantaneous stunning.
    The position is now different from what it was when the Ministry of Food controlled all slaughterhouses. Then, the Minister could give permits to representatives of societies concerned with the humane treatment of animals to enter slaughterhouses and observe conditions there. Since decontrol he cannot give such permits. Whereas, under the Ministry, these society inspectors had a

    239
    right of entry, and exercised it, they do not have it now, and will not in future. Although that circular letter has been sent to local authorities, it does not give any right to any individual to observe the actual effect in use of stunning methods.
    That is the weakness as the Bill stands. As has been pointed out, we had hoped that while the Bill was going through the House we should be able to insert something which would remove all doubts about the effects of instantaneous stunning on all animals before being slaughtered. That is what we want. There is a doubt about it, and that doubt is even raised in the letter the Minister has sent out. We had hoped that we had reached the stage when all doubts could be removed about this, and I regret that the Minister has not been able to go quite as far as we think he ought to have gone.
    Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary is most sympathetic, but sympathy is not enough. This is a matter which we discussed at some length in Standing Committee. At the end of that long discussion I was most anxious to avoid a Division on a matter such as this, as I said with some emphasis, because the Amendment then was supported from both sides of the Committee. I remind the Parliamentary Secretary of what he then said:
    "I conclude the case for new devices, and as far as existing ones are affected I would willingly look at the matter again. If it is practicable and reasonable, and if I think it will be helpful, I will willingly see what can be done, and between now and the Report stage I shall certainly consider it."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th February, 1958; c. 809.]
    With all respect, the Parliamentary Secretary has not satisfied the conditions he imposed on himself. He has said he already has the powers to do what we suggest should be done. That was the position obtaining when he gave this assurance. Quite apart from that, it is because the Government have the powers to do this and have not exercised them that we wish to write this into the Bill; by refusing to exercise those powers the Government have indicated that they do not wish and do not intend to do so. There is obviously a clear difference of opinion here, and I hope that all hon.
    240
    Members, regardless of their party affiliations, will vote according to the best provisions for securing humanitarian conditions. We are faced with the Government refusing to take this step.
    Now I want to say something about the need for this step. As far as new devices go, the Parliamentary Secretary conceded that this would be helpful; but this Clause concerns new devices, and he will remember that we had a discussion about the provision for extension with regard to the device for using carbon dioxide as a means of slaughter. Surely, therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary must be with us in saying that some such provision as this should be made. As far as existing appliances go, I would only say that what he said about the electric tongs leaves us in some doubt about them. I should have thought that there was a very good case here for discussing this with manufacturers. I can express the simple case in a sentence. The manufacturers of slaughterhouse equipment are very reputable manufacturers, and we believe it would aid the provision of humanitarian conditions if those manufacturers were brought into consultation, and if the design of equipment were approved by the Minister.
    That is all we are asking for in this Amendment. I put down the second Amendment merely so that the Parliamentary Secretary could indicate which he preferred. The second Amendment uses words which appear in the inter-Departmental Committee's report. Unless we have a more satisfactory reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, we shall have no alternative but to divide the House upon this, which I very much regret.
    Dr. Barnett Stross: I apologise for my absence until a few moments ago; it was certainly not within my control.
    I rise for only a moment or two, and I can put what I have to say to the Parliamentary Secretary in a few sentences. He may well have in mind that he does not want to put the cachet of the Ministry on any particular instrument of any type, feeling that that might be unfair to those developing other instruments, or that it would be invidious for the Ministry to say, "We approve this", which might be taken as evidence that instruments not so approved should not be bought and

    241
    should not be used. I suggest that approval of instruments of this type does not mean that reputable manufacturers—and I am sure they are all reputable manufacturers—will feel in any way inhibited from bringing forward new designs and asking the Ministry to examine and approve them after testing.
    I cannot see that there can be any difficulty for either the manufacturers or the Ministry. I can see nothing but good coming to the public as a whole and to the Ministry if the Minister gave way on this matter and accepted the Amendment.
    Mr. Godber: I have listened with care to the additional arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite, and I realise the sincerity with which they are put forward. I know that this is a matter in which hon. Members on both sides take a keen interest and feel strongly about. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) quite properly reminded me of what I said in Committee on this subject, when I said that I conceded the case for new devices. I thought that I had dealt with that in my earlier remarks, when I reminded the House of the existence of powers in the 1954 Act. I gave a clear assurance, in relation to any new apparatus brought forward, that if they were in any way unsuitable we would not hesitate to use powers to prevent their use. That is an undertaking I have given, and which is on record. I should have thought that met the commitment I gave in Committee.
    I really do not think that it would be right, certainly on the evidence we have at the moment, to suggest that any of the existing types of apparatus in use are, in effect, wrong in any material respect. It has been pointed out that with improper use some pain could well be caused; but this is a question of proper administration and proper use of the apparatus.
    Referring to the circular letter we sent to local authorities, hon. Members have suggested that we refer to clipping the wool from the sides of the sheep's head and have pointed out the difficulty that would be entailed if that were carried out. We merely suggested that that was one way. If slaughterhouse operators did not wish to take the necessary care and the length of time required in applying the electrode, there are alternative ways. We also mentioned in the same circular the possibility of using the captive bolt
    242
    pistol. All these ways are suitable, and all are humane if operated properly. That is really the key to all this.
    I am sorry if hon. Members feel, as apparently they do, that we have not met them on this subject. I feel we have done all that we could or should do about it, both in what I said earlier and in the undertaking I gave. Hon. Members should not lose sight of the point which was made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), which I quoted, that by giving approval to a particular design we should be giving some monopoly power to certain manufacturers. I should have thought that that was a valid point. It was put forward by an hon. Member who has great experience of these matters, and I would not discard it lightly.
    As to the difference between the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Winter-bottom) and myself, when he said that I had accepted all the suggestions made and, therefore, should accept the Amendment, the fact is that the one case I have not accepted is directly counter to any acceptance of the Amendment.
    Mr. Winterbottom: The point is that at present there is no method of slaughtering which is not covered by instruments made by many manufacturers, and the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) falls down in that respect.
    The point made by the Parliamentary Secretary about the use of the present instruments and the frailty of human nature in using them applies equally to the poleaxe, because a poleaxe can produce instantaneous stunning if used properly. The Parliamentary Secretary is completely avoiding the implications of this Amendment. He is going round like the "Artful Dodger," trying to make all sorts of excuses instead of facing the simple fact that the power in the 1954 Act could be put into this Bill, and could supplement, and, indeed, help, that which was in the 1954 Act. That he has avoided completely.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Godber: No; I cannot accept that for one moment. I have put forward a reasoned argument why it would not be appropriate to accept this Amendment, and I have heard nothing from hon. Members opposite to convince me otherwise.
    Mr. J. T. Price: I fully intended to hold my peace on this Amendment, but to my mind there is one substantial compelling argument in support of it which has not been put. While we are all of one mind about preserving the highest degree of humanity in carrying out these unpleasant operations, we have to keep in mind another thing in connection with the devolopment of new apparatus, and that is the safety of the men using it.
    We have just parted with a Clause which imposes an added duty on employers in this industry to observe the stringent conditions of the Factories Act, for example. Therefore, when we consider something which involves the use of electricity for stunning and, it may be, noxious gases later, that, by implication, involves the men, and I would have thought that we shall require some degree of certification and approval by the Ministry not only for the sake of preserving the greatest humanity to the animals, but also the greatest safety to the men called upon to use the apparatus.
    Mr. Godber: I quite accept that that is important and that that is entirely rele-
    vant to the arguments put forward to hon. Members opposite. It is equally relevant to the argument that I am putting forward, too. The undertaking that I have given applies in exactly the same respect. It is certainly right and proper that the men should be properly protected, and I would have thought that the operation of the Factories Acts in relation to these premises will be of material assistance. The use of electricity is nothing new. It has been used in slaughterhouses for many years, and, therefore, a new, material point does not arise.
    I have endeavoured to persuade the House that we have already the necessary powers and that we shall use them when necessary. But I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment, which would make mandatory the approval of every type of equipment of this nature, and which is not appropriate and necessary at this time.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes, 241.

    Monslow, W.

    Rankin, John

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Moody, A. S.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Thornton, E.

    Morris, Peroy (Swansea, W.)

    Reeves, J.

    Tomney, F.

    Mort, D. L,

    Reid, William

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Moss, R.

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Usborne, H. C.

    Moyle, A.

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Viant, S. P.

    Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Weitzman, D.

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Oram, A. E.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    West, D, G.

    Orbach, M.

    Ross, William

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Oswald, T.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Owen, W. J.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Wl cock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Padley, W. E.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Willey, Frederick

    Paget, R. T.

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Parker, J.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Paton, John

    Stonehouse, John

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Pearson, A.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Peart, T. F.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Woof, R. E.

    Pentland, N.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Popplewe l, E.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Prentice, R. E.

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Probert, A. R.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Mr. Short and Mr. J. T. Price.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    NOES

    Agnew, Sir Peter

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Ai ken, W. T.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Duthie, W. S.

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Anstru her-Gray, Major Sir William

    Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Atkins, H. E.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Hurd, A. R.

    Baldock, Lt. Cmdr. J. M.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Finlay, Graeme

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)

    Balniel, Lord

    Fisher, Nigel

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Barber, Anthony

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Barlow, Sir John

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Barter, John

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'ombe & Lonsdale)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Freeth, Denzil

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Gammans, Lady

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Garner-Evans, E. H.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    George, J. C. (PolloK)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Glover, D.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Godber, J. B.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Goodhart, Philip

    Kimball, M.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Gower, H. R.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

    Leburn, W. G.

    Braine, B. R.

    Green, A.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Grimond, J.

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Gurden, Harold

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Carr, Robert

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Chichaster-Clark, R.

    Harrison, A. B, C. (Maldon)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Cooke, Robert

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    McKibbin, Alan

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spe horne)

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Henderson, John (Cathoart)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Crowder, sir John (Finchley)

    Henderson-Stewart, Sir James

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Hesketh, R. F.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Ma pherson, Niall (Dumfries)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Maddan, Martin

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hobson, John(Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    246

    247

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Marshall, Douglas

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Mathew, R.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Temple, John M.

    Maydon, H.-Comdr. S. L. C.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Redmayne, M.

    Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

    Neave, Alrey

    Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Wade, D. W.

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Firnham)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'gh)

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Shepherd, William

    Wall, Patrick

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Ant im, N.)

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Whitelaw, W. S. I.

    Osborne, C.

    Speir, R. M.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Page, R. G.

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Peel, W. J.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Woollam, John Victor

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Pickthorn, K. W. M.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Storey, S.

    Mr. Bryan and Mr. Gibson-Watt.

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Robens: I beg to move, in page 12, line 26, at the end to insert:
    (3) The Minister, after consultation with such organisations as appear to him to represent the employers carrying on slaughterhouse trade or business and with the trade unions representing slaughterhouse workers, may provide for a register of slaughtermen or a register of apprentices.
    This Amendment provides, after consultation by the Minister with the employers and trade unions representing the workers in the industry, for a register of slaughtermen or a register of apprentices. In the main, I am very loath to have registration. I always look with grave suspicion at the missives that come in my post from some organisation or another wanting a particular group to be registered. Usually it means that that particular group wants to be registered to prevent anybody else getting in and to enjoy monopolistic powers in respect of their own particular interests.
    Therefore, I did not readily accept the idea of a register of apprentices or slaughtermen, but I finally came to the conclusion that I should withdraw my prejudice against a register of this kind because of the good reasons for it. If I put on one side my prejudice about registration of this kind, it may appeal to hon. Members, but it will appeal particularly to the Minister, who will decide whether registration is the right thing to provide for or not.
    The first consideration that came to my mind was that here we are dealing with
    248
    a particularly difficult sort of trade. One of my right hon. Friends who was listening to our discussion before the last Division, said to me, while going through the Lobby, that he had reached the conclusion that he would become a vegetarian. I can assure those who sat through the whole of the sittings of the Standing Committee and listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), who, unhappily, is engaged on other business today, that those of my hon. Friends who are in the medical profession are all vegetarians.
    The truth is that none of us on the Standing Committee, nor, I believe, any of us in this House, wants to see such a disagreeable thing as the inhumane slaughtering of animals; and anyone who has visited slaughterhouses must admit that it is disagreeable. From my own experience, and that of others in the industry on both the management and the trade union side, I believe there is not the slightest doubt that one of the principal causes of inhumane slaughtering is badly trained slaughtermen. I would not dream of entering into the gory details of what happens when an untrained slaughterman is endeavouring to slaughter an animal. I leave that to the imagination of hon. Members.
    I believe, therefore, that it is essential that those who slaughter animals for human consumption should be craftsmen in every sense of the word, so that their stunning blow is, in fact, the only blow required to kill the animal, and that the

    249
    animal should not be subject to any suffering at all. If we must have well trained craftsmen that presupposes that one must have a very good apprenticeship scheme. Both employers and workers in the industry came to the conclusion that it was absolutely essential that young people should be recruited into the industry and should submit themselves to an apprenticeship scheme and thus become trained craftsmen. As a result of becoming trained craftsmen they would perform the task of slaughtering animals in a humane way. That was not the only reason. We may come to others later; but for the moment I want to remain on the question of humane slaughtering.
    As a result of this, on 13th March, 1952, the Joint Industrial Council had a proposal for an apprenticeship scheme approved by the Ministries of Labour and Education. The object of that scheme was to make sure that those who were wishing to slaughter animals should be able to slaughter cattle, sheep, pigs and calves in a proper way. It was also essential that if young persons were to be trained to do that they must be under the constant supervision of trained and skilled slaughtermen. It must be remembered that this was a joint scheme of both employers and workpeople, so that there was no question of restricting entry into the ranks of slaughtermen. They decided that it was not a good thing to have more than one apprentice to ten trained slaughtermen.
    Coming from both sides of the industry, that in itself was a clear indication of the meticulous supervision of young people that is required. The scheme therefore provided that there should be only one apprentice to ten trained slaughtermen and, also, that the employer should provide opportunity for release from employment so that the young apprentice should attend a technical college and be able to understand the technicalities of his craft—what he was doing and why, and the best way in which it should be done.
    I understand that this apprenticeship scheme has been exceptionally successful in that it is turning out very good craftsmen. That is the apprenticeship scheme which we think ought to be registered. We believe that the Ministry should keep a register of all these apprentices. That
    250
    does not mean any restriction at all as the Minister, having approved an apprenticeship scheme, would only be keeping a register of those apprentices. The purpose of this proposal will be discovered as I go on now to deal with the question of the registration of slaughtermen.
    It may not be well known to hon. Members, but they may take it as the truth, that very largely because of the opening of a great number of slaughterhouses in the post-war years—though not immediately after the war; and I will not argue the merits or demerits of that, because we have discussed it in the Standing Committee and our views on the necessity for centralising and having a moderate concentration of slaughterhouses are well known—a very large number of men who knew something about slaughtering but did not know about it wholly and were not very efficient, while doing a job of work during the week, were going into these slaughterhouses at nights and at weekends and, basing themselves on the little knowledge they had picked up somewhere or other—or perhaps using only brute strength—were slaughtering animals.
    This was a disgraceful thing. That is another of the very good reasons which overcame my prejudices about registration. I suppose that it would not really be right and proper to make any comparison here with anything that is done on the operating table to human beings, but animals should surely be treated with the same consideration that we give to persons who are operated upon. Looking at the history of modern surgery, one can go back over a number of years to the days when patients had to be strapped down on to the operating table and gagged to drown their screams and shouts as they were operated upon. We have seen to it, through the years, despite the efforts of those who, even in those days, fought against anaesthetics as being unnatural, that today serious operations are carried out without there being any pain at all to the patient at the time of the operation.
    We have done all that for human beings and there is not the slightest reason why those responsible for slaughtering animals for human consumption should not do everything possible to ameliorate the suffering of those animals. It is wrong that we should permit a series of events

    251
    which enable people with little or no skill at slaughtering to be able to work in slaughterhouses of the kind I have described—and the chapter and verse of the evidence can be produced for anyone to see—slaughtering animals in a way which brings out the disapproval of all who are engaged in the industry and have some idea of standards in relation to the humane treatment of animals.
    It may well be thought that slaughter-men who are killing animals daily may have little regard for them, but let me say right away that such is not my experience. Far from it. The most humane people in dealing with animals, with the usual exceptions that one finds in any section of society, are slaughterman. They resent people knocking animals about before they are killed. They resent a slaughterman who is a bad craftsman, the man whose tools fail him, or are in bad hands.
    For these and a number of other reasons which I would put before the House if there were time, I believe it is right that there should be a register of slaughtermen; and the only way for them to get on to that main register should be through the apprenticeship scheme. Two registrations could be kept, the first under the apprenticeship scheme, on which employers and workers in the industry have agreed. In fact, it came from them, and the Ministry of Labour and Education have both blessed and approved that scheme. Then, when those apprentices have gone through their course and are deemed to be efficient, their names would be put on to the register of slaughtermen. If that were done, as time goes on and as the apprentices become slaughtermen we in this House might feel that we had done our duty as legislators to preserve the humane slaughtering of animals.
    Sir James Duncan: Could the right hon. Gentleman help me in this: earlier, he said that the proportion of apprentices to slaughtermen was to be ten to one: How will he keep up the numbers if only one is replacing ten on the register?
    Mr. Robens: This is the scheme approved by the Joint Industrial Council, covering entrants into the industry. It says that entrants shall be based on the
    252
    proportion of one apprentice to ten skilled slaughtermen and that the number of new entrants shall by mutual understanding be based on local conditions. In other words, the Council says that at this stage the proportion must be one to ten, but according to whether there is concentration or expansion of slaughterhouses, the position is made a little more flexible.
    I doubt whether it is necessary to say anything more to persuade all those who would have the humane slaughtering of animals as a first consideration in any slaughterhouse that this ought to be done. There are other, commercial, reasons why we should have more efficient slaughterhouses, but I will not develop those reasons since they are obvious to everybody. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman will meet me on this. He probably has the same prejudice that I had about registration and looks as carefully as most of us do at groups of people with limited vested interests who want their profession, trade or industry registered. It was because of that prejudice that I looked at this matter much more closely. I am convinced that this is the right thing to do. It overrides all my prejudices about registration. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that the arguments which I have advanced overcome the prejudice which he may have towards this Amendment and that he will accept it.
    Sir J. Duncan: With the general object of the right hon. Gentleman I have no quarrel; indeed, I am just as keen as he is that slaughtering should be as humane as possible. It is the practicability of the scheme that I doubt. After all, slaughtering is not a very popular occupation to take up. I am entirely with the right hon. Gentleman on the apprenticeship scheme but if, as he says, it is a fact that only one apprentice is to be trained under ten qualified people, I honestly do not see how we are ever to keep up the numbers reasonably, bearing in mind, in any case, the difficulty of getting adequate numbers of slaughter-men to do the work. I would much rather have a different kind of scheme, perhaps operated through the trade unions, where the qualified man who actually does the slaughtering is an ex-apprentice, fully trained.

    253
    6.30 p.m.
    It must be remembered that it is not everybody in the slaughterhouse who does the slaughtering. Some do the skinning, some deal with the offals. No unhumanity is involved, because the animal is dead by then. In the small slaughterhouses, which are the ones I know, there are probably two men, or only one man, to handle the humane pistol. It is those men who ought to be qualified. I am in favour of an apprenticeship scheme, because it would enable a flow of qualified people to be available.
    The right hon. Gentleman wants to register everyone working in a slaughterhouse. That is a different question. I have the same instinctive objection to registration that he has, and I appreciate his views. Nevertheless, I do not think that it is the right way of approaching this problem. I am prepared to admit that this is permissive for the Minister, and could be done only after agreement between the employers and the employees, but I do not think that it ought to be in the Bill. It would be better on a voluntary basis between the employers and trade unions concerned, in such a way that the people who do the stunning and the slaughtering are qualified. I am sure that it could be done on a voluntary basis in the future.
    For the moment, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a shortage of slaughtermen. I know that this Bill does not apply to Scotland and I only refer to it by way of illustration. There is a shortage in Scotland and the local authorities there have difficulty in obtaining adequately qualified slaughtermen. While there is this difficulty, I am sure that it would place an additional burden on the local authorities in trying to find adequately qualified people if they have to be on the register before being employed.
    Therefore, while I have every sympathy with the objects of the right hon. Gentleman, I hardly think that this Amendment is the right way to achieve them. I ask the Minister to think about some voluntary method by which people who actually do the slaughtering shall be qualified, to ensure that no unqualified person shall do the stunning. At the same time, many unqualified people who are slaughtermen in name, and, perhaps, classified as such in the Ministry of
    254
    Labour and the trade union records, could cut up the meat and treat the offals.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment, although I agree with the objects behind it, as I have said, because from the practical point of view this is the wrong way of approaching the problem.
    Dr. Stross: If we pick out one section, the most important section, of men working in a slaughterhouse with reference to what we are now discussing, we must agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), that we would have to say, "These are the people we must consider for registration and apprenticeship because slaughter lies in their hands and they are responsible." And if we are to be humane to animals, and make sure that they are slaughtered as humanely as possible, if we cannot do it for all, we must do it for these first. Our primary consideration should not be those who treat the skins, and do so in such a way that we lose about £1 million a year today from spoiled skins, because it is only money that is lost.
    Less than half an hour ago the Joint Parliamentary Secretary told us he was not convinced that the Ministry should intervene by approving any type of instrument, for he was satisfied that if the instruments in use are properly used, there is no inhumanity in slaughter. We were not able to convince the hon. Gentleman that it would be desirable to make instruments foolproof so that if mistakes were made or ignorance was manifested we would still prevent cruelty.
    Now we are taking another aspect and putting it to the hon. Gentleman in another way. We are saying that if we cannot have approved instruments which are foolproof as far as possible—and some appear to be so, as we know from our discussions in Committee—let us at least have a guarantee that those who handle those instruments will be as well trained as possible, and this means the apprenticeship scheme and registration. I do not want to say more, but it seems to me that this is a case that cannot be argued against. If we mean what we say about humaneness in the care of animals, this is the least we should do.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I speak through you, Sir, to the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) on the contribution he has made to the debate. I want to thank him, because I believe that he was sincere. I think the hon. Gentleman was trying to explore the possibilities as far as he could, though, if he will forgive me for saying so, with probably a very limited knowledge of the trade.
    May I say to the hon. Gentleman that the registration of apprentices and the licensing of slaughtermen has been done unofficially under the Joint Industrial Council for a long time. Indeed, I could explain in much more detail the apprenticeship scheme, because I was in at its inception. Despite the fact that there is at present registration of apprentices and that there is to a certain extent licensing of slaughtermen under this arrangement, that does not prevent the illicit slaughtering of cattle today. As a result of the policy pursued in 1954, there are many examples of illicit slaughtering of cattle by unpractised, unqualified and untrained people in many slaughterhouses as a result of the increase in the number of slaughterhouses following the 1954 Act.
    I ought to say that, because it is the crux of the situation with which we are dealing and it is a point which neither the Minister nor the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has yet understood. When the 1954 Act was brought into being and free enterprise was allowed in this country to increase the number of slaughterhouses from 600 to 4,200, the question arose which is arising in Scotland now, where would we get the qualified slaughtermen to meet the needs of 4,200 slaughterhouses? It was inevitable that cattle would be slaughtered by people who were not qualified and who had no training.
    Sir J. Duncan: There is still a shortage of slaughtermen in Scotland.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I will deal with the Scottish position in a moment. I am now dealing with the English situation. It is as obvious as night follows day that the number of men who have been operating in 600 slaughterhouses are not sufficient to meet the needs of 4,200 slaughtherhouses. That is one reason why we are saying that there has not only been illicit but inhumane slaughtering in many of the places opened after 1954.
    256
    I will tell the House something else. When we talked about apprenticeship and the licensing of slaughtermen in 1954 we asked where they would come from. We were told about the butchers who, in the old days, had their own slaughterhouses, who did the killing behind their retail shops and then walked round to the front and sold the meat. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) was one of that type. Does the House think that my hon. Friend, who was slaughtering cattle as a boy, could do so today? Indeed not. Does the House think that I, who slaughtered cattle as a boy, could do so today? Indeed not. There has been an interval of twenty years since the days when the retail butcher killed his own cattle, and during that period all the slaughtermen have gone into the 600 abattoirs in this country.
    Therefore, with the larger number of slaughterhouses permitted by the Government, we must, so to speak, keep qualified slaughtermen under lock and key in terms of the registration of apprentices and of the licensing of slaughtermen. This subsection is only permissive, which was as far as we could go. We are not optimistic enough to believe that we can persuade the Government immediately to legalise the licensing of slaughtering, but we license public hangmen so why should we not kill cattle as humanely as human beings are killed? I come from the town from which one of the public hangmen came. He lived at a "pub" called "Help the Poor Struggler", but we do not want that in slaughtering. I do not think that we can persuade the Government to go to the logical conclusion demanded by modern slaughtering methods in terms of the registration of apprentices and licensing slaughtermen—
    Mr. George Craddock: Why not?
    Mr. Winterbottom: If my hon. Friend had attended 26 sittings of the Committee on this Bill, as I have done, trying to persuade Members who have not the foggiest idea of slaughtering, or of the details of the trade, he would not ask the question, because he would know the answer.
    We are nearing the end of the Bill. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has been very considerate and gentle. Indeed,

    257
    I do not understand how such a gentleman could pilot such a Bill through the House of Commons. This is the last chance that I shall have of saying to the Minister and his hon. Friends that unless they are prepared to accept some type of control by the Ministry as to who are to be apprentices and who are to be licensed to do the slaughtering, then I am afraid that with the increase in slaughterhouses which will be inevitable under the Bill, illicit slaughtering and inhumane killing of cattle will be intensified in the near future.
    I say categorically that unless the Government accept the principle of the registration of apprentices and the licensing of slaughtermen, they will take to the ring hundreds of cattle to be inhumanely slaughtered, which is something they would not do to the worst criminal in the land.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. John Hare: We have had two different approaches to the Amendment, that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), and that of the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom). I am sure the hon. Member for Brightside does not want to give a false impression by suggesting that there is a large degree of incompetence among slaughtermen, because I am sure that if he gave that impression he would regret it.
    Mr. Winterbottom: I am not trying to give the impression that there is a large degree of incompetence in slaughtering in post-war slaughterhouses. I am trying to say that there is a great deal of illicit slaughtering by people who have never been slaughtermen in many of the slaughterhouses which were opened under the 1954 Act.
    Mr. Hare: It is very important that the hon. Gentleman should be very careful with the words he uses. If he has evidence of that sort, he should produce it. It is all very well to make allegations of that sort. Both sides of the House are determined to prevent inhumane slaughtering, and if there is evidence of the sort which the hon. Member has in mind it is his public duty to produce it.
    Without suggesting that the hon. Gentleman necessarily disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, I got the impression that the hon. Gentleman liked the idea
    258
    of registration for registration's sake, whereas the right hon. Gentleman, if anything, had had a prejudice against registration and only after a great deal of thinking had been prepared to put his name to the Amendment, since, on principle, registration was not a practice which commended itself to him.
    The right hon. Gentleman put his case more than reasonably. I am not very happy about what would happen if I accepted the Amendment, because I believe that I should be unnecessarily interfering in the industry. I take the view of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). The industry has already produced an apprenticeship scheme which is extremely good and which is operated under the auspices of the J.I.C. It might be as well for the industry to feel that that was the first instalment towards ultimately reaching voluntary registration of all slaughtermen. I hesitate to impose on the industry something which will not necessarily make slaughtering more humane. We will not necessarily make slaughtering more humane merely by making lists of people. If there is a doubt about the competency of some people, the industry might be prepared to say that additional training should be made available, but the mere compilation of registers will not produce any extra skill.
    The industry might well be advised to come forward with its own registration scheme and my Ministry will certainly be ready to consider whether there is any administrative help which can be given in the preparation of a register by the industry itself, but I do not believe that this is fundamentally a job for the Government and I think that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the Amendment, although I very much appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman had in mind.
    I do not want to lecture the hon. Member for Brightside, because he has great experience of the industry, but I was a little worried by some of the things he said. Do not let us for one second assume that local authorities are not doing their job. It is the local authorities who have to issue licences for slaughtermen and it is their job to be satisfied that men who apply for these

    259
    jobs are the right and proper persons for them. If a local authority is not satisfied with the way a man is doing his job, it is the local authority's responsibility to take away his licence. Sweeping criticisms of the sort which the hon. Member made are severe criticisms of the way that local authorities are doing their job.
    For reasons which I have made clear, that local authorities are doing a reasonable job, that there is scope for a voluntary registration scheme within the industry, which I should be delighted in any way to assist, and, finally, for the fundamental reason that if an industry can organise itself, it is very much better than having the Government do it, I must resist the Amendment.
    Mr. Willey: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, with much of which we agree, although he has not gone quite far enough. This is a matter on which we make progress by stages. The Slaughter of Animals Act, 1954, which was introduced by my hon. Friend

    Division No. 100.]

    AYES

    [6.53 p.m.

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Dye, S.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

    Kenyon, C.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Balfour, A.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Ledger, R. J.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Fletcher, Eric

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

    Foot, D. M.

    Lee, Miss Jennie (Canno k)

    Benson, Sir George

    Forman, J. C.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Blackburn, F.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Logan, D. G.

    Boardman, H.

    Gbson, C. W.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. G.

    McAlister, Mrs. Mary

    Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Grey, C. F.

    MacDermot, Niall

    Braddook, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    McGhee, H. G.

    Brockway, A. F.

    Griffiths, William (Exchange)

    McGovern, J.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    McInnes, J.

    Brown, Thomas (Ince)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    McKay, John (Wa lsend)

    Burke, W. A.

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Hastings, S.

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Is es)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Hay man, F. H.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Healey, Denis

    Mahon, Simon

    Carmichael, J.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

    Champion, A. J.

    Holman, P.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Chapman, W. D.

    Holmes, Horace

    Mason, Roy

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hough ton, Douglas

    Mellish, R. J.

    Clunie, J.

    Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

    Messer, Sir F.

    Coldrick, W.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Monslow, W.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Hunter, A. E.

    Moody, A. S.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hynd, H. (Accrington)

    Morris, Peroy (Swansea, W.)

    Cove, W. G.

    Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

    Mort, D. L.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Janner, B.

    Moss, R.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

    Moyle, A.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St. Pn s. S.)

    Oram, A. E.

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Orbach, M.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

    Oswald, T.

    Diamond, John

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Owen, W. J.

    the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), carried us so far forward and gave the Government power to license slaughtermen and to prescribe qualifications. We now have general agreement within the industry that further qualifications should be prescribed—and I agree that it is better to have the agreement within the industry.
    However, I should have thought that my right hon. Friend had made his case, that in those circumstances registration would have helped, and that it was quite unrealistic to expect such a step from the industry. I agree at once that the apprenticeship scheme has been very successful, but we cannot expect from the industry the steps which the right hon. Gentleman expects. The Government should take the initiative and see that the Minister has power to provide for such a register. On these grounds, we must press our Amendment.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 227.

    Padley, W. E.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Viant, S. P.

    Paget, R. T.

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    We tzman, D.

    Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

    Ross, William

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    West, D. G.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Short, E. W.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Parker, J.

    Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

    Paton, John

    Sparks, J. A.

    Willey, Frederick

    Pearson, A.

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Peart, T. F.

    Storehouse, John

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Pentland, N.

    Stones, W. (Consett)

    Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

    Popplewell, E.

    Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Prentice, R. E.

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhough on)

    Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Probert, A. R.

    Taylor, John (West Lothian)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Woof, R. E.

    Rankin, John

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Redhead, E. C.

    Thornton, E.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Reeves, J.

    Tomney, F.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Reid, William

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Usborne, H. C.

    Mr. Deer and Mr. Simmons.

    NOES

    Agnew, sir Peter

    Erroll, F. J.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Ai ken, W. T.

    Farey-Jones, F. W.

    Kerr, Sir Hamilton

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Finlay, Graeme

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Kimball, M.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Anstru her-Gray, Major Sir William

    Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)

    Leavey, J. A.

    Arbuthnot, John

    Freeth, Denzil

    Leburn, W. G.

    Atkins, H. E.

    Galbraith. Hon. T. G. D.

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Gammans, Lady

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Garne Evans, E. H.

    Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

    Ba niel, Lord

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Barber, Anthony

    Glover, D.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Glyn, Col. Richard H.

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Barter, John

    Godber, J. B.

    Llewellyn, D. T.

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Goodhart, Philip

    Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Gower, H. R.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Luoas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich) Green, A.

    McAdden, S. J.

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Macdonald, Sir Peter

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Grimond, J.

    McKibbin, Alan

    Bishop, F. P.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Body, R. F.

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Bonham Carter, Mark

    Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

    Gurden, Harold

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

    Braine, B. R.

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Maddan, Martin

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

    Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Campbell, Sir David

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Mathew, R.

    Carr, Robert

    Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.

    Channon, Sir Henry

    Hesketh, R. F.

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Cooke, Robert

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Morrison, John (Salisbury)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

    Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hornby, R. P.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

    Neave, Airey

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

    Nicholls, Harmar

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hurd, A. R.

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

    O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Atrim, N.)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E-b'gh, W.)

    Osborne, C.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

    Page, R. G.

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Partridge, E.

    Duncan, Sir James

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Peel, W. J.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Pi kthorn, K. W. M.

    Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne. N.)

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Pitman, I. J.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Vickers, Miss Joan

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Wade, D. W.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Spe r, R. M,

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

    Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

    Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

    Ramsden, J. E.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Wall, Patrick

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Redmayne, M.

    Storey, S.

    Webbe, Sir H.

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Whitelaw, V. S. I.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Summers, sir Spencer

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Robertson, Sir David

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Robinton, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

    Teeling, W.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Rodgers, John (Seven aks)

    Temple, John M.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Mr. Bryan and Mr. Gibson-Watt.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. John Hare: I beg to move, in page 12, to leave out lines 27 and 28, and to insert:
    (3) Before making any regulations under section two of the Act of 1954 the Minister shall consult with such organisations as appear to him to represent the interests concerned; and, without prejudice to any other power with respect thereto, any such regulations.
    I think that this is the time when I can do something constructive to please the Opposition. As the House will remember, when we debated the Bill last week I said that I would move an Amendment of this sort at a later stage to remove what is really an anomaly. Under the 1955 Act, Ministers are required specifically to consult those concerned before they make regulations concerning hygiene in slaughterhouses, but, while that is laid down in the 1955 Act, there is no similar requirement in the 1954 Act in relation to regulations to prevent cruelty. I am,

    Clause 8.—(ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.)
    Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 13, line 32, at the end to insert:

    5

    (4) If a person convicted of an offence against any regulations made with respect to slaughterhouses or knackers' yards under section thirteen of the principal Act is the holder of a licence under Part IV of that Act in respect of the premises where the offence was committed, the court may, in addition to any other punishment, cancel that licence; and sections one hundred and eighteen to one hundred and twenty of the principal Act shall apply for the purposes of this subsection as if this subsection were contained in that Act.

    10

    (5) In subsection (3) of section sixty-eight of the principal Act (which provides that if a person convicted of an offence against any byelaw made under that section holds a licence under Part IV of that Act, the court may cancel the licence) after the word "Act" there shall be inserted the words "in respect of the premises where the offence was committed".

    I cannot say that the points covered by this Amendment arose out of the discussions in Committee, but they seek to correct an anomaly. The Amendment provides two new subsections (4) and (5) to Clause 8. Subsection (4) will ensure that in addition to any other penalty, a
    therefore, moving this Amendment to bring the two kinds of regulations into line where consultation is concerned.
    This makes no difference in practice, because we always have consulted the interests concerned before making such regulations, and we shall always continue to do so. For the reasons I have given, I think that it is right and proper to define the obligations of Ministers to consult in this way, and for that reason I submit this Amendment.
    Mr. Willey: We thank the right hon. Gentleman, but we regret that he has not gone far enough, though I think that if he had gone far enough for us he would have upset his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). I am, therefore, content to say that we are greatly obliged to him for the Amendment that he has moved.
    Amendment agreed to.
    court may cancel a licence. This provision had not been included in the 1955 Act in relation to this type of case, but the 1955 Act did include a reference to the cancelling of a licence for the breaking of byelaws. In subsection (4), we have, therefore, brought the provision

    265
    regarding convictions for offences against regulations made under Section 13 into line with those in respect of byelaws. In the new subsection (5), we are seeking to make quite clear that the repeal of a licence shall refer only to the premises in question. Those are the two points at issue; they are small, straightforward points and do not raise any point of principle.
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) desire to move his Amendment to the Minister's proposed Amendment?
    Mr. Willey: It would probably be for the convenience of the House if I were to do so. I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out lines 8 to 12.
    I still feel that we need an explanation of this matter. I accept the explanation so far as the first provision is concerned, but in regard to the second it would appear that the hon. Gentleman is proposing to alter the law, and I am not quite satisfied that that is either necessary or desirable. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could satisfy us on that point.
    Mr. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    Mr. Godber: This is quite a small point. Indeed, I assure the hon. Member that we are not seeking to alter the law in this respect, but merely to clarify what we believe was the original intention. We have put down this Amendment because we think it is right to make it quite clear that the intention is that it should relate specifically to the premises concerned. We do not think it would be either logical or fair to consider other premises in respect to any cases, whether they be cases affecting the byelaws or cases brought under the new subsection (4).
    The two new subsections are exactly in line. We merely seek to clarify the existing law, certainly not to make any substantial alterations to the 1955 Act in that respect. In that case, perhaps the hon. Member would feel satisfied and wish to withdraw his proposed Amendment.
    Mr. Willey: I am satisfied with the explanation of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I accept his invitation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    Clause 12.—(INTERPRETATION, ETC.)
    Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 15, to leave out lines 9 and 10.
    This is a very small drafting point. This definition was put in at an earlier stage of the Bill in relation to Clause 2 as it then existed. Clause 2 has suffered some minor changes since then, and, for that reason, this definition is no longer required.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 15, line 25 after "five", to insert:
    "or section (Isolation of slaughterhalls from dwellings)".
    This Amendment is a consequential one arising from the new Clause (Isolation of slaughterhalls from dwellings) to which the House has already agreed. This subsection provides that the licensing functions of local authorities under this Bill may be carried out by a joint local authority board. There is one such board at the moment, the Wessex Slaughterhouses Board, but it is conceivable that there may be others in future. I think it is right that the functions of local authorities in relation to the isolation of slaughterhalls from dwellings should also in these cases be carried out by joint boards, and that is the purpose of the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 13.—(PROVISIONS RELATING TO LONDON.)
    Amendment made: In page 15, line 35, after "five", insert:
    "and section (Isolation of slaughterhalls from dwellings)".—[Mr. Hare.]
    Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 15, line 36, at the end to insert:
    (2) In the application to the administrative county of London of subsection (4) of section eight of this Act, for the reference therein to Part IV of the principal Act there shall be substituted a reference to sections one hundred and forty-four and one hundred and forty-five of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936.
    We discussed at some length in Committee the various inter-relations of these matters as they affected London, so there is, perhaps, no need for me to go into them now. The new subsection (4) which the House has just agreed to insert into Clause 8 relates to all slaughterhouses

    267
    affected by Part IV of the 1955 Act. Part IV of that Act does not at present apply to London, and this new subsection merely applies the same provision to the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, which governs these matters in London.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Second Schedule.—(MINOR AMENDMENTS OF SLAUGHTER OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1933 TO 1954.)
  Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 17, line 37, at the end to insert:
  (b) in subsection (5), after the word "operation" there shall be inserted the words "within their area".
  We have now come to the Second Schedule, which relates to matters that we are seeking to clarify, ready for consolidation. Section (3) of the 1933 Act deals with the licensing of slaughtermen and provides that they shall not work without a licence granted by the local authority. Section 3 (5) provides that any local authority may suspend the operation of a licence within its area. Any local authority can suspend a licence, but the authority that granted it can revoke it where it is satisfied that the licensee is no longer a proper person to hold the licence.
  The purpose of the Amendment is so to augment the wording as to make it clear that suspension applies only to the area of the local authority concerned. That is held to be the intention of the present subsection (5), and I think that it is appropriate, when planning this consolidation, to put the matter beyond doubt.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 17, to leave out lines 40 to 50.
  We discussed this matter in Standing Committee, and perhaps I should first call attention to the fact that we are now dealing with minor Amendments to pave the way to consolidation. Here there are two separate provisions for the charges that local authorities may make for services. The Government are seeking to repeal that provision which allows specified charges to be made by the local authority according to its own discretion, whereas, in the other case, the local authority has, ultimately, to obtain Ministerial consent.
  268
  The Parliamentary Secretary has been good enough to seek the advice of the association concerned. He may think that he has satisfied that body, but my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), who is, at present, in Strasbourg, has handed me correspondence from which it appears that the National Association of British Market Authorities is not satisfied. It feels that the Minister is insisting on interfering with its discretion, and that that is an out-dated and unnecessary attitude. I do not know how well informed the Parliamentary Secretary is, but, in view of that, I think that he or the right hon. Gentleman should accept the burden of meeting the authorities further. Unless those authorities agree, I do not think that we should take such a step to their prejudice. After all, it is common ground that we are merely seeking to facilitate consolidation. In those circumstances, we should not prejudice the authorities concerned. At present, they feel that they are being prejudiced.
  Mr. Darling: I beg formally to second the Amendment.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Godber: This subject was raised by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) virtually at the end of our discussions in Committee, and I promised to see if there was any point of substance in it that I should attempt to meet. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said, I wrote to the association concerned. As I have heard nothing from that association, I assumed that it was satisfied. It is only from what the hon. Gentleman has just said that I understand it is not satisfied. I am rather surprised that the association did not apprise me of that fact, though I quite understand.
  I looked at this point rather carefully to see whether it was valid, and I think there must be some misunderstanding in relation to it. While the powers taken under Section 73 of the Food and Drugs Act are more extensive than those under the 1933 Act, they do not impose any real burden on local authorities in this respect. It certainly does not mean that local authorities have to seek approval before they can take action on their charges. They are certainly asked to submit details to the Minister, but they are not asked in

  269
  any way to get prior approval. There is, therefore, no question of their being held up or inconvenienced at all.
  I really cannot see that there is any sound argument against our taking this course. As I mentioned on an earlier Amendment, the whole of the Second Schedule relates to matters that we are trying to tidy up for consultation. From comments made in Standing Committee by hon. Members opposite, I am sure that they are in favour of consolidation and simplification. That was the theme running through a number of speeches to which I had the pleasure of listening. I therefore felt sure that they would be with me in thinking that it is right and proper to consolidate and simplify wherever possible.
  Here I do not think that any case has been made out against the line that we are proposing to take. While I am anxious to be co-operative, I would need to be given some clear indication why we should not take this action. I set it out in detail in the letter that I sent to the National Association of British Market Authorities, and, as I say, as I heard no more from the association, I assumed that it was satisfied. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to go into it in great detail for it is a small point, but if it has any further views to put forward we shall, naturally, look at them. However, at the moment I do not feel there is any justification in withholding this provision, which, I believe, will simplify matters and will not have the effect of inhibiting local authorities. It is for that reason that I feel that I could not accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Willey: I gather that the Parliamentary Secretary is willing to satisfy himself that the National Association of British Market Authorities is not dissatisfied, and that if it is dissatisfied he will look at this matter again. On that assurance I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 18, to leave out lines 10 to 13.
  I move this Amendment for the same reason as the last. We are here dealing with provisions to pave the way for consolidation. It would appear, on the face of it, that these lines go rather farther
  270
  than that, and I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to give us an explanation.
  Mr. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Godber: This is quite a small point, though it is a matter we did not discuss in Committee. This paragraph (b), which the Amendment would leave out, is a drafting Amendment to facilitate consolidation. It expresses quite simply and clarifies the intention of Section 7 of the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, as amended by Section 6 of the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954. Section 7 of the 1933 Act empowered medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors to enter slaughterhouses and knackers' yards for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of the Act and made it an offence to refuse them entry or obstruct them.
  Section 6 of the 1954 Act extended the powers of entry to veterinary surgeons employed by local authorities and officers of the Minister, and it also extended the duties of enforcement to cover regulations made under the Act. The extension of the offence of obstruction, although part of the purport of this Section 6 of the 1954 Act, was in less specific terms, and by this paragraph 3 (b) of this Second Schedule we try to remove any doubt which may exist. I assure the House that it does not alter in any way the present effect of the law.
  For that reason, I would ask the hon. Member to see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
  Mr. Willey: I always welcome simple language, and if I can accept the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance that this does not alter the law, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
  Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 19, line 18, at the end to insert:
  10. In subsection (5) of section three, for the words "revoke or suspend the operation of such a" there shall be substituted the words "revoke any such licence granted by them or suspend the operation within their district of any such".
  This part of the Second Schedule amends the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954, in preparation for consolidation. Section 3 of that Act deals with further aspects of the licensing of slaughtermen, which is, of course, a

  271
  function of local authorities. The principal provisions are contained in Section 3 of the 1933 Act. The same point arises here as with the Amendment we agreed a few moments ago, in page 17, line 37, and the purpose of this Amendment is to make it quite clear that a local authority may revoke entirely a licence granted by it, or otherwise suspend the operation of the licence within its district.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Willey: I beg to move in page 19, to leave out lines 19 to 21.
  I can rely on the unfailing courtesy of the Parliamentary Secretary to explain why these lines appear.
  Mr Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.
  Mr. Godber: I will endeavour to oblige the hon. Member as well as I can. I had some sympathy with him in putting down this Amendment to delete these words, because they do read rather oddly and one gets a little tied up between the "ones"—the repetition of the words subsection (1) and Section 1. It is rather confusing.
  The Slaughter of Animals Act, 1933, contained provisions whereby certain types of animals could be exempted from the general requirements of Section 1 (1) that all animals to which the Act applied should be instantaneously slaughtered or instantaneously stunned. Then the 1954 Act came and Section 4 (1) abolished this provision by extending the requirement to all animals. Section 7 (1) of the Bill re-enacts Section 1 (1) of the 1933 Act. We rewrite it into the Bill. I know that that will gladden the heart of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who has strong feelings about legislation by reference. Here, we have done exactly what he wanted—strangely enough, before he asked us to do it. He should be grateful to us for that. Subsection 4 (1) of the 1954 Act is, therefore, no longer necessary, and that is why it is repealed by this paragraph of the Second Schedule to this Bill.
  Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. I will study in HANSARD, at leisure, the explanation that he has given. Meanwhile, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.27 p.m.
  Mr. John Hare: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  This Measure has had, to put it mildly, a rather bumpy crossing through the Standing Committee, but I hope we have now come to smoother waters. During the Second Reading hon. Members opposite said they intended to try to strengthen the Bill in Committee. We have, I hope, succeeded in meeting them upon a few points, but on others we have not been able to agree, because, although I honestly think our aims are the same, there is a basic difference of approach between the two sides of the House.
  All of us on both sides want to see better and more hygienic slaughterhouses. Where we part company with the hon. Members opposite is about the methods to adopt to achieve that aim. They believe that that aim can be achieved only by restricting the number of slaughterhouses by arbitrary direction from the centre. We, on the other hand, believe that the right way to achieve the aim is to lay down strict standards for slaughterhouses and then leave it to the industry—and, of course, in saying the industry I include the local authorities as well as the trade—to provide slaughterhouses of the right type where they are needed. We reckon that in that way we shall get rid of the old, unsatisfactory premises and achieve the common aim of moderate concentration, which unites us on both sides, without the drawbacks which often seem to occur through too much central planning.
  I am afraid that compromise has not been possible, but we have tried to meet what I think was the quite justifiable criticism, that the drafting of the Bill made it somewhat difficult for the ordinary person to understand what was involved. We have made a number of Amendments which, I hope, will enable him who in Committee was always described as that admirable character the diligent slaughterman, when reading the Bill, to follow its provisions a little more easily. I speak with some feeling about this. Having come into the matter more or less in the middle of the proceedings I found some of the provisions very complicated. But I think I can say that during the Committee and Report stage discussions we simplified the Bill, and that is to the good.

  273
  There are one or two other issues on which I wish briefly to comment. The first is meat inspection. During the Committee stage hon. Members on both sides expressed great concern about the need for more and better inspection of meat in slaughterhouses I share that concern. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health and I are anxious, as soon as is practicable, to require that all meat be inspected. None of us can be content while perhaps as much as one-fifth—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that there is anything in the Bill about the inspection of meat.
  Mr. Hare: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make the point as far as I did.
  In Clause 9, some help is given towards the subject which I am out of order in mentioning, in that grants are introduced to assist certain local authorities with their meat inspection at a cost of about £100,000 a year.
  I move from that rather dangerous subject to say something about the provisions in Clause 7 relating to humane slaughtering. On present information it is clear that to anæsthetise pigs with carbon dioxide will probably be more humane than the present techniques. We shall prepare our regulations with care, consulting all the interested organisations including the animal welfare societies.
  Finally, a word about the construction regulations. They were published in draft last August after preliminary consultations with all concerned. There have been criticisms about them, but I do not complain of that. In fact, we published them well ahead so that they should be criticised before they came before the House. I shall try to meet the criticisms wherever I can. We are also pressing on with regulations about hygienic precautions in slaughterhouses.
  I believe that what has been laid down in this Bill will be effective in achieving our common aims. I know that the provisions do not please everyone. Of necessity, there has had to be compromise between many conflicting interests. There is a long history of legislation concerning slaughterhouses. Both the present arrangement and those included in this Bill are complex, but I believe that the framework we have now
  274
  set up is adapted to present-day requirements in the meat industry, and in that belief I commend the Bill to the House.
  7.34 p.m.
  Mr. Willey: We are reaching the end of this Bill's journey through the House. I am sure all my right hon. and hon. Friends join with me in regretting that, despite the attention we have paid to this Measure, it still remains badly constructed and ill-conceived. Despite our best endeavours to improve the Bill, all we can say is that it is more intelligible now than when we began to discuss it. However, the Bill remains difficult to understand and it is a severe disappointment to all those who believe that we could radically improve conditions in slaughterhouses.
  I acquit the Minister, for the right hon. Gentleman joined us too late. I pay tribute again to the Parliamentary Secretary who was in charge of the Bill unaided throughout the Committee proceedings. Those who advocate that our Parliamentary institutions suffer from a lack of vigour might pay regard to the unfailing courtesy and patience of the Parliamentary Secretary and the indefatigable efforts of my hon. Friends to improve the Bill. Certainly, there is plenty of life and vigour in Parliament; it is a pity that we could not get a greater response from the Government.
  As we have said before, the Bill falls into three parts. It provides for more humanitarian methods of slaughter. In that regard it is little more than declaratory, but, in so far as it is more than declaratory, we welcome it. The Bill deals also with health, safety and welfare in slaughterhouses and applies the Factories Act to them. In that respect it is purely declaratory, because we were overtaken by a decision of the Court of Appeal and all the Bill now does is to recognise the decision of the court. Nonetheless, we appreciate that it was the intention of the Government to apply the Factories Act to slaughterhouses, and we welcome the fact that they endeavoured to do that in one Clause. We hope this will be a good precedent for other Government Departments to extend the scope of the Factories Act. While we call attention to the fact that this part of the Bill is purely declaratory, we recognise the good intention of the Government. But it means, particularly as

  275
  our Amendments were not accepted, that this part of the Bill merely states the present law.
  We regret that, although this part has been rewritten and made more intelligible, it becomes more offensive the more intelligible it is. This, despite the good intentions of the right hon. Gentleman, is an abandonment of the policy of moderate concentration. I will say no more about the paradise for bureaucrats which it creates and the reports which will pass to and fro, but I repeat that, in essence, the Bill is an abandonment of the policy of moderate concentration. This is most unfortunate, because there was an understanding on both sides of the House that we should pursue such a policy, a bold and vigorous policy, to end what is, after all, a national disgrace.
  You, Mr. Speaker, have pointed out to the Minister that we cannot deal with what is not in the Bill, but I call the attention of the House to the fact that the provisions relating to meat inspection will not provide for the comprehensive and complete inspection of meat. This is a grave disappointment to everyone interested in public hygiene. Although the Bill provides for some control over conditions in slaughterhouses, it will not provide for the ending of Sunday slaughtering. We make no apology for having spent a long time during the Committee stage discussions in calling the attention of the Government to this important aspect of the state of our slaughterhouses—no adequate provision for meat inspection, and insufficient control over the conditions of slaughtering.
  On Report, we discussed and readily agreed to the Government's proposal, made at that very late stage, that in future slaughterhouses will not be part of private dwellinghouses, but we really must regret that the Government do not intend to use their powers to end the national disgrace that we still have slaughterhouses that are part of and attached to private dwellinghouses.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the regulations. We were greatly obliged to the Government for informing us in advance of the draft regulations but we have had no sign from the Government that they intend to improve those regulations. It was one of the very rare occasions in which we suffered under the
  276
  Closure when we were discussing the improvement of those regulations. I looked forward to the right hon. Gentleman's giving us an assurance when he spoke on the Third Reading that the Government would reconsider those regulations in the light of the criticisms to which they had been subjected. I expected from him an undertaking that the regulations would be drastically improved. Unless they are, the Bill will be a trap. It will creat the impression that something effective will be done to improve slaughterhouse conditions but it will make very little contribution towards that end.
  With these serious, severe and bitter disappointments before us, we have now to consider what our action towards the Bill should be. The effective part of the Bill now remains only Part I, which affects the powers of the Government to provide for regulations. We have failed to persuade the Government to improve that part of the Bill. We are convinced, now that the Government have not even shown any intention of improving the regulations, that they are sacrificing entirely the objective of moderate concentration, which was accepted by everyone who had any knowledge of slaughterhouse conditions as the only way in which we could remove the national disgrace and scandal. We shall have no alternative but to vote against the Bill.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. Darling: During the course of the long and protracted Committee stage I ventured the opinion several times that this was a bad and futile Bill because it would not carry out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said, the intentions that have been expressed by both sides of the House about the need to improve slaughterhouse facilities.
  We are, I think, the only Western European country, and the only advanced country in the world, that tolerates the appalling filthy little slaughterhouses that still exist here, the number of which is increasing and will continue to increase, despite the passing of the Bill. The regulations, which are the kernel of the Bill, we cannot discuss, because they are not part of the Bill but are to be issued under the Bill. They will not improve the situation. The little slaughterhouses will continue, and more of them will come into existence; and the meat trade, which

  277
  is, in many cases, a standing disgrace, will continue in its present form. The regulations will not improve things.
  I tried to show the Committee, by measuring slaughterhouses and indicating just what the regulations would do, that the regulations would not put these filthy little places out of existence. They will be a standing disgrace to us, and the Bill will do nothing to get rid of them. What is worse, it will make it extremely difficult for local authorities and for good, orderly bodies like the Fatstock Marketing Corporation, to build modern abattoirs. We shall not have the modern factory abattoirs that the country needs for the proper organisation of its meat trade and to guarantee 100 per cent. meat inspection. We shall continue these 4,000, 5,000, 6,000—or whatever the number may be—filthy little slaughterhouses that no one with a real interest in public health wants to see continued. The obstacles that will be placed by the Bill in the way of a proper organisation of the meat trade will condemn the Bill completely.
  For these reasons. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has said that we ought to register our protest against this bad and futile Bill by voting against its Third Reading.
  7.45 p.m.
  Dr. Stross: I, too, would have been disappointed if my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) had not avowed our intention to vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. It is not customary, after a Second Reading has been given without any serious criticisms, to find, on Third Reading, that those who have scrutinised and examined the Bill feel, on this side of the House, at any rate, that they must reject the Bill because it is bad.
  We found that this Bill was a bad Bill when we examined it. I think it was the Parliamentary Secretary who told us, when he complained about protests, that two Parliamentary records had been broken on the Bill. He said that its 14 Clauses and two Schedules had occupied 24 sittings and that about 1,200 columns of our discussions were recorded. He gave us a comparison with the Agriculture Bill, which had 111 Clauses and 13 Schedules and took 25 sittings, only one more than ours. That comparison tends
  278
  to show that we did look at the Bill carefully.
  Like everyone else, I pay tribute to the patience of the Parliamentary Secretary in argument in rejecting our Amendments. I tell him at this stage that I think if he had not been so unfailingly courteous and good-tempered we might have had more turbulent sittings, because we feel very deeply about the matter. We made it clear that a very important principle was involved, namely, the health of the public, and that we felt it our duty to safeguard it. We never heard from the Parliamentary Secretary the real defence against our complaints.
  We all agree that the drafting was difficult to follow and that legislation by reference in this way meant that we had to study the Bill with the greatest possible care. Frankly, we did not always know whether our conclusions or our understanding were accurate. The Parliamentary Secretary was able to give us very great assistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, who principally conducted the proceedings for us on this side, was not only a tower of strength; I do not know how he found the time to understand so fully what he was speaking of.
  The health of the public was our primary consideration. We shall reject the Bill because the public health has not been defended by it. No improvement has been made. All the things that might have been done, and that we have had an opportunity of doing, have been avoided. The Parliamentary Secretary must not take this criticism personally. In rejecting the Bill on Third Reading and voting against it, we are making a declaration that the country has not heard the end of legislation on this matter and that as soon as possible we hope to bring about something that really will do the job.
  I will try not to trespass on the time of the House any more, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but may I say that everybody in Committee tried to ensure that the Bill brought about the slaughter of animals as humanely as possible? But even on this point we were sometimes at variance. We wanted guarantees, but what we got from the Parliamentary Secretary was the opinion that consultation would be enough.
  In particular, we find it objectionable that so much must be left to private

  279
  enterprise in a field in which private enterprise has very little place. Our proposals are accepted by every advanced country, including Scotland. Why must we, in England, be the laughing stock of our Scottish colleagues? Why must it be said of us that when we had an opportunity of putting ourselves in the forefront of the civilised nations we purposely and carefully put ourselves right at the very back? If hon. Members on this side of the House did not take action tonight by rejecting the Bill we should be ashamed of ourselves.
  My hon. Friend has spoken of moderate concentration. That was the least we might have expected from the Government, but they have moved away from it. If I may use the word, they have betrayed the whole concept of moderate concentration. We do not believe that the regulations will achieve what the Parliamentary Secretary has said he hopes they will achieve. The Bill in no way safeguards public health; it betrays the concept of moderate concentration, and hands over to private enterprise freedom in a field in which it should have no room. I am sure that we are completely justified in voting for the rejection of the Bill.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. Hayman: The Minister has summed up the difference between the two sides of the House by saying that there is a basic difference of approach. That fact underlies the great length of the Committee proceedings. The Government apparently wanted to improve conditions in slaughterhouses but, for some doctrinaire reason, they have refused to take the necessary fundamental steps.
  The Minister said that there was a difference between us on the question of planning, and that is true. We still feel that the Bill will not fulfil basic planning needs if we are to have slaughterhouses worthy of our great nation, because in Clause 1 the Minister divests himself of the power of approving licences for new slaughterhouses. I mention now what I mentioned in Committee, namely, the apt example of the Urban District of St. Just-in-Penwith, in West Cornwall, which is such a small authority that one officer has to be public health inspector, surveyor, and various other things, and the meat in the big slaughterhouse which
  280
  is exported to the rest of the country goes out uninspected.
  The Bill goes no way to improve the position in relation to meat inspection. The Minister admits that 20 per cent. of the meat consumed in this country is not inspected before it is offered for sale. The fact that the Government have not been prepared to restrict the days of operation of slaughterhouses, and have insisted upon a large number of small slaughterhouses, means that they have put a deterrent in the way of recruiting the extra public health inspectors who are essential if the housewife is to be able to rely upon buying inspected meat. The Government rely upon their regulations to improve the condition of slaughterhouses, and in that way to provide for the more adequate inspection of meat, but I am sure that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary knows quite well that they will not prove effective so far as meat inspection is concerned.
  On the question of the grants which the Minister is empowered to make in respect of meat for export from the council area where slaughter takes place, I hope that he will be generous towards the small local authorities. If he is not, they will not be able to meet the heavy cost of meat inspection.
  The Bill is not worthy of the deep humanitarian instincts of the British people. They expect something more from Parliament in the year 1958. I should like to read an extract from a report of an inquiry into the sewerage, drainage and supply of water of Penzance by a gentleman named G. T. Clark, in 1849. In paragraph 70, referring to public nuisances, he says:
  "These are tolerably numerous. The most considerable are the slaughterhouses, of which there are 14 in the town, of which nine are in one street. Many of these are kept as clean as circumstances will admit; whitewashed, washed down and sanded; but even in these cases, the blood is thrown into the cesspool of the dwelling-house, and the smell is usually most offensive."
  Mr. Hare: I have only just returned but, even so, I would point out that I was pulled up by Mr. Speaker for daring to speak about meat inspection in far less detail than the hon. Member is now doing.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I was wondering how the hon. Member was going to connect this part of his argument with the Bill.
  Mr. Hayman: I am hoping to do that very shortly, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The street to which I have referred is 50 yards from the main town thoroughfare of Penzance, which has a population of 22,000, and four slaughterhouses are still there, three being in operation. The Bill will do almost nothing to improve the circumstances there, and the fact that licences are to continue may well deter the local authority from embarking upon an enterprise for a public abattoir, which has been its desire for many years.
  7.57 p.m.
  Mr. Dye: I never liked the Bill, and the more I have seen and heard of it in Committee and on Report the less I have liked it and the less I think it can be effective in dealing with the slaughter of animals produced for human consumption.
  First, we want to know whether the Bill now makes possible the effective inspection of meat and the proper arrangement of our slaughterhouses to enable that to be done. There are still many districts in respect of which the provisions of the Bill will be most ineffective. I view the Bill very largely from the point of view of a producer of stock for slaughter. British farmers are told that they should be more efficient every year, and they are expected to be more efficient to the extent of about £30 million. To what extent will the Bill enable the more efficient handling and preparation of stock for human consumption? Will it bring down the cost? Will it make a better article for the housewife? It will in time, but very gradually, and the cost to the owners of slaughterhouses will be very high.
  I do not know whether the Minister has even considered it necessary to estimate the cost of the Bill to the owners of slaughterhouses. That will be very great. I do not know whether the Minister has estimated what the effect will be upon local authorities. Certainly it will be a difficult Bill for small local authorities to administer, and it will be almost ineffective.
  On these grounds, I do not like the Bill. I think it is wrongly conceived. I never wanted the system of moderate concentration of slaughterhouses as outlined in the White Paper. That was a guide and a very good guide, but I realised that there were other slaughter-
  282
  houses that ought to be provided to meet the circumstances in the country. I dislike this Bill because it does not ensure the efficient purpose for which slaughterhouses are to be provided. Therefore, I think it a bad Bill. Sooner or later another Government must bring in a definite policy to be fulfilled and made effective. For that reason, I gladly support my right hon. and hon. Friends and will vote against the Bill. It is a bad Bill, but it could have been a very good Bill.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. Robens: This Bill is a bad Bill. It takes away from local authorities their present control over the opening of slaughterhouses. It enables slaughterhouses to be opened to any extent, provided that the regulations the Minister is to produce are complied with.
  The Minister has said he thinks the regulations will be strict. He will forgive me when I say that it is our unanimous opinion that they will not be strict regulations. If it were not that I would be out of order, I should be delighted to take him through the regulations one by one. We do not regard them as strong enough to ensure that the slaughterhouses the country ought to have are to be provided. This Bill will not provide slaughterhouses which would enable the American Army authorities to have their beasts slaughtered in this country for consumption by their troops. That is a shocking thing to have to say, but nevertheless, it is true.
  There is a Clause in the Bill which provides for financial aid to local authorities in connection with the inspection of meat. The right hon. Gentleman has said that it will cost about £100,000 a year. The meat will not be adequately inspected under this Bill. The Bill will help some local authorities, but we shall still have a situation in which a very large proportion of meat will go for human consumption without being inspected. Not a single medical officer in the country has not subscribed to the view that it is wrong that any meat which has not been inspected should be made available for sale for public consumption. The Clause which provides for financial assistance for meat inspection does not provide for 100 per cent. inspection of meat for human consumption.

  283
  Although I very much doubt it, I hope that sufficient publicity will be given to the doctrinaire attitude of the Government, who feel that it is a splendid idea that for eighteen months anyone may open slaughterhouses under these tinpot regulations which the Minister has provided us in draft. The public ought to be made aware that if we take that fact into consideration, with the paucity of meat inspection provided under the Bill, they are not being protected and will not secure any greater efficiency in the slaughtering of animals.
  I am very sorry indeed that the Government did not give us a Bill much more in conformity with the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee and the best advice of medical officers of health and local government. They are the people whose voices ought to have been heard. I am afraid this Bill contains the merest echo of all the things they have said and we have said on their behalf to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said, we shall have to vote against the Bill. Before we listen to the Parliamentary Secretary winding up this debate, I wish on behalf of my hon. Friends to echo what my hon. Friend said about how much we have appreciated the hon. Gentleman's unfailing courtesy, the patient way in which he has listened to all we have had to say, and the care he has taken so far as he was able to meet the problems we raised. That is said very sincerely because we recognise that he did this task through no fault of his own or of the Minister. For that we on this side of the House are extremely grateful and wish to record our thanks.
  I wish to record my personal thanks and those of my colleagues to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, who, on our side, has done a magnificent job. As we part with the Bill in such good spirits, I am sorry that we have to vote against it, but I am afraid that must be the case.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. Godber: I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) for the way in which he concluded his remarks. I spent many happy hours with him and his hon. Friends in Standing
  284
  Committee and, as one of my hon. Friends said, after tonight it will seem as if something has gone out of my life, for we have been with this subject for such a long time.
  I much appreciate the way in which hon. Members opposite have been so kind to me, especially as I have been saying "No" for the Last four or five months. I have been saying it in different ways and in a different voice, but I have still had to say "No" to them. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for the pertinacity of his endeavours to get me to change my point of view. I do not propose to go into those various arguments now. That would be wrong; we have had quite sufficient argument on the Bill, and the proof now is in its operation when it becomes law.
  I wish to take up only one point. Several hon. Members have referred to the regulations and said that they do not think they will be effective enough in forcing wholly unsatisfactory slaughterhouses to close. Time will tell. I honestly believe that they will achieve the aim which hon. Members on both sides of the House desire. In support of that, I wish to quote what was said by an hon. Member opposite during the Committee stage:
  "One could go right through the draft regulations one by one and prove conclusively that it is quite impossible for them to be carried out in the small slaughterhouses that have already been opened in very large numbers, and in the very many more envisaged to be opened."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 10th December, 1957; c. 172.]
  That was said by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), who has had some knowledge of these matters. It shows that hon. Members opposite are not wholly at one, and on that occasion truth broke out on the Opposition benches.
  I must not go into the arguments again as we have debated this at great length, but I believe that when it reaches the Statute Book the Bill will prove a great asset in improving the standards of slaughterhouses. It will impose real obligations on those who own and operate them. I believe that in the long run it will be beneficial from the point of view of hygiene, prevention of cruelty, and the welfare of workers in the industry.

  285
  For those reasons, I am very sorry indeed that hon. Members opposite find it necessary to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

  Division No. 101.]

  AYES

  [8.11 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Hall, John (Wyoombe)

  Neave, Airey

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Nicholls, Harmar

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'h)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Atkins, H. E.

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Osborne, C.

  Balniel, Lord

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf d)

  Page, R. G.

  Banks, Col. C.

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Barber, Anthony

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

  Partridge, E.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Henderson, John (Cathcart)

  Peel, W. J.

  Barter, John

  Hesketh, R. F.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Bev ns, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Body, R. F.

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Braine, B. R.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Redmayne, M.

  Braithwaite, Sir Alber(Harrow, W.)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Browne, J. Nixon (Cra gton)

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Campbell, Sir David

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Channon, Sir Henry

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Sharples, R. C.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Shepherd, William

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

  Sm thers, Peter (Winchester)

  Cooke, Robert

  Kaberry, D.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Kimball, M.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Lancaster, col. C. G.

  Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Crowder, Petre(Ruislip—Northwood)

  Langford-Holt, J. A.

  Storey, S.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Leburn, W. G.

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Deedes, W. F.

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T,

  Teeling, W.

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Temple, John M.

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Duncan, Sir James

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Duthie, W. S.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Ch swick)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  McAdden, S. J.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Finlay, Graeme

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Wade, D. W.

  Fisher, Nigel

  McKibbin, Alan

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Gammans, Lady

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Wall, Patrick

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Glover, D.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Godber, J. B.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Gower, H. R.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Mathew, R.

  Woollam, John Victor

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  Mawby, R. L.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Green, A.

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Mr. Bryan and Mr. Gibson-Watt.

  Grimond, J.

  Morrison, John (Salisbury)

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 177.

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Padley, W. E.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Paget, R. T.

  All n, Arthur (Botworth)

  Hoy, J. H.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Parker, J.

  Balfour, A.

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Bance, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Paton, John

  Benson, Sir George

  Janner, B.

  Pearson, A.

  Bavan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Peart, T. F.

  Blackburn, F.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Hoibn & St. Pncs. S.)

  Pentland, N.

  Boardman, H.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Popplewell, E.

  Bottomlay, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Probert, A. R.

  Boy a, T. C.

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rankin, John

  Brockway, A. F.

  Jonas, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Kenyon, C.

  Reeves, J.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Reid, William

  Burke, W. A.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Carmichael, J.

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Champion, A. J.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Ross, William

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Logan, D. G.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Clunie, J.

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Short, E. W.

  Coldrick, W.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

  Collick, P. H. (Brkenhead)

  McCann, J.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

  Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  MacCol, J. E.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  MacDermot, Niall

  Sparks, J. A.

  Cove, W. G.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  McGovern, J.

  Stonehouse, John

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  McInnes, J.

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Deer, G.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Delargy, H. J.

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Diamond, John

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

  Mahon, Simon

  Thornton, E.

  Dye, S

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Tomney, F.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddarsfd, E.)

  Usborne, H. C.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Viant, S. P.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mason, Roy

  Weitzman, D.

  Foot, D. M.

  Mellish, R. J.

  West, D. G.

  Forman, J. C.

  Masser, Sir F.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Moody, A. S.

  Willey, Frederick

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Mort, D. L.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Grey, C. F.

  Moss, R.

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Moyle, A.

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Ha l, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

  Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A.

  Hastings, S.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Oram, A. E.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Orbach, M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Oswald, T.

  Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. J. Taylor.

  Holman, P.

  Owen, W. J.

  Holmes, Horace

  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  LAND POWERS (DEFENCE) BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the amendments to Clause 3, page 5. line 26; Clause 10, page 15, lines 22 and 24; and Clause 18, page 25, lines 26 and 31, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. George Ward.—[Mr. Amery.]
  8.19 p.m.
  Sir Frank Soskice: Will the Under-Secretary say why the Bill has been recommitted for these Amendments? I am sure that there is a very good reason, but perhaps he will be good enough to tell us what it is.
  The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Julian Amery): The reason is that, after closer examination, the Government are anxious to introduce certain Amendments which may give rise to the expenditure of public funds. I understand that, once a Bill has been passed in Committee, no Amendments involving a charge against public funds may be made without the Bill being recommitted to a Committee of the whole House. This applies, I gather, even if, as in the case of this Bill, the Money Resolution passed on 10th February was in terms wide enough to cover the proposed Amendment.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

  Clause 3.—(MANŒUVRES COMMISSIONS.)
  Mr. Amery: I beg to move, in page 5, line 26, at the beginning to insert:
  "The Secretary of State may make to all or any of the chairman and other members of any manœuvres commission such payments by way of remuneration or allowances as the Treasury may approve, and".
  This Amendment provides for the payment of a fee or allowance to the chairman and members of a manœuvres commission, and as such corrects a minor omission in the original draft Bill. Paragraph 4, subsection (4) of the Second Schedule to the Bill provides specific statutory authority to make a similar sort of payment to a person appointed to hold an inquiry. Unless, therefore, statutory
  290
  authority is also given, as in this Amendment, there could be doubt whether the Secretary of State could validly pay the chairman or a member of a commission for carrying out his functions. It might be held that he could only reimburse him for his out-of-pocket expenses, and this might well not be enough.
  Before the war, membership of a manœuvres commission was not a very onerous duty, and suitable persons were prepared to give their services free, but since that time conditions have changed a good deal. The present Bill makes considerable changes both in the duties and in the composition of a manœuvres commission. The changes in procedure to which it will lead will tend to increase the volume of representations with which the commission will have to deal. There will be considerably more work for its members to do. It would besides—and I think the Committee would agree to this—be a matter for regret if Ministers were unduly restricted by financial considerations in their choice of suitable persons to appoint to a manœuvres commission. The best man for the job may not always be in a position to give his services for nothing.
  I would, however, add that this Amendment is only designed to provide an enabling power. It is not our intention to invoke it automatically; but the power may well be needed, and we thought it best that Parliament should deal with the point now.
  Sir F. Soskice: Speaking for myself, I can well understand the necessity for some power such as the Government are now seeking to introduce into this Bill. Indeed, it was perhaps a little surprising that it should have been left out of earlier versions of the Bill. I must confess that I was considerably mystified by the argumentation in the Minister's speech based upon an analogy with some provision in one of the Schedules. I cannot quite understand why a doubt should be engendered by reason of the fact that there is provision in the Schedule for payment for persons holding an inquiry. I should have thought that if there were no enabling provisions in the Bill authorising the Minister to pay fees to members of a manœuvres commission he could not do so, but I cannot understand how the doubt arises as to whether he had

  291
  a power to pay other out of pocket expenses.
  However, perhaps that is a piece of legal subtlety upon which it is scarcely profitable to embark, but I must say that my mind is in some state of doubt as a result of what the Under-Secretary has said. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General would feel able to add something on that aspect of the matter. Perhaps what is much more to the point is that, I think the Committee would desire from the Minister some kind of indication, at any rate, in general terms, of the scale upon which these payments are to be authorised. As I understood him, he is simply now seeking power to make payments, and he says that the object of such power—which I can well understand, and which seems to me a useful object—is to widen the scope of persons from whom members of the commission may be appointed.
  I think that the Committee would not desire to part from the Amendment without having some kind of idea of the sort of remuneration which will be paid, and, if it is not always to be paid, the sort of circumstances which are to justify its payment in the eyes of the Government. Perhaps the Under-Secretary would be good enough to enlighten us on that. I should have thought that my hon. Friends would not seek to oppose this Amendment, but I think they would desire some enlightenment along the lines I have ventured to point out.
  Mr. Amery: On the first point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, subject to anything that my right hon. Friend may wish to add, I would say that the reason it was held—and, I think, as far as I understand these matters, soundly—that, if it is provided in a Schedule that there should be remuneration in certain cases and no similar provision exists in another case, the omission in the one case might be held to mean that no expenditure would be incurred in the first case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, as an experienced lawyer, will understand that more than I do, and I would not dream of pursuing that matter further.
  As to the size of sum that would be paid, the Government's view is that it would be a matter of hundreds of pounds and not—probably £300 or £400, that sort of thing; it might be less or it might
  292
  be more, according to the circumstances. The circumstances of the person invited to serve on the commission could obviously be one element to be taken into consideration; the chairman's responsibility would no doubt be heavier than that of other members of the commission. The Bill itself states that any expenditure would be fixed by the Treasury, and I would hope that that would be accepted as a sufficient guarantee that it will not go very far.
  Sir F. Soskice: I assure the Under-Secretary that I am not suggesting otherwise. I am sure that the Treasury would act with its usual discretion in these matters. I am just wondering whether, after the hon. Gentleman's speech, we have had enough to enable us to feel easy in our consciences at agreeing to this Amendment. Can he not give us a little more general idea of the sort of work involved? How long is a manœuvres commission to sit? How often a week is it to meet? Is it to sit for a matter of months, years, weeks or days?
  The Under-Secretary mentioned in general terms that he thought it would be "a matter of hundreds of pounds and not", and then he hesitated. I do not know whether he meant thousands or single pounds. We are rather left in the air about this. Can he not tell us what he envisages as to the sort of task involved, in terms of magnitude and length of time which members of the commission, and, in particular, the chairmen, will be asked to undertake when they accept appointment? Can he not give us something a little more than simply saying that he would have thought it was "a matter of hundreds of pounds and not", and then a mysterious blank? Does he mean 100 guineas for so many sessions, or what?
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think I am being difficult or cantankerous about this, but it is, after all, our duty to know what we are being asked to put on the Statute Book. While I think that we would all recognise that people undertaking public service should receive appropriate remuneration — generally speaking, at any rate—we should, I think, be told more precisely what the Government have in mind in this respect.
  Mr. Amery: I do not in the least resent the right hon. and learned Gentleman

  293
  pressing me on this, as I quite understand his natural interest in the matter. I did not seek to give the Committee full details of what the work of the commission would entail because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his Second Reading Speech, and I myself in Committee, dealt at some length with the number of months during which the commission would be in session, the kind of problems it would have to consider, and the importance of fairly frequent meetings and giving plenty of opportunity to public and private bodies to make such representations as they thought right to the commission.
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would refresh his memory on what was said on Second Reading and in Committee, he will find all the information that is necessary. I said that hundreds of pounds might be involved. It is extremely difficult to fix the figure in advance, partly because, as I say, this is an enabling power. We do not wish to have to pay money in all cases, but if a suitable person is found, for instance—the question of the importance of having representatives of the farm labourers, and so on, on these commissions has been raised—it might well be that he could not afford to do it unless he was paid the equivalent of the work that he would not be undertaking while he was serving on the commission. The Government would rather like to limit the definition to "an appropriate sum" and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that. As I say, it might be 100 guineas or 200 guineas, but not, I would have thought, either a two-figure or four-figure sum.
  8.30 p.m.
  Sir F. Soskice: I am sorry to intervene again, but I do not think that we have had the information for which we have asked. The Minister has said very hesitatingly that he does not know what the sum is. It might be 100 or 200 guineas, but he did not think it would be a four-figure sum. It might correspond to the lost wages of a person employed. The Government must have had some thought about this matter and I hope the Minister can tell us a bit more. He has not told us much yet. He has been very hesitant, and, with great respect, he produces the impression, at any rate, on my mind that he has not much information about this point. I
  294
  hope that he has and I hope that he and his ministerial colleagues have given thought to this matter.
  The Government have done a great deal to meet our objections on this Bill and we feel extremely grateful for the trouble that they have taken over a number of points which we have raised. Therefore, we are all the more disappointed at the Minister's answer to the question that I have put to him. I hope he will have one more try to try to satisfy us. If he cannot, I shall be bound to advise my colleagues not to agree to the Amendment. I hope he will try to say what the Government mean. What sort of remuneration do they propose to pay, and to what sort of people? The Government must have some sort of scale in mind.
  If the Minister wishes to obtain information or sustenance from his advisers, I will go on talking while he does so, but he does not seem to be making any move to do that. If he has more information at his disposal without further reference to his experts, I hope that he will give it, but I feel very dissatisfied with what he has said and I shall be obliged to give that advice to my hon. Friends on this side unless we can obtain some more illuminating information than we have had so far.
  Mr. George Chetwynd: May I give the Under-Secretary of State a little more time to find out what we want to know? We are told that there are to be 12 people on this commission, drawn from all kinds of occupations and professions. Some will suffer hardship by having to serve on it. Some, as I understand, will be doing it on an amateur basis. I am against the mixing of amateurs and professionals on a body of this kind, and I hope that all of them will get the rate for the job, whatever it is.
  We are not sure what the job is or who will serve on this commission. The Minister spoke of a remuneration of between £200 and £1,000. Would each member receive that, or is that the total? If he proposes to pay someone £1,000 for being chairman for two or three months in the year, that chairman will be grossly overpaid. On the other hand, if he proposes to base the payment according to the job from which the man comes, that

  295
  is also wrong. If he proposes to pay an agricultural worker or a barrister what he would lose by attending, it seems to me that the scales will be all wrong.
  I hope that the Minister can meet our difficulty by making the payments that the Treasury may approve subject to affirmative or negative Resolution procedure by making regulations under the Bill which the House would then have a chance of seeing and upon which it could base its judgment before the Bill finally becomes law. Perhaps that is the way out.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: I am rather alarmed at the inability of the Minister to give anything like a precise figure. I have spent most of my life in local government service. If a chairman of one of my local committees came to a committee meeting and was unable to answer a simple question about the cost of a proposal, he would have had a heavy rap over the knuckles and would have deserved it.
  Mr. Amery: I cannot enlighten the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and his colleagues much further. This is an enabling power. I think that there is a minor difference of principle between the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) and the Amendment that I commend to the Committee. We are not seeking to lay down a definite scale at this stage. We only seek the power to make payments if it proves that payments would be desirable.
  As I said earlier, I do not in the least resent the interest of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in this matter, but the Schedule that we discussed in Committee was a similar provision to the one that I have just proposed in the Amendment. At that stage, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any of his hon. and right hon. Friends showed any concern on this aspect of the matter. The essence of the matter is that we are seeking

  Division No. 102.]

  AYES

  [8.39 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Barlow, Sir John

  Body, R. F.

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Barter, John

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Arbuthnot, John

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Braine, B. R.

  Atkint, H. E.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Balniel, Lord

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Browne, J. Nixon (Cra gton)

  Barber, Anthony

  Bishop, F. P.

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  an enabling power. Payments would be of a comparatively minor character. They would be related to the amount of work that would have to be done and to the number of sittings of the commission, and so on. I cannot enlighten the Committee beyond that.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: I have a great deal of sympathy with the Under-Secretary of State. He was not expecting to have to answer this series of questions, because they were not raised in Committee or on Second Reading. I can understand his difficulty in giving an answer. However, I thought that the Solicitor-General might have tried to back up his hon. Friend. After all, he gets a fabulous salary and he has had a rather easy passage on this Bill. He might have been able to cite a formula or precedent from the past to show what is paid to members of commissions of this kind.
  The Solicitor-General and others could have told us this. That is what we wanted to know. Reimbursement of time lost in serving on a commission of this kind is not enough. We understand that the commission may sit, as the Under-Secretary said, for many months. Some people could not spare the time to serve on a commission of this kind.
  I do not know whether the Secretary of State for War will say something about this point. He must know something about it. We never saw him, quite understandably, during the Committee stage, or on Second Reading, when, unfortunately, he went down with influenza. This is an opportunity for him to tell us what will be paid to the members of the commission. These are serious points of view. Surely there is a formula in existence which could be given as an example.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 197, Noes 166.

  Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)

  Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

  Partridge, E.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Peel, W. J.

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hornby, R. P.

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Channon, Sir Henry

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Chichesler-Clark, R.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Cooke, Robert

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Pitman, I. J.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Hurd, A. R.

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Crowder, sir John (Finchley)

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Redmayne, M.

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Roper, Sir Harold

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Kimball, M.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Duncan, Sir James

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Sharples, R. C.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Leavey, J. A.

  Shepherd, William

  Elliott, R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)

  Leburn, W. G.

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Gammans, Lady

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Llewellyn, D. T.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Storey, S.

  Glover, D.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Ch swick)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Godber, J. B.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Goodhart, Philip

  McAdden, S. J.

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Gower, H. R.

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Teeling, W.

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  McKibbin, Alan

  Temple, John M.

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Green, A.

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Grimond, J.

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Wade, D. W.

  Crosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  Mathew, R.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Mawby, R. L.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Wall, Patrick

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mott-Radolyffe, Sir Charles

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Neave, Airey

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. C.

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Woollam, John Victor

  Hesketh, R. F.

  Osborne, C.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Page, R. G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wytnenshawe)

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Mr. Bryan and Mr. Gibson-Watt.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Champion, A. J.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Clunie, J.

  Grey, C. F.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Coldrick, W.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Collick, p. H. (Birkenhead)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Bents, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Benson, Sir George

  Cove, W. G.

  Hastings, S.

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Blackburn, F.

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Boardman, H.

  Deer, G.

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Delargy, H. J.

  Holman, P.

  Bowden, H. W. (Lel ester, S.W.)

  Diamond, John

  Houghton, Douglas

  Boyd, T. C.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Dye, S.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness(Caerphilly)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Hunter, A. E.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Burke, W. A.

  Foot, D. M,

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Forman, J. C.

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Carmichael, J.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Janner, B.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Gibson, C. W.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St. Pncs. S.)

  Mort, D. L.

  Short, E. W.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Moss, R.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Moyle, A.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Storehouse, John

  Kenyon, C.

  Oram, A. E.

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  Lawson, G. M.

  Orbach, M.

  Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

  Ledger, R. J.

  Oswald, T.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Owen, W. J.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Padley, W. E.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Logan, D. G.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Thornton, E.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Tomney, F.

  McCann, J.

  Parker, J.

  Usborne, H. C.

  MacColl, J. E.

  Paton, John

  Viant, S. P.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Pentland, N.

  West, D. G.

  McGovern, J.

  Popplewell, E.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  McInnes, J.

  Prentice, R. E.

  Witcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Willey, Frederick

  McLeavy, Frank

  Probert, A. R.

  Williams, David (Neath)

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Rankin, John

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Mahon, Simon

  Redhead, E. C.

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brlgg)

  Reeves, J.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)

  Reid, William

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Mason, Roy

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Zilliacus, K.

  Messer, Sir F.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mi chison, G. R.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

  Moody, A. S.

  Ross, William

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 10.—(PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTION OF AIRFIELDS.)
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Amery: I beg to move, in page 15, line 22, after "chattels", to insert
  "or would, but for subsection (7) of this section, have been entitled to a remedy for the breach of a covenant or agreement prohibiting or restricting the taking of that action".
  I think it will be for the convenience of the House if we discuss this Amendment with the following one, in page 15, line 24.
  These two Amendments to Clause 10, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, are designed to meet the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) in the discussion in Committee. My hon. Friend then inquired whether someone having a favourable covenant would receive compensation if the covenant were abrogated. Under subsection (5), as originally worded, compensation would be payable where the covenant amounted to an interest in the land in question—where, for example, the owner of the land had made his covenant with a reservation that, say, the timber on property leased by him would have to be preserved. In
  300
  that case, there would be a reversionary interest in his favour and this could be compensated under the heading of "depreciation on value of land".
  Difficulty arises where the covenant does not constitute an interest in the real sense of that word, when the person having the benefit of the covenant is neither the owner nor occupier of land on which stands the obstruction which has to be removed. This might happen in the case of a former owner selling the land and losing all title to it. Nevertheless, he has imposed a restrictive covenant that certain trees which afford shelter and privacy to retained land shall not be cut down. If the trees were then cut down as the result of an order under Clause 10, this former owner would lose his shelter and privacy but, having no interest in the land on which the trees stood, he would not as the Clause stands be entitled to compensation for the loss of his shelter and privacy under subsection (5). Nor as the result of subsection (7) would he have a remedy in damages against the person who infringed the covenant. This seemed to us on examination to be unfair, and the purpose of the Amendment is to enable the Minister to pay compensation in the case I have described.
  We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot for having drawn our attention to this point.
  Sir F. Soskice: I agree entirely with the Minister that his Amendment seems to cover a case which was not provided for, which I understand from his speech is one in which the person who is damnified cannot complain of an infringement to an interest which he has in land but can complain of being deprived of the advantages of a covenant which otherwise he would be able to enforce.
  It seems to us on this side of the Committee that this is a case in which injustice might have been done as the Bill stood originally, and it seems to me, and I hope to my hon. Friends, that the change which the Government propose prevents the possibility of such an injustice. Speaking for myself, therefore, I advise my hon. Friends to support the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 24, after "disturbance", insert:
  "or in respect of the loss of that remedy".—[Mr. Amery.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 18.—(COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF WAYLEAVE ORDERS AND RESTRIC- TIONS UNDER S. 16.)
  Mr. Amery: I beg to move, in page 25, line 26, after "land", to insert:
  "which comprises or is held with, land".
  It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss with this Amendment the next one on the Order Paper, namely, in page 25, line 31.
  Under subsection (1) as at present drafted compensation can be paid only for depreciation in the value of the particular area to which a wayleave order applies. The extent of the area in respect of which compensation is payable will thus depend on the terms of the wayleave order.
  Suppose, for example, it was planned to lay a pipeline through the middle of a piece of land; the land on both sides of the line might well be depreciated in value as a result. Had it been intended, for instance, to use the plot of land as building land, the presence of the pipeline might affect the layout of the site for building purposes. As the subsection is at present drafted there is a danger that compensation would be restricted to the actual strip of land under which the pipeline ran. The purpose of the Amend-
  302
  ment is to ensure that any compensation should be related to the interest of the plot of land as a whole through which the pipeline might run.
  The Amendment to subsection (2) is consequential to the Amendment to subsection (1).
  Sir F. Soskice: Personally speaking, I would have no objection to the change proposed by the Government. I must confess that when I saw the Clause in its original form it did not occur to me that there was any danger that the compensation might be restricted to that strip of land on which the pipe ran. If, however, the Minister has been advised that there is such a danger, I agree it is desirable to remove the risk, and certainly the language he has chosen for the purpose of his Amendment would seem to have that effect. That being so, speaking for myself, I think that the change is an improvement in the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 25, line 31, leave out from "If" to "is" in line 32 and insert:
  "in the case of any land other than land which comprises, or is held with, land to which a way-leave order applies, the value of any interest in that land".—[Mr. Amery.]
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Bill reported, with Amendments as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

  Clause 1.—(REVOCATION OF CERTAIN DEFENCE REGULATIONS AND TERMINATION OF CERTAIN OTHER POWERS.)
  Mr. R. E. Prentice: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out line 10.
  The Chairman: The following two Amendments, in page 1, line 19, after "except", insert:
  "for the purpose of subsection (2) of section thirty thereof and";
  and in page 2, line 8, at end insert:
  (4) Nothing in this Act contained shall in any way affect or curtail the power of any Minister under subsection (2) of section twenty-eight of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, to retain or to authorise the use of any land in his possession or in the possession of any other person in the circumstances described in the said subsection, and such power shall continue as if this Act had not been passed
  can be discussed with this Amendment.
  Mr. Prentice: I move the Amendment with a sense of great disappointment, because Amendments to this effect were moved in the Standing Committee and were withdrawn on promises from Ministers that the whole of this matter would be reconsidered. Unfortunately, that reconsideration has not led to any proposal by the Government to amend the Bill.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to avoid a situation whereby the Bill as it stands would seriously affect the housing position in the Borough of East Ham. It came as rather a surprise to me and to other hon. Members interested when we realised that that was the case. This is a defence Measure brought forward by defence Ministers and the explanatory White Paper made no reference to the incidental effect which it might have on housing. There was no mention of any such effect during the Second Reading debate and it seemed to come as a surprise to the Ministers in Standing Committee when an Amendment was put forward. One would have thought that the Government would be anxious to put this matter right.
  I want to explain the way in which the Bill as it stands would affect the housing position in East Ham. In 1946, the then Minister of Health used Defence Regulation 51 to requisition about 18 acres of land at Wanstead Flats for temporary housing. He used that unusual procedure because this was land in the area of one local authority but owned by another local authority, which was the City of London Corporation. Normal methods available to local authorities for requisitioning land could not be applied in this case. On this land there are now 234 temporary bungalows in which the Borough of East Ham has tenants. The bungalows are in good condition and have several years of life in which to provide homes for families.
  In 1955, the Ministry asked the local authorities to give a programme for disposing of temporary bungalows. At that time, the Borough of East Ham said that it would clear the bungalows on this site between the years 1965 to 1969. The Ministry accepted that programme without demur and the borough heard no more about the matter until last year, when it was asked by the City of London Corporation if it could not remove the bungalows more quickly. This is a
  304
  matter which could be negotiated between the local authorities concerned.
  However, if the Bill becomes law in its present form, there will be no question of negotiation, because the Borough of East Ham will be trespassing on the land after December, 1960. The reason for the date December, 1960, is that, under Clause 1, Defence Regulation 51 will cease to have effect in December, 1958, and, for legal reasons which I need not detail and which I only half understand, the Borough of East Ham can stay on for another two years after that date.
  9.0 p.m.
  Other local authorities that requisitioned land for temporary housing by the more normal procedure are in a much more favourable position. The usual means of requisitioning land was the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Act, 1945. Under the terms of the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954, land of this sort may be retained for temporary housing until 1965. I should make it clear that this is not automatic. The Minister can say "Yes" or "No" to applications of this kind, but if there were a good case, as I believe there would be in the case of East Ham if the normal procedure had been used, they could have kept their houses there until 1965: whereas by this Bill they cannot do so beyond December, 1960. I am sorry for that long explanation, but I think it will be a matter of surprise to most hon. Members to know that the Bill will have that effect upon the housing of this borough.
  Let me give two arguments in favour of the Amendment. It is wrong in principle that the housing programme of a large and important local authority with serious housing difficulties should be incidentally affected by a Bill concerned with defence. Housing policy should be decided by means of housing legislation. This matter was dealt with in 1955. In that year was passed the Requisitioned Houses and Housing (Amendment) Act which laid down that there should be no more requisitioning by Defence Regulation 51 but that existing land might still be held. I submit that this Bill should be amended so that that position may remain. The Association of Municipal Corporations has protested to the Minister of Housing and Local Government that it is wrong in principle that housing should be affected by a defence Bill.

  305
  My other and more important argument in favour of the Amendment is the effect that the Bill will have on the housing position in East Ham if these bungalows have to be cleared-by the end of 1960. The County Borough of East Ham has over 6,000 people on its waiting list for homes. The last available figure which I have is 6,112. Like most of the Greater London area, it is suffering from a great deal of overcrowding and has very little land on which to rehouse its people. I have had the experience, which I am sure many hon. Members share, of having people write or come to see me at my advice bureau, who are in a desperate housing situation. They are worried and have been waiting for years wondering when it will be their turn to get a council tenancy.
  In particular, the borough is short of land within its own boundaries, and some of the worst housing cases are those of people who cannot move to housing estates which have been provided further afield in Essex. The corporation has done a fine job in providing housing within the practical limitations. Last year, it completed its quota of 300 houses. I submit that this House should not legislate so that the position is made more difficult for such local authorities than it is at present.
  I would mention a few more figures, and they are taken from information which has recently been sent to me by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. He estimated that on the corporation's present housing programme, assuming that it builds at the same rate over the next two years, by the end of 1960 it will have built another 1,047 houses. He agreed in the course of the same communication that 194 of these will be needed for slum clearance, leaving 853. If the corporation is forced in that period to demolish these 234 bungalows and rehouse the people in them, more than a quarter of the new houses will have to be devoted to rehousing people from these temporary bungalows which, as I have said, have got many years of useful life.
  I admit that the corporation will have to rehouse these people one day, but if it is forced to do so several years before it is necessary, that will postpone the rehousing of other people for several years
  306
  who could otherwise have been rehoused more quickly.
  I also admit—I am sure the point will be made against me in any case by the Minister—that this land was originally intended for open space, that the corporation hold it under requisition and that it will have to be returned to open space in due course. I would support the idea of the green belt and adequate open spaces as fervently as any other hon. Member of this House, but this land has been used for housing for twelve years, and considerations of extending open spaces are not so urgent as the housing considerations to which I have already made reference. They cannot be measured against the sum total of human misery that is to be caused if over 200 families are to be delayed in their prospects of being rehoused.
  Another point that may be made against me is that no other parts of the country are affected, and that this is a peculiar method of requisitioning which affects only this case. I do not believe that that argument can weaken my argument in any way. There are over 200 homesteads, but if there were only 20 homes the principle would still be the same. We ought not to destroy homes before their useful life is finished, and we ought not to delay in any way the rehousing of families in desperate need or make more difficult the housing problem of a borough which has such great difficulty in meeting the housing needs of its people.
  Mr. A. E. Oram: I beg to second the Amendment.
  I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) that the Minister has not himself seen fit to put down an Amendment to meet the position described by my hon. Friend. I read the case which he stated in Committee, and it seemed to me unanswerable, as, indeed, was the contribution which he has made this evening. It seems to me completely unreasonable that the Minister, as it appears, is not prepared to meet the position.
  Like my hon. Friend, I know very well the serious housing situation in East Ham. If this Bill passes unamended, it will make the East Ham housing problem even worse. I admit that in a national sense this is quite a minor

  307
  problem, and that East Ham is unique in being the only local authority to be affected in this way. I also understand, or I hope I can understand, that it was quite unintended that a defence Bill should have this affect on housing, but, that being so, surely it is perfectly reasonable to expect that this defect would be remedied in this quite simple way.
  We recognise that these prefabricated houses in East Ham will have to come down, and we want Wanstead Flats to be restored as an open space. We share with the neighbouring local authorities and the City of London the anxiety that that part of the country should have more open spaces. There is no dispute about that, but what we do say is that these houses should not come down except according to a reasonable timetable, and only having due regard to the serious housing position in this local authority area.
  We claim that the Bill will speed up unnecessarily the demolition of these houses, because it will give East Ham no legal entitlement after, I believe, 1960, to retain the houses in that situation. I will not go into the details of the East Ham housing. There are many hon. Members, I know, who, month by month, meet, as my hon. Friend and I do, many people who have desperate personal housing problems. A number of them came to see me only on Friday of last week—families in danger of breaking up because of the difficult housing situation. If, through passing the Bill in this state, the Minister delays for even a few months the rehousing of any of the people who come to see us, he will be dealing a cruel blow at them. They are suffering far too much already.
  I did not have the good fortune to serve upon the Standing Committee dealing with the Bill, but I notice that during its proceedings the Solicitor-General, in answer to my hon. Friend, said:
  "We will see whether or not it is a real point. When I say that, I am thinking for once like a lawyer, meaning a real point in law. It has nothing to do with reality."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Standing Committee A, 20th March, 1958; c. 8.]
  I want to assure him that, whatever lawyers may think about the point, we deal in reality, and the reality is a really
  308
  serious housing situation in East Ham, and in other parts of London. The Bill will make that situation still more difficult, and it is because of that that, following the debate, I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will relent. If not, I hope that my hon. Friends will go into the Division Lobby in support of my hon. Friend and myself.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I owe an apology to those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee because at that time I did not know the legal history of Wanstead Flats. I think that those hon. Members would be fair enough to realise that at that time there was no reason why I should know it, in that, on the face of them, the Amendments concerned did not give any notice that I should know it.
  I address the House at this stage only because it is important to realise how special this problem is. It is not quite so special as was stated by the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), because it covers another local authority. It includes West Ham, to the tune of about 83 bungalows on Wanstead Flats. My apology must take me this far: everything that the hon. Member for East Ham, North said in Committee and today about the legal position is quite correct, and my own impromptu doubt whether the matter was affected by the 1955 Act was not justified. I can say that, having had time to consider the matter.
  It is quite right to say that the effect of Clause 1, as it stands, is that West Ham, in respect of its 83 bungalows and East Ham, in respect of its 234 bungalows in this category, will not be able to have possession of the land retained on their behalf once 31st December, 1960, goes by. I have learnt before now—as I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has—the peril of making even the most gentle joke in an international tribunal, because one then has to sit there hearing it being translated over and over again until one hates the sound of it. Unfortunately, I made a jest in Committee about real points and lawyers' points, and I have had to suffer it being thrown back at me now. It sounded funny then, but it does not sound funny now after repetition.
  I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that we are here concerned with a balance of public interest, and

  309
  would not be in any way concerned to impose upon East Ham in this context what could be called an unreasonable programme with regard to the removal of these bungalows. Unhappily, that is only part of the public interest.
  9.15 p.m.
  I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member emphasises quite enough how special are Wanstead Flats. They are the property of the Corporation of the City of London and they are under the Conservators of Epping Forest by virtue of a statute, the Epping Forest Act, 1878, which is by description
  "An Act for the Disafforestation of Epping Forest and the preservation and management of the uninclosed parts thereof as an Open Space for the recreation and enjoyment of the public."
  It is a rather special place, and by statute the City Corporation may not alienate it, cannot get rid of it. By statute it has to keep the unenclosed parts unbuilt on as an open space. That is what Parliament has charged the Corporation with as a duty.
  When it was originally suggested to the City Corporation that the 1944 Act should be used and that the Minister of Health should supply those temporary houses and that they should be erected there, the City resisted the proposition, not in any sense of selfishness, as I understand it, but merely pointing to the duties which the statute imposed upon it in respect of its holding the place at all. Under the Act, as the hon. Member has rightly told the House, the only way out of the difficulty was for the Minister to requisition some 18 acres of the land under the then Defence Regulation 51.
  I am not sure whether the hon. Member quite fairly states his case when he makes a contrast with the local authorities which could make use of the 1945 Act. Of course, if the 1945 Act had applied to this case it would probably have been true that the statutory obligations on the City Corporation could have been overridden by the statute, but this local authority could never get near that statute because the land was not at its disposal at the date of the passing of the Act. Quite apart from that, the Act, as the hon. Member pointed out, did not give any power for one local authority to place its open space at the disposal of another local authority.
  310
  But even supposing that the Act could have been made applicable to Wanstead Flats in this context, what would have happened would have been this, that, availing itself of the provisions of the 1954 Act—Section 19, I think, but it does not matter—the East Ham local authority would have had to apply in 1955 for an extension, and if that involved five years or more, as in the context it would have had to have done, there would have had to have been a public inquiry and indubitably in those circumstances it would have had to present its case in the teeth of maximum opposition from the City Corporation backed by its statutory obligations under the 1878 Act; and clearly some very powerful case would have to be presented to the Minister if he was to have any opportunity of acceding to such an application. I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member is not, perhaps, taking a slightly optimistic view of what would have happened in that hypothetical case if that could have been made to work.
  Mr. Prentice: In the circumstances the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned there would have been a public inquiry at which public issues could have been weighed. It would have been decided eventually by the Minister what was the right thing to do, either to extend the use of the land to housing or to return it for open space. Unfortunately, under this Bill in its present form no opportunity to weigh up public issues arises. Instead, the Corporation would be trespassing after 1960, irrespective of the merits of the case.
  The Solicitor-General: Thanks to the intervention of the hon. Member in Committee and to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), we ourselves can have a chance of looking at it. The hon. Member will not, I know, mind my turning upon him a little gently like this, because I do not think he was overstating the matter when he said it would not be automatic extension. Those were his words just now. It would be so far from automatic, I submit to the House, that it would be highly unlikely in any circumstances that it would have been granted. However, that is all rather hypothetical, as we all agree.
  I was asked to indicate the size of this problem. I hope I have in this way. We do not know outside Wanstead Flats of

  311
  any 1944 Act bungalows upon open space. It is Wanstead Flats only in this context. Whether or no the effect of getting rid of Defence Regulation 51 in this context is to impose upon the local authority what the hon. Member, or someone, has described as an unreasonable proposition in having to get rid of these bungalows by 1960, is, I imagine, a topic on which hon. Members would not want to hear me. It is purely a matter of housing which, in the circumstances, I would prefer to leave to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
  I hope that, by indicating how special this case is and its legal history, I have discharged an obligation which rested upon me to explain the legal position and the size of the problem as it here rests.
  Mr. Mellish: I should like to thank the Solicitor-General for explaining the legal problems of the matter, but we are now back on the point of which we complained, in the sense that we are talking about the part which he did not explain. We are dealing with the practical as opposed to the legal point of view.
  The pun which the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought funny at the time when he expressed it, but which he now realises is not funny, must be put in its right perspective. To visualise this as an infringement of an open space by the habitation of these 234 flats is wrong, because there are vast acres of land which adjoin Epping Forest. A small fraction of it is occupied by the dwellinghouses to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) has referred. The contribution which it has made to the housing problem is understood by everybody, but does not seem to have been understood by the Solicitor-General. He has merely given us the legal point of view. I hope that we shall hear from some other member of the Front Bench, who will give the local authority an assurance about the rehousing of the people who are affected.
  We know the legal position and we know that this is a problem affecting only East Ham. That is not enough for us. The fact is that there is injustice; the size of the injustice does not count. Had it been all over the country the Government might have done something about it, but that is a wrong argument. If
  312
  there is an injustice affecting only a small borough in Greater London, it still ought to be remedied.
  Before we make a final decision on this matter, I plead with the Government Front Bench to say whether there is any way by which the local authority can get an assurance that it will not have to deal with these people by 1960. As a London Member I can imagine how appalled the council will be if it has to deal with 234 families in that period of time that it did not expect to have to deal with. It is asking too much of this House to give us glibly a legal exposition without some assurance from the War Office about what is to be done.
  After all, the Bill has been introduced to give power to the defence Departments to acquire land to enable it to carry out functions which are required in the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) said earlier that the Government had gone a long way to meet some of our main objections to the Bill. They were co-operative in Committee. The Government have admitted that the Opposition were co-operative, too.
  This was the one human point that was raised. It was, I think, a shock to all of us, even the Government. None was more shocked than the Solicitor-General, who did not know about it at all. He just waffled. We cannot blame him for that. He played for time and we gave him time to find out. One of the things he said was that he would find out what representation may or may not have reached the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Now he knows that a most powerful body made representations protesting about this Bill in relation to this matter. The Association of Municipal Corporations said to the Minister of Housing and Local Government, "Please do not do this". That does not seem to have made an impression.
  The Solicitor-General: That really is not accurate. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find any representations of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). I do not know of the existence of any such and none of my inquiries has revealed them.
  Mr. Prentice: East Ham Corporation has notified the Housing Committee of the Association, which instructed its Secretary to write to the Minister about the effect on housing without that being made plain when the Bill was presented.
  Mr. Mellish: Probably the Minister was too busy on inquiries about the Rent Act and had no time to read that letter. In comparison with that wider matter, this would be a very tiny point. After all, what is a question of 234 houses compared with the effects of the Rent Act? I shall not get out of order by speaking about the Rent Act, but thousands of people are affected in that larger issue.
  I think that the Committee established quite clearly that this was a hardship. I should like the Secretary of State for War, with the full authority of his high office, to get up and say that an assurance can be given.
  The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames)The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames) indicated dissent.
  Mr. Mellish: The right hon. Gentleman is indicating "No." This is his Bill. He moved the Second Reading and said how important it was. We agreed that it was a necessary Bill, but I hope that we shall hear far more about it and have the assurances given which are needed.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I am relieved that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General has explained the legal position of this matter to the House. I am also relieved that the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has kept within the rules of order. We are certainly very sensitive to the housing position of the County Borough of East Ham. I hope that one or two things I shall be able to say may be a little helpful to the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice).
  I understood that what the hon. Member was saying, in moving the Amendment, was that the. County Borough of East Ham should enjoy parity of treatment with those other local authorities which put temporary buildings on open spaces under other powers. I think it only fair to say, as the Solicitor-General indicated, that the two cases are by no means parallel, because East Ham knew at the time that these houses were put on
  314
  Wanstead Flats that the land was requisitioned under Defence Regulation 51 and their right to remain on the land was not governed by the 1945 Act or Section 19 of the 1954 Act.
  It is equally true that for some time the Conservators of Epping Forest and my right hon. Friend, certainly during the last year or so, have been pressing the County Borough of East Ham for some indication that it will begin to remove these temporary dwellings. We have made it clear that powers to hold land on requisition under this Defence Regulation would not be extended indefinitely. We are anxious to be helpful, if we can. Once this Bill becomes law, Defence Regulation 51 will cease to operate. As the Solicitor-General said, my right hon. Friend is prepared to authorise the use of Wanstead Flats for a period of another two years after this year, that is to say, until the end of 1960. That means that East Ham will probably have to rehouse about 234 dispossessed families by the end of 1960.
  For the current year, East Ham has submitted to the Ministry a programme for 319 dwellings. I wish to make it perfectly clear that, provided East Ham is prepared to make some provision for rehousing the families from Wanstead Flats, we are prepared to give our approval to that submitted programme. We should also do our best to approve a similar programme for new houses for next year, that is, 1959.
  9.30 p.m.
  The arithmetic of the matter is substantially as the hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Oram) put it. As I understand it, at the start of this year, East Ham had 409 houses under construction. We hope that, during the current year, the authority will start another 319 houses and that, during 1959, a further 319 will be started, making a total of about 1,047 houses. I understand that, between now and the end of 1960, East Ham will require to rehouse about 194 families from slum dwellings, 234 families from Wanstead Flats, leaving a balance over that period of 619 houses or dwellings for the general need of the population of East Ham. That means an average of rather more than 200 new dwellings a year, leaving out slum clearance and leaving aside Wanstead Flats altogether.

  315
  It is only fair that I should make clear that that rate of availability of housing in East Ham compares favourably with the average rate of post-war housing construction in that particular county borough. Thus, allowing for the problem of rehousing people from Wanstead Flats, the people of East Ham will be no worse off in housing supply and demand than they have been since the end of the war. In saying that, I have not taken into account two factors, notably that, in the ordinary course of events, the local authority gets into its possession, I understand, about 100 dwellings a year through voids for one reason or another. I believe, also, that the projected development in which East Ham is taking part at Brentwood, in Essex, will probably produce an additional 200 to 250 houses between now and 1960.
  Mr. Prentice: While I accept all the hon. Gentleman's figures, is there any reason, in principle, why the corporation should not be allowed to do all the development he has mentioned without having to rehouse these 234 families before it is necessary? That would enable East Ham to rehouse 234 families off its own waiting list of over 6,000.
  Mr. Mellish: Moreover, is it not the fact that people will be rehoused from places where they are very happy and comfortable, not slums, from which they do not need to be rehoused at the moment?
  Mr. Oram: Will not the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary agree that, on the figures he has given, which I accept as accurate, it is plain that the size of the problem posed by 234 houses being demolished quite early on is of the order of the East Ham housing authority's annual programme and that, therefore, the effect of the Bill, in general, will mean a delay of one year in East Ham's programme? The figures I gave earlier show that about 200 people will have a year's delay and have to continue to live in the miserable conditions of which we know only too well.
  Mr. Bevins: The House will remember that I have made clear that my right hon. Friend proposes to approve not his programme but the programme submitted to him by East Ham for the current year, and is prepared to repeat that programme
  316
  next year. One must recognise that that does not apply to all local authorities at present.
  I appreciate, of course, the argument that it is unwise on one view to pull down these dwellings and so aggravate the measure of the housing problem in East Ham, but I think that both sides of the House will appreciate that the clearance of camps, hutments and temporary dwellings is part and parcel of the Government's drive to rid the country of sub-standard housing accommodation. It is for that particular reason that the Government are, in effect, paying the slum clearance subsidy in respect of camps, hutments and dwellings of this sort which are removed.
  What I was about to emphasise was that East Ham should be able to rehouse all these families by the end of 1960 without undue difficulty, and my right hon. Friend certainly does not feel that we would be right in maintaining this vexatious war-time control for the sake of leaving alone this particular problem which is centred at Wanstead Flats. As my right hon. Friend very rightly said, there is the wider consideration that Wanstead Flats is not in any sense a local open space, but rather a part of Epping Forest which is enjoyed by thousands of Londoners and people from other parts of the country.
  The County Borough of East Ham will have a period of two and a half years in which to clear these temporary dwellings, and I myself believe that it can do that on a planned basis without hardship to anyone in the corporation s area.
  Sir F. Soskice: I have listened to the argument which has just progressed on the Amendments that the House is now considering, and I am sure that all hon. Members on both sides will feel glad that the Minister is able to ofter some help Still, the basic fact remains that this defence measure will by a backlash deprive 234 families in East Ham and 83 families in West Ham of homes in which they are now living some five years—at any rate by the end of 1960—before the earliest date in which in the normal course of events they would have to vacate them. That is a fact which I understood from the Minister's speech was not really disputed, and it seems to me a consequence which should be avoided. The Government are in control

  317
  of this legislation and have it in their power to ask the House to give them powers which will prevent these people losing their homes at this early date.
  The Government have had the point clearly put to them. My hon. Friends developed it in Committee with the greatest clarity, and between the Committee stage and today Ministers have been able to cogitate upon what steps they should take to avoid this quite unlooked for and, I feel, unpremeditated consequence of this defence measure. Neither of the two Service Ministers who are present have even opened their mouths on this. It is a defence measure which has had, I suppose, an extremely unexpected and unfortunate consequence. Ministers are proposing to let that consequence take its course, and it seems to me in those circumstances that the answer we have had is not a satisfactory one.
  Let it be assumed that the measure which Ministers propose will slightly ease the heavy burden on East Ham and West Ham in coping with their very very serious housing problems. Why impose on top of them the additional burden, which could be avoided, of their having to rehouse the families living in these 234 bungalows in East Ham and 83 in West Ham? That seems quite unnecessary. I do not think it can have been intended, yet Ministers are, in effect, professing themselves powerless so to change the form of the legislation they are asking the House to pass as to avoid that consequence.
  I am bound to say that I feel that the Minister's replies were not satisfactory. I do not mean to say that they were not painstaking. The Solicitor-General has all our sympathy in professing that he was not ready to deal

  Division No. 103.]

  AYES

  [9.43 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Bishop, F. P.

  Cooke, Robert

  Alport, C. J. M.

  Body, R. F.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Anstru her-Gray, Major Sir William

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Arbuthnot, John

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Crosthwaite-Eyre,Col. O. E.

  Atkins, H. E.

  Braine, B. R.

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

  Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Nor hwood)

  Balniel, Lord

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Barber, Anthony

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Barlow, Sir John

  Bryan, P.

  Davidson, Viscountess

  Barter, John

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Butler, Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)

  Deedes, w. F.

  Beamish, Col. Tufton

  Campbell, Sir David

  Dodds-Parker, A. D.

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Channon, Sir Henry

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Duncan, Sir James

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  with the point in Committee, because the Amendment has obviously brought it out. He has clearly cogitated upon it since. The result of his cogitations and the proposals of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government seem to me to leave the matter in an unsatisfactory state. I hope that my hon. Friends who put their names to this Amendment will press it to a Division and take the opinion of the House upon it.
  Mr. Bevins: By leave of the House, may I make one comment on what the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) has said? The clearance of these camps, which is temporary accommodation, is a part of deliberate Government policy. We have not only to exhort but to encourage local authorities by financial means to get rid of what we regard as this unsatisfactory type of dwelling. That is recognised by the majority of local authorities and it has certainly been recognised by the County Borough of West Ham, which has indicated to the City of London Corporation that it is prepared to dismantle its 83 dwellings on Wanstead Flats by the end of 1960.
  Sir F. Soskice: With the leave of the House, may I reply to the Parliamentary Secretary? If that is he Government's policy, surely they should not seek to compass it by a backlash in defence measures. Surely they have the courage to introduce the appropriate housing measures to give expression to their purposes, if those are the purposes that they entertain.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 163.

  Elliott, R. W.(Newcastle upon Tyne, N.)

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Fisher, Nigel

  Kimball, M.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Redmayne, M.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Gammans, Lady

  Leburn, W. G.

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

  Gibson-Watt, D

  Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Glover, D.

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Glyn, Col. Richard H.

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Godber, J. B.

  Llewe yn, D. T.

  Sharples, R. C.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Shepherd, William

  Gower, H. R.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

  Graham, Sir Fergus

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Grant, W. (Woodside)

  McAdden, S. J.

  Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  Macdonald, Sir Peter

  Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

  Green, A.

  McKibbin, Alan

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Grimond, J.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Storey, S.

  Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Gurden, Harold

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Marshall, Douglas

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Mathew, R.

  Teeling, W.

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Mawby, R. L.

  Temple, John M.

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Harvey, John (Wal hamstow, E.)

  Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

  Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. C.

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

  Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)

  Neave, Airey

  Wade, D. W.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Hornby, R. P.

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

  Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

  O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

  Wall, Patrick

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Osborne, C.

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Page, R. G.

  Webbe, Sir H.

  Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

  Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)

  Whitelaw, W. S. I.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Par ridge, E.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Hurd, A. R.

  Peel, W. J.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Woollam, John Victor

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Pitman, I. J.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Colonel J. H. Harrison and

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Mr. Finlay.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

  Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Kerr, Sir Hamilton

  NOES

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Hoy, J. H.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Deer, G.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Awbery, S. S.

  Diamond, John

  Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Dye, S.

  Janner, B.

  Benson, Sir George

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Ho bn & St. Pcs. S.)

  Blackburn, F.

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Boardman, H.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G

  Foot, D. M.

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Bowden, H. W. (Leices er, S.W.)

  Forman, J. C.

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Boyd, T. C.

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

  Gibson, C. W.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Brockway, A. F.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Kenyon, C.

  Brough on, Dr. A. D. D.

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

  Lawson, G. M.

  Brown, Thomas (Ince)

  Grey, C. F.

  Ledger, R. J.

  Burke, W. A.

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hall, Rt. Hon. Genvil (Colne Valley)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Carmichael, J.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hannan, W.

  Logan, D. G.

  Champion, A. J.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hastings, S.

  McAlister, Mrs. Mary

  Clunie J.

  Hayman, F. H.

  McCann, J.

  Coldrick, W.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  MacColl, J. E.

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)

  McGhee, H. G.

  Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Holman, P.

  McInnes, J.

  Corbet, Mrs. Fr a

  Houghton, Douglas

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Cove, W. G.

  Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

  McLeavy, Frank

  320

  321

  MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

  Parker, J.

  Stones, W. (Consett)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Paton, John

  Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

  Mahon, Simon

  Pentland, N.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Popplewell, E.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Mann, Mrs. Jean

  Prentice, R. E.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Mason, Roy

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Probert, A. R.

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mi chison, G. R.

  Proctor, W. T.

  Thornton, E.

  Moody, A. S.

  Rankin, John

  Usborne, H. C.

  Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Viant, S. P.

  Moss, R.

  Reid, William

  West, D. G.

  Moyle, A.

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Wi cock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Williams, David (Neath)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Williams, Rev, Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

  Oram, A. E.

  Ross, William

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Orbach, M.

  Short, E. W.

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Oswald, T.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Winterbottom, Richard

  Owen, W. J.

  Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Padley, W. E.

  Snow, J. W.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Sparks, J. A.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Stonehouse, John

  Mr Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

  Clause 3:—(MANŒUVRES COMMISSIONS.)
  Mr. Amery: I beg to move, in page 4, line 29, after "appropriate", to insert:
  "and shall include at least one person appearing to that Minister to be specially qualified to watch over the amenities of the area in which the manœuvres are to be held".
  In Committee, the Opposition, in the person of the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd), put forward an Amendment designed to increase the size of the manœuvres commissions by two additional members. These were to be appointed especially to present amenity interests. We did not feel that we could accept that Amendment as it stood, but we recognised that there was a feeling on both sides of the Committee that the representation of amenity interests should be strengthened, and I undertook that we would look into this again to see whether something might not be done to meet that point of view.
  This Amendment gives effect to that undertaking It specifies that a minimum of one person specially qualified to represent amenity interests shall be on the commissions. In addition, it will be remembered, another member will be nominated by the National Parks Commission, so that in England or Wales there will be a minimum of two members on each manœuvres commission who will be well versed in amenity matters. In practice, the amenity representation is likely to be even stronger, because, as the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) reminded us in Committee, representatives of local government will in most cases have this aspect of the matter very much in mind.
  Sir F. Soskice: I thank the Minister very cordially for the change he has now proposed. Anxiety was expressed on both sides of the Committee that there should be a change on these lines, and I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members on both sides of the House in thanking the Minister for having given thought to the matter and for having made this change.
  Mr. Chetwynd: As I had the pleasure of moving the appropriate Amendment in Committee. I thank the Minister for his work and for his proposal to appoint an extra representative of amenity interests to the manœuvres commissions. As I understand it, he is to be one of three put forward by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which has wide experience, through its work with the National Trust, of consultation with amenity bodies throughout the country, and I am sure that the Ministry will appoint the right kind of people to represent local amenities. All I hope is that if and when these manœuvres are held there will be as little interference with amenity as possible.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Amery: I beg to move, in page 5, line 6 at the end to insert:
  "and including at least one person appearing to that Secretary of State to be specially qualified to watch over the amenities of the area in which the manœuvres are to be held".
  The Amendment is consequential on the previous Amendment and applies to manœuvres commissions in Scotland the same arrangement which is to apply to commissions in England and Wales, and

  323
  ensures that at least one member representing local authorities on the manœuvres commissions in Scotland will be well versed in amenity matters.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 6.—(POWER TO REQUIRE USE OF LAND FOR LIMITED TRAINING PURPOSES.)
  Mr. Amery: I beg to move in page 9, line 12, to leave out "seven" and to insert "fourteen".
  Perhaps it would be convenient if at the same time I were to deal with the following Amendment in line 23. The first of these two Amendments increases from seven to fourteen days the minimum period of notice which must be given to an occupier of land before entry can be made on his land for any of the purposes envisaged in Clause 6.
  An Amendment in this sense was pressed on us in Committee. It was then represented to us that it would contribute greatly to the maintenance of good relations between the Services and the farmer or landowner concerned if longer notice of the intended use of land could be made.
  Our main difficulty over this Amendment arose, as I explained at the time, from the fact that the Bill already provides that a minimum period of fifteen days should elapse from the expiry of one period of use and the service of notice of the subsequent intended use. With the period of notice of seven days, this already meant that three weeks—that is, seven days and fifteen days—must elapse between the holding of one exercise on the ground involved and the next exercise. If the period of notice were raised from seven to fourteen days as we were asked, the interval between exercises would have been extended to nearly a month. This would seriously hamper the training programme during the best training months.
  I undertook to try to reconcile giving a longer initial notice to the occupier with the needs of the Army. We have tried to do this in such a form as to make it possible to increase the initial notice to fourteen days without allowing the gap between exercises to exceed twenty-one days. This is what the second of the Amendments provides for. The wording is a little complicated, but I think it gives
  324
  effect to the wish of the Committee that there should be an initial notice of fourteen days but that the interval between one exercise and another should not exceed twenty-one days.
  Sir F. Soskice: This is another example of the Government's endeavour to meet the point of view of the Opposition in these matters, and we are again very grateful indeed to the Under-Secretary of State for what he has said. He has increased the initial period of notice from seven to fourteen days and, speaking for myself, the compromise which he has introduced by his second Amendment so as not to leave the interval between exercises too long—namely, a month—is one which I would have thought was reasonable and acceptable. I should like to thank him for both Amendments.
  A mendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 23, leave out "less than fifteen" and insert:
  "so as to expire less than twenty-one".—[Mr Amery.]

  Clause 7.—(POWER TO MAKE BYELAWS OVER SEA AREAS.)
  10.0 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General: I beg to move. in page 10, line 34, to leave out from "Where" to "it" in line 37 and to insert:
  "in the case of any area of sea, tidal water or shore used or to be used for defence purposes by one of the following Ministers, that is to say, a Secretary of State, the Admiralty or the Minister of Supply, being an area lying wholly or partly within the limits of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom".
  We have sought to meet the anxieties of hon. Members opposite in Committee about this Clause as it stood, voiced in particular by the hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). The old rule was that the area of sea over which one could make byelaws in this context was in a sense anchored to the land. It was anchored because it had to abut on the land or be subject to artillery practice from the land.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members did not like the idea that we should be free, on the text of the Bill, to make byelaws over an entirely remote area of the ocean, and what we have done to seek to meet their anxiety is to provide, in this Amendment,

  325
  that the area should be anchored to the land in the sense that it will have to lie wholly or partly within the limits of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.
  Sir F. Soskice: Again, I rise only for the purpose of thanking the right hon. and learned Gentleman very cordially for the thought he has given to the point that I, in particular. urged during the Committee hearing. He has entirely met my point, and has obviously gone to a considerable amount of trouble to achieve that purpose. I thank him very sincerely for the result of his meditations.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: In line 39, leave out "that purpose" and insert "those purposes".—[The Solicitor-General.]

  Clause 10.—(PREVENTION OF OBSTRUCTION OF AIRFIELDS.)
  Mr. Amery: I beg to move, in page 14. line 9, to leave out "on land in the vicinity" and to insert:
  "within two miles of any part of the boundary".
  In the discussion in Committee, the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) moved an Amendment providing that the distance from an airfield at which the Government might cause objects to be removed should be limited to one mile. We resisted the Amendment on the ground that it might be necessary to remove objects at greater distances than one mile. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air, however, undertook to see whether we could not accept a three or four mile limitation.
  We have looked into the whole question very carefully since then, and have been advised that the majority of objects forming obstructions to airfields would not be further than two miles from the boundary of the airfield concerned. We propose, therefore that a two-mile limitation should now be written into the Bill.
  Sir F. Soskice: Again, courtesy requires that I should rise to express my thanks to the Minister. We proposed that there should be a limitation of one mile in order to define the scope of the word "vicinity" but, as we said when putting the point in Committee, we certainly were not wedded to the distance of one mile. I should have thought that the distance of two miles which the Minister
  326
  has chosen would be eminently satisfactory for the purpose we have in mind, which was to seek to introduce more precision into the matter. It certainly does that, and I am very grateful to the Minister.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Amery: I beg to move, in line 23, after "walls", to insert:
  "(other than a wall forming part of a roofed structure)".
  The word "walls" in line 23, page 14, of the Bill is one of a list of possible objects which might constitute an obstruction to an airfield and which it might be very desirable to move. In the discussion in Committee, fears were expressed that walls may be interpreted to mean a house, a castle or even a cathedral. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air made it plain that what he had in mind were field walls and suchlike, and that the walls of buildings were not intended. He agreed, however, that the wording was insufficiently precise, and the purpose of the Amendment is simply to define more clearly what we mean by "walls."
  Sir F. Soskice: My thanks are almost endless this evening, but the Minister, once again, has made a change which certainly pleases us on this side of the House very much indeed. The words he has chosen are completely satisfactory. and I am very grateful to him.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 11.—(PREVENTION OF INTERFERENCE WITH OPERATION OF ELECTRICAL APPARATUS.)
  Mr. Amery: I beg to move, in page 16, line 23, to leave out:
  "on land in the vicinity"
  and to insert:
  "within two miles of any part"
  This Clause deals with the prevention of interference with the operation of electrical apparatus such as radar. The object of the Amendment is to delimit and define our powers to prevent such interference, in the same way as in Clause 10 we limited our powers to prevent obstruction of airfields to a radius of two miles. As it happens, the distance of two miles meets our essential requirements here, as in the case of obstructing airfields.
  We are advised that such a distance would cover the requirements of most

  327
  electrical equipment now in use, or likely to be brought into use in the foreseeable future. We have, accordingly, thought it desirable—although in this case we were not pressed to do so—to write a two-mile limit into this Clause as well.
  Sir F. Soskice: The House will know that the expression of thanks to which I gave utterance in connection with the Amendment relating to the word "vicinity" will also be applicable to this change. I am just as grateful for this as I was for the previous change.
  Amendment agreed to.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Soames: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  When the Bill came up for Second Reading it was evident that its scope and purpose were generally approved by the House. But it is a complicated Bill and its details touch upon many aspects and affect many interests, and it was equally clear that the Committee stage would be of particular importance. In the event, a number of Amendments were put down, which led to useful debates. In some cases the debates themselves, and the exploration of the points raised, were sufficient; in other cases Amendments were made, and, on Report, we saw other additions made to meet points raised by hon. Members in Committee. Broadly speaking, those Amendments have satisfied the House.
  There seems to be only one point in the Bill in respect of which there is still some disagreement, and that is the matter which was debated at some length on Report, arising out of Clause 1. As the House knows, that Clause brings to an end Defence Regulation No. 51, among others. That Regulation covers a wide area of land throughout the country, and doing away with it undoubtedly meets with general approval, both in the House and in the country. Indeed, that approval and acceptance would probably have been unanimous had it not been for the most unusual case of the East Ham and West Ham Councils in connection with an area of Epping Forest which is at present held under Defence Regulation No. 51 for temporary housing.
  This was an unusual, if not unique, use of the Defence Regulation, and the House has heard the legal position
  328
  explained with care by my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, and the specific matter of housing in East Ham has been dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Broadly speaking, the Government's attitude to this problem is that since the Defence Regulation covers a very wide area of land throughout the country, the only two ways open to the Government to meet the difficulties of East Ham were either not to do away with the Regulation, which would have been a very considerable decision to have taken, and something which would not have been welcomed in the country, or, on the other hand, to treat it as a specific case, which it is, and for the Government to give what help they can to ease the path and make it simpler for East Ham to build a greater number of houses. My hon. Friend explained what steps my right hon. Friend intended to take to meet that point.
  Apart from that point, which is quite unrelated to defence in its broader aspect, I think that the House will be unanimous in wishing to see the Bill reach the Statute Book. It enables us to put an end to a number of wide and arbitrary powers which had to be granted in time of war and which we do not want to see become a feature of our national life in time of peace. It substitutes for them much more limited powers, all of which are flanked by full provision for the safeguarding of private interests. When the Bill is enacted we shall have provided the Services with certain powers over the use of land which are necessary in peace-time, and we shall have provided owners, tenants and lessees with statutory rights to safeguards in such a way, as our debate today has shown, as meets with the approval of both sides of the House. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
  10.10 p.m.
  Sir F. Soskice: After our very full debates upon this Bill I feel the House would not like a prolonged exposition of our view from me at this stage. We have had, I think, extremely fruitful debates. Our deliberations on the Bill were greatly facilitated by the very clear statement of purpose by the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and when the Bill was in Committee Ministers were

  329
  most receptive of and sympathetic towards and helpful in the difficulties which we felt, and on Report in consequence they felt able to propose a number of Amendments which met arguments which were put forward largely from the Opposition side in Committee and partly from hon. Members on the Government side as well. We are, as I have already said, extremely grateful for that, and the result of this, we think, is a really useful Measure.
  It was introduced as a Measure, in effect, for the tidying up of existing legislation, for disposing of certain war-time powers whose usefulness had been largely exhausted, and for improving the procedures which were available for the purpose of conducting large-scale manœuvres in this country and also smaller manœuvres on a more limited scale. All those powers were useful, and from the outset, as soon as we understood the purpose of the Bill as expounded by the Secretary of State, we were ready to indicate our approval in general of the purposes of the Bill.
  We think it is very much better now than it was as originally introduced, and I think that I shall be speaking for my hon. Friends if I say that they are content with it in its present form—of course, always subject to what we regard as the somewhat lamentable exception relating to East Ham and West Ham. I do not want to go back over the ground relating to the demolition of that housing, but I am bound to say that it should not have been beyond the wit of the Government, even this Government, to have saved the 234 and 83 houses from the premature destruction which will be their lot as the result of this unexpected and, I am sure, unintended consequence of this defence measure. However, I do not go back on that. We have voiced our views, and the House, on Report, has expressed its view upon that matter. We still feel that the Government did not meet our point of view on that, although we are grateful for such small mercies as the Parliamentary Secretary was able to announce on that topic.
  We are, as I said, pleased now with the form of the Bill. We think it is useful. I should like to thank the Ministers concerned for the trouble they have taken both in explaining their purposes when they introduced the Measure and in
  330
  meeting various arguments which were put forward from the Opposition side upon individual, detailed characteristics of the Measure.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Hayman: I should like to add a word of thanks and to say how grateful I am to the Minister for the concessions that have been made, particularly in regard to the special representative for amenity interests on the manœuvres commissions, on which I was very keen in Committee.
  We are pleased that the Bill has been amended in same of the directions we wanted but, as with all other Bills, the main point now is how it will be administered when it is an Act. In particular, there is the question of compensation under Clause 4. I hope, as I said in Committee, that the Government will not be too niggardly in dealing with compensation claims as some of their representatives have been in the village of Carnkie in my constituency, near my home.
  Then there is the question in Clause 2 of the limitation of areas of manœuvre. I would draw attention to the fact that in a local newspaper two months ago there were photographs of an Army lorry bogged down on Dartmoor, miles outside the limits in which the military had power to manœuvre. I hope that that sort of thing will not happen again.
  Clause 6 provides for occasional use of land for defence training. In Committee the Secretary of State for Air referred to West Merrivale, in Dartmoor National Park, which he said was used occasionally. I was able to point out to him that it had been used on 207 days and 14 nights in 1957, which seems to be rather more than occasional use, indeed very nearly permanent use.
  Again, under Clause 1 the Ministry will have to relinquish parts of the Dartmoor National Park which had been requisitioned under Defence Regulations. Presumably, if it wants to keep those areas it will have to apply for other powers or exercise such powers as it already has. In the last week or two there has been a very tragic accident in the Dartmoor National Park, on the Okehampton artillery ranges. A boy of 15 was killed by bursting shrapnel from a mortar bomb. His 11-years-old sister

  331
  ran in terror for 3½ miles across some of the roughest parts of the moor. Dartmoor National Park consists of about 80,000 acres, of which half remains under the control of the War Office. Visitors go there in increasing numbers every year. I hope that when the time comes to operate Clause 1 the War Office will give very careful consideration to relinquishing their areas of Dartmoor National Park and will seek places elsewhere, perhaps in the highlands of Scotland, where there will not be so much disturbance of public amenity.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL

    Clause 1.—(ESTABLISHMENT AND DUTY OF CONSERVANCY BOARD.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 34, to leave out subsection (6).
    10.17 p.m.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    If it be convenient, I hope that we may also discuss the Amendment in page 2, line 48, at the end insert a new Clause A.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Yes.
    Mr. Neave: These are purely drafting Amendments. Hon. Members will recollect that in another place Lord Silkin moved that the amenity provisions in Clause 1 (6) should be put into a separate Clause. The Government accepted that view and that is the reason for the Amendments.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: On this side of the House, we have no objection to this new formulation. I hope it will carry greater weight in the minds of authorities when administering the Act. We support the Amendments.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Lords Amendment: In line 46, after "1954", to insert:
    "and to be statutory undertakers within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, by virtue of carrying on a harbour undertaking;"
    Mr. Neave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This, again, is a drafting Amendment. It is designed to remove any doubt which might otherwise have existed as to whether the new Conservancy was a statutory undertaking for the purposes of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. It was thought that there might be some doubt in that respect. In this Amendment, the Conservancy is put in the same position as other harbour authorities and will be able to carry out what is called permitted development. I mentioned this matter on Second Reading. There are certain shipping purposes and the use of land for spreading of dredgings, and so on, which the Conservancy might wish to carry out.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Further Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 48, at end insert new Clause A (Protection of amenities):
    In formulating or considering any proposals relating to their functions under this Act, the Board shall have regard to the desirability—

    (a) of preserving natural beauty;

    (b) of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest; and

    (c) of ensuring an easy passage at all times through the waters of the haven for ascending salmon and sea-trout."—[Mr. Neave.]

    Clause 4.—(POWERS WITH RESPECT TO DREDGING, ETC.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 15, after "Postmaster-General" insert "or by an Electricity Board".
    Mr. Neave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    It might be convenient if we considered with this Amendment the two following Lords Amendments, to lines 30 and 35 respectively.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to give existing and new submarine cables some protection. They may be maintained by an electricity board. I understand that the South West Wales Electricity Board has cables and may be

    333
    likely to have cables in future under the waters of Milford Haven and they should have some protection such as is given to cables placed by or maintained by the Postmaster-General.
    This Amendment covers protection against having materials deposited in such a way as to cover cables or to impede in any way the inspection and maintenance of such cables.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Further Lords Amendments agreed to: In line 30, after "Postmaster-General" insert "or by an Electricity Board".
    In line 35, after "Postmaster-General" insert "or Electricity Board".—[Mr. Neave.]

    Clause 6.—(PROTECTION OF CROWN INTERESTS IN WRECKS.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 18, at end insert:
    "(ii) the prohibition on the use of explosives imposed by this subsection shall not apply to the use for cutting away the superstructure of a vessel of such small explosive charges as may for the time being be approved by the Minister for the purposes of this proviso."
    Mr. Neave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This relates to the use by the Board of explosives for the removal of wrecks. The previous wording prohibited the use of explosives completely, but it was felt that for safety reasons the Board should be able to use small quantities of explosives to remove the superstructure of a wreck in an emergency. It is difficult to define the maximum quantities of explosives to be used but that matter is with my right hon. Friend under this Amendment.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I must say that I do not view the use of the words in this Amendment with very much satisfaction. What may be small to the Minister may be very large to the inhabitants and people living on the boundaries of the Haven. I think we ought to have some better explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. Can he tell us what procedure will be followed to get this permission? Will it be to deal with a large wreck or a small wreck? Will a large amount of explosive be needed for a large wreck? The matter is left very much in the air. Could the hon. Gentleman say something more about it. so that people living in the area can be reassured that, even if the Minister gives permission, his idea of
    334
    what is small shall not be the idea which in the minds of other people is large?
    Mr. Neave: I see the point made by the right hon. Member and my right hon. Friend will exercise discretion with that in mind. This question arises because the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association represented that to impose a complete ban on the use of explosives would severely restrict the Board in what it might have to do in regard to wrecks. I think the right hon. Member will agree that it is difficult to define precisely the maximum quantities of explosive charges, but I shall certainly ask my right hon. Friend in deciding what the Board could use in the way of explosives to bear in mind that people in the district may be affected and that the particular circumstances of any particular case should be reviewed in view of what has been said.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 7.—(LIGHTING AND BUOYING.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 1, leave out subsection (2) and insert:
    "(2) Section seventy-eight of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act, 1847 (which requires the sanction of the Trinity House for lighthouses, lights, beacons and sea marks) is hereby incorporated with this Act as if the reference therein to the undertakers were a reference to the Board."
    Mr. Neave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a drafting Amendment, designed to bring the wording of the Bill into line with legislation in regard to other harbour authorities by incorporating Section 78 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847. Otherwise, the authorities at Trinity House would be in a position of having to administer Milford Haven under provisions different from elsewhere. They have requested that this provision should be incorporated, and it seemed the sensible thing to do.
    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 10.—(POWER TO LEVY DUES, CHARGES AND FEES.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 19, leave out "any vessel entering or" and insert:
    "every vessel entering and in respect of every vessel"
    Mr. Neave: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

    335
    I think that it would be convenient if we could take the Amendments in page 33, line 6, line 10, and line 17 at the same time, if there is no objection. They all relate to the same problem.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes.
    Mr. Neave: These are drafting Amendments. The object was to remove any doubt about the Board's power to charge dues on a vessel both entering and leaving the Haven. It is proposed to add these words in order to make it quite clear. It has always been our intention, as I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) knows, that the Board should have that power, and the scale of maximum dues has been calculated on the basis of the Board levying dues in both directions. The Amendments proposed provide for greater flexibility.
    Question put and agreed to.

  Third Schedule.—(AUTHORISED RATES OF DUES.)
  Lords Amendments agreed to: In page 33, line 6, leave out "arriving from or departing" and insert:
  "entering the haven on arrival from or, as the case may be, departing from the haven"
  In page 33, line 10, leave out "arriving from or departing" and insert:
  "entering the haven on arrival from or, as the case may be, departing from the haven"
  In page 33, line 17, leave out "arrival and departure" and insert:
  "entry into and departure from the haven"—[Mr. Neave.]

KENYA (DETENTION OF MR. ONEKO)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legit.]
10.27 p.m.
Mr. John Stonehouse: It is with no apology that I raise for a second time on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House the case of a man who is detained in Kenya under the Emergency Regulations.
Mr. Oneko was one of the leaders of the Kenya African Union in 1952 when it sent a deputation to Britain to make submissions in regard to land reform in Kenya. A few weeks after he returned to Kenya he was one of those arrested
336
and subsequently charged with being an organiser of Mau Mau. He, along with Jomo Kenyatta and several others, was accused at a famous trial which took place in Kapenguria.
I went to the trial at Kapenguria and gave evidence of character on his behalf. Partly as a result of that character evidence, he was acquitted on appeal to the Kenya Supreme Court in 1954. Despite his acquittal on all charges brought against him, however, Achieng Oneko has been kept in detention during the last four years.
I submit that this is a case of outstanding injustice. It is not only our privilege, but our duty, to raise in the House, on the Adjournment, any case in which there is substantial injustice, as there is here. It is not good enough to use the Advisory Committee as a defence for the action which the Governor is taking in Kenya to keep this man in detention. The Advisory Committee is, to all intents and purposes, defunct.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and myself in the Adjournment debate which took place on 5th June last year, the Under-Secretary of State said that the Advisory Committee had received appeals from 2,476 people. In a reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) on 17th April last, the Colonial Secretary said that the Advisory Committee had received 2,569 appeals. This is a total of 93 appeals in nine or ten months, at a rate of about 10 a month, which we must compare with the total number of detainees of 10,000.
In his reply in June last year, the Under-Secretary of State said that 1,058 detainees had been released as a result of advice from the Advisory Committee. In his reply of 17th April, again to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich, the Colonial Secretary said that 1,058 had been released as a result of the Advisory Committee's advice. Thus, no case had been acted upon in a full ten months as a result of advice from the Advisory Committee.
I submit that this case must be judged on the basis of the statements which Achieng Oneko himself makes. It is not good enough to quote statements which may have been made behind closed doors in the Advisory Committee.

337
In a letter which he wrote to me on 12th April, he said:
"It is as well important to add at this stage my very sincere condemnation and denunciation of any connection with Mau Mau; its obscenity or violence and murders perpetrated by it. I have never approved neither supported violent method as a means of settling our problems in Kenya. Therefore, it was utterly impossible for me to associate myself with the movement in any capacity. Personally, however painful and grim the circumstances seem, trust me for what I say, that I harbour no hate against any individual …"
In view of the fact that Achieng Oneko was acquitted of all charges brought against him in the Kenya Supreme Court, and the fact that no evidence has been brought out into the open against this man, I submit that we should accept the statement which he makes. It is not good enough for the Colonial Secretary, as he may well do in the debate, to talk about the large number of detainees who have been released. That is of no value at all to a man who continues to remain in detention. We must consider this man's position as an individual, and if we have no right to keep him in detention and no grounds which can be brought out into the open, and as there is now no serious emergency in Kenya, I submit that he should be released.
I wish to use only a few minutes in putting his case forward because some of my hon. Friends who know him also wish to appeal on his behalf. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) also wishes to be associated with this appeal. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will hear it sympathetically and will announce to the House tonight that this man will be released.
10.34 p.m.
Mr. Dingle Foot: I should like, in a very few words, to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). I, too, have met Mr. Achieng Oneko. I met him in September, 1956, when I visited the Tarkwa Detention Camp, on Manda Island.
Like nearly all the internees on Manda Island, Mr. Oneko has appealed against his detention to the Advisory Committee and he showed me the grounds for detention, which, in accordance with the usual procedure, had been furnished to him so that he might make his appeal.
338
Those were very interesting grounds, which I have already quoted in the House. It was not alleged against him that he had been actively associated or, indeed, associated in any way with Mau Mau; it was not alleged that he had taken an unlawful oath; it was not alleged that he had been a terrorist. All that was said against him—and I use the actual words—was:
"You made inflammatory speeches against the Government of Kenya and Europeans calculated to stir up sedition and inter-racial enmity."
That was all. It was not alleged that he had been guilty of sedition, or that there was any other offence for which he could be brought again to trial. There were not even particulars of the speeches which he was supposed to have made. There was only this vague, woolly allegation. On that ground, and on that ground alone, he has been kept imprisoned for the last four years.
I hope that we shall not hear anything tonight from the Colonial Secretary about rehabilitation, because rehabilitation does not apply in a case such as this. The only people who can be rehabilitated under the present system are those who confess to Mau Mau activities. If a man denies that he has ever had any association with Mau Mau, he does not even become a candidate for rehabilitation.
According to the information which Mr. Oneko himself gave me on Manda Island, he was interviewed by a screening team in 1956 and he was asked to give an undertaking that if he were released he would not take any part in politics. That was an entirely improper request, and it was very properly refused.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not take refuge tonight behind the Governor's discretion. Naturally, he is advised by the Governor in these matters, but I hope that he will bear in mind that in a case such as this, where we are dealing with the rights and liberties of one of Her Majesty's subjects, the responsibility rests with him and with this House.
10.43 p.m.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I hope that the Minister will not regard this as an occasion when the Opposition are trying to make a political case against the case of the Government. We have our criticism of the detention system, and we have our

339
criticism of the retention of the emergency laws, but that is not what we are arguing tonight. Tonight, we are arguing on the simple point of human justice to one individual whom five responsible Members of this House know. We are unanimous in our belief that a very great injustice is being done to Achieng Oneko.
I knew Achieng Oneko in this country during the latter months of 1951 and the early months of 1952. During that period, there was scarcely a day when I did not meet him. I have known other Africans, just as I have known men of other races, who might be guilty of the crimes of Mau Mau. However, Achieng Oneko is a man of a character and of a depth of mind which make it absolutely impossible for us who knew him to believe that he is guilty of any responsibility for Mau Mau.
Achieng Oneko was acquitted on appeal in the famous case of Kenyatta and his colleagues, a case where there was the utmost pressure from the prosecution, representing the Government; but, after acquittal, he was arrested and detained without charge and he has been detained ever since. During that period, the temptation put to him was, "If you will only confess responsibility for Mau Mau, the way will be eased for your liberation." But his convictions were so deep that, despite the pull of his family and the love of his wife, he did not feel that he could try to secure release by making a confession which would be untrue.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, in the name of all that is best in the traditions of this House, where we are concerned with individuals and individual justice, on this occasion to meet the request made by five Members of Parliament who know this man, and to do justice by releasing him from the detention which he has suffered during these last four years.
10.41 p.m.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson: I support the plea of my hon. Friends for the release of Achieng Oneko. Just over a year ago I was a member of a Commonwealth Parliamentary delegation which, visited Kenya under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale). At our request, we visited Kakwa Camp, on Manda Island, and I believe that we were
340
the first Parliamentarians to do so. In view of the physical difficulties in reaching the camp that is not really surprising.
When we were there we found that the detainees in Takwa Camp were divided into two roughly equal halves—those who were non-co-operators, and those who were co-operating with the camp authorities. Between us, we had interviews with all those who were amongst the section who were co-operating. The others preferred not to do so. It fell to my lot to talk with the group which included Achieng Oneko. I talked with him for a very brief time—perhaps ten minutes—and, for what it is worth, the impression that I formed during that time was that Oneko was in no sense a man who was likely to have been associated with any of the excesses of Mau Mau; nor was he a man whose release from detention could be in any way a threat to the security of Kenya.
When I came back to Nairobi and discussed his detention with people in the Government in Nairobi, it was borne in on me that the grounds on which he was detained were about as flimsy as those which caused the detention of any other person in the Colony. Therefore, I beg the right hon. Gentleman to take this plea seriously and to regard this man, as I believe all of us who know him regard him, as a victim of most serious injustice which can only now, all too late, be set right.
10.44 p.m.
Mr. Richard Body: May I briefly add something to what has already been said from this side of the House? All of us realise that this man held high office in an organisation which was associated with Mau Mau, although there seems to be no evidence that he himself was actually involved in Mau Mau itself.
Although I know very little about the facts of this case, I do know—and this is largely general knowledge—that there is a great deal of concern amongst many English people in Kenya about the working of the Advisory Committee and the whole process by which a very large number of people are still being detained in these camps.
I have complete faith in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I am quite certain that this matter will be cleared up fairly soon. I am sure that justice will be done, but let us also hope

341
that justice will appear to be done, and be done very soon.
Mrs. Eirene White Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East) rose—
10.45 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I am sorry to prevent the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) from taking part in the debate, but if I am to give any answer at all, as we are limited to half an hour, I must reply now. I do not, of course, quarrel with the right of hon. Members to raise this subject, nor with the earnestness and zeal with which they have done it. It is entirely proper, and I have listened with great interest to what hon. Members, on both sides, have had to say.
As, I think, everybody knows, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Body) has just said, Achieng Oneko held high office in the Kenya African Union. There is always a danger that these things get forgotten, but the House needs no reminder that this Union was proscribed in 1953 for deep involvement in Mau Mau. Mr. Achieng Oneko was General Secretary of this Union from August to October, 1952.
As hon. Members have said, the sentence after the trial at Kapenguria was not upheld and he was acquitted on appeal by the Supreme Court in January, 1954. He was then detained by authority of a detention order made by the Governor of Kenya which authorises such action whenever the Governor is satisfied that it is necessary for the purpose of maintaining public order. I must repeat what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said a few months ago, that acquittal on a charge of helping to organise Mau Mau does not provide any reason why the Governor should not, if he thinks it in the interest of public safety to do so, order the detention of anyone.
Five hon. Members have made it quite clear that they feel that a great injustice has been done in this case. Some of them, I think, knew Mr. Oneko when he came over to England and one, the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson). visited the camp where Mr. Oneko is now detained. Incidentally, I have, of course, read the C.P.A. Report
342
with great interest. Speaking of conditions generally, that Report said:
"The conditions in the camps appear to be reasonably good within the limits of an} detention system."
I hope that nobody believes that I am anxious that detention should continue for a day longer than is necessary in the interests of public order in Kenya.
Those hon. Members feel that an injustice has been done. I must remind the House that the Governor and his Advisory Committee have all the facts of this case at their disposal locally, including knowledge which is not available to hon. Members, however genuinely they may feel that an injustice has been done.
Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that once the appeal has been turned down by the Advisory Committee, no further appeal is allowed?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was coining to that. The Governor and the Advisory Committee have all the facts at their disposal locally, including, of course, a close knowledge of the state of law and order in Kenya at the time.
Mr. Foot Mr. Foot rose
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot give way again.
The Governor and the Advisory Committee are, and were, fully satisfied of the need for this detention. No one can possibly feel that the Governor is not himself desperately anxious to reduce the number of detainees. By 31st March this year, 66,000 people previously in detention had been released and now there are only 10,000 left.
However strongly hon. Members may feel, one must look at these individual problems against the general security background still in Kenya today. I need not remind the House of the spread of K.K.M., of the Mau Mau type of oaths in remote areas in recent weeks and of the 100 fanatical Mau Mau men who are still at large, all of which show the utmost need for care. By and large, those who remain in the camps are those who were most deeply involved in the movement and whose rehabilitation is taking relatively longer. There are, I am sorry to say, signs of a drop in the release rate to a little more than about 1,000 a month. Because of the thorough nature of the excellent work that is being done in rehabilitation, however, we are entitled

343
to think that far more detainees can now hope for freedom than we ever dared at one time to hope.
When I was first in Kenya as Secretary of State, the figures of those we felt might have to be indefinitely detained were terrifying, but those figures are now, I am glad to say, fears of the past; but these hopes cannot possibly be fulfilled unless the rehabilitation workers are given opportunity and time to complete their task. One cannot give any target date, but the number of those released already is, I think, a very encouraging sign.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) drew attention to the fact that there had been many applications to the Advisory Committee in recent months and appeared to draw from that the idea that the Advisory Committee was a sham, or defunct, or a rubber stamp. I think that it would be very unfair to regard the work of the Committee in that light. I circulated recently in the House the number of appeals which had been heard by the Advisory Committee: 2,569 appeals had been received; 2,318 had been heard; it had recommended 1,088 for release; 217 were released before the Committee came on to hear the appeals; and only 1,230 were recommended for continued detention. Those figures included Mr. Achieng Oneko, whose case in 1954 was considered carefully by the Committee but was rejected.
Mr. Stonehouse: It is most important in relation to the figures that the right hon. Gentleman should confirm that in June last year the Under-Secretary gave the House the figure of 1,058 people who had been released as a result of the advice of the Advisory Committee, but that he himself, in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot), gave the figure of 1,058 detainees having been released as a result of the advice of the Committee.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is, of course, perfectly true, but the vast majority of applications, naturally, went to the Advisory Committee in the earlier days. There have been virtually no new detentions in recent months, and that, of course, is the explanation for those figures. Some who have finished recently prison sentences and cannot go back at once to the reserves until they have undergone re-
344
habilitation, are being detained, but there are virtually no new detentions.
The hon. Member asked me what provision there was once an appeal had been heard before the review at later stages of the case. The cases are dealt with administratively at regular intervals. I can assure the hon. Member that this is no mere form of words, but this does in reality take place.
I am assured by the Governor that in this case he could not possibly take action to grant the release, but this case, like every other case, is reviewed at regular intervals administratively.
I personally take the view that no one is irreconcilable. When I was in Kenya for the first time as Secretary of State I made it perfectly clear that those who were irreconcilable could not be allowed to return to the reserves. I made it equally clear that no one was irreconcilable, and I therefore hoped that the good work of rehabilitation would be as universally successful as was possible.
The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) asked me how it was possible for anybody who had not confessed at all, because he had nothing, in his view, to which to confess, to find himself released—if he did not go through the arrangement for confession. Confession is not the test by which the decision is reached whether detainees should be released or not. It is, of course, important that they should confess, but release depends, in the final analysis, only on whether the Governor is satisfied that it is no longer necessary to exercise control over the individual concerned.
I am sorry that I have been obliged to repeat very largely the argument used by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when this matter was raised last year, but circumstances have not changed. I must once more repeat my hope that with the gradual restoration of law and order it will be possible for there to be even more releases than there has been up to date. I hope that the drop in the number of releases will give way to a further expansion in the future. I cannot, I am afraid, add to the answer which have given about Achieng Oneko.
10.56 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: I am sorry that we have had such a disappointing reply from the right hon.

345
Gentleman. I knew Achieng Oneko before Mau Mau became evident, and I always believed that he had been more sinned against than sinning. He has always denied that he had any knowledge of what was going on. I do not think he is a strong character, but I do not see why he should necessarily be detained for ever.
The ordinary processes of rehabilitation are remarkable in dealing with many detainees, but do not apply to some who are of a completely different kind and of different intellectual capacity. Many of us know Achieng Oneko. I met him last year. I feel that he is worth taking a good deal of trouble about and, if necessary, taking risks over.
346
I do not deny that he has had bitter feelings against the Administration but he is the sort of person whom, if properly handled—if he felt there was co-operation on the side of the Administration and some sort of confidence placed in him—it might be possible to release.
I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will have further consultations with the Governor about this man, whom some of us know. I am not denying that there are difficulties. It might be intuition, but I believe that Achieng Oneko could be released, with safeguards.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Royal Parks (Deck Chairs)
  Royal Parks (Deck Chairs)
  Employment Exchange, Prescot (Extension)
  Employment Exchange, Prescot (Extension)
  COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL RESOURCES (MOBILISATION)
  COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL RESOURCES (MOBILISATION)
  STEEL STRIPMILL, NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE
  STEEL STRIPMILL, NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Nuclear Power Stations (British Contracts)
  Nuclear Power Stations (British Contracts)
  Light Industry (Sedgefield)
  Light Industry (Sedgefield)
  Canadian Trade Mission (Report)
  Canadian Trade Mission (Report)
  Precision Instruments and Jewellery, Aberdeen
  Precision Instruments and Jewellery, Aberdeen
  Factory, Airdrie (Closing)
  Factory, Airdrie (Closing)
SCOTLAND
  Secondary School Places
  Secondary School Places
  Teachers' Salaries
  Teachers' Salaries
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Greetings Cards (Purchase Tax)
  Greetings Cards (Purchase Tax)
  Miners' and Quarrymen's Boots (Tax)
  Miners' and Quarrymen's Boots (Tax)
  Retired Civil Servants (Pensions and Gratuities)
  Retired Civil Servants (Pensions and Gratuities)
  Retired Persons (Pensions)
  Retired Persons (Pensions)
  Redundant Industrial Employees (Compensation)
  Redundant Industrial Employees (Compensation)
  British Forces, Germany (Support Costs)
  British Forces, Germany (Support Costs)
  Schedule A (Maintenance Claims)
  Schedule A (Maintenance Claims)
HOUSING
  Rent Act
  Rent Act
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Evictions
  Evictions
  One-Bedroomed Dwellings
  One-Bedroomed Dwellings
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Town Halls (Flags)
  Town Halls (Flags)
  Road and Sewerage Works, Newcastle- under-Lyme (Loan Sanction)
  Road and Sewerage Works, Newcastle- under-Lyme (Loan Sanction)
  Rural Water and Sewerage Schemes
  Rural Water and Sewerage Schemes
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Lusaka Council (African Participation)
  Lusaka Council (African Participation)
  Tobacco Farming Scheme, Mkushi (Africans)
  Tobacco Farming Scheme, Mkushi (Africans)
SEYCHELLES
  Financial Aid
  Financial Aid
  Commissioner's Report (Publication)
  Commissioner's Report (Publication)
TANGANYIKA
  African National Union Branches (Banning)
  African National Union Branches (Banning)
KENYA
  Detainees, Manyani Camp
  Detainees, Manyani Camp
  Agricultural Wages and School Fees, Kiambu
  Agricultural Wages and School Fees, Kiambu
ZANZIBAR
  Afro-Shirazi Party (President's Letter)
  Afro-Shirazi Party (President's Letter)
EAST AFRICA
  Sterling Reserves, Kenya and Uganda
  Sterling Reserves, Kenya and Uganda
CYPRUS
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
  NORTH BORNEO, BRUNEI AND SARAWAK (UNION)
  NORTH BORNEO, BRUNEI AND SARAWAK (UNION)
POST OFFICE
  Sites, Hastings and St. Leonards (Development)
  Sites, Hastings and St. Leonards (Development)
  SUEZ CANAL (CLEARANCE)
  SUEZ CANAL (CLEARANCE)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Salk Vaccine (Supplies)
  Salk Vaccine (Supplies)
  Doctor, Ellesmere Port (Death)
  Doctor, Ellesmere Port (Death)
  Poliomyelitis (Inoculated Children)
  Poliomyelitis (Inoculated Children)
HOSPITALS
  Senior Registrars
  Senior Registrars
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Bowhouse Factory, Hurlford
  Bowhouse Factory, Hurlford
  ICE CREAM (STANDARD)
  ICE CREAM (STANDARD)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (PERSONAL CASE)
  NATIONAL SERVICE (PERSONAL CASE)
  AFRICAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UNITED KINGDOM REPRESENTATION)
  AFRICAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (UNITED KINGDOM REPRESENTATION)
EMPLOYMENT
  Aluminium Works, Polmadie (Redundancy)
  Aluminium Works, Polmadie (Redundancy)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  WEST GERMANY AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
  2.36 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the fact that in October, 1954, Dr. Adenauer told the Bundestag that his Government had renounced the use of weapons of mass destruction, they will state their attitude to the question of the supply to, and the use by, West Germany of nuclear weapons.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MAINCROFT): My Lords, I should like to make it clear that there has never been any question of arming Western Germany with nuclear weapons except in the sense of establishing stockpiles of nuclear warheads in Western Germany under American control and of the West German forces being equipped with weapons to which these war-heads could be fitted. At the meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Heads of Government in December, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation military authorities were requested to submit to the North Atlantic Council their recommendations about the establishment of such stockpiles. They have not yet done this. Her Majesty's Government will decide their attitude in the light of these recommendations when they have been made.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Answer. May I ask him this further question: is it
  1084
  proposed that nuclear weapons should be handed over to the West German Government to be at the disposal irrevocably of the Bundeswehr—as I hope will not be the case? Or, on the other hand, is it proposed that they should be subject to withdrawal by N.A.T.O., should the N.A.T.O. countries so decide at any time?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we stand by the view expressed by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in his letter of June 14, 1957, to Mr. Bulganin, in which he said:
  "Pending a subsequent agreement on the limitation of armaments, the members of N.A.T.O. must reserve the right freely to decide on the equipment and weapons of their forces."

  ENFORCEMENT OF LICENSING LAWS
  2.39 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords. I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is approved policy for police officers to enter clubs and attempt to order large quantities of alcohol after licensing hours at the taxpayers' expense, with the apparent object of tempting the management of such clubs to break the law; and, further, whether Her Majesty's Government do not consider that this behaviour approaches dangerously near to the rôle of agent provocateur and is not in the best traditions of the police force.]
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, police officers would be unable to secure compliance with the licensing law unless they entered clubs which have come under suspicion without disclosing their identity. The Metropolitan police officers detailed to carry out these distasteful duties have strict instructions that their conduct must not afford any grounds for suggesting that they have acted as agents provocateurs. My right honourable friend is not responsible for the practice of other forces, but he has no reason to suppose that it is different.
  THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My, Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Hotels and Restaurants Association of

  1085
  Great Britain are very much concerned with this matter, and that in this recent notorious case it is clear that the licensing laws have been flagrantly ignored, and are also, no doubt, ignored in certain other clubs? Does the noble Lord not agree that this is very unfair to hotels and restaurants which feel obliged to observe these laws?
  VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his Answer to my Question. Is he aware that I have been informed that a short time ago police officers spent over £100 at one club, buying alcohol in trying to obtain evidence of illegal drinking? Surely even the most Bacchanalian of your Lordships would agree that that is far more than any member of the public going to a night club would spend. It is more than I should spend.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, of course I cannot be expected to have too much knowledge of the personal habits of the noble Viscount. I hope he has no misapprehension about how the police act in this matter. Let me make it perfectly clear, to start with, that prosecutions are brought as a result of what a police officer sees and not of what he does. He does not report people because they have sold him a drink, but because he has observed and obtained evidence that drinks have been sold to other people in circumstances which contravene the law. The noble Viscount will understand, I am perfectly certain, that there is no point in an officer's going to a club where, in the common parlance now, they rather "live it up", in a blue serge suit and regulation boots and ordering half a pint of beer. He must behave in exactly the same way as anybody else in the club behaves, as a patron; he must cut his coat, so to speak, according to the local cloth. He may have to visit the club on more than one occasion. I would say, further, that the expenses incurred by the police in these duties are subject to most careful scrutiny, and therefore I do not think that there is a great deal to complain of in the point that the noble Viscount has raised.
  The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mentioned the British Hotels and Restaurants Association. I was not aware until he mentioned it that they were so concerned; but I find it perfectly credible
  1086
  that any Association conducting a legitimate trade should be concerned about illegal practices by those who might be said to some extent to be in competition with them. The whole question of club law is a complex and controversial subject, and I do not think it appropriate for us to go into it to-day.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask the Government a question that arises, I think, directly out of this Starred Question? Would Her Majesty's Government consider whether, when somebody has been brought down from Perth or Caithness or Aberdeen, and instructed severely in the high standard of conduct and probity upon which we pride the police in London, to send him to do a thing which I think any one of your Lordships—I certainly—would be extremely indignant at being asked to do. is not calculated to break down that standard? Further, is it not possible that these practices may give rise to secret evils far more dangerous to society than the open evils thereby removed?
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it is a little difficult for me to produce a positive answer to the noble Lord's rather lengthy supplementary question, but I think he is looking for trouble where none exists. My right honourable friend is perfectly well satisfied that these matters are properly conducted. I have examined what goes on, and I am quite happy to stand here and tell your Lordships that these things, distasteful matters as they are, are as properly conducted as can be devised.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, while the noble Lord may be perfectly satisfied, his words may not satisfy the British public. If I heard the noble Lord correctly, he said that these gentlemen visited these places dressed in blue serge suits, et cetera—
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
  LORD CHESHAM: May I interrupt the noble Lord? That is what I said they did not do.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Of course, there is another thing they do not do. They do not' do what ordinary citizens do; they do not pay the bill. Although I have every sympathy with a great deal of what the noble Lord has said, and I think the police have a very

  1087
  difficult job, one of the most hateful and distasteful things in our present police investigation is the use of the agent provocateur, which the noble Viscount who put down this Question riled against. I do not think the matter is quite so simple as the noble Lord has stated it to be.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [H.L.]
  2.47 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

  PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) BILL [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

  TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [H.L.]
  2.49 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
  LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
  Costs
  ". Where any person whose legal rights may be interfered with or altered by the order or determination of any tribunal mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act or by the order or determination of an appropriate authority after an inquiry or hearing as referred to in subsection (2) of section three of this Act the tribunal or person conducting such inquiry or hearing as the case may be may award to such person the costs reasonably incurred by him including legal costs in making his representations."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause as set out on the Marshalled List. The object of this new clause is to provide that in certain proper cases a person who appears before a tribunal or inquiry on appeal should be awarded his legal costs and his expenses. At the present time, in some cases it is open to a tribunal or an inquiry to award costs, but generally speaking no costs are awarded either way. I believe that where a person has made an appeal which is regarded as frivolous and vexatious it is open to the Minister to award costs against him, though that is done very rarely but I have never in my experience known of costs being awarded to an appellant even when he has been successful. The Committee will be aware of many cases where it is necessary for an owner of land or a person who is aggrieved (I am speaking at the moment of inquiries) to appeal, at considerable expense, against a decision of a local authority, for one cannot appear before an inspector and produce evidence effectively without getting legal advice and assistance.
  My noble friend Lord Milner of Leeds referred the other day to my statement that a person might be better off appearing personally before a tribunal and that there might well be cases where an

  1089
  appellant is able to get the sympathy and the support of the tribunal in helping him to conduct his case. But in an appeal before an inspector, and certainly where evidence has to be called, it is practically essential to have counsel; and people are put to considerable expense in making these appeals.
  The object of my Amendment is to provide that where a person has been put to such expense and it turns out that he has been justified and his appeal is allowed, he should be awarded costs. I do not want to go so far as to say that costs should always necessarily follow the event, for there may be a "50–50" case where a local authority may have been fully justified in their decision and the appellant fully justified in appealing. Where the local authority has acted in perfect good faith and reasonably, I would hesitate to say that merely because the appellant has been successful he should necessarily be awarded the whole of his costs; but he might be awarded some.
  There are cases where even local authorities act unreasonably and an appellant is put to expense and trouble in appealing against a decision which manifestly ought never to have been made. I believe that in a case of that kind there ought to be provision for the appellant to get his costs. I want to be perfectly frank in this matter. If one accepts that principle there may be cases the other way. An appellant may be appealing without any ground whatever and acting unreasonably. I suppose on balance appellants act unreasonably more frequently than local authorities do, judging at any rate by the weight of the decisions that are given in favour of local authorities and against appellants.
  I believe that in cases where an appellant has appealed unreasonably—and I would apply much the same test—it should be open to the Minister to award costs against the appellant in favour of the local authority. There, again, I would not do that in every case. The appellant may be appealing in good faith and quite reasonably, and the decision against which he is appealing may have been one which involved a question of policy of which perhaps he had no opportunity of knowing. It may be that if he had known of the policy before he appealed he might not have done so.
  I know that there is to be provision for an appellant to find out the policy, but where he would not know that at the time when he appeals, he may appeal in perfectly good faith, but unsuccessfully. I would not suggest that in such a case costs should be awarded against him. But where the appellant has really acted irresponsibly and frivolously in making an appeal, I see no reason why it should not be open to the appropriate Minister to award costs against that appellant. I am not suggesting that that is in my Amendment and I do not suppose for a moment that this Amendment is going to be accepted; because having read the Report of the Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries Committee, I see that they are really recommending that the whole matter of costs should go to the Council which they propose should be established and which it is the object of this Bill to set up. But there should be some recommendation to this Council that costs, generally speaking, should be awarded in cases where the appellant has been successful.
  I hope that it will be open to the noble and learned Viscount who is to reply to say that he is in general sympathy with the proposal contained in this Amendment and that this will be submitted to the Council which is to be set up, with a direction that they should consider how it can best be implemented; and that, although the Franks Committee did not suggest it, it may be possible for an appellant to be awarded costs. I would suggest that the Council should also consider the circumstances under which an appellant, as well as the local authority, should be required to pay costs.
  There are other inquiries. The Minister may himself order an inquiry where he wishes to acquire land for this own particular purposes. I admit that in such cases it would be a little difficult for the Minister to recommend that he himself should have to pay costs, even where the appellant had been successful. A Minister never acts unreasonably or irresponsibly. But there have been such cases and this Council that will be set up might find ways and means even of providing that, in such cases, where appropriate, the Minister should be required to pay the costs of an appeal. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will see his way to accepting, broadly, the theme of

  1091
  my remarks. If he does so, then having moved this Amendment I shall be perfectly happy to withdraw it.
  Amendment moved—
  Insert the following new clause—
  (". Where any person whose legal rights may be interfered with or altered by the order or determination of any tribunal mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act or by the order or determination of an appropriate authority after an inquiry or hearing as referred to in subsection (2) of section three of this Act the tribunal or person conducting such inquiry or hearing as the case may be may award to such person the costs reasonably incurred by him including legal costs in making his representations.")—(Lord Silkin.)
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It might be for the convenience of the noble and learned Viscount who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government if I amplified in another direction the words of my noble friend Lord Silkin. The real object of this Amendment is to bring equity into the administration of justice where we have tribunals or inquiries, both of which recommend to Ministers and sit as quasi-judicial bodies upon the rights of the individual. I want to ask the noble Viscount what he thinks at the present time about the objector who has a perfectly good case but who cannot afford the very high legal costs that are involved in appearing, not only before tribunals but also before these administrative inquiries and public inquiries in which I am more interested. Perhaps I can illustrate what I have in mind by citing two cases to the noble Viscount.
  On a previous Amendment I quoted the words of the noble Lord, Lord Salter, who had referred to Crichel Down. If the bureaucracy had not run into an individual, as Lord Salter so rightly said, with the resources and the determination—the resources, mark you, my Lords, and the determination—the Franks Committee might never have been set up. Could that individual get costs? He did not want them.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: He actually got them.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: May I ask the noble Viscount to repeat what he said.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: He actually got them—
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I am very glad to hear it.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM:—I believe.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The second case to which I will turn is the case of Bingham Melcombe, which may interest the noble Lord, Lord Mills, who I am so glad has shown this House his usual courtesy in appearing on the Front Bench when his Ministry itself might come in for some criticism. The valley of Bingham Melcombe was going to be defiled by a row of pylons, and someone took upon himself the cost, briefing learned counsel, of an appeal, over the heads of the planning authority and right up to the Minister himself; and let me put it down to the Minister's everlasting credit that he reversed the decision and a great piece of natural beauty in Dorset was saved. But could that matter have been carried to the Minister, and could justice have been done had it not been for the fact that a wealthy man put his hand deeply into his own pocket?
  I agree with my noble friend that perhaps some objections are made irresponsibly, but I think that that is one of the risks Executives have to run. After all, I do not think we need trouble too much about justice to the Executive: they can always look after themselves. We are far more concerned with justice to the individual, who so often cannot look after himself, as my noble friend said, without incurring very heavy legal costs to have his case argued. There are plenty of cases on record where those who have spent not only the taxpayers' money but also the ratepayers' money can go on and on, bringing these cases until they reduce the ordinary individual to impotence. I hope that the noble Viscount will give us some encouragement on this Amendment. There is one question to which I hope he will reply. I hope that I live to see the day when an inspector, who at the present time—that is, until a previous Amendment is either accepted or rejected—is the servant of the Minister, awards costs against the Minister. That indeed, I think, would be a very illuminating position. This Amendment provides that costs shall be awarded by the inspector holding the inquiry. I do not agree with my noble friend (I hope he will forgive my saying so) in saying that all Ministers are like

  1093
  Caesar's wife, beyond suspicion. Ministers have—
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Caesar's wife was not beyond suspicion; that was why she was divorced.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I was reminding the noble Lord that Caesar's wife was not beyond suspicion, and that was why she was divorced.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Well, it is a popular conception.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: A misconception.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble Viscount may have a more intimate knowledge of Caesar's wife than I have.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: She was before my time.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: That is the popular conception, at least. My noble friend said that Ministers never did anything wrong. The whole history of the law of this country illustrates that Ministers do a great many things that are wrong, but of course, never have to accept responsibility for so doing. So I think that the noble Viscount will be able to accept at least the spirit of this Amendment for giving costs to objectors who have a good case for justice. And I hope he will also assure the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who I am sure we are all so sorry cannot be here, that this is another argument as to why there should be an independent inspector presiding over these public inquiries, so that he can, without fear or favour, award costs to the appellant who is deserving of them.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I know that we are all very indebted to the noble Lords who have moved and supported this Amendment. But as I listened to the arguments, so well presented by both of them, I thought that, although I think they led in divergent directions, both were losing sight of one fact that I have always tried to keep in the forefront of any arguments I have presented to this Committee: that the tribunals and inquiries with which this Bill is concerned are of a very diverse nature. The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to the clash of interests
  1094
  between the subject and the Executive. But, of course, in a great number of these inquiries, that clash of interest does not arise—quite the reverse. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment, I think a little more realistically, showed by his language that in the forefront of his imagination was the case where, so far from there being a clash of interest between the Executive and the subject, there was a clash of interests between the subject and a local authority, with the Executive, if anything, in the position of a judge. The use of the words "appellant and local authority" occurred, I should think, fully half a dozen times in the course of his speech—and quite rightly. I make no complaint, because that is a most important kind of inquiry. But a reference to the First Schedule to the Act shows quite clearly that in this Bill we are concerned with a very wide range of inquiries.
  I think of the Lands Tribunal, where neither the Executive nor the local authority is the principal party (that will be found in the Schedule to the Act) and where the dispute is between party and party. I think of the conscientious objectors' tribunal, where I think the clash is, in a sense, between the Executive and the subject, but where a different range of considerations, both as to legal representation and the like, apply from those applicable to the kind of inquiry which both noble Lords had in mind. I think of the General Commissioners for Income Tax. They have for many years done justice between subject and fiscal authorities without a provision on costs. I should like to remind the Committee, therefore, of what the Franks Committee really recommended about this matter, because I think that on further consideration the Committee might come to the conclusion, like the Government, that the Franks Committee Report is in general preferable on this matter to the Amendment.
  In paragraph 94, the Committee say—and I think that every word is full of wisdom, and with the Committee's permission I propose to read them:
  "The general principle applicable to litigation in the courts, whereby an unsuccessful party is ordered to pay the successful party's legal costs, has generally speaking been considered inappropriate in the case of tribunals"—
  I understand the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, really to accept that view, but I do not

  1095
  quite understand the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, in that sense—
  "even where the dispute is between private parties. Some tribunals have no power at all to award costs or their power is restricted to cases where a party is held to have acted frivolously or vexatiously; in others, including some of the most important tribunals (for example National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Local Tribunals), provision is made for the payment not of legal costs as understood in the courts but of travelling and subsistence expenses and of compensation for loss of remunerative time to applicants and witnesses, whatever the result of the case. We endorse the view that in most tribunals it would be wrong to award costs against a party or to relate the payment of expenses to the result of the case. We have already stated that accessibility is one of the main advantages of tribunals; if tribunals are to be truly accessible the citizen must be able to have recourse to them without running the risk of being out of pocket his reasonable expenses. The review of present arrangements for the award of costs by tribunals and for the payment of expenses etc. of parties can, we think, best be undertaken by the Council on Tribunals as part of its review of tribunal procedures. We set out below certain general considerations which we think should guide the Council in this review."
  In the succeeding paragraphs there are general considerations for the Council when they come to consider this matter, which I will not read to the Committee, though they would well repay reading, only because they are considerations for the Council rather than for the Legislature in considering this Amendment.
  On the whole, the Government approve and accept this general approach to this complex matter. They think that this is really a matter for the Council to consider in relation to individual tribunals. I have here, but I will not inflict it on the Committee, a list of thirty-five different types of tribunals, on three separate sheets of foolscap paper, setting out the different provisions on costs, most of which are appropriate and would probably be unaffected by any review which would be effected by this Amendment, should it be carried. My advice to the Committee, on behalf of the Government, is that the Franks Committee recommendation that it should be left to the Council is a wise one.
  It is not a simple matter. The general principles underlying the award of costs in litigation by the courts are not always applicable. The Lands Tribunal, whose proceedings and subject matter are closely akin to that of the courts, and another
  1096
  case in which we are legislating for disputes between subject and subject and not between Executive and subject as `such, have much the same power to award costs as the courts have and constantly use it. But this is totally inapplicable to the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Local Tribunals, which are not concerned with determining costs. They have special power to award travel-ling expenses, subsistence allowances and compensation for loss of earnings, which we think is correct. No doubt the Council will look at every new case and decide whether the existing powers are right or wrong, adequate or inadequate.
  Another argument against a general provision along the lines of the Amendment is that it would encourage applicants to employ legal representatives and lead to greater formality and to delays in tribunal proceedings. This is an argument which will appeal to some of your Lordships more than it appeals to me, but I have heard it used successfully in other proceedings in Parliament. The Franks Committee particularly endorse the view that it is important to preserve the informality of the atmosphere.
  I should have said that the noble Lord, Lord Silk in, had primarily in mind the question. not so much of the tribunals as such, but of the report of the inspector in an inquiry ordered by a Minister, where on planning or on other grounds a dispute had arisen between a local authority and an individual subject or number of individual subjects. That was dealt with in paragraphs 321 to 326 and in recommendations 76 to 79 of the Franks Committee Report. The Committee were concerned with the circumstances in which costs ought to be awarded and not with the question of the power to award costs, which is the subject of this Amendment.
  I would draw attention to this distinction, because I should have thought that the power to award costs in inquiries of this type (which I thought was most prominent in the mind of the noble Lord who moved the Amendment) was already covered by Section 290 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1933, which provides as follows:
  "Where any department are authorised by this Act to determine any difference, to make or confirm any order, to frame any scheme, or to give any consent, confirmation, sanction or approval to any matter, or otherwise to act under this Act, and where the Secretary of State

  1097
  or the Minister is authorised to hold an inquiry, either under this Act or under any other enactment relating to the functions of a Local authority, they or he may cause a local inquiry to be held."
  And subsection (5) of the same section provides that:
  "The department may make orders as to the costs of the parties at any such inquiry and as to the parties by whom such costs shall be paid, and every such order may be made a rule of the High Court on the application of any party named in the order."
  I think it is inevitable under the present procedure that power to award costs should subsist in the Minister concerned, partly because the Department is not bound to follow the report of the inspector and the inspector is therefore not an executive or judicial officer, whether he be independent, as some noble Lords have argued in another connection, or whether he is a member of the Department itself. The Franks Committee take the same view, because in Recommendation 78 they recommend that it should be the Minister and not the inspector who makes the award of costs. Therefore, I should have thought that, apart from the fact that Section 290 of the Local Government Act would seem to give powers, if they required authority, it refers to inquiries and not to hearings as distinct from inquiries. I do not think that this distinction is really valid in the noble Lord's mind, but it has already covered this case, at any rate for the time being.
  The noble Lord would like us to look at another consideration, which interested me, about the kind of case in which costs are to be awarded. Of course, that is not strictly relevant to the Amendment, which is concerned with the power to award costs and not with the exercise of discretion in awarding them. I think it right to give a kind of indication of the way in which they are awarded at the moment. I thought that, although the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, went rather further, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was recommending the kind of policy which is supposed, at any rate, to be followed at the moment.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government normally awards costs only in exceptional cases—usually where a party has behaved frivolously or vexatiously. It would be folly to attempt an exhaustive list, but it might be that a planning appeal inquiry had been instituted where the appellant had already
  1098
  been refused permission for the same proposal on two or three previous occasions and the circumstances had not materially changed. On the other hand, some inexcusable failure by a local authority in the presentation of its case might have necessitated a second inquiry, and in such a case the council would probably be mulcted in costs. Or the council might rely on statutory powers which they ought to know would be inadequate and then try again in reliance on other statutory powers. In all these cases the Ministry is at present inclined to order costs. This is only a broad indication of the type of case, as I have said; but I should be inclined to think that this was a fairly wide power.
  If the noble Lord thinks that in some way I have not met the kind of case he has in mind, he ought to come to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack again and say that I have not entirely satisfied him. But, broadly speaking, I should hope to have made the case that, as regards tribunals, the range of dispute and categories of tribunals is so wide, and the desirable provisions in regard to costs and expenses so widely different in the case of the different categories, that the Franks Committee Report was right in saying that this was a matter which should be considered by the Council in detail; and that, as regards inquiries, there was some ground, at any rate, for saying that in the principal type of inquiry involved the provision as to costs was already fairly wide, and that if an alteration of policy was required into the way in which costs were awarded, probably this type of Amendment was not apt to achieve that object, although I did not understand that there was any great difference between the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and me. I am pretty sure I am right, without referring to the book, in saying that in the case of Crichel Down—which I think misleads the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, a good deal in relation to this Bill, as it has very little to do with it—the subject did get his costs. It is some years ago, but my recollection—I should like to be corrected if I am wrong—is strongly that the Crown did, in fact, indemnify the successful subject in that case for his costs in the ordinary legal sense.
  LORD SILKIN: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply. I think he has done his best to deal with the Amendment, and I find myself in considerable agreement with him. I am quite content that the question of costs on matters which come before tribunals should be dealt with by the Council on Tribunals. If it is quite clear that that matter will be referred to them—I am not sure whether they can take the initiative themselves, or whether matters have to be referred to them—then it will meet my point to that extent. As to the question of inquiries, my Amendment is defective. Unfortunately, neither my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth nor I have the services of skilled draftsmen at our disposal, and as I was moving the Amendment I noticed that we had made a mistake in leaving the question of costs to be decided by the inspector, Obviously, that must be wrong, because the inspector's recommendation may not be upheld by the Minister, and therefore it would be inappropriate for the inspector to order costs to be paid.
  I was aware of Section 290, but the point I made was that, to my knowledge, it has been acted upon only once, in a case where admittedly the appeal was frivolous and vexatious. But the Franks Committee want costs to be the normal thing, and not that they should be limited merely to the extraordinary case. If the noble and learned Viscount will look at paragraph 95, which he was reluctant to inflict upon us but which I feel it is my duty to inflict upon the Committee, at any rate as to a portion of it, he will see that they say:
  "We think that the general principle should be that a successful applicant should always be given a reasonable allowance in respect of his expenses. This is intended to include travelling and subsistence expenses, expenses of the attendance of witnesses"—
  and that might be quite expensive if they are expert witnesses—
  "and allowance for loss of remunerative time, together with an allowance in respect of the cost of legal representation in cases where the tribunal is satisfied that legal representation was reasonable."
  They are saying that the general principle should be that a successful applicant should always be given these costs, and not, as is the present practice, that it should be restricted, as I can assure the noble and learned Viscount it is, to cases where the appeal is regarded as
  1100
  vexatious and frivolous—which is, of course, an allowance of costs against the applicant. I have never known of a case where costs have been allowed to the applicant.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I do not want us to be at cross-purposes. My understanding of paragraph 95 is that it relates to tribunals. That is the part of my speech in which I referred to it. I think that if the noble Lord looks at, for instance, the paragraph which I referred to in the 300s, he will find that it deals with inquiries; and the recommendations referred to in relation to inquiries are, for instance, Nos. 75, 76, 77 and so on, where they are not quite the same as in paragraph 95. I think that, to some extent, the noble Lord is being misled by my reference to paragraph 95, which I believe is limited to tribunals.
  LORD SILKIN: There is a reference in paragraph 95 to inquiries, but it is difficult to follow exactly what it means. However, I would pray those words in aid of the doctrine I am putting forward. If it is right that a successful applicant should get his costs, or some of them, when he appears before a tribunal, it seems to me quite illogical that he should not get them when he is successful in the much bigger matter of an inquiry. I do not think the Franks Committee intended to draw any distinction between the two.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I think the noble Lord will find that the inquiry he is dealing with is covered in paragraphs 321 and following; and although there is a certain similarity, I think he will find that what is said is sufficiently different to justify my drawing his attention to the fact that paragraph 95 was not really intended to deal with the kind of inquiry he had in mind.
  LORD SILKIN: I do not think the Committee will be interested in this private argument between us. Nobody, least of all the Government, would accept the doctrine that every word of a Departmental Committee Report is sacrosanct and has to be followed. I am appealing to the common sense of your Lordships, that if costs can be awarded, as the Committee obviously thought they should in cases that come before tribunals, then a fortiori they should be awarded in cases

  1101
  that are dealt with on inquiry. I see no difference between the two.
  The noble Viscount has told us that it is possible to do this. But the fact remains that it is hardly ever, if ever, done. In my experience, which is by now fairly lengthy, I have never known a case. As I told your Lordships on an earlier Amendment, I have had experience on behalf of a local authority, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, as a private citizen and professionally; and in spite of Section 290 of the Local Government Act, I have never known a case where a successful appellant has been awarded costs. What I was seeking to do by this Amendment was to obtain an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that they would refer this matter to the Council which is to be set up;and I hope they will. The noble and learned Viscount can give us that assurance. He has already gone near to it, without making it a definite assurance, as regards tribunals. If he will go one stage further, I think he will have gone a long way towards satisfying us.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Appeals from certain tribunals]:
  3.37 p.m.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
  "(2) If any party to any inquiry or hearing as specified in subsection (2) of section three of this Act is dissatisfied in point of law with the order of the appropriate authority made after consideration of the report of the inspector or other person conducting the inquiry or hearing thereof given on or after the appointed day he may according as rules of court may provide either appeal therefrom to the High Court or require the appropriate authority to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court."
  The noble Lord said: I plead for the assistance of the noble and learned Viscount: in this Amendment. Clause 8 says that if any party to proceedings before arty of the tribunals mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act
  "is dissatisfied in point of law with a decision of the tribunal given on or after the appointed day he may, according as rules of court may provide, either appeal therefrom to the High Court or require the tribunal to state and sign a case for the opinion of the High Court."
  The only thing I seek to achieve by this Amendment is that this right should also
  1102
  apply to the administrative procedures where the appropriate authority is empowered, after consideration of an inspector's report, to make a decision. If the noble Viscount tells me that there is that right to appeal on a point of law, I shall be quite satisfied. What puzzles me is that the right of appeal is specifically written out in the case of tribunals, but nothing is said in Clause 8 as regards the administrative procedures and the appropriate authorities, who are the Ministers, who have to give decisions after considering the reports of inspectors. In my view, the same right should be given in such cases to those who wish to challenge on a point of law as is given in the case of tribunals. If the noble Viscount can assure me that that is the case, I shall be quite content. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 44, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am grateful to the noble Lord, who, with his industry and perspicuity, has raised these points. If the answer seems technical it is because the subject is technical. The purpose of Clause 8 is to give a right of appeal from certain tribunals on a point of law where it is considered that a general right of appeal on any point of law is appropriate. As regards the other tribunals, speaking generally, the Franks Committee say this:
  "There remains the question of an appeal on law. It is difficult to see how any question of law could arise other than a question of jurisdiction or procedure. The present form of appeal, covering these two matters, seems to us adequate, particularly since the scope for bringing appeals on grounds of alleged procedural irregularity will be wider if the various recommendations which we have made for strengthening and improving the procedure are adopted, and, where appropriate, given statutory effect. This form of appeal should, however, be applied to decisions on planning appeals in the same way as it applies to decisions in other cases relating to land."
  Then there is a procedural point in which I do not think the Committee would be interested. The short point, therefore, is that a right of appeal in general already exists, either on the ground that the order in question—and again we are mainly considering matters affecting land—was ultra vires, or that the prescribed procedure had not been followed. The Committee said, and the Government agree, that it is difficult to see how any

  1103
  question of law could arise other than a question of jurisdiction or procedure. The Committee therefore thought, and again the Government agree, that the present form of appeal covering these two matters was adequate.
  As regards other inquiries (because your Lordships will remember that the Committee said they were confining themselves primarily to matters affecting land, although they thought in general the same general principles should apply to other inquiries), the position is that the Government have not considered how far, in every case, the recommendations of the Franks Report can be applied. The form of appeal which I have been discussing does not exist from planning decisions. The Franks Committee thought it should apply to planning decisions, and the Government will consider this in relation to any revision of the Planning Acts, and will note the Committee's Report in that respect. In view of this explanation, which I warned the Committee would be slightly technical, I hope the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
  LORD SILKIN: We have no knowledge of any proposed planning legislation. We have had no notice of it; there is nothing in sight, and I doubt whether the noble and learned Viscount and his friends will be in a position to introduce any new planning legislation in the near future. If they are in favour of extending the right of appeal to planning matters, why cannot it be introduced into this Bill? What the noble and learned Viscount is telling us, in effect, is: "Yes, we agree. We think it is right. We did not 'spot' it before. Now we do 'spot' it, we will put it off until the Greek Kalends. We will not do it now." It would be quite easy to do it now. It would not tax the ingenuity of Parliamentary draftsmen to make provision, not necessarily in the form in which my noble friend has moved this Amendment but in some suitable form, to extend the right of appeal in these cases. After all, they are the most important; they are the most numerous, and they are the matters which most widely affect the community. The noble and learned Viscount is saying "Just in those cases we will not at present have an appeal". Will he give an undertaking
  1104
  that between now and the Report stage he will at least consider this point, to see whether it is possible to put something into this Bill which will provide the right of appeal? If he does not, we must press this Amendment to a Division.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am quite sure my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would wish me to say that he will consider the noble Lord's argument, without giving any undertaking in relation to any result which will proceed from the consideration. I am bound to say that it seems to me the decision of the Government to relate planning appeals in this respect to revised planning legislation is probably the right one. The noble Lord's only reason for differing appears to be that he thinks the Government will not remain in office very long. If he is right, perhaps he will be in a position to implement this himself. I should have thought that either way this Amendment was unsuitable.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The noble and learned Viscount may think that, of course: it is one of those humorous interludes we have occasionally to suffer in this House. But it does not answer the point made by my noble friend. Our complaint about this Bill is that it ignores completely administrative procedures. It seeks to tidy up tribunals, which in our view require little tidying up; but the big thing that affects the life of the citizen to-day is the administrative procedure of the public inquiry, which this Bill ignores in that specific respect. May I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 406 of the Franks Committee Report? This is what it says:
  "We regard both tribunals and administrative procedures as essential to our society. But we hope that we have equally indicated our view that the administration should not use these methods of adjudication as convenient alternatives to the courts of law. We wish to emphasise that in deciding by whom adjudication involving the administration and the individual citizen should be carried out preference should be given to the ordinary courts of law rather than to a tribunal unless there are demonstrably special reasons which make a tribunal more appropriate, namely the need for cheapness, accessibility, freedom from technicality, expedition and expert knowledge of a particular subject. Similarly, preference should be given to a tribunal rather than to a Minister, and this requires that every effort should be made to express policy in the form of regulations capable of being administered by an independent tribunal.…"

  1105
  Then paragraph 407 says:
  "Where, in the light of these considerations, it is justifiable to establish a tribunal or to entrust adjudicating functions to a Minister we are convinced that an ultimate control in regard to matters of law should be exercised by the traditional courts…".
  That is the object of this Amendment, and if the Government intend to recognise this fact then I can only concur with what my noble friend says: "Put it in this Bill."
  Why deny the citizen, upon the whole bulk of these public inquiries and administrative tribunals, recourse to the courts of this land if it is right that he should have it'? The whole tenor of the Franks Committee Report, from beginning to end, is the courts rather than tribunals; tribunals rather than administrative inquiries. But where Ministers make decisions as the result of administrative procedures, questions of law can be decided only by the courts, and the Minister should not have the right to evade that issue. That is all this Amendment seeks to do. I hope the noble and learned Viscount will give us this undertaking, because we do not want to carry this to a Division. We want the arguments brought out so that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor can deal with these points after the Government have had the opportunity of considering them. If he will give us that assurance we shall be quite satisfied.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me to give an undertaking. I thought I had given him that undertaking in the terms in which he had been asking; and, if I am right in my assumption, every word that has just fallen from the noble Lord opposite was unnecessary, and I should be prepared, if it were worth while to detain the Committee, to say that it was also tendentious and misleading.
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: The only reason why it was necessary to say what I did say was because the noble Viscount's peroration, which he must occasionally give in this House, suggested that if the Government is changed within a certain time then my noble friend himself will be able to do it. That was not in the spirit in which the discussion has taken place.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The noble Lord must: allow me to say that that
  1106
  is not correct. The point arose from a suggestion from the other side which I am bound to say I took in good part. I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested that the Government would not be very long in office and therefore ought to act now. I could have answered that with what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, referred to as a "peroration". I chose not to do so; I chose to follow the "soft answer that turneth away wrath", and to say that in that case the noble Lord would be able to act himself.
  LORD SILKIN: In the light of that undertaking we will withdraw this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  3.54 p.m.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, after Clause 9 to insert the following new clause:
  Reasons for decision to be given in disputed cases
  "10. Subject to any procedural rules which may be prescribed after consultation with the Council, full reasons shall be given for any order or determination by a Minister, tribunal or other person (not being a court of record) to whom is entrusted by any Act, order or regulation the decision of a difference or dispute."
  The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to put in the Bill an obligation on a person giving a decision to give reasons for that decision. This follows a perfectly clear recommendation by the Franks Committee both as regards tribunals and inquiries, and I hope that it will commend itself to my noble and learned friend. There can be no doubt that it would be a great contribution to the openness, fairness and impartiality which we all want to see and which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has accepted. Of course, there are two good reasons why reasons should be given. The first is that it is the common man's conception of justice; if he is told why a decision is against him he understands it much better. Secondly, to give reasons is a good discipline for the person who has to give them; it tends to clearness of thought.
  I think it probable that the noble and learned Viscount in charge of the Bill

  1107
  may say that the intention is to do this by procedure. There was an indication of that in the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on Second Reading. I would venture to submit to the Committee that this principle of giving reasons is so important that it ought to be put into the Statute and should find a place there. The Amendment is similar to one which is on the Marshalled List a little later in the names of three noble Lords opposite, and I hope therefore that I shall receive support from that side of the House. I regret that my noble and learned friend Lord Denning is not here, because I am indebted to him for the drafting of this Amendment, and I had hoped to have his support, in particular to explain to those of your Lordships who do not know what a court of record is, what it is; but perhaps the noble and learned Viscount in his reply will help us. I should be sorry to be asked for a definition myself. I think that that is all I need say. It is entirely in the spirit of the Franks Report; it is in the spirit of the acceptance of that Report by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and I hope the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 9 insert the said new clause.—(Lard Balfour of Burleigh.)
  LORD HYLTON: I should like to support my noble friend on this point. It is clear in paragraph 328 of the Report that the Franks Committee attach considerable importance to this matter of publishing reasons. But even more important than that is the fact that it will be of the greatest assistance to the public. I believe, too, that there will be a great administrative advantage in the publishing of reasons, because it will tend to diminish the number of appeals that are made; for if the public and developers in general knew the reasons for ministerial decisions they would be on much firmer ground in accepting their further policy. At present when parties appear before the majority of planning inquiries, these inquiries are looked on as a lottery. On an average, I think it is true to say that about one in four appeals succeed. That being so, if it is a matter of considerable importance, most of the developers are prepared to have a "lucky dip," if the odds are no greater than one in four. But
  1108
  if the reasons are given in full by the inspectors, then I think the number of people who have to appeal in one way or another, at any rate in planning matters, would tend to diminish.
  The number of appeals is one of the great disadvantages of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The machine is so clogged with appeals that, first of all, they take much too much time, and, secondly, the issue continues to be in constant doubt, and on the one-to-four basis it is often worth while lodging an appeal. I believe that my noble friend's Amendment would be of the greatest benefit. That is reinforced by what the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, so forcefully said on Second Reading. I hope the noble and learned Viscount who is going to reply will be able to accept the spirit, if not the wording, of this Amendment.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: On a point of order. I do not know whether it would be convenient to the Committee to consider this Amendment, or the arguments for it, at the same time as the rather later Amendment on Clause 10 in the names of noble Lords opposite which really raises the same point, but in quite different draftsmanship. I would therefore, with the permission of the Committee, invite the noble Lord opposite to advance the reasons for his Amendment at the same time.
  LORD SILKIN: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount; that is exactly what I was going to suggest. Indeed, for the purpose of this debate I am more than willing to accept the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, in preference to my own; I think it is at least as well drafted. I believe this Amendment is one of great importance. In most cases the difficulty is not that the local authorities against whose decision the appeal is made do not give their reasons—they do; but they give reasons which are wholly inadequate. They say, for instance, that they are refusing an application because the development is inappropriate. That is all. They never say why it is inappropriate. Or they may say that the development would interfere with the amenity of a district. Sometimes one searches in vain for any amenity which would be affected. I know of a particular case where land adjoins an airfield and is,

  1109
  generally, in a very dilapidated area. An application for development was refused on the ground of interference with amenity, but by no stretch of the imaging, ton could any amenity be found there. Had that local authority tried to explain which amenity it was suggested would be interfered with, they might have cleared their own mind. If the local authority were under an obligation to consider in more detail the argument against an application they might allow it.
  I believe it is right to say (it is certainly so within my own experience) that when a Minister makes a decision he gives very full grounds, and I do not think any exception can be taken to the present practice of giving full grounds. The difficulty arises with the great many local authorities who consider it necessary to dismiss an application in the minimum number of words. A difficulty may arise with tribunals who hear cases and give a decision orally. I imagine that in most of those cases no possible question of appeal could arise; but I would suggest that where there is any question of an appeal there should be a requirement that the local authority should give their decision in writing, so that it will be on record. A person appearing before them would then have the opportunity of judging whether or not there is a possibility of an appeal. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that the odds in favour of an appeal are rather higher than his figure of 25 per cent. I believe that in my time they rose to 100 to 40—or 5 to 2 against; but I would say that the average is about 3 to 1 against.
  LORD HYLTON: Much water has flowed under the bridge since the noble Viscount was a Minister.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: In fact, 3 to 1 against is 25 per cent.
  LORD SILKIN: I beg your Lordships' pardon; it is 2 to 1. That is not really the point, however. I admit that there might be more appeals if local authorities were required to give their reasons more fully. On the other hand, their decisions might be better if they were under an obligation to think out exactly why they were refusing an application—and they might eventually decide that they were not justified in refusing. I hope that this Amendment can be accepted.
  1110
  It is definitely in the spirit of the Franks Report.
  EARL WINTERTON: I should like to support my two noble friends on this side of the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. As a landowner and as the County President of the Central Landowners' Association I attach great importance to this Amendment. I would describe the situation in this way: it would be in disaccord with the conception of British justice not to accept the spirit of this Amendment, if not the letter. All of us who are interested in this matter attach the greatest importance to the acceptance of the spirit, at any rate, of the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I agree with noble Lords who have described this as an important Amendment and I am quite sure that my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would wish me to say that we will consider it between now and the Report stage. I am sure that that would be in keeping with his wishes and I do give that undertaking. I do not think any of the Amendments will do, in their present form. Since the noble Lord who moved the first of these two Amendments was good enough to give the Committee the source of the draftsmanship of his Amendment—and I am very glad to see the noble and learned Lord, one of the most distinguished legal draftsmen in the country, in his place—I cannot refrain from saying that I believe it is the less appropriately drafted of the two proposed Amendments.
  I would further suggest to him that it would be very difficult to exclude from his Amendment all arbitrators—even those who are referees in a contract of appraisement. They are not courts of record and are very often there to settle a dispute or a difference. When they do so in accordance with the submission or contract of appraisement, it is very likely precisely because the matter is not one in which reasons for the decision can be given that they are selected for that purpose. The City arbitrator, for example, who decides on the quality of a shipment of corn, would find it very difficult to say anything except that the corn tastes nasty or smells wrong, or something of that kind. He would have difficulty in giving precise reasons for his decision as to the value of the corn. I mention that, not for the purpose of being pedantic or

  1111
  (much more enjoyable) of being able to criticise the draftsmanship of a Law Lord, but also because it has some bearing on the substance of the Amendment.
  Among these tribunals are some, such as the General Commissioners of Income Tax or the Rent Tribunal, who arrive at decisions very much on all fours with those of an arbitrator, and I should not like the Committee to have the idea that we think it is appropriate in all cases to give full reasons for decisions of all tribunals in the First Schedule to the Act. I am glad to see that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has now relieved me of the substantial responsibility for the Bill. Inasmuch as I have undertaken, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that these Amendments shall be considered by him between now and the Report stage, I hope that we need not press this argument in all its details at this stage.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has said. I should not have thought the drafting of this Amendment was quite as bad as he indicated, because after all it does begin:
  "subject to any procedural rule which may be prescribed"
  which I think gives it the necessary flexibility which the noble and learned Viscount seeks.
  VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: It refers it to the Council for better draftsmanship.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: do not follow the noble and learned Viscount. It gives the Council complete power to make such rules as they like, and that seems to me to cover the point. But in view of the reception which the noble and learned Viscount has given it and his promise to consider it, with the permission of the Committee I have pleasure in withdrawing this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10:
  Extension of supervisory powers of superior courts
  10.—(l) As respects England and Wales, any provision in an Act passed before the commencement of this Act that any order or determination shall not be called into question in any court, or any provision in such an Act which by similar words excludes any of the powers of the High Court, shall not have effect so as to prevent the removal of the
  1112
  proceedings into the High Court by order of certiorari or to prejudice the powers of the High Court to make orders of mandamus:
  Provided that this subsection shall not affect Part V of the County Courts Act, 1934 or section twenty-six of the British Nationality Act, 1948, or apply to courts of summary jurisdiction or quarter sessions or where an Act makes special provision for application to the High Court within a time limited by the Act.
  (2) As respects Scotland, any provision in an Act passed before the commencement of this Act that any order or determination shall not be called into question in any court, or any provision in such an Act which by similar words excludes any jurisdiction which the Court of Session would otherwise have to entertain an application for reduction or suspension of any order or determination, or otherwise to consider the validity of any order or determination, shall not have effect so as to prevent the exercise of any such jurisdiction:
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This seems to me merely a matter of drafting. I do not know why the Act should limit the operation to what is "passed before". My Amendment provides for operation whether before or after the commencement of the Act. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 11, leave out ("passed before") and insert ("whether passed before or after").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  4.10 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): May I first of all apologise to your Lordships for only just coming here? I was sitting judicially until four o'clock, so I hope that your Lordships will not think that I wasted much time between my two functions. In answer to this Amendment and the speech of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh, let me say that the difficulty about his Amendment is that its effect would be to state an attempt to bind future Parliaments and to prevent them from legislating so as to exclude certiorari and mandamus. We could not do that; it is constitutionally impossible, and his Amendment would have no effect. If my noble friend is worried about the secondary question, that a future enactment will have to use the clearest language in order to oust the jurisdiction of the court, I will assure him that that is already the position: the courts will not accept anything but the clearest expression of Parliament's intention. But on the general point the position is as I have stated: that we cannot bind future Parliaments,

  1113
  and it would be unfortunate to create the uncertainty of using words which could only have that effect and which have always been rejected previously.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: This Amendment follows the recommendation of the Franks Committee. I find the following statement in paragraph 117 of their Report:
  "Whatever may be decided as to the scope and method of appeals to the courts from tribunals we are convinced that the remedies by way of orders of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus should continue."
  Consequently I am moving to put in the word "prohibition", which seems to be required. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved·
  Page 9, line 17, after ("mandamus ") insert ("or prohibition: ").—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The difficulty I have with this Amendment is that, so far as I can discover, it is unnecessary, because there are no statutory provisions of the kind at which the clause is aimed which exclude prohibition. The provisions in question take the form of excluding challenge in the courts of any order or determination; that is, they operate after a decision has been reached. But prohibition is the appropriate method by which the High Court prevents an inferior court or tribunal from entertaining or continuing proceedings; that is, it operates before the decision is reached, and so is not affected. The clause is mainly concerned with certiorari; that is, the method by which the High Court removes a decision for the purpose of quashing it. More rarely, however, when the decision consists of a refusal to hear a case or to make the appropriate order, the proper remedy may be mandamus to hear and determine or to make the order. I should like to assure my noble friend that it is no desire to limit the sphere of activity in the courts which makes me take the view I have explained. If he would like to consult with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, between now and the Report stage, and if their united strength and ability can give any example
  1114
  which shows I may be wrong, I shall be very pleased to consider it. But at the moment the Amendment seems to me to be unnecessary.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend. I am only too conscious of being foolhardy in wading knee-deep in these technicalities, and I have no hesitation in withdrawing this Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH moved, in subsection (2), after "Scotland" to insert:
  "the Court of Session shall have the like power to remove proceedings into that court as the High Court in England, and".
  The noble Lord said: If I was foolish up to a point in wading knee deep in legal technicalities, I must be even more foolhardy in venturing upon this Amendment. We have so often been told in this House that the law of Scotland is superior to the law of England, which I am very glad to believe is the case. Having come across an instance in which it seems that the law of Scotland is not quite so favourable as the law of England, in my innocence and foolhardiness I am seeking to give Scotland the benefit of the English position. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 23, after ("Scotland") insert ("the Court of Session shall have the like power to remove proceedings into that court as the High Court in England, and"),—(Lord Balfour of Burleigh.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree with my noble friend that probably nothing more rash has been done in the history of our common country since his late Majesty King Charles I provoked the Bishops' Wars in 1639. But as my noble friend has invoked the law of Scotland I should like to put the position as I see it, because once again I am anxious that I should not only meet my noble friend's Amendment but also consider some observations of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning on Second Reading, which I found very interesting at the time. The purpose of the Amendment, of course, is to import into the procedure in Scottish courts a procedure which applies at present only in England and Wales. The difficulty is that the Amendment assumes that judges and lawyers in Scotland have knowledge of the powers of the High

  1115
  Court in England in relation to certiorari, a knowledge which, since the foundation of the Court of Session by James V himself, we have found unnecessary.
  In the Second Reading debate my noble and learned friend Lord Denning raised the suggestion—I hope not to put it too highly, because I know that my noble and learned friend is most scrupulous in regard to the comity of the courts of the two countries—that Clause 10 ought to introduce into Scottish procedures the ideas of certiorari and mandamus. As my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh has indicated before, this was also suggested by the Franks Committee, in paragraph 110 of their Report. The reason why we have not followed this suggestion is that, so far as errors of law are concerned, the stated case provided for in Clause 10 (2) is no novelty in Scottish procedure and is a more suitable method of bringing a tribunal's determination under review; while on the other side, so far as want of jurisdiction and other fundamental defects are concerned, the well-known procedure by application to the Court of Session for reduction or suspension of the determination is perfectly adequate. Where provision for a stated case is needed, and is not already made, it is now made by Clause 8. Where there has hitherto been a bar to procedure by way of reduction or suspension, it is removed by subsection (2) of Clause 10.
  There was another point which my noble and learned friend Lord Denning raised on Second Reading, and I mention it to show him that I have considered it and to give him the opportunity of considering my approach and, if necessary, seeing me or raising the matter on the Report stage. But as I understood it, in his speech [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 208 (No. 52), col. 603] my noble and learned friend was referring to the determination of the Industrial Disputes Tribunal in a dispute originating in Paisley; and he stated that the employers, who were aggrieved by the determination, could not have it reviewed in Edinburgh and had to bring it to London. I think that was the case—The Queen v. Industrial Disputes Tribunal and others, ex parte Kigass—which my noble and learned friend had in mind. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, Lord
  1116
  Goddard, said, in his judgment in that case—and I quote his words:
  "The Court heard counsel and considered yesterday the question as to whether it would be right for this Court to deal with the matter or whether it ought to have gone to the Court of Session. We came to the conclusion that although it would be no doubt within the competence of the Court of Session to hear the case, as the Company had their registered office in this country and the Tribunal sat in, this country, there would be no objection on a point of law or point of comity in this Court hearing and determining this motion. At the same time, speaking entirely for myself, I cannot help thinking that it would be much better where the whole subject matter of the dispute had arisen in Scotland that the proceedings should be taken in the Scottish Courts and not the English Courts but, as I have said, we hold that there is no objection to our going into the matter and, from the point of view of comity, there is no objection to our doing so."
  Apart from whatever confirmation that judgment of my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard holds, my right honourable friend the Lord Advocate, who was also consulted in this matter, considers that the Court of Session probably would have jurisdiction and my learned friend the Dean of Faculty of the Scottish Bar has expressed a similar view. Therefore any doubt lay in the venue of the tribunal, which was in England, rather than in the lack of powers in the Scottish Courts. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me for enlarging on this matter, but I have the greatest respect for the views of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, and I was anxious to show him that I had considered the matter; and I hope that I have done so. I hope also that I have shown my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh the reasons why I should not like him to provoke a Jurists' War, as King Charles I provoked a Bishops' War.
  LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend. I feel that he has extricated me from an embarrassing position. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  LORD SILKIN moved to add to the clause:
  "(3) Where any tribunal specified in the First Schedule to this Act is empowered to make any order or determination or where an appropriate authority is empowered by statute to make or confirm any order or determination which interferes with or takes away legal rights enjoyed by any person the tribunal

  1117
  or appropriate authority as the case may be shall state the grounds upon which the order or determination is made."
  The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment for two reasons. One is that I should be grateful if I could have an assurance similar to the one which was given on Amendment No. 12, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, that this matter will be considered. Secondly, I should like to point to a distinction between the two Amendments, although both are moved for the same purpose—namely, to ensure that reasons are given. In the case of the noble Lord's Amendment, there is a precondition that this matter should come before the Council, whereas I see no reason why it should be necessary for it to come before the Council. I think that this is a matter which could be dealt with directly in the Bill and should be made obligatory without any reference to the Council. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will give the undertaking that he will look at both Amendments and, in particular, will consider the last point I have made.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 9, line 36, at end insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very ready to give the undertaking that I will consider the noble Lord's Amendment. I should like to look closely at his second point, which I have not had a chance of considering, as unfortunately I missed the debate on the last Amendment. I assure the noble Lord that I will give the Amendment the full consideration which it deserves, because it is designed to carry out something which we are all anxious to see done if it can possibly be achieved.
  LORD SILKIN: I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount, and in view of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
  House resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

  INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT, 1948 (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
  GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  TYNE IMPROVEMENT BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  OXFORD SOUTHERN BY-PASS AND SANDFORD LINK ROADS
  OXFORD SOUTHERN BY-PASS AND SANDFORD LINK ROADS