Skip to main content

Clause 7—(Amendment Of S 14 Of Principal Act)

Volume 531: debated on Wednesday 27 October 1954

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 13, to leave out "their," and to insert:

"considerations of hygiene and in particular to the."
It will perhaps be convenient to the Committee to take this and the Amendment in the following line together. The second is merely a drafting Amendment and I can, therefore, devote my remarks to the first one.

This is the first time I have spoken in these Committee discussions, and I must make it clear that I have an interest. Anyone who has the responsibility for preparing or distributing food must be very keenly interested in this Bill which, I am quite sure, will go a long way towards improving conditions where improvement is badly needed.

Clause 7 seeks to amend Section 14 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. That Section provides for the registration of premises in connection with
"the preparation or manufacture of sausages or potted, pressed, pickled or preserved food …"
Here I should say that the present Bill later seeks to expand the range of products and processes to which the principle of legislation shall apply. Although I should be out of order were I to refer to the particular Clause, I think that we should bear that fact in mind. Clause 7 (3) of the present Bill gives local authorities power to revise or repeal a registration if it appears
"that the premises or any part of the premises are otherwise unsuitable (having regard to their situation, construction or condition, or to any activities carried on therein)…"
It is to the words "situation, construction or condition" that I wish to direct the Committee's attention. As the Clause is drawn at present, their application, unless qualified by some such words as those which I have used in this Amendment, could be very wide indeed.

Perhaps I could give one or two rather crude examples of what I have in mind. Suppose that one takes the consideration of "situation." It might be possible to exclude from registration premises which are situated, for instance, among a number of shops or factories which might be considered to be redundant; or, if one takes the consideration of "construction," it might be possible to exclude a shop because the shop front was not properly constructed.

I do not want to discuss the principle of restriction of either factories or of shops, but I want to point out that the considerations that I have, perhaps crudely, just described are covered by other statutes and regulations, and I think I am right in suggesting that it is not the intention of this Bill to deal with those redundancies or questions of that kind in that way.

The question that this Amendment raises was discussed at considerable length in another place, and there is no doubt that it was felt that the intention of the Bill was to relate the question of registration purely and simply to the question of public hygiene. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment so that the Minister may make clear that that is the intention of the Bill, and I hope that he will he able to meet us by accepting this Amendment.

If the Amendment is accepted, I think the Clause will still be wide enough even in relation to situation and such matters, because obviously it might be not in the interests of public hygiene if a shop or a factory were situated close to another factory conducting an offensive trade giving rise to dust or attracting flies; so that the Clause would be wide enough, even if it were qualified by the words that I have suggested.

My hon. Friend has expressed what is our intention, and, in order to remove all possibility of doubt, I gladly accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 14, after "condition," insert "of the premises"—[ Mr. W. R. A. Hudson.]

I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, to leave out "shall," and to insert "may."

As the law is worded, when a local authority, discovering what it believes to be a breach of the regulations, desires to take preliminary, friendly, advisory or warning action, it is obliged to issue a notice to the occupier inviting him to appear to show cause why his registration should not be cancelled. Local authorities have been much too sensible to observe the law in this respect, and it is proposed to enable local authorities to act where they regard the infringement as something not calling for a warning that the registration might be cancelled but for a warning enabling the securing of better behaviour. This does not preclude the procedure to be followed where a local authority does decide to seek to terminate a registration.

8.45 p.m.

If the Clause is now to be permissive instead of mandatory, will it mean that when consideration of these matters takes place the persons involved need not be present? As the Clause stands, the authority must serve the notice. That is why the word "shall" is used. The Amendment will completely alter the effect of the provision and may impose an injustice upon the persons concerned. Some very serious matter may be involved, and serious consequences might follow the proposed Amendment if the authority were enabled to decide upon the matter in the absence and to the prejudice of the person concerned.

We were alive to that point. If the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) will look at Section 14 (4) of the 1938 Act. he will see that it says:

"If a person on whom a notice is served under the last preceding subsection…"
There cannot be the kind of action which the hon. and learned Member has in mind unless a notice has been served. I shall certainly look at the matter again, but we are advised that Section 14 (4) covers this point.

If it is covered, that is all right, but under the Clause as it is proposed to be altered that would not be the case.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 20, to leave out "fourteen," and to insert "twenty-one."

I think that this and the other Amendment in line 20 can be taken together.

This is a very small point. I notice that the hon. Member for Sunderland North (Mr. F. Wiley) is asking for even more than I am. I do not mind which Amendment is accepted. The object is to extend the time. Under the Clause as it stands at present the occupier of premises covered by the Bill has to apply to be registered or, if he is registered, has to renew his application for registration, and if the local authority is not satisfied with certain conditions it can serve a notice upon him that it intends to cancel the registration or to refuse it.

What is required is a little more time after receipt of the notice in order that the applicant can properly consider the case before him, get his facts together, consult his legal advisers if necessary, arrange to make any requisite alteration, and carry out work or negotiate with his landlord about structural alterations, so that he may be allowed to continue his business in those premises. That is the sole object of increasing the time from 14 days to 21 days. I should, of course, be quite prepared to accept a period of 28 days if the Government felt that the other Amendment was more acceptable to them.

I am not aware of all the processes of Parliamentary procedure. I believe that we put down our Amendment before we saw the one in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan). I anticipate that the Government will accept his Amendment. I should explain that we put down our Amendment after representations had been made by the Food Hygiene Liaison Committee. I think it has a case for extending the period, and that a period of 21 days is probably the right one.

The original Act provided for one week; the Bill as it now stands provides for two; my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) proposes that it should be extended to three, and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) has suggested four. I suggest that we should adopt a period of three weeks. We want to afford ample time in this matter. I assure the Committee that I have not merely tossed up to see which Amendment should be accepted; I believe that a period of three weeks is the most sensible.

I am prepared to accept three weeks, but I should like to point out, in view of what has just been said, that one of the reasons I thought 28 days would be more suitable was that the trader who got into difficulties in this connection would have time to put things right without consulting lawyers. I think that the more we can keep the lawyers out of this business the better.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 8, line 26, at the end, to insert:

(4) For subsection (7) of the said section fourteen there shall be substituted the following subsections:
"(7) Nothing in this section shall be taken as requiring the registration thereunder of premises used wholly or mainly—
  • (a) as catering premises, or
  • (b) as a school or club;
  • and paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section shall not apply in relation to the sale or storage of ice cream at any premises used as a theatre, cinematographic theatre, music hall or concert hall.
    (7A) In this Act the expression "catering premises" means premises where, in the course of a business, food is prepared and supplied for immediate consumption on the premises."
    If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) agrees, it may be as well here to deal with the general issue of the proposal not to take powers to apply registration to catering premises, and in general terms the question of the alternative disqualification procedure proposed. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I explained what is in the Government's mind in commending this change so that there can be a general debate and we can save time on the various other Amendments dealing with this matter.

    I think it would meet the convenience of the Committee, if,having heard the Parliamentary Secretary move the Amendment, I were to move the Amendment we have down to the Amendment. We could have the discussion on that.

    Section 14 of the principal Act empowers the extension by order of the requirement to register with the local authority. Our Amendment proposes to exclude from that proposed extension the power to register catering premises. We have looked at this matter again since the draft was put down. The hon. Gentleman may chide us with change, but this is a case of second thoughts, for reasons that I shall give to the Committee.

    What is the purpose of registration? In part, it is to give the local authority knowledge of the various kinds of establishments to be registered. Secondly—and this is an important sanction lying behind the registration—it is to make it possible to terminate registration subject to appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. That probably is the most important element in registration—the position of the local authority in being able, subject to that appeal, to bring it to an end. I want to deal with the difficulties that confront us. Thirdly, in regard to new premises, it is to insist on the observation of the regulations before actually registering the premises.

    This involves a good deal of work by the local authorities. I do not want to exaggerate it, but it involves a good deal of work in maintaining such registers and keeping them up to date. If we accept that the most important thing is for it to be possible for the registration to be brought to an end—and that threat or sanction is an important factor in ensuring conformity with the regulations—the first question that arises is this. Should it be possible for the local authority to terminate the registration, even with an appeal to the courts, without a prosecution? A local authority confronted with breaches of the regulations is able to take the matter to the court and to seek a conviction and a penalty.

    Should it be possible for a local authority, not having taken the decision to prosecute, to seek, subject to an appeal to the courts, to bring the registration to an end? Bearing in mind that the local authority is in a position to prosecute if it discovers breaches of the regulations, we reached the conclusion that it would not be right or fair to enable anybody to bring the registration to an end except after a successful prosecution.

    If that point is accepted, it brings us to the stage that the local authority as such should not be in a position, even though it be recognised that there is an appeal to the court, to take this important step of bringing the registration to an end except where a conviction has been obtained. This carries us to the second point, that if such action were to be taken only after a successful conviction, then it should be the court which is enabled in certain circumstances to add to the penalty by bringing the registration to an end.

    When we reached those conclusions it soon became apparent that the real sanction could be achieved without the procedure and the form-filling burden on local authorities and on owners of catering premises of the registration procedure. We felt that the important element did not depend on registration and that it was desirable that it should not be in the hands of the local authority but in the hands of the court, and that led us to the conclusion that it would be far better to establish a disqualification procedure after conviction and only after conviction but not necessarily after conviction, to make it possible for the courts to take the important and in some cases devastating step of disqualifying the caterer from conducting his business in those premises.

    When we come to the new Clause perhaps we may look in greater detail at the procedure involved, but for the moment the proposal is that the courts shall have power to disqualify after conviction. This means, in our view, that the registration of this kind of premises is unnecessary.

    I admit straight away that the position is not quite as strong in relation to the registration of new premises. In those cases, the local authority, being in a position to say "No," can secure observance of the regulations, but, at the same time, we reached the conclusion that a local authority ought not to be in a position to say "No" unless the offence or the potential offence is one which leads to a breach of the regulations and so to a prosecution.

    The right of entry remains, the regulations remain, the opportunity to prosecute remains. Indeed, it can be argued that this disqualification procedure is more formidable and more frightening than a termination of registration by the local authority. I will give one ground for saying that. When a local authority brings a registration to an end, it usually does so in private. If a local authority is considering such a step it will take care to do so in private. If, on the other hand, following conviction, the local authority proposes to ask the courts to bring the registration to an end, the matter is fought out in public and publicity attends the attempt to bring disqualification. This procedure brings greater publicity than might obtain under the registration procedure.

    I do not stress that point too much, but I want to remind the Committee that the new procedure leaves the same sanction and, in a way, it bares that sanction for all to see. The important difference is that it comes into operation only when there has been a prosecution and only at the instance of the court. It does all that we need without the very considerable burden of form-filling, the maintenance of registrations and the like.

    We want to deal with catering premises which are of a low standard. We want there to be power residing to bring these practices to an end, even if that means bringing the business to an end. But we want to ensure that the breaches of the regulations which are antecedent have been the subject of successful prosecution —that the case is proved—and the decision is made on the application of the local authority by the courts. In short, we believe that this is a better method and one which saves a great deal of work and administration yet achieves the purpose we all have in mind.

    9.0 p.m.

    I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "(a) as catering premises, or."

    I am sorry to say this to the Parliamentary Secretary, but he has ignored the appeal made by his right hon. Friend to expedite the proceedings of the Committee. He has wasted our time. He has not addressed his mind at all to the point which is before us.

    What the Government are doing by this Clause is to extend registration to other food trade businesses than those at present provided for in Section 14. The whole burden of the Parliamentary Secretary's argument is that he has found a better procedure than registration. Then why impose registration upon all those other trades when he has found something more definite? It is quite obvious that the Parliamentary Secretary knows that this is a sell-out. It is no good attacking registration at large, because the whole purpose of this Clause is to extend registration. The first protest which I make is that this is an abuse of Parliamentary proceedings—an absolute abuse.

    This is the main purpose of the Bill. It was nearly 12 months ago when this Bill was introduced in another place, and the first time we heard of this proposal was a hint given in the Second Reading speech, just before the summer Recess. I described the Parliamentary Secretary on Second Reading as the midwife, and I said that this Bill had very respectable parentage. I do not know if midwives are mischievous, but I have often suspected that in a nursing home some mischievous midwife might change the babies. The Parliamentary Secretary has done something far worse than that. Here is a child born last November, and before our own eyes he has emasculated the infant.

    Let me remind the Committee that it was on Second Reading that I called the attention of the House to how disturbed I was, not only by what he said, but by the way in which he said it—the shifty sort of way in which he looked over his shoulder when he was saying it. I see that he is blushing now at the thought of it, and I hope that he will not contradict me because the whole Committee sees him blushing.

    In view of his record, the hon. Gentleman knows that this is a preposterous sell-out. What did Lord Woolton say in another place when we had the Second Reading of this Bill? He said that the Bill also proposed that the present powers of registration of premises—

    I understand that we can quote from a statement made in another place when it is Government policy. It is on a point of Government policy that I wish to make this reference to a speech in another place. This was an expression of Government policy.

    Lord Woolton said that the Bill also proposed that the present powers of registration of premises, which covers only ice-cream, sausages and certain preserved foods, should be extended to premises where food is handled or stored. There was no Amendment and no hint as the Bill went through another place to suggest that we were to have this sellout on clean food. No one from the Government back benches has moved an Amendment suggesting this. We know the views of the National Caterers' Federation about registration, but one has only to read the Federation's representations to agree at once that it conceded that it would accept registration.

    The Minister looks rather surprised. I will read from the document. The Federation said that in the case of an existing business, registration should be "as of right." Is that not accepting registration? The Federation went on to say that the principle of registration could only be effective if extended to catering trade workers. My point is that however reluctant the Federation might have been, it was accepting registration. I challenge the Government to produce the representations that have been made to them. We are not going to have legislation decided behind closed doors as some unholy compact with a section of the trade.

    The principal Act provided for the registration of ice-cream makers and the meat manufacturing industry. The Parliamentary Secretary must be the last person to suggest that that principle has not worked effectively. I could quote the report of our own medical officer of health in Sunderland, but all Members of the Committee know that the reports of all medical officers of health show that ice-cream premises have been considerably improved. There is no difficulty about taking people to court, because there is the procedure of registration. Every hon. Member knows equally well that the report of almost every medical officer of health complains of catering establishments.

    This Bill originated from the Catering Working Party's Report; that was how we began to think of a Bill to improve the provisions of the 1938 Act. The first recommendation of the Catering Working Party, a body representative of all sections of the trade, was that:
    "All catering establishments should be required to register with the appropriate local authority."
    Why does the Parliamentary Secretary not have the courage to say that he disagrees with all those who examined this problem, those in the trade as well as those in the professions represented on the working party? Why does he not say that what he is representing is that his genius outshone all those who spent a considerable time working upon the problem and who made that first recommendation that all catering establishments should be required to register with the appropriate local authority? Does the hon. Gentleman deny that that was the origin and purpose of the Bill?

    There is a little more to it, however, than that. The working party said:
    " Representatives of associations of local authorities and of their officers who gave evidence before us"—
    with all of whom the Parliamentary Secretary now disagrees—
    " stressed the necessity for the registration of catering establishments. This view is not shared by representatives of the catering industry, who, as a whole, are opposed to registration. Some members of the Working Party support the view of the industry but, after very careful consideration and subject to what is said in paragraph 36 and in Part B of Appendix II "—
    that is the view of representatives of the catering industry on the working party—
    " they accept the conclusion that registration of the premises of catering establishments by the local authority is an essential administrative prerequisite of any real effort to improve hygienic conditions."
    What a disgrace that the Parliamentary Secretary should let those people down.

    The members of the industry had been opposed to registration but now they say: "We, the representatives of the industry and the spokesmen for it, having considered with our fellows of the working party the whole aspect of this problem, have come to the conclusion that registration of catering establishments by the local authority is an essential administrative prerequisite to any real effort to improve hygienic conditions." But what is the Parliamentary Secretary doing tonight? He is stopping any real effort to improve hygienic conditions, and he knows that as well as anybody else.

    The differences which arose in the working party were about the form of registration. I want to make it clear that this was a unanimous report recommending registration, unanimous not only from the professional representatives but also from those in the catering industry. This is the unanimous recommendation which the Parliamentary Secretary, in a flippant speech, has asked us to throw overboard.

    If we turn to the appendix referred to we find that the majority report, which was signed by every member of the working party who was not associated with the catering trade and some who were associated with it, recommended that the public ought not to be exposed to the risks which might be involved in the use of unsuitable premises for new catering establishments. Therefore they recommended that registration should be provided for, and that the system under Section 14 of the principal Act should be applied to catering establishments.

    Those who produced the minority report made it quite clear that they were recommending registration but what they said was—and I quote their words exactly so that I do them no injustice:
    "While we have accepted with some reluctance that registration should be advocated as part of the administrative machinery to improve hygienic conditions in catering, we are of opinion that the legal form it should take should be "—
    as they recommend, but that those who had premises at present open should have registration as of right. If the Minister decided to accept the minority view he could still have done so under the powers provided by the Bill, but he wanted an escape.

    Shall I be quite frank with the Parliamentary Secretary? After all, no one is asking him or his Minister to undertake registration. What we are asking for is that they should be given registration powers. The Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that if there is legislation giving him the power public opinion will compel him to undertake registration in one form and another. But in a cowardly way he is trying to escape that responsibility. He knows that if the power remains in the Bill then, of course, the medical officers of health, the sanitary inspectors, the B.M.A. and other professional bodies and everyone interested in food hygiene will ask the Minister of Food to proceed with the registration of catering establishments.

    The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware that every local government association will ask him to proceed with registration. I would concede at once that many Conservative local authorities will be as adamant about registration as Labour authorities. It was my experience at the Ministry of Food that there were many Conservative authorities keenly interested in this matter and who pressed for the registration of catering establishments.

    9.15 p.m.

    What hypocrisy, to come down to the Committee and say, "Oh dear, we must save the local authorities this work they would have if all this were the subject of police court prosecutions," when the whole history of registration shows that there could not have been a finer piece of administration. Prosecutions have been avoided because of the friendly liaison between the local authorities and, for instance, those in the ice-cream industry.

    So this is the position: everybody, including the spokesmen of the catering industry, has asked for the registration of the catering establishments. The Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that if the power were in this Bill—as it will be if he does not get away with this Amendment—he would have to accept in the most suitable form the registration of catering premises. That is why I ask again, who has made the representations? Why should we run away because of the dirty food lobby, for that is what it is.

    There is no one of any repute in the catering industry who is afraid of registration. Most of the big people, most of the small people, with decent establishments are anxious to have registration because they do not like the unfair competition of those with dirty kitchens. It is not fair. People who set standards ought to be protected. I hope, therefore, that the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that this is not playing the game with the Committee, it is not playing the game with the public, and it is a cowardly retreat. It is a deliberate attempt to prevent the Bill achieving the very purpose for which it was introduced.

    As I say, in another place the noble Lord. Lord Woolton never gave a hint of this; we only got this when the Ministry ran into difficulties with the regulations. Well, we have put the regulations right. I will concede that we have strengthened the arm of the Parliamentary Secretary. But what a cowardly thing to ask to be in the position in which he can say, "Unfortunately, owing to a decision of the House of Commons, I cannot register." This is the biggest retreat and the most cowardly retreat which we have had in the field of food hygiene for as long as I can remember. The Minister is new to his Department. I beg him to give us an assurance that between now and the Report stage he will think again.

    if anything were needed to persuade me that my hon. Friend is right in the proposal that he has made to the Committee, it is the speech to which we have just listened. Obviously the hon. Gentleman is bitterly opposed to the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend—

    —yet, in all his speech there was not one word which, by any stretch of the imagination, could be taken as showing what could be done by registration which could not be done by the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend.

    Let us go back to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend at the commencement of his introduction of this Amendment. There are two purposes for which registration is necessary, and there can be only two purposes as far as I can see. The one is that the local authority and their officers may have a complete list in the office of premises which carry on a business of a certain type, so that they may know where they have to go and look for dirty food. If the argument of the Opposition is that a good sanitary inspector does not know where catering premises exist, without being told, there might be something in it. But can they really say that they do not believe that sanitary inspectors know where the cafés and restaurants are? The truth is that every good sanitary inspector knows, and hon. Members opposite know that he knows, every catering premises in his area.

    The only other reason there can possibly be for registration is to give the local authority power to strike off the register, as one means of closing the premises. I suspect, and I think that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will agree that I am right, that it is for that purpose that hon. Members opposite want registration—not that sanitary inspectors may be told where the restaurants are, but that the sanitary inspectors and their committees may strike premises off the register.

    If the hon. Member asks me for my reply, I ask him first of all to deal with my essential point—that the Clause extends registration to all premises except catering premises. The reason local authorities want registration is simply that if premises are registered the local authority has the responsibility for saying that they are decent premises.

    Does the hon. Member want any warrant of authority for the local authority greater than is contained in the Public Health Acts, the Food and Drugs Act and all the regulations under them? When armed with the regulations which are to be made under the Bill, with the powers of entry to all premises in his area which he possesses, and with his powers under the Public Health Acts, the sanitary inspector has ample warrant for making it his business to see that food premises are clean. All that the party opposite want registration for is to enable local committees of local authorities, it may be sitting in private, as advised by their officials, to have the right to close businesses by which peaple earn their living.

    The only part of the argument of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North which attracted me was that part in which he asked why, if one is not going to register restaurants and cafés, one should register the greater part of shops which are not now registered. I can visualise a line which I commend to my right hon. Friend. On one side of it would be people who sell retail and run establishments which the public can visit. On the other side would be manufacturing premises in which it would be possible to manufacture in a back-room and no one could see what business was being carried on.

    I should have preferred to see that cleanliness in manufacturing premises was enforced by registration and striking off the register, because I know of cases where it would have been impossible for a sanitary inspector, except by accident, to discover that manufacturing was going on in a back-room. But where the public are invited to enter and to eat or buy, I would prefer to see cleanliness enforced in the way in which we are accustomed to see it enforced—by the courts. Let us look at what registration would involve if the party opposite have their way. It would mean that every hotel and every boarding house—

    There is no compulsion to have every hotel or every boarding house registered. It is quite possible for the regulations to specify, exactly as the Catering Wages Board specifies, what is to be called a boarding house. That Board defines it as a place of more than four bedrooms or taking more than eight guests. It is possible for the proposed regulations to specify something like that, or something bigger.

    If there were any merit in the hon. Gentleman's argument, I would have appreciated it the more if an Amendment to give effect to it had appeared on the Order Paper; but I saw no Amendment down from the party opposite suggesting that the Minister's powers to make regulations regarding catering establishments should be limited to establishments of any particular size. In the absence of any such Amendment, I assume that it would be their desire to make all catering establishments register, and I am entitled to make that assumption. If so, it means that we shall be giving power to the Minister to compel every hotel, restaurant, café or cottage on the moors or by the sea which supplies tea to register.

    For my part, whatever hon. Members opposite think, I regard it as my duty to see that Ministers are given bureaucratic powers to do by regulation only that which is necessary, and, when they come to the House to ask for more, I shall oppose them. To compel establishments of that sort of scale to register, and to compel local authorities, particularly in those areas which are popular resorts, to keep the large registers which would be required, would be a large bureaucratic task which would not be worth while unless there was some real purpose in it.

    From where has my right hon. Friend obtained his precedent? It comes from a very respectable place—the Road Traffic Act, 1930, an Act of Parliament which was put upon the Statute Book by the predecessors of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now sitting opposite. In that day, they were prepared to trust, as they were during their more recent term of office, the magistrates to disqualify the drunken driver—

    We register the drivers as well, but we do not give effective power to disqualify the driver to the registration authority, but to a court of law.

    If there are two alternative methods of shutting down premises and preventing people earning their living in the way of their choice, I much prefer that which puts the matter in the hands of a court of law, and that is the basis of my support for my hon. Friend's contention, and that is why I am so strongly opposed to what was said by the hon. Gentleman opposite.

    I think the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) must himself be conscious of being in a bit of trouble about this. I have rarely heard a more preposterous argument than that about disqualifying drivers under the Road Traffic Act, which has no connection with the subject we are discussing today. I should have thought that if the hon. Gentleman was driven to that, there must be something very wrong somewhere.

    The trouble with the hon. Member and with the Parliamentary Secretary is that there is a unanimous Report of this Working Party recommending that all catering establishments should be registered. It is difficult, after that, to suggest that this is pure bureaucracy, that it is unworkable, that there is no reason for it or that it is sufficiently provided for by existing legislation. If the hon. Gentleman had looked at the Report, he would have found out that there had been an exceedingly thorough survey of two things —first of all, existing legislation, and, secondly, the abuses which are there in spite of existing legislation.

    It is in the light of that survey, and in order to remedy those abuses that the Working Party made this recommendation that all catering establishments should be registered. If that had happened—and that recommendation is the keystone of it—would there ever have been this Bill? It requires some very considerable defence when this sort of thing comes in at the very last moment.

    9.30 p.m.

    What struck me about the Parliamentary Secretary's speech, in addition to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey), was that this is really a provision about premises, and whether they are suitable or unsuitable. The whole speech of the Parliamentary Secretary treated it as though it were a matter of some personal offence and was solely concerned with a breach of the regulations. The essential difference between what is not to apply to catering establishments by virtue of the proposed Amendment, and what is to apply to them by virtue of the new Clause to which we are coming is that the proposed new Clause is an offence Clause.

    What is sought to be omitted is partly concerned with offences and partly with the condition of premises. I should have thought that Government supporters, who do at intervals talk about decentralisation, the virtues of local government, the freedom of local authorities and the rest of it, might have begun to say that the condition of catering premises was bound to be a matter of acute concern to any conscientious local authority.

    To suggest that a matter of that sort must first be dealt with by a number of individual prosecutions seems a sneer in the face of local government as it is conducted in this country. I would not have attributed it to the party opposite, even in its most foolish moods, and I cannot understand how a serious political party can support that attitude. What do they think local authorities are for? They may say, "You do not need any powers. The sanitary inspector "—burdened as he is with the new provisions of the Housing, Repairs and Rents Act, which are quite enough to kill him—" is supposed to know by sheer intuition what conditions are in all the catering establishments in his district." I do not pretend but that sanitary inspectors are highly competent people, but it is the first time I have heard it said that it is not necessary to give information to the local authority because its sanitary inspector, or whoever it may be, would know it by intuition. If we are to legislate on the intuition and all-pervading knowledge of local authorities and their inspectors, half the legislation which has proved necessary in theory as well as practice would never be on the Statute Book at all.

    If local authorities are to have responsibility they must be provided with knowledge. What is being suggested now is taking away from local authorities the general supervision, control and knowledge about the premises that would be provided by registration. It is to be done with a sniff and a sneer that it involves a lot of forms. It involves something more, the right of elected authorities in this country to see that their citizens have clean food. In catering they have the right to prevent little hole-and-corner establishments starting up without registration. It involves their right to see that existing establishments are not allowed to fall into a condition where they cannot tolerate their existence. To claim that this kind of thing can be dealt with by a number of individual prosecutions is unreal and grossly dishonest.

    The Parliamentary Secretary told us rather by a side wind, in one of those whispers over his shoulder, that there is already an appeal to the police court. Do Government supporters want every one of these cases to be adjudicated upon in court? Do they deny the right of the local authority to make what is in these circumstances a decision in the first instance? Are they so fascinated by the intricacies and expenses of the law that they can only have it done by a court?

    I think that this is one of the most disgraceful incidents in the somewhat disgraceful history of the party opposite. We have seen this sort of thing time and time again. Even in a Bill like this where one would have thought that there was enough common purpose to avoid it, and where, on both sides, we have been expressing our devotion to clean food and the right of the individual, the party opposite have contrived so to handle the matter that they sell out to part of the catering trade and then decide to do it in such a clumsy way that it is obvious to everyone that they are doing so. They might try to show a little more honesty. a little more public responsibility, and a little more astuteness on how to sell out to a vested interest.

    I think that the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has made one good contribution and one bad contribution. His good contribution, it seems to me, has been in putting in front of the Committee once again what my hon. Friend said from this side, that there are really two issues in this case; first, the issue of how effective the new arrangement is going to be, and, second, the position of the courts in relation to administration of the regulations by 2,000 or more local authorities.

    On the first point, there seems to he a great difference of opinion among hon. Members opposite as to whether or not all catering establishments or only the bigger ones should be registered under this Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering insisted that it should be all catering establishments regardless of their size. Another hon. Member opposite said that it should be only catering establishments of a certain size.

    I think that we on this side of the Committee are entitled to ask the question which I asked on Second Reading, which is that if we are going to have dirty food and are going to poison people. are we really being realistic in making, any differentiation in size? Admittedly, the Savoy, with its many seats and tables is more likely, if there were to be such provisions, to poison more people than the wayside cafe which displays a little notice saying, "Minerals and hot drinks."

    But what about all the private homes in this country. If the view of the hon. and learned Member opposite has any strength in it, then surely it is as applicable to every home in the country, and not only to those homes whose kitchens have to provide for the minority of our people who occasionally feed away from home. Surely, the majority which feeds at home is a far greater and more important issue than is any limited field in this respect.

    We then come to the fundamental issue as stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that we all want clean food. It is all a question of how effective the new procedure is going to be. My hon. Friend has pointed out that any catering establishment has to provide something which attracts the public, and if it is to be sufficiently effective to attract the public in order to carry on business it will surely attract the notice of the local authority.

    After all, the local authority can quite properly find out which are the catering establishments and can do it systematically, whereas the travelling motorist, or even the cyclist, who wants a bed for the night has to look about in a very small area in order that his necessities for that particular night may be served. If one is talking in terms of what is effective, it is just as effective for the local authority to operate in the way my right hon. Friend has suggested as to proceed by registration.

    There is then the question as to whether it is more effective to have the first shot at the offending rabbit in the courts or whether the first shot should be by way of a refusal of registration. I want again to emphasise that the real disadvantage of universal registration is that one is devolving discretion in this matter to 2,000 local authorities. It is all very well having delegated legislation from Whitehall, where one gets a responsible handling of the situation. I should not like to say that the 2,000 local authorities are all irresponsible, but I would not like to say that they are all as responsible as one would expect Whitehall to be. This question of registration, if done by 2.000 local authorities, will be only a semi-responsible job.

    The hon. Gentleman apears to have counted the local authorities, but has he counted the number of police courts and benches to which application could be made?

    I have not counted the number of benches and courts, but it seems to me that the point the hon. and learned Member is making is, anyhow, a half of what is wanted, because, if it is to be done by the courts alone, it is only that number of courts, but if it is to be first done by the number of local authorities and then by the number of courts then, under his system, there are twice the number of courts that there are under mine. I would say that the point of his interjection has as little validity as his argument.

    The historical function of this House has been to put legal questions of this kind to the courts. I strongly commend the action of the Parliamentary Secretary in dealing with this in the way he has done, so that the matter goes directly to the court and is decided by a competent body.

    The Government side of the Committee must really try to do better than they have done up to now. Tonight they have constituted themselves a nursery for childish argument. In all the time that I have been in this House I do not think that I have listened to more puerile arguments than have recently come forth from hon. Members opposite. The Parliamentary Secretary tried to make a serious argument, and failed. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) tried to make a comic argument, and succeeded. As I followed his argument, he was not in favour of registration of catering premises, but he was, apparently, in favour of registering drunkards. His introduction of the Road Traffic Act had as much to do with the arguments which we now have to consider as has a pudding made of rice.

    9.45 p.m.

    I turn from that aspect of the matter to what is really a very serious view of the position, and that is that there is an attempt by the Government to get rid of registration, which is a very essential matter indeed in relation to the subject that we are discussing. What I did not like about the Parliamentary Secretary's argument was the way he tried to make out that, somehow or other, people were going to get greater protection, that public policy would be better served by having these matters considered by the courts rather than by having them dealt with by registration by the local authorities.

    We have with us tonight the newly-appointed Solicitor-General, and I, in company, I am certain, with everybody else, am very pleased to congratulate him. on his elevation to such a high office. But I know that he will agree that his great honour carries with it responsibilities and duties. This evening he heard the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary, who tried to develop the idea that it was more right to take the matter to the courts than to leave it to the local authorities. I put it to the Solicitor-General that that argument is contrary to every tenet of legal practice.

    In matters of this kind over a long period Acts have been put upon the Statute Book in order that the function of registration might reside in the hands of the local authorities, for one reason only; namely, that whereas the courts are unable to give supervision, the local authorities can give the supervision which is necessary in a case of this kind, through a body of inspectors. Therefore, the idea that this matter should go to the courts which have no such inspectorate is preposterous.

    I hope the Solicitor-General will intervene to tell the Committee how the courts will deal with this kind of matter. I understand that it is intended, instead of registration, to thrust the matter into litigation. It is going to the magistrates' court in the first instance. Then, I suppose, if the party is not satisfied, it will be sent to the quarter sessions; and if he is not still satisfied, it will probably be taken further, and a case will be stated either to the divisional court or wherever it ought to go, so that the whole thing will trail out, involving a considerable amount of legal expense, but missing the 'one essential thing, which is the supervision and the registration of these catering premises.

    We shall get litigation but we shall not get registration. I should like the Solicitor-General to apply his mind to this fantastic idea that this well-established method of registration should be altered and the procedure thrust into the field of litigation, with all its delay and cost. That idea cannot possibly be sustained.

    Quite apart from this extraordinary argument about leaving the matter to the courts rather than taking it to the local authorities, the major principle behind this Bill, following upon the recommendations of the report of which we have heard, is the registration of catering premises because of the moral force and effect it has upon the people who are registered, apart from anything else. I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Bromsgrove say that we did not need registration; that local authorities could supervise the establishments and send out their inspectors. That is far from the point which really matters here.

    The effect of registration is the moral suasion which it has on the people who are registered. It also has the effect of throwing an affirmative responsibility upon the local authority concerned. It puts a duty upon that authority to see that premises which are registered are properly carried on.

    To accept the Amendment—and it is extraordinary that it was not in the Bill as originally drafted—would create a major defect and would completely lower the value of the Bill. The catering interests, which have already emasculated the Bill, have apparently put still further pressure upon the Government and have persuaded them to put down this Amendment. It is a bad one; it ought not to be supported, and hon. Members on this side of the Committee should divide against it.

    I am accustomed to vigorous assaults from the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) —we have had many tussles during the past threee years—but I doubt whether he has ever replaced argument by vigour to a greater extent than he has tonight. Not only did he say that the Catering Trade Working Party had recommended registration, but he went on to make what, on the face of it, seems to be a particularly strong point, that the catering members of that Working Party had recommended it.

    What did they say, in Appendix 11 (Part B) to which he referred? They said that they thought that registration—and here they were referring to non-revocable registration—was a satisfactory thing, but when they came to the question whether it should be revocable, they said:
    " In our opinion the only extra power which might be required, is at quarter sessions level only, the right to withdraw registration."
    While they admitted the possibility of the withdrawal of registration, they said that it was not a matter which was appropriate for a local authority, or even a court of summary jurisdiction. They said that it was a matter to be dealt with "at quarter sessions level only "—and the words are italicised.

    Will the Parliamentary Secretary deal with the essential point of the main recommendations and kindly inform the Committee whose signatures were attached to them? Is not the first main recommendation that:

    "All catering establishments should be required to register with the appropriate local authority."
    Turning to Appendix II (Part B), let us read it as a whole. It is quite clear that certain members of the Working Party said that they recommended registration, and they explained the way in which they accepted it. They believed that there should be registration as of right.

    The point from which the Parliamentary Secretary cannot run away—[Interruption.]—he said, in effect that I misled the Committee—is that if power were contained in the Bill to make regulations about registration in the catering trade, if he so wished he could make regulations to accord with Appendix II (Part B)—in other words, to accept the minority view of the Catering Trade Working Party; but that would be registration.

    I made plain to the Committee that I was dealing precisely with the point the hon. Gentleman raised, that the catering trade representatives themselves—and he made great play with this —sought or acquiesced in registration. [HON. MEMBERS: "They did."] They did—in non-revocable registration, or, at least, in registration that was revocable only at quarter sessions. The hon. Gentleman did not deal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) pointed out, with the relative merits of these two methods. He did not deal with the relative effectiveness of these two methods. An intervention by the hon. Member for Northfield (Mr. Chapman) made plain to me why. If we examine the two methods in the light of his admission that he regards the method of registration as not applicable to boarding houses, small hotels and the like—

    The hon. Gentleman must not misrepresent what was said. There was a specific figure used by the Catering Wages Board of four rooms reserved ordinarily for guests. That suggestion affects most boarding houses and practically every hotel. The hon. Gentleman cannot now say that I was excluding boarding houses and hotels.

    But the hon. Gentleman, to put it at its lowest, contemplated exceptions from registration, the exclusion of the small places, and yet it could be said —and I am sure he will agree with me—that the greater need for scrutiny is in the small places. With the alternative procedure of disqualification there is no such limitation at all. I would draw his attention to that. If we are comparing the two methods, of registration with some exceptions, however modest, and the disqualification of premises as defined here, we find that the method of disqualification is more powerful than that of registration.

    I think the difference is this, that it is difficult in the catering trade to decide when a place ceases to be mainly a business and becomes a private residence doing a little business on the side. That is where the difficulty comes. My own feeling is that if we pick out the businesses as such, and make registration applicable to them, and deal with small places taking guests and breaking the regulations the hon. Gentleman is laying down, that will clean them up. Then the businesses above that level can be regulated.

    The hon. Gentleman has made clear what is in his mind. I agreed with him when he said that the system of registration to be sensible and workable would require some exceptions. What I now say is that one argument, although I do not put it as the overwhelming argument, why this method is more effective than that of registration, is the fact that there will be no need for any such exclusions.

    The third point is that on which the greatest emphasis was laid by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Gloucester. Should these matters go to the courts? Bless my soul, the regulations which we spent a long time discussing, regulating construction, layout, equipment, cleanliness, and the provision of sanitary and washing facilities, and prohibiting the use of materials, and so on, are enforceable only through the courts. The regulations create offences for which there are penalties set out in the Bill.

    The briefer the better for the purposes of the hon. and learned Gentleman. These matters go to the courts today. We believe that a decision that involves the compulsory closure of a man's premises, the compulsory ending of his business, is a matter that falls to be determined by the courts after there has been an intervention.

    That is the main issue between us. I am not now referring to catering premises. I realise that there must be circumstances in which registration is an absolutely pre-essential in order to know where the business is being conducted. It is not necessary in this respect, and I suggest that we have put forward a method which is fairer and better and which provides a sanction which in general is as strong as, and in the respect to which I have referred is stronger than, that provided by the registration procedure. If, at the same time, it enables us to refrain from adding a burden to local authorities and to the owners of catering premises, then we wish to adopt it and, by our Amendment, we proposed so to do.

    10.0 p.m.

    It is a tragic spectacle to see the Parliamentary Secretary defending a piece of Conservative policy about which he has no conviction whatever. Ten years ago nothing would have persuaded him to make the speech which he has made tonight. He knows as well as I know that his peers, the medical officers of health throughout the country, would completely condemn his speech. He knows, as I have said previously, that medical officers representing the most Tory constituencies in the country—for example Brighton. with its thousands of catering establishments—condemned the Government in the strongest terms in the "Municipal Journal" for running away from the recommendations of certain authoritative committees.

    The Committee should understand that this Amendment does not stem only from the Opposition in the House. It is supported by the best elements in the catering trade. Certain committees were set up to advise the Ministry of Food in order that this Bill could be framed. I had the honour of convening those committees and, in order that the catering industry should be well represented on them, I invited some of the finest and most responsible people in the trade to serve on them. These committees recommended that catering establishments should be registered.

    In the course of the last two days we have debated food hygiene in its broadest aspects. If we ask any member of the public where the lowest standard of food hygiene is observed, he will tell us that it is in the small cafés, and I do not think any hon. Member will dissent from that. [HoN. MEMBERS: "British Railways."] It has been implied here that if registration were accepted it would be a hardship to the catering establishments, but of course the great majority of those establishments are run by responsible people. Registration would protect the public against the small, badly-run cafés which are started by people with very small capital, with little to lose, with no social conscience and with no interest in food hygiene.

    The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Higgs) suggested that registration would serve no useful purpose. If that argument were valid, he should have told the Committee that registration as it applies to many food establishments today has served no useful purpose, but he did not urge the Minister to de-register all those premises which the medical officers of health in this country agree should be registered.

    The right hon. Lady does me less than justice. I suggested that we should take out from the field of registration all retail premises—

    That comes under another Act and leave registration to deal with manufacturing and storage.

    The hon. Gentleman probably knows that apart from retail premises there are places where food is prepared which are registered.

    And I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that registration should continue.

    I gave way thinking that the hon. Gentleman would differ from my proposition, but I find that he agrees with it. He has agreed, therefore, that registration of certain premises where food is prepared is desirable. We are saying that if that is desirable, then surely the small cafés which are a source of infection should be registered.

    I would remind the Committee that this Bill has gone through another place and that this suggestion has only recently been made. I do not think that it is an outrageous suggestion that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has made, that the Government have been subject to pressure from the catering establishments. I am sure that this will evoke jeers, but I suggest that they have given way at the last moment because a General Election is in the offing and they dare not offend all the café proprietors throughout the country. What other explanation can there be?

    Everyone in this Committee is a consumer. I think that everyone would agree that these small cafés should be registered. The hon. Gentleman asked, "What would registration do?" In my

    Division No. 220.

    AYES

    [10.9 p.m.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)Crouch, R. F.Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
    Alport, C. J. M.Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)Hirst, Geoffrey
    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood)Holland-Martin, C. J
    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)Holt, A. F.
    Arbuthnot, JohnDavidson, ViscountessHopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)Deedes, W. F.Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)Digby, S, WingfieldHorobin, I. M.
    Astor, Hon. J. J.Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McAHudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. MDoughty, C. J. A.Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
    Baldwin, A. E.Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.Hughes-Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.
    Banks, Col. C.Duthie, W. S.Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
    Barber, AnthonyEden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
    Barlow, Sir JohnElliot, Rt. Hon. W. EHylton-Foster, H. B. H.
    Beach, Maj. HicksErroll, F. J.Iremonger, T. L.
    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)Fell, A.Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)Finlay, GraemeJennings, Sir Roland
    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)Fisher, NigelJohnson, Eric (Blackley)
    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.Jones, A. (Hall Green)
    Birch, NigelFletcher-Cooke, C.Keeling, Sir Edward
    Bishop, F. P.Ford, Mrs. PatriciaKerby, Capt. H. B
    Black, C. W.Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)Kerr, H. W.
    Bossom, Sir A. CGalbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)Lambert, Hon. G
    Bowen, E. R.Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)Lambton, Viscount
    Boyle, Sir EdwardGammans, L. D.Lancaster, Col. C. G
    Braine, B. R.Garner-Evans, E. HLangford-Holt, J. A.
    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)Glover, D.Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
    Brooman-White, R. C.Godber, J. B.Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
    Browne, Jack (Govan)Gomme-Duncan, Col. ALinstead, Sir H. N
    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon P G TCough, C. F. H.Llewellyn, D. T.
    Bullard, D. G.Graham, Sir FergusLloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.Grimond, J.Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
    Campbell, Sir DavidGrimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)Longden, Gilbert
    Carr, RobertHall, John (Wycombe)Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
    Gary, Sir RobertHarden, J. R. E.McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M. S.
    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)Macdonald, Sir Peter
    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)Harris, Reader (Heston)McKibbin, A. J.
    Cole, NormanHarrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
    Colegate, W. AHarvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
    Conant, Maj. Sir RogerHarvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. AlbertHeald, Rt. Hon. Sir LionelMacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
    Cooper-Key, E. M.Heath, EdwardMacmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)Henderson, John (Cathcart)Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C.Higgs, J. M. C.Mailland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir Reginald

    opinion, registration in itself is a continuous reminder to the café proprietor of his duty to the public. It is also a salutary reminder of the ultimate sanction, which is being struck off the register. That is a professional term, and it is a salutary reminder to doctors also—a continuous reminder that they must serve the public to the best of their ability. I would say that if the café proprietor were on a register and had to be re-registered every year he would have that in mind.

    Finally, I must say to the Minister that I hope that in the course of the day he has had second thoughts and even third thoughts and that he will decide that it is his duty tonight to protect the public against these dirty, unhealthy little cafés. If he does not do so, I am afraid that I must ask my hon. Friends to support our Amendment to the proposed Amendment in the Lobby.

    Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

    The committee divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 188.

    Marlowe, A. A. HRamsden, J. E.Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
    Marples, A. E.Rayner, Brig. R.Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
    Maude, AngusRedmayne, M.Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
    Maudling, R.Rees-Davies, W. R.Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
    Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.Remnant, Hon. P.Tilney, John
    Medlicott, Brig. F.Renton, D. L. M.Turner, H. F. L
    Moore, Sir ThomasRobinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)Turton, R. H.
    Nabarro, G. D. N.Robson-Brown, W.Tweedsmuir, Lady
    Neave, AireyRoper, Sir HaroldVaughan-Morgan, J. K
    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)Ropner, Col. Sir LeonardVosper, D. F.
    Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)Russell, R. S.Wade, D. W.
    Nield, Basil (Chester)Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W J
    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.Savory, Prof. Sir DouglasWall, Major Patrick
    Nugent, G. R. H.Schofield, Ll.-Col. W.Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
    Oakshott, H. D.Scott, R. DonaldWard, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
    Odey, G. W.Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
    O'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)Shepherd, WilliamWebbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
    Page, R. G.Simon, J. E. C. (Middlesbrough, W.)Wellwood, W.
    Partridge, E.Smithers, Peter (Winchester)Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.Snadden, W. McN.Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
    Pickthorn, K. W. M.Speir, R. M.Williams, Paul (Sutherland, S.)
    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.Stanley, Capt. Hon. RichardWilliams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
    Pitman, I. J.Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)Wills, G.
    Pitt, Mix E. M.Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
    Powell, J. EnochStrauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)Wood, Hon. R.
    Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. LSummers, G. S.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Profumo, J. D.Sutcliffe, Sir HaroldMr. Cedric Drewe and
    Raikes, Sir VictorThomas, Leslie (Canterbury)Mr. Studholme.

    NOES

    Albu, A. H.Hannan, W.Morris, Percy (Swansea, W)
    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)Hardy, E. A.Mort D. L.
    Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)Hargreaves, A.Moyle, A.
    Awbery, S. S.Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)Murray, J. D.
    Bacon, Miss AliceHastings, S,Nally, W.
    Balfour, A.Hayman, F. H.Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
    Bartley, P.Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
    Beattie, J.Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)Oldfield, W. H.
    Bence, C. R.Hewitson, Capt. M.Oliver, G. H.
    Benn, Hon. WedgwoodHobson, C. R.Orbach, M.
    Benson, G.Holman, P.Oswald, T.
    Beswick, F.Holmes, HoracePadley, W. E.
    Blackburn, F.Houghton, DouglasPalmer, A. M. F
    Blenkinsop, A.Hoy, J. H.Pannell, Charles
    Bowden, H. WHubbard, T. F.Parker, J.
    Bowles, F. G.Hudson, James (Eating, N.)Paton, J.
    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)Peart, T. F.
    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)Plummer, Sir Leslie
    Brown, Thomas (Ince)Hynd, H (Accrington)Porter, G.
    Burke, W. A.Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
    Burton, Miss F. E.Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)Proctor, W. T.
    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)Janner, B.Pryde, D. J.
    Carmichael, J.Jeger, Mrs. LenaRankin, John
    Champion, A. J.Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
    Chapman, W. D.Johnson, James (Rugby)Rhodes, H.
    Chetwynd, G. R.Jones, Rt. Hon. A. CreechRichards, R.
    Clunie, J.Jones Jack (Rotherham)Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
    Coldrick, W.Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
    Collick, P. H.Keenan, W.Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
    Collins, V. J.Kenyon, C.Robinson, Kenneth (St. Paneras, N.)
    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
    Darling, George (Hillsborough)King, Dr. H. M.Ross, William
    Davies, Harold (Leek)Lawson, G. M.Short, E. W.
    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)Lee, Frederick (Newton)Shurmer, P. L. E.
    dc Freitas, GeoffreyLever, Leslie (Ardwick)Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
    Deer, GLogan, D. G.Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
    Delargy, H. JMacColl, J. E.Skeffington, A. M.
    Dodds, N. N.McGhee, H. G.Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.McInnes, J.Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)McKay, John (Wallsend)Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)McLeavy, F.Sorensen, R. W.
    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.Steele, T.
    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
    Fienburgh, W.Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)Stross, Dr. Barnett
    Foot, M. M.Mann, Mrs. JeanSummerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
    Forman, J. C.Manuel, A. C.Sylvester, G. O.
    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)Marquand, Rt. Hon H. A.Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
    Freeman, Peter (Newport)Mason, RoyTaylor, John (West Lothian)
    Gibson, C. W.Mayhew, C. P.Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.Mellish, R. J.Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
    Grey, C. F.Mitchison, G. R.Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)Monslow, W.Timmons, J.
    Hale, LeslieMoody, A. S.Tommy, F.
    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)Morgan, Dr. H. B. WTurner-Samuels, M.
    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)Morley, R.Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Usborne, H. C.White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)Willis, E, G.
    Viant, S. P.White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
    Warbey, W. N.Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
    Watkins, T. E.Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. BYates, V. F.
    Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)Wilkins, W. A.Younger, Rt. Hon. K.
    Weitzman, D.Willey, F. T.
    Wells, William (Walsall)Williams, David (Neath)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    West, D. G.Williams, Ronald (Wigan)Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wallace.
    Wheeldon, W. E.Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

    Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

    Division No. 221.]

    AYES

    [10.19 p.m.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.Oakshott, H. D.
    Alport, C. J. M.Gough, C. F. H.Odey, G. W.
    Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcoat (Tiverton)Graham, Sir FergusO'Neill, Hon. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
    Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.Grimond, J.Page, R. G.
    Arbuthnot, JohnHall, John (Wycombe)Partridge, E.
    Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)Harden, J. R. E.Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)Pickthorn, K. W. M.
    Astor, Hon. J. J.Harris, Reader (Heston)Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)Pitman, I. J.
    Baldwin, A. E.Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)Pitt, Miss E. M.
    Banks, Col. C,Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir LionelPowell, J. Enoch
    Barber, AnthonyHeath, EdwardPrice, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
    Barlow, Sir JohnHenderson, John (Cathcart)Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L
    Beach, Maj. HicksHiggs, J. M. C.Profumo, J. D
    Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)Raikes, Sir Victor
    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)Hinchingbrooke, ViscountRamsden, J. E
    Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)Hirst, GeoffreyRayner, Brig. R.
    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)Holland-Martin, C. J.Redmayne, M.
    Birch, NigelHolt, A. F.Rees-Davies, W. R.
    Bishop, F. P.Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. HenryRemnant, Hon. P.
    Black, C. W.Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.Renton, D. L. M.
    Bossom, Sir A. C.Horobin, I. M.Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
    Bowen, E. R.Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)Robson-Brown, W.
    Boyle, Sir EdwardHudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)Roper, Sir Harold
    Braine, B. R.Hughes-Hallet, Vice-Admiral J.Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)Hutchison Sir Ian Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)Russell, R. S.
    Brooman-White, R. G.Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
    Browne, Jack (Govan)Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
    Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.Iremonger, T. L.Schofield, Lt.-Col. W
    Bullard, D. G.Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)Scott, R. Donald
    Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.Jennings, Sir RolandScott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
    Campbell, Sir DavidJohnson, Eric (Blackley)Shepherd, William
    Carr, RobertJones, A. (Hall Green)Simon, J, E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
    Cary, Sir RobertKeeling, Sir EdwardSmithers, Peter (Winchester)
    Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)Kerby, Capt. H. B.Snadden, W. McN.
    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)Kerr, H. W.Speir, R. M.
    Cole, NormanLambert, Hon. G.Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
    Colgate, W. A.Lambton, ViscountSteward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
    Conant, Maj. Sir RogerLancaster, Col. C. G.Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. AlbertLangford-Holt, J. A.Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
    Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.Linstead, Sir H. N.Summers, G. S.
    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.Llewellyn, D. T.Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
    Crouch, R, F.Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)Longden, GilbertThompson, Kenneth (Walton)
    Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)Lucas-Tooth, Sir HughThompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
    Davidson, ViscountessMcCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
    Deedes, W, F.Macdonald, Sir PeterTilney, John
    Digby, S. WingfieldMcKibbin, A. J.Turner, H. F. L
    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)Turton, R. H.
    Doughty, C. J. A.Maclay, Rt. Hon. JohnTweedsmuir, Lady
    Drewe, Sir C.Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)Vosper, D. F.
    Duthie, W. S.Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)Wade, D. W.
    Eden, J, B. (Bournemouth, West)Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W)
    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)Wall, Major Patrick
    Erroll, F. J.Manningham-Buller, Rt Hn. Sir ReginaldWard, Hon. George (Worcester)
    Fell, A.Marlowe, A. A. H.Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
    Finlay, GraemeMarples, A. E.Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
    Fisher, NigelMaude, AngusWebbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.Maudling, R.Well wood, W.
    Fletcher-Cooke, C.Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
    Ford, Mrs. PatriciaMedlicott, Brig. F.Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
    Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)Nabarro, G. D. N.Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
    Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)Neave, AireyWilliams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
    Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)Wills, G.
    Gammans, L. D.Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
    Garner-Evans, E. HNield, Basil (Chester)Wood, Hon. R.
    Glover, D.Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
    Godber, J. B.Nugent, G. R. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Studholme and Mr. Legh.

    The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes, 185.

    NOES

    Albu, A. H.Hewitson, Capt. M.Plummer, Sir Leslie
    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)Hobson, C. R.Porter, G
    Andersen, Frank (Whitehaven)Holman, P.Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
    Awbery, S. S.Holmes, HoraceProctor, W. T.
    Bacon, Miss AliceHoughton, DouglasPryde, D. J.
    Balfour, A.Hoy, J. H.Rankin, John
    Bartley, P.Hubbard, T. F.Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
    Beattie, J.Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)Rhodes, H
    Bence, C. R.Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)Richards, R.
    Benn, Hon. WedgwoodHughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)Roberts, Rt. Hon. A.
    Benson, G.Hynd, H. (Accrington)Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
    Beswick, F.Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
    Blackburn, F.Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
    Blenkinsop, A.Janner, B.Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
    Bowden, H. W.Jeger, Mrs. LenaRoss, William
    Bowles, F. G.Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)Short, E. W.
    Brook, Dryden (Halifax)Johnson, James (Rugby)Shurmer, P. L. E
    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.Jones, Jack (Rotherham)Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
    Brown, Thomas (Ince)Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
    Burke, w. A.Jones, Rt. Hon. A. CreechSkeffington, A. M.
    Burton, Miss F. E.Keenan, W.Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)Kenyon, C.Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
    Carmichael, J.Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.Sorensen, R. W.
    Champion, A. J.King, Dr. H. M.Steele, T.
    Chapman, W. D.Lawson, G. M.Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
    Chetwynd, G. R.Lee, Frederick (Newton)Stross, Dr. Barnett
    Clunie, J.Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
    Coldrick, W.Logan, D. G.Sylvester, G. O.
    Collick, P. H.MacColl, J. E.Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
    Collins, V. J.McGhee, H. G.Taylor, John (West Lothian)
    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.McInnes, J.Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
    Darling, George (Hillsborough)McKay, John (Wallsend)Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
    Davies, Harold (Leek)McLeavy F.Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.Timmons, J.
    de Freitas, GeoffreyMacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)Tomney, F.
    Deer, G.Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)Turner-Samuels M.
    Delargy, H. J.Mann, Mrs. JeanUngoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
    Dodds, N. N.Manuel, A. C.Usborne, H. C.
    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. AWarbey, W. N.
    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)Mason, RoyWatkins, T. E.
    Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)Mayhew, C. P.Webb, Rt. Hon. M (Bradford, C.)
    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)Mellish, R. J.Weitzman, D.
    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)Mitchison, G. RWells, William (Walsall)
    Fienburgh, W.Monslow, W.West, D. G
    Foot, M. M.Moody, A. S.Wheeldon, W. E.
    Forman, J. C.Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.>
    Freeman, Peter (Newport)Mort, D. L.Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
    Gibson, C. W.Moyle, A.Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B.
    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.Murray, J. D.Wilkins, W. A.
    Grey, C. F.Nally, W.Willey, F. T
    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)Neal, Harold (Bolsover)Williams, David (Neath)
    Hale, LeslieNoel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)Oldfield, W. H.Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
    Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)Oliver, G. H.Willis, E. G.
    Hannan, W.Orbach, M.Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
    Hardy, E. A.Oswald, T.Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
    Hargreaves, A.Padley, W. EYates, V. F.
    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)Palmer, A. M. F.Younger, Rt. Hon K.
    Hastings, S.Pannell, Charles
    Hayman, F. H.Parker, J.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)Paton, J.Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wallace.
    Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)Peart, T. F.

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

    I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

    We have made fair progress with most difficult parts of the Bill this evening. With one more half day's sitting, and with the co-operation and good will of

    hon. Members. I feel that we can hope to finish discussion of the Committee stage of a Bill in which we are all interested and which we are anxious to see on the Statute Book.

    Question put. and agreed to.

    Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.