My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, of the 284,000 young people who had entered the youth training scheme by the end of November, 166,000 (or 58 per cent.) were male and 118,000 (or 42 per cent.) were female. More detailed information about the type of training being undertaken is not at present available.

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply and welcome the fact that there is some monitoring of the numbers of male and female entrants to the YTS. However, in view of the Manpower Services Commission's research projects, the results of which were published in R and D series No. 11 by the MSC, would the noble Earl agree that it is necessary for positive steps to be taken to try to eradicate the traditional types of training that are offered to females as opposed to males? Secondly, would he also agree that a very useful first step in this direction might be for the publicity put out by the Manpower Services Commission on the YTS to take a more positive approach to the recruitment of girls for technical subjects? Some of the imbalance might then be removed.

My Lords, on the issue of publicity and recruitment, all general publicity and marketing material has been designed to make the scheme equally attractive to males and females. But through specific marketing material we are also trying to encourage young people to use the YTS as an introduction to types of work which they might have thought were closed to them because of the traditional attitudes to the role of men and women in jobs. To that degree I agree with what the noble Baroness has said. I must also point out that part of the imbalance is due to the fact—and the general evidence is to this effect—that young women have a slightly higher rate of taking up real employment than young men.

My Lords, when the noble Earl says that there is no information available about the types of training, does he mean that he has not asked for it? I simply cannot believe that it is not available because it is part of the Government's policy.

No, my Lords, it does not mean that. It means that this supplementary and monitoring material is at present in the process of being gathered.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what we are to understand from the expression, "young females" in the Question, because lots of them consider themselves young at 55, 60 and even 65?

My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord is not eligible for many of these admirable Government schemes; but I am sure that we can find something for him.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, Section 4 (6) of the Public Records Act 1958 permits the temporary return of public records in the Public Record Office to the department or office from which they were transferred.

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. Where a Government department withdraws documents from the custody of the Public Record Office, may I ask him how one can possibly escape the conclusion that the department concerned might have something that it wishes to hide?

My Lords, I cannot think how my noble friend can draw such a conclusion. It means that the department wants to use the documents.

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say how long these documents will be withheld from the Public Record Office? Is there not a danger that, by departments recovering documents from the Public Record Office and witholding them, they may be able to circumvent the 30-year rule? In the meantime, would it be possible for the Foreign Office to make arrangements for the documents now in its custody to be available to researchers and others who want to examine them?

My Lords, the Question related to the statutory provisions under which these documents could be returned. The terms of the statute read as follows:

"Public records in the Public Record Office or other place of deposit appointed by the Lord Chancellor under this Act shall be temporarily returned at the request of the person by whom or department or office from which they were transferred".

There is nothing in the Question which related to the considerations which the noble and learned Lord has raised.

With great respect, my Lords, may I just follow that? Do my questions nevertheless arise from, and relate to, the content of the original Question and the noble and learned Lord's reply?

My Lords, that is a question of opinion. But if the noble and learned Lord puts down a Question, no doubt the appropriate Minister of the Crown will answer it. I am myself unwilling again to traverse the ground which was so well traversed by my noble friend Lady Young a week or two ago.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider asking the appropriate department to have the documents photostated and copied, so that they can be made available to those who want to look at them?

My Lords, I am sure that the appropriate department will note what the noble Lord has said. However, on 21st December, in a Written Answer, I was able to tell my noble kinsman the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that 17,500 documents had been returned to the departments under the provisions of the subsection in the year ending on, I think, 30th September last. So a good deal of photostating would be required.

My Lords, with all respect to the noble and learned Lord, it is not a question of the number of documents totalling 17,500; it is the number that ought to be returned, and I cannot believe that that is in the thousands.

My Lords, all the documents have to be returned. The section provides for temporary return to the departments from which the documents had originally been obtained. As I read the word "temporary" it does not mean the same as the word "permanently".

My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that the whole House will have been glad to note in a recent Written Answer to myself his disapproval of the mutilation of, or deletions from, these documents? Will the noble and learned Lord follow up that disapproval with equal disapproval of their retention?

My Lords, I am always glad to have the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, rare as it is; but I think that my Written Answer referred not to documents returned to the originating department under Section 4(6), but to the delivery to the Public Record Office from the originating department in the first place. However, I am delighted to bask in the sunshine of the noble Lord's approval.

My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord expand a little on his definition of "temporary"? He told us that it is not permanent. Will he give us a slightly narrower definition, and say how long in his opinion temporary should be?

My Lords, I am always the servant of Parliament, and on that interesting subject the Act is totally silent.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the Civil Aviation Authority is installing surface movement radar in the new control tower now under construction at Gatwick Airport. The equipment is expected to be in service in the autumn of this year. There are no plans at present to install surface movement radar at other airports.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his very kind Answer. Is he aware that considerable sums of money have been spent on airports all over England, and that passenger safety must come first? Therefore, in view of the appalling accidents which have occurred abroad, could not somebody in the Government ask that all our major airports be equipped with this equipment?

My Lords, nobody regrets more than I do the accidents to which my noble friend has referred, but there are a number of different criteria which must be satisfied before we can justify the installation of the equipment. So far we, or more accurately the CAA, has been able to see its way clear to install the equipment only at the airport that I have mentioned.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, complete figures for the year 1983 are not yet available, but in the first 10 months of the year there were an estimated 11,113,000 overseas visitors to the United Kingdom. That is a 7 per cent. increase compared with the same period in 1982, and an increase of 10 per cent. compared with the same period in 1981. It is almost the same as the figure for the first 10 months of 1980.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Can he give me any details of the percentage increase in, for example, American visitors? Can he also please say what plans there are for Heritage Year? May I also ask my noble friend whether he has visited the new premises in Victoria, and is he aware how extremely good, efficient and welcoming they are?

My Lords, I am afraid that I have not yet had an opportunity to visit the new premises which my noble friend tells me of. Perhaps she and I might make a joint trip there; I look forward to that. With regard to my noble friend's first point, about the increase in visits by people from North America, I am pleased to be able to tell her that in 1983 there was a 34 per cent. rise over 1982 in visits from North American citizens. My noble friend asked about the theme and the plans for 1984, which has been designated Heritage '84 by the British tourist industry. So far this theme has received enthusiastic support from the industry, and a wide range of events has been planned.

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can say whether he attributes the increase in the number of overseas visitors from North America entirely to the fall in the value of the pound against the dollar?

My Lords, not entirely; but that is no doubt one of the factors. Other factors might be the tremendous value that visitors from North America and, indeed, from all round the world, believe that they receive in this country, in this great city of ours and, for all we know, perhaps in the Palace of Westminster as well.

My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that if overseas visitors were exempted from paying value added tax on the services that they receive in this country, the figure of 11 million-odd would probably be greatly increased?

My Lords, we are well aware of the various cases put to us by the tourist industry for more relief on hotel accommodation and facilities for visitors. We shall ensure that this is considered on appropriate occasions, all the more so thanks to the support of my noble friend.

My Lords, in giving the increase in tourists coming to this country, can my noble friend say whether there are figures to show the stream of British tourists in the other direction, and whether on balance there is an advantage in the foreign currency earned?

My Lords, there are statistics of British visitors going overseas. In the same period—the first 10 months of 1983–18,805,000 visits were made abroad by United Kingdom citizens. They spent £3,688 million. This was a deficit on tourism in the first 10 months of £433 million. I would stress that this is considerably less than the deficit on tourism in the first 10 months of 1982.

My Lords, can my noble friend say how many out of the figure of 11 million are language students? Can he give some indication of how many stay on to continue their studies and do not go back?

My Lords, if I can obtain these complicated statistics for my noble friend, I shall do so. However, I would have to say to him and to your Lordships that it may require considerable research. Indeed, we may have some difficulty in defining who is and who is not a language student, because that also goes for me.

My Lords, the noble Lord has been kind enough to give the figure showing the increase in visitors from the United States, which is significantly higher than the global figure that he gave. Can he say, for example, whether there has been an increase or a decrease in visitors to this country from European Community countries'?

My Lords. I think that I could do so, but not without due search among the statistics. If I may, I shall find these figures and write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the great delays at Terminal 3 of Heathrow Airport for those arriving from North America holding passports other than British passports? Does he realise that tourists go away rather unhappy about this?

My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to the first impression that visitors to these shores gain at airports and other ports of entry. I am afraid that I am not able to give my noble friend a suitable answer today, but I shall inquire and write to her very swiftly.

My Lords, when a Minister is asked a question to which he feels he cannot do an immediate justice, would he consider, if the answer is likely to be more than of interest to his sole interlocutor, inviting a Question for Written Answer rather than promising to write a letter?

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for this extremely good idea. I should like to consider it. I shall certainly see that the noble and learned Lord receives copies of the two written answers that I have promised to give today.

My Lords, in view of the continuing, although reduced, deficit on tourist account, will the noble Lord indicate what measures have been taken to stimulate what one might call indigenous tourism?

My Lords, the tourist industry itself is taking extremely vigorous measures, as I have pointed out to my noble friend Lady Sharpies. The main thrust for this year is Heritage '84. Most of the ideas for improving our earnings from tourism come from the vigorous tourist industry itself.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Gowrie will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on vocational education and training.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time of 7.30. The Committee stage of the Roads (Scotland) Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7.30 p.m. for a short period.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a straightforward consolidation Bill that seeks to consolidate the law relating to the General Dental Council and to the training, registration and disciplining of dentists and dental auxiliaries in the United Kingdom. The law on this subject was last consolidated in the Dentists Act 1957, but since 1957 it has been extensively amended as a result of the Dentists (Amendment) Act 1973 and the Dentists Act 1983. It has also been affected by a number of Instruments made under the European Communities Act 1972. In order to produce a satisfactory consolidation it is necessary to make the recommendation that is set out in the Law Commission Report on the Bill laid before this House on 17th January. If your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

My Lords, on behalf of the members of the dental profession, I should like formally to welcome this consolidation Bill. There was a long interval between the 1957 Act and the one in 1983. It is the practice every year to publish the Dentists Act as the first pages in the Dental Register, which means that this legislation is readily available to members of the profession and is regularly referred to by them. In the present Dental Register, of course, both Acts will have to be published. This will make life rather complicated for many dentists. We are therefore—I believe that I speak on behalf of all the profession—very grateful that a consolidation Act is coming so swiftly, and it will be of enormous help to members of the profession in enabling them to study this law.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. In the light of our previous exchange at Question Time, I hope that this may be a little better than a temporary filling.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for extracting that information from the noble and learned Lord.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would introduce the requirement which the noble Lord has explained. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has made it quite clear that what he is after is full consultation taking place with a funding organisation before any item is added to the list of materials which the Minister is empowered to seize under subordinate legislation. I entirely take the point which the noble Lord made as regards the current examples of funding taking place from the industry in the case of Aujeszky's disease and Newcastle disease.

Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will be content with the assurance which I am very ready to give him, because I do not think that the amendment would be appropriate in the Bill and I hope that the noble Lord would agree with me that it would not be necessary. There is only one other consultation provision in the Animal Health Act 1981 so far as seizure in disease situations is concerned, and that is the one which refers to wildlife and the concerns of the Nature Conservancy Council; it has nothing to do with financing.

The assurance that I would like to give is that it is axiomatic that, in the situation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, there must be a close and continuing consultation between the funding body and the Government. I can therefore certainly give an assurance that in the circumstances described there would be full consultation particularly in relation to the financial implications.

If there is one person I am glad to accept assurances from it is the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and because of that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

I wish to raise a matter on Clause I which is linked with Clause 2 and it is a matter of which I have given the Minister notice. I recently received a letter from the Cotswolds Wildlife Preservation Society expressing fears that Clause 1, with the powers of entry prescribed in Clause 2, was an additional threat to badgers, giving additional powers to go in search of and to seize live badgers. I have not construed these clauses as doing that. I have taken advice on the matter from other sources and my own fears, if there were any, have been removed. However, if the Minister would be so kind as to make the position quite clear it would probably remove any misunderstanding. I only raise the matter on behalf of a society of this kind because their letter was closely argued, although I think it was mistaken in the conclusions that it reached.

As I see it, Clause 1 is an extension of the range of diseases for which a search can be made for products, materials or carcases which may be an additional risk to animals. Clause 2 provides powers of entry for that purpose. I do not think that I need explain the case that has been put to me by the association because to dispose of their fears—which I am sure the Minister will be able to do—will be quite enough.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, did indeed give me notice that he would raise this point and I am very grateful to the noble Lord. If the noble Lord had not given me notice he might not have found that the explanation which I hope will now come from me made quite such good sense as I hope the noble Lord will think that it does.

My explanation is as follows. First, I can give an assurance to the noble Lord and, indeed, to those who expressed concern to him, that the powers in Clauses 1 and 2 do not affect badgers. The main disease concern in relation to badgers is of course tuberculosis and powers already exist for dealing with that disease. Moreover, the appropriate provisions for dealing with disease in wildlife are contained in Sections 21 and 22 of the Animal Health Act 1981.

However, the noble Lord asks me specifically about Clause 1. If one looks at the clause it specifically states that the clause:

"does not authorise provision for the seizure of any animal".

Hence, all animals, including badgers, are outside the scope of this provision. Section 28 of the Act enables orders to be made for the seizure of live animals, that is true, but the definition of "animals" in Section 87 does not include badgers. Therefore, the powers in Section 28 of the 1981 Act could only be exercised in relation to badgers if an order in the form of a statutory instrument under Section 87 were to be made. I would like to take the opportunity to say that there is no intention of doing that.

So far as Clause 2 is concerned, which provides for additional powers of entry to ascertain whether disease exists—which we have not quite reached—there an order would have to be made under Section 88 of the 1981 Act before the powers could be used in relation to tuberculosis. Indeed, under Clause 2 of the Bill the powers to enter land may only be exercised if animals are, or have been, kept on the land and it could not be argued that badgers which simply happen to be on the land are kept there. I hope that the assurances about those two clauses satisfy the noble Lord.

I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.

moved Amendment No. 2:

I should like to support my noble friend. The fervour with which he advanced his argument does not require anything further from me. From looking at the Bill, I do not think that the amendment would do any harm at all. In fact, it might do much good.

Clause 4 enables the Government to approve by statutory instrument special methods of slaughter for day-old chicks, but after consultation with representative interests. First, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that, given its terms of reference, clearly the Farm Animal Welfare Council should be consulted, must be consulted and would have to be consulted. Indeed, I should have thought that Ministers would be in default of their statutory obligation to consult representative interests if the council were to be omitted.

I would add that, as I think was recognised in the debate on Second Reading by many noble Lords, many of the provisions in this Bill stem directly from the recommendations made by the council. Indeed, there is a very substantial amendment, which I think comes at the end of the noble Lord's list of amendments, which stems absolutely from the Welfare of Poultry Awaiting Slaughter Report, which was brought forward by the Farm Animal Welfare Council. It would be unthinkable to omit the council from any such consultation procedures, and I can assure the Committee that we would not do so.

However, I must add that, if we specifically mention the Farm Animal Welfare Council, I think it would be very difficult logically not to include mention of other welfare organisations which have an interest. Of course, I recognise that the Farm Animal Welfare Council does important work as the Government's adviser on farm animal welfare. I recognise the view of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the council might appropriately be mentioned in this statute. But for the reason which I have just given, from a drafting point of view I do not think that this amendment will quite do.

The noble Lord is not only very experienced in these matters, but I think he is also an experienced and ingenious parliamentarian. If he could bring back an amendment suitable from a drafting point of view, I know that the Government would try to look at it sympathetically. But I repeat, if one makes specific mention of the council in this respect, despite the fact that the council has a special place in the life of farm animal welfare, it would be very difficult not to include specifically the other very important bodies which will have to be consulted under Clause 4.

I suppose that anybody on these Benches has difficulty over Clause 4! However, that is a very disappointing reply; nor is it a convincing one. What are these other bodies which would have to be mentioned? The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Poultry Federation, and others of that kind?

If I may interrupt the noble Lord, there is the Council of Justice to Animals and the Humane Slaughter Association, of which I am the president.

Of course, one can go to the directory and read them all out, but they are not relevant to the point that I am about to make. This is a Government-appointed council; it is not a welfare body in the sense that other bodies may claim to be welfare bodies; it is not a prevention of cruelty body or a safeguarding the interests of particular species body. Nor is the Farm Animal Welfare Council representative of a trade interest. There are plenty of trade interests around that will have to be consulted—will they not? They will have plenty of time to consider where their interests lie in anything that the Government may do. I am not talking of them. They are "the interests" and are referred to:

"as seem to them representative of the interests concerned".

They can be any interests concerned—all of them. But I am dealing with the Government's own appointed advisory council. Cannot the Government give the council some standing, some mention or some acknowledgment? This is what I am complaining about. Let us look at the list of members of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. They are a distinguished body of people, many of them highly professional, all of them having a busy life, and yet they meet together to pore over the scandals and the squalid conditions to which the committee referred in its report and with which this Bill is attempting, in some measure, to deal.

The noble Lord cannot get away with a suggestion that so much of the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council is reflected in this Bill that the Bill itself is their monument, their vote of thanks, their testimonial. Only two recommendations out of 37 are included in this Bill. All the others are left for further research, or for regulations, or for codes of practice—all the amorphous array of attempts to surround problems of this kind with suitable guidelines and disciplines. This is not good enough. I am surprised that the Minister has started off with such a disappointing and weak defence.

I do not know what he is suggesting that I should do. There is nothing I can think of which is going to satisfy the purpose of this amendment unless the Farm Animal Welfare Council is mentioned. I do not think that an amendment which says, "The Government shall consult with such bodies as they may think fit, including you know who", will do. Either the name is mentioned or the whole point of it is lost. That is my attitude towards this. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord can consider this matter again, otherwise we are going to make slow progress this afternoon. I sincerely hope that we can get on with points of greater substance.

I am not the self-appointed representative of the Farm Animal Welfare Council. I have not been asked to do this by anybody. I just think it is rightful to do it, and I think it should he done. I hope that the noble Lord can think again.

The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, must agree that my noble friend has a real point here. I cannot understand why he thinks there is any drafting difficulty. All we have to do is to insert the name of the body and then just, "and such other persons and bodies". That is simple. It is a Government-appointed body. If the rest protest that they are not mentioned, they can be told, "You are not Government-appointed bodies, and we had to state our body which we asked to advise us." I cannot see that there is any difficulty with the drafting at all.

Perhaps I should underline the difficulty without going all over the ground I have gone over before. As I have said twice, although the Farm Animal Welfare Council has a special place in the business of farm animal welfare, being the Government's adviser on these matters, the council is not a statutory body. For that reason, I think that the Government would find difficulty in picking out special mention in this way in this particular place in this statute for the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and not mentioning bodies representing the poultry industry, the farmers' unions, other welfare bodies, the veterinary profession and religious organisations, just to list some organisations. Indeed, one specific one in which the noble Lord has an interest as president was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Somers.

That is the difficulty from a drafting point of view. In no way am I belittling on behalf of the Government the work which the Farm Animal Welfare Council does, but I say that it would be inappropriate specifically to mention it while not mentioning any of the other bodies, when what we are talking about and are concerned with here is that there should be wide consultation. I am sure that that is what we all want. This would be questioned if we drafted in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is inviting me to draft. Therefore, although I gave the noble Lord an invitation to be as ingenious as possible and to try to come back with an alternative, I am afraid that I am not going to come back with an alternative.

The noble Lord is making it worse. He now says it is not a statutory body, so he begins to run it down. The fact that it is not a statutory body is immaterial. It is the advisory body on the welfare of farm animals appointed by the Government, and the only one of its kind in relation to this Bill. Surely that gives it a status which is not enjoyed by any voluntary body or other pressure group that may be consulted, and properly consulted, when matters are under consideration. This is the primary advisory body of the Government so constituted, and strengthened by this Government to make it a stronger force in the chain of consultation and formulation of policy than the old committee. Therefore, surely it has a place in a Bill of this kind.

The Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments appointed by the Home Secretary is not a statutory committee. But is the Minister trying to tell us—he has been at the Home Office—that, when we update the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, we shall get a whole new Bill without any reference to the Advisory Committee on Animal Experiments? Again it is a committee of similar status to the Farm Animal Welfare Council which has the right to publish its own reports and has the claim to be consulted by the Minister on matters within its terms of reference. Indeed, in any updating legislation in that context, it will be essential to refer to the advisory committee because it will have a part in the administration of the Act. Therefore, it will have to be referred to.

The Minister is just playing about with this. The Government have enough real difficulties about the reforms that this Bill is attempting to make without making unnecessary trouble for themselves over the recognition of their own self-appointed, strengthened, reorientated Farm Animal Welfare Council. This is what is wrong with this Government. They take big and silly decisions in other contexts, but apparently they cannot come to a conclusion on something which is quite harmless but has a degree of gratitude in it for a committee they appointed to do a job of work.

I would not serve on the Farm Animal Welfare Council after listening to the Minister's suggestion that they have no more right to be consulted, and no more right to he mentioned in the Act, than "chickens' lib". I cannot take it. I hope that we are not going to reach deadlock on a matter of this kind, because it will come up again shortly in another amendment. Are we going over it all again?

I think we shall go over it all again because I think I shall give the same reply to the noble Lord as I have given now.

Clause 4 removes from the 1967 Act in Section 1(1) the words,

"for purposes of preparation for sale for human consumption";

so that the present Bill applies to the slaughter of birds whether or not for the purposes of sale for human consumption. Then, for the sake of clarity, there are certain exemptions which are mentioned. But the principal Act is still the 1967 Act which refers to "commercial purposes". Schedule 1, paragraph 7(3) on page 17 appears to confirm that the Bill applies only to birds slaughtered for commercial purposes, because it defines the meaning of those words,

"in the course or furtherance of a business or for reward".

Then it defines what a commercial enterprise is.

What I do not understand is the relevance in the circumstances to the exemptions in Clause 4(2)(a), (b) and (c). The exemptions are that the section shall not apply to the slaughter of any bird,

"in pursuance of powers conferred by, or by any instrument made or having effect as if made under, the Animal Health Act 1981".

We understand what that is. It is where slaughter takes place in an emergency, such as with foot and mouth disease or other highly contagious or infectious diseases, where slaughter has to take place straightaway. I should not have thought that such slaughter came under this category at all.

The next exemption is:

"in the course of an experiment".

Under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 animals are not slaughtered for a commercial purpose; they are destroyed following experiments authorised by licence under the Act of 1876.

Thirdly, an exemption is given to,

"a person registered in the register of veterinary surgeons",

who may be destroying an animal in the course of the exercise of his profession. There is nothing mischievous either about the exemptions or about what I am saying. All I wonder is why these exemptions were put in Clause 4 when they seem to be quite irrelevant to the purposes of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could throw some light on that.

As that finishes that point, I do not know whether to go on. I have several points to raise on clause stand part. It may help if I deal with them one at a time. All I want to ask on this is, what is the relevance of lines 10 to 21 on page 3? They are all exemptions, yet none of them appears to be concerned with the purposes of Clause 4?

These exemptions are being put on the face of the statute for the first time, but they relate, as the noble Lord has explained to the Committee, to provisions which already exist under, or by virtue of, the provisions of the Animal Health Act 1981; that is to say, slaughter for the purposes of disease control which takes place under the supervision of a Ministry of Agriculture veterinary officer. That is the first of the exemptions which the noble Lord read. This type of slaughter generally takes place on farms where the birds are protected by Part I of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, which prohibits the cause of unnecessary pain or distress to livestock on agricultural land. For that reason it seemed right to us to put in the first of these exemptions.

The second one the noble Lord dealt with, and he knows the whole scene so much better than myself that I would simply say in brief that in the course of experiments—subject to the restrictions under the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act, and provided the restrictions are complied with—there should, as we see it, be the exemption written into paragraph (b). The third exemption is where a qualified veterinary surgeon or veterinary practitioner in the exercise of his profession or an assistant working under his direction, would consider the destruction of a bird or birds necessary—including the destruction of pet birds or a flock in circumstances where the owner could no longer exercise proper care over them. That would be a situation for which we believe there should be an exemption written in. That is the reason for paragraph (c).

What does the word "Ministers" mean exactly? Does it include Secretaries of State? What Ministers in particular, one or two Ministers, or which Ministers does it refer to?

My first reaction to the noble Earl was that it was the plural of "Minister", but that gives me the opportunity to look at page 16 of the Bill. If my noble friend would care to look at line 3 on page 16 there is the definition of "Ministers" as having,

"the same meaning as in that Act."

I am looking for the Act. I believe it is the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967. If I am wrong about that I shall put myself right before we go much further. I think we are about to have a Statement, but before we break for the Statement may I repeat that, for once, I think I am quite right.

I take it that that means the Secretary of State for Scotland?

I was rather afraid that the noble Earl might ask that question. I must be absolutely honest; I do not know whether the 1967 Act relates to Scotland. That question I should like to answer for my noble friend after we have broken for the Statement. Will my noble friend forgive me?

The Question is, that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill.

No, I thought we were about to have a Statement?

If the Committee would forgive me, it is normal practice not to break into discussions of this nature until an appropriate moment when the subject has been cleared up, which, quite self-evidently, has not yet occurred. Thus, we will not be breaking for the Statement until after we resolve whether or not the clause stand part.

I am very much obliged. I am sorry to delay the Statement but I still have quite a lot on Clause 4 yet. I accept the Minister's explanation of why the exemptions were included in the Bill. They are there, as I understand, as the longest of long stops against any dubiety arising in certain extreme, remote or almost impossible circumstances, so that it is just a waste of print and it does not really matter. In those circumstances there is no point in spending further time on it.

I wish to come to a more material point which is in lines 25 and 26. Although I alluded in speaking on Second Reading to what is commonly referred to as "ritual slaughter", I have no intention of pursuing that general issue in further stages of this Bill. As the noble Lord himself pointed out in reply on Second Reading, the Farm Animal Welfare Council are reaching the end of their study of methods of slaughter and slaughterhouse conditions, and we are likely to receive two reports from the Farm Animal Welfare Council within the next few months—one on slaughter generally and the other, a little later, on so-called ritual slaughter. While those reports are pending, I shall not waste the time of the Committee in pursuing any matter related to that subject, but the Bill deals specifically in subsection (2B) halfway down page 3 with a method of slaughter of poultry chicks.

The Farm Animal Welfare Council referred in their report to this matter. They said in paragraph 4 of their report:

"We have not included in our inquiry the sale of day-old chicks. We intend to examine this aspect of the slaughter of poultry at a later date."

Whether that will be included in the further report they still have to make, I do not know, but subsection (2B) gives the Ministers, after consultation with all and sundry, the power to approve a method of slaughter

"as a method suitable for the slaughter of poultry chicks".

I do not know who the method is suitable for, but it is a suitable method of slaughter. It is to ensure that they are slaughtered without the infliction of unnecessary suffering by any methods so approved. It seems to me that the deepest consideration should be given to this matter. What I hear about the methods employed at the present time is pretty horrifying.

I referred in my speech on Second Reading to the fact that day-old chicks are disposed of as if they were mashed potatoes. That is known as the "crushing system". How they are crushed, with what and what mess they are in at the end of it, I would not know. However, where they go then is known. They go, when they are so crushed, to mink and fox farms. They are then food for animals kept in captivity for their fur; and I shall have something to say later on about the destination of the crushed chicks.

As to the other methods, I believe that gassing has been used; but possibly gassing makes the ensuing carcases unsuitable for disposal in the way I have described. I think therefore it is going to be of considerable importance as to what methods the Ministers come forward with. I hope and believe that the opportunity to discuss what they recommend will be given to us because they will be by regulation.

I will now go on to the question of small slaughterers. I believe this is the subject of an amendment by my noble friend Lord John-Mackie. The interest I have in this is what was referred to in the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and to which, again, I referred on Second Reading: that is the squalid conditions that they found which are referred to in paragraph 56 of their report. They say:

"At businesses we visited where slaughter was carried out by the Moslem method for the food of Moslems the birds were kept on the premises and slaughtered in the most squalid conditions. Nothing can apparently be done about it by the authorities and the birds are sold to the customer live and slaughtered for him immediately afterwards."

The Minister said on Second Reading, without reference to the method of slaughter, that the conditions under which the birds are kept prior to slaughter, albeit by the Moslem method, will be subject to the regulations and conditions laid down under this Bill. That I hope can be firmly understood: that quite apart from the methods of slaughter the conditions under which they are kept prior to slaughter will come within the conditions and regulations of this Bill. That is all I need to trouble the Minister with at the moment, and I hope to get his reply on those two points.

First of all, in his absence, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Selkirk for not having been able to say earlier that the word "Ministers" in this Bill does indeed relate to the Secretary of State for Scotland and also the Secretary of State for Wales.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the question of day-old chicks, as the noble Lord implied, the Farm Animal Welfare Council are studying this matter and have not yet reached final conclusions. We shall, of course, take account of anything which the council may say before approving slaughter methods for chicks. That is why we have been unable to include chicks in the Bill now in that way, but have had to make provision for orders later on after the Farm Animal Welfare Council have given their advice.

The noble Lord finally referred to the question of birds kept for ritual slaughter. He was good enough to refer to what I said on Second Reading, and indeed I would repeat that the amendment in Clause 4 will enable us to make regulations on birds sold live and then slaughtered. To this extent the Bill will therefore apply to ritual slaughter.

I hope the Committee will now agree that this is an appropriate moment to go on to the Statement. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

My Lords, with the leave of the House. I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:

"The Government are today publishing a White Paper Training for Jobs. This is presented jointly by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, for Scotland and Wales and myself. Copies are available in the Printed Paper Office".

:A well-trained workforce is essential to a strong economy and to win back jobs; to achieve this, vocational education and training must be properly directed to the demands of the market place."

"Two years ago we published our first White Paper on Training. At that time we set out three objectives: first, to improve vocational education and the transition from school to work; second, to modernise apprenticeship and other skill training; and, third, to open up wider training opportunities for adults."

"Since then we have made considerable progress. Already more than 300,000 young people have entered the youth training scheme. Our new initiative in co-ordinated technical and vocational education for young people between 14 to 18 was launched last September. Fourteen local education authorities co-operated in pilot schemes and a further 46 have now been invited to join the scheme, starting in September."

"In the reform of apprenticeship arrangements important improvements have been made in engineering, electrical contracting, printing and the construction industries. The open tech programme is now well under way, with as many as 50,000 people expected to take advantage of this new facility next year."

"These specific new initiatives represent a major achievement by the Manpower Services Commission under the energetic leadership of its chairman, David Young, and his fellow commissioners. But they would be the first to acknowledge the part played by employers, trade unions, local authorities, voluntary organisations, colleges, schools and the careers service and the support and interest of many honourable Members of this House, to which I readily pay tribute."

"The White Paper also sets out the criteria against which we shall make our future plans, and announces certain specific proposals. Central and local government have an important part to play, in vocational education and training. But real success depends crucially on the part played by employers and trainees themselves. The decisions as to who is trained, when and in what skills, are best taken by employers (and indeed the individuals concerned) who know better where the real needs are. So investment in training must be cost-effective, flexible, adaptable to changing technology and free of old-fashioned restrictions."

"I now turn to adult training, The Manpower Services Commission recently submitted to me proposals for a new adult training strategy. We fully support the commission's call for a national campaign to raise awareness, amongst employers and all concerned, of the vital importance of training. We support, too, the need to provide wider opportunities for the training of adults to meet new skill requirements. We therefore endorse the commission's proposals to restructure their existing programmes to double the total number of adults trained under MSC courses to over 250,000 a year. This will include a significant increase to some 125,000 in the number of unemployed receiving training."

"The Government have agreed to consider further two proposals by the commission. The first of these is that there should be some training included for people on community programmes. The second of these is that some adult trainees could be helped by a guaranteed loan scheme to enable them to obtain training not otherwise available to them. The Government recognise that this could well be of interest to a number of people, and I confirm that we shall be ready to consider it further with the MSC and others concerned"

"The White Paper also announces important new arrangements within vocational education. It is vital to get the closest possible collaboration at local level between employers, local education authorities and colleges, and other providers of vocational education and training, in identifying and meeting the real needs for future employment in their areas. The Manpower Services Commission, which includes representatives from industry as well as local authorities and professional educational interests, and which has an established local network, is well placed to assist in this role."

"The Government have therefore decided to ask the commission to extend its range of operations so that it can discharge the functions of a national training authority. We propose to increase the commission's resources devoted to work-related non-advanced further education in England and Wales from some £90 million now to some £155 million in 1985–86 and £200 million in 1986–87. It will then represent about one-quarter of the total public sector provision for this area. The resultant reduction in the need for local authority expenditure will be taken into account in settling the relevant rate support grants for those future years. The commission is being asked to begin consultations immediately with educational interests, employers and other interested parties so that plans can be settled in good time for the beginning of the 1985–86 academic year."

"In 1983–84 we expect to spend £960 million on training. In 1984–85 we plan to increase this to £1,100 million. This is in addition to the £2½ billion spent by employers, and the substantial sums within the further education sector. It is vital to ensure that these funds are all used to the best possible effect. This White Paper sets out the Government's continuing programme to ensure that as a nation we are properly trained to meet the challenges of the years ahead."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for repeating the Statement that has been made in another place. May I ask him, bearing in mind the very substantial changes proposed in this White Paper, whether it would not have been better for the Government first to issue a Green Paper to allow the fullest consultations to take place with all the people concerned? May I also ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the fullest consultations have taken place? I ask that because the Statement refers to such bodies as the TUC, and my information at the moment is that production of this document has come as rather a surprise to some of the people involved in it.

May I ask the Minister, further, what is meant by the statement that loans are to be made available to adults under this scheme? I predict, because of the present economic circumstances, that unless those loans are made on very favourable terms there will be very little take-up of that scheme. May I also ask whether the noble Earl can enlarge further on the question of the additional finance for this scheme? Is it to be found by the Government, or is the scheme to be funded totally, or in part, by a clawback from the rate support grant to local authorities, with some of the adverse effects which that will have on those authorities if it is carried out?

My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to thank the noble Earl for repeating that important Statement. It is a Statement on training, but it has important effects on education as well. We are certainly not against central Government initiatives in the national interest, but we have some quite serious reservations about the constant whittling away of local education authority funds for Government-favoured projects in schools; and we also share to some extent the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, about the question of the consultation process.

There are two or three specific questions that I should like to ask the noble Earl. The announcement of the impending creation of the national training authority is obviously of the greatest importance. Can the noble Earl tell us a little more about the intended composition of this body? Will it simply be restricted to the existing MSC, or will other interests be brought in from outside? The question of consultation has also been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dean. May I ask the noble Earl whether, now that the White Paper has been published, and before full implementation, all interested bodies and parties will be brought into the discussion?

The Statement refers to a significant increase to some 125,000 in the number of unemployed adults receiving training. Can the noble Earl tell us what income maintenance arrangements are contemplated for them? Will they simply continue to receive unemployment benefit, or how will that be done? In conclusion, can the noble Earl let us know who will qualify for the guaranteed loan scheme? Will that be simply for the employed, or for the unemployed? This is an extremely important Statement and I hope that later, through the normal channels, we shall be able to arrange for a full-scale debate upon it.

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. In respect of the question about consultations put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, from the Opposition Front Bench, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, this is of course a White Paper and, in itself, will be debated and the subject of consultation. But further than that, the MSC will undertake immediate consultations with local authority associations, with employers' representatives, with representatives of further education colleges, with unions (especially those with members teaching in colleges) and with examining and validating bodies. These consultations will be about all aspects of the initiative, with particular reference to the subject areas and levels to be supported and the appropriate machinery for implementing the initiative. The commission will probably have to have arrangements in place to allow negotiations with local education authorities and colleges, so that they can plan their programmes and budgets in good time for next year. We have to get on with this, and this is, perhaps, why we have issued this in the form of a White Paper rather than a Green Paper.

On the point of guaranteed loans for forms of training, this would apply only to adult training. It has not yet been decided upon by the Government. It is a suggestion which has been put to them by the Manpower Services Commission, and we shall be examining it closely.

The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, asked me about finance. Broadly speaking, this should be neutral in its overall effects, as planned local government expenditure will be reduced by £110 million and Manpower Services Commission expenditure increased accordingly. However, I should like to make two points. First, local authorities and the other interest groups concerned are represented on the Manpower Services Commission. Secondly, this is only a development of a process which has been taking place for some time, because the Manpower Services Commission is by far the largest single customer for local authority training courses. It will be of help to local authorities, and certainly to the young people and adults involved, that a nationally-based organisation which is more closely in touch with employers as well as with movements in the labour market than local authorities can be individually will have this role. I would expect support on that score.

I have tried to deal with the point about consultation made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. Again I would repeat to him that the Manpower Services Commission contains representation from many other interests than the ones I mentioned. On the issue of the allowances paid to adult trainees, my understanding is that these should be competitive with or slightly better than existing rates of benefit. But I should like, if I may, to check that point.

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, could he comment on the national training authority and say whether it will consist simply of existing members of the Manpower Services Commission or whether there will be some amplification of it to cover the various interests?

My Lords, there is a passage in the Statement which states that through this initiative the Manpower Services Commission is to become a national training authority.

My Lords, I wonder whether I could press the noble Earl a little further on that point. The White Paper refers to the fact that the Department of Education and Science will be involved in appointments to the Manpower Services Commission, presumably in view of the growing role of the Manpower Services Commission in the provision of education and training. Does this mean that the Manpower Services Commission will remain as at present constituted, with nine members? If it is to assume the very important function of a national training body, with which I am not quarrelling because it is necessary to have a national strategy for training, to whom will it be accountable?

My Lords, the role of the Department of Education and Science is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be fully involved in considering and approving the Manpower Services Commission's corporate plan and in proposals relating to non-advanced further education and this kind of training. He will also be responsible for consultations on appointments to the commission to represent professional, education and local authority interests in England and Wales. In terms of the accountability of the Manpower Services Commission to Parliament, that will remain, as at present, the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

My Lords, I agree with the principle underlying the White Paper, but we shall have to study it in a little more detail. Could the noble Earl supply us with details of the 15 authorities which have been conducting a pilot study? Could he also name in due course the 43 authorities which have been continuing the pilot study since September?

My Lords, my understanding is that the pilot studies have been relevant to the proposals which the Government are now putting forward.

My Lords, bearing in mind that this is Women's Engineering, Industry and Science Year—I see that some Ministers did not even know this, so I am happy to give them this piece of information—will it be the policy of Her Majesty's Government, through any body which is created, or through any existing body, to encourage more girls to enter the spheres of engineering, industry and science?

My Lords, as I suggested to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, at an earlier stage of this afternoon's proceedings, the Manpower Services Commission is thoroughly interested in widening the range of work and training provision that is available for young women and in trying to get young women interested in non-traditional skills. A national initiative and network for training of this kind will promote this objective.

My Lords, if I may take up the noble Earl's remark that there is no additionality in the funding referred to in this Statement—that it is a straight switch of £110 million from the local education authority account to the Manpower Services Commission's account—is it not a pity that these important initiatives have not received a little more pump priming from the Government?

My Lords, it is always wishful thinking that pump priming in one area can be achieved without the well getting a little drier in another area; otherwise, one would be adding to public spending, taxes and interest rates and reducing the number of employment opportunities that would be available thereby. This is a sensible use of existing overall resources. As I said earlier, it is not a very great change in principle because in this area the Manpower Services Commission is overwhelmingly the largest customer where local authorities are concerned.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 4, line 6, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").

With respect to the noble Lord, one would not have guessed from most of his speech on this amendment that the clause is extending the powers in the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1967 in order for regulations to be made to require the licensing of people engaged in the commercial slaughter of poultry. Indeed, this clause causes those who are selling birds live to the intending consumer and then slaughtering them to be subject to the provisions of the clause.

I thought that the noble Lord would have found it in him—for he is always generous, even though it sometimes takes a little time to get to the generosity—to have recognised that this is a good clause and one that is making an advance so far as welfare is concerned. If the noble Lord could have brought himself to recognise that, then perhaps he could have taken another step and recognised also that it is not either senior or junior Ministers who are insisting on putting up an absolutely unshaken front which is the matter at issue here; it is all a question of consultation.

The noble Lord, with his great experience of these matters, will know that Section 3 of the 1967 Slaughter of Poultry Act provides that there shall be consultation with representative interests in extending this clause. If the regulations were obliged to include all the provisions listed in Clause 5, instead of enabling the Government to have discretion in the light of consultations to decide what should be done, it really would mean that the consultations would have no effect at all, or very little.

If the noble Lord is going to say to me that this is an obscure argument and that I am merely trying to get round the truth, may I take the matter head on and say to him that we would not have put Clause 5 in the Bill at all if we had not intended to use the provisions in the clause. So I do seriously beg the noble Lord to be a little more generous to the Government in bringing this Bill forward. It is a Bill which, as its name denotes, is supposed to improve, and we believe will, the welfare of animals, which we all know the noble Lord has at heart. We shall be able to go on to debate some important amendments which the noble Lord has down to try to improve the Bill. In these debates I do ask the noble Lord to recognise that this is a Bill which is trying to take a step forward, not a step back.

I wonder what the Government have been doing all this time since this matter was first brought within the terms of reference of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 1980. The first thing that the Farm Animal Welfare Council did when it was reconstituted was to go to the Minister and ask for an extension of its terms of reference to bring slaughter into it, and he granted that. They said, "The first thing we want to deal with is slaughter, the care of birds before slaughter, the methods of slaughter, and slaughter generally". That is what they have been doing. The Farm Animal Welfare Council took this on board in July 1980 and reported in January 1982, and it is their report of January 1982 that we are referring to constantly in relation to this Bill. It is now January 1984.

While the Farm Animal Welfare Council were doing their self-imposed task the Agriculture Committee of the House of Commons began work on animal welfare in poultry, pig and veal calf production. So the House of Commons committee was at work while the Farm Animal Welfare Council were at work. On 2nd July 1981 the House of Commons Agriculture Committee produced its report, which cost £55,000 to print, quite apart from all the expenditure on clerks and officials and witnesses. Look at it—evidence from everybody, consultations galore; it could not have done more. It is all here.

What happened after that? What happened after that was that the department sent out a circular to all the people they have to consult, all the people the noble Lord the Minister says would have to be mentioned in the Bill if the Farm Animal Welfare Council were referred to in the Bill. The names of all the people they sent this circular to at the beginning of 1983 covers a page of foolscap, both sides. The extraordinary thing about this circular is that it refers to what the agriculture Ministers will do and what the agriculture Ministers think, and so on. It says that certain matters will be deferred, certain matters will be included in the Bill. All this is put out for further consultation, and it is the end of 1983 when we get this Bill.

Now the Minister says this matter is for consultation. What further consultation, one might ask, is going to be material to the Government's intention? What about the consultations they might well have had with the staff of the Cheltenham headquarters—none whatever? They have made up their mind. They can make up their mind when they want to. As I said, they can take silly decisions on big questions and they cannot take wise decisions on small questions. Here we are arguing about whether it is to be "shall" or "may". The Minister says it need not be "shall" because what "may" means is that those concerned will. The Minister says, "Do you think we would have said 'may' if we did not intend to do it? Should we have put it in the Bill if we had had no intention of carrying it out?" This is just playing with words, but they are important words. An Act of Parliament is read and people rely on it.

I think, quite honestly, this is pretty shocking. I do not know why we should be spending time on it. Talk about costs. Think of the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent already on consulting everybody who could be brought in for c onsultation. The Government say that they have made up their mind to do something, but "It must be 'may' in case we have a change of mind, or something stops us". I do not know; I give it up. I can only say that one can criticise a Labour Government for many things but one cannot criticise them for nonsense like this. If we were going to do something, we said we were going to do it, and we did it. On various matters all Governments have difficulty in deciding what to do and when to do it. But there cannot be any doubt at all that we must have a licensing system.

I do not want to bore the Committee by going into the different aspects of the process of slaughter by mechanical means which require training. The people involved have to understand the effect of electricity; they have to understand about the electric shock system of stunning; they have to understand about the automatic throat cutter; they have to understand whether birds are really paralysed or whether they have just had a shock and will suffer pain before they have got down to the end of the shackle line. Do we really appreciate what kind of process we are talking about? It is slaughter by machinery, slaughter by moving belts and wheels and the imposition of electric current. It is a terrible business, and people must be properly trained. They not only must be properly trained but must understand something of the animals they are dealing with.

There is a silly story told of a boy who wanted to be a slaughterman and was asked, "Why do you want to be a slaughterman?" He said, "Because I am fond of animals". We must surely get some understanding of people who engage in this task. It is not a particularly edifying vocation; I do not know whether it comes under the vocational training scheme we have just heard about.

If the Minister is going to be adamant about this, I think it is about time I felt I must divide the Committee and try to get a decision that way. I do not believe that the Committee can vote down the word "shall" when the Minister says, "It is going to mean 'shall' and the provision would not be in the Bill at all if it was not going to be 'shall'". But the Government do not want the word "shall" in the Bill; they want the word "may". Is that what the Committee is being asked to vote for? I cannot believe it. Anyway, I have had my say.

I ought just to say in reply that, as the noble Lord knows very much better than I do, licensing is highly technical and detailed. Consultation is necessary, but the consultation is not about whether—that is in the Bill—but about how we should introduce licensing. If we put in the word "shall", those who are consulted will say, "You do not mean to consult us. You have made up your minds already". If I may say so to the noble Lord, I do not think that that would be a very good point on which to divide the Committee.

The Question is that Amendment No. 3 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content"? To the contrary, "Not-Content"? I think that the "Not-Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.

Tellers for the "Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.

moved Amendment No. 4:

As an erstwhile junior Minister, I am still smarting from the castigation that we had from my noble friend a few minutes ago. I hope that he will be pleased to know that I support this amendment. As I said about his first amendment, I do not see that the words do any harm. It would be pleasant if the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, could satisfy my noble friend for once. We might then get on a bit more quickly. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, does not feel that he is making much progress this afternoon. I am even more sorry that he feels that more generally he does not make very much progress in your Lordships' House. I cannot believe that it is anything that I have done. I remember very well the three successive Sessions in which the noble Lord put forward his Bill to regulate the sale of live pet animals in markets. If my memory serves me right, on each occasion through long hours we dealt with that important concept—and it was an important concept. As the noble Lord rightly said, it ended up on the statute book.

So far as this Bill is concerned, although the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has supported his noble friend, for myself I find it difficult to support the amendment, though on Second Reading I ventured to make it absolutely crystal clear that we place great importance on provision for training being made in the regulations. However, if we were to accept the amendment, I think that a whole string of amendments of a similar nature, though dealing with other matters, would immediately be tabled in order to have specific conditions, and I believe that the time to consider specific conditions is when the regulations are made. But before they are made there will of course be the consultation process, which must be undertaken statutorily under Section 3 of the Slaughter of Poultry Act 1976. To include specific points in the Bill could prejudice the generality of the powers and make it more difficult for other matters to be included when we come to consult and to make the regulations.

So I would repeat the assurance, which I originally gave on Second Reading, that it is our firm intention to include in the regulations provision for training; let there be no doubt about that. I hope that in the light of that assurance the noble Lord will feel that it would not be right to include training as one specific item in the regulations, because if we were to do that we would in some way be belittling other points which should be in the regulations, and that I believe would be a pity.

I shall not take up the time of the Committee in replying to the noble Lord in the vein to which I am accustomed. I shall leave him alone for a minute or two because I want to be left alone myself for a minute or two and make way for my noble friend Lord John-Mackie. I think that it is about time he had a go. I am becoming a little weary, and there will be quite a lot else that will engage the attention of the noble Lord the Minister when I come to a subsequent amendment. So I shall put greater reliance on the understandings—I do not say undertakings—that we have gained from the debate on this particular matter, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 5:

I have some sympathy with the amendment because it is practical for small farmers. As everyone knows, small farmers have always wrung the necks of their poultry. But members of the public would be extremely mystified if what is proposed in the amendment were to be inserted into the Bill because the Bill's main object is to improve the means of slaughtering poultry, so that it is done by the most humane method. Therefore the public may think it very illogical that whereas large amounts—thousands—of poultry have to be slaughtered in the most humane way, or at any rate in what the Government and the so-called experts think is the most humane way, the slaughtering of small amounts of poultry is not covered in the Bill. That would be very illogical.

I very well understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. Poultry on all small farms is free range, and there it would be very difficult to slaughter the poultry in the same way as it is done on very large poultry farms. Perhaps I have got it wrong, but it seems to me that if the proposal were included in the Bill it would be very illogical, though on the other hand it would be practical for small farmers. However, I am rather mystified.

Before the noble Viscount sits down, I should like to point out that I was not suggesting that there should be an alteration in the method of slaughter. One can get a small hand stunner and the same method of stunning the animal and then bleeding it would be carried out in the cases that I have mentioned. I am not asking to go back to the old method of putting the head below a stick between the legs and pulling up.

I should like very briefly to support the amendment. There are many farmers who breed poultry for the Christmas trade and then have to slaughter it themselves. While there is every support for ensuring that the method of slaughter is controlled and that the right method is used, the Bill allows for extra people to go in to do the job at such times as Christmas.

Would it be possible to limit the number by inserting the words,

"small amounts of individual animals"?

That might possibly imply a smaller number.

The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, raised this matter in his speech on Second Reading. In the amendment he is asking for a power to exempt the smaller producer who is slaughtering on the farm, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough, and I think by implication the noble Lord, Lord Somers, would support the noble Lord in the amendment. I believe that the power that is sought is already available. By that I mean that I think that in the clause there is wording which means that when the regulations are made it will be perfectly possible for the smaller farmer to be exempted. Of course it would be necessary to face the problem of how exactly to define the smaller producer; and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has made a suggestion in that regard that we should like to look at.

I am not absolutely certain that I can tell the noble Lord that his point is met. I shall look carefully at the Bill to make absolutely certain that it is met. If I am not correct in the belief that it is, I shall get in touch with the noble Lord and we can return to the matter at a later stage. I believe that this power should be in the Bill. It is right that there should be a power, and I believe that the power is already there. Having said that, I cannot say precisely what activities might be prescribed for any exemption or what qualifications we might wish to attach. We shall be undertaking full consultation before the regulations are made. We have to do so under the 1967 Act. We shall give very careful consideration to all representations made to us by small farmers, by the farming unions and by other interests concerned.

I come finally to the point made by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. My noble friend stated in essence that there is surely a difficulty here, that if we are concerned about the welfare of large numbers of birds. then we must not run the risk of being accused in either House of Parliament of not being concerned with the welfare of smaller numbers of birds. Our priority, first and foremost, must be the welfare of the birds concerned.

I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, said. The noble Lord would immediately say to me that he is concerned, and I would agree with him, about small numbers of birds. As he explained, there is reason to believe that where you have smaller numbers of birds it is easier to deal with the welfare of those birds than it is in the case of large numbers of them. These are all matters which need to be considered in the consultation process before the regulations are made.

At this stage I think that all I can say is that we agree that the power to be able to do this should be contained in the Bill. I believe that it is in the Bill, but I am not absolutely certain. If by any chance I find it is not, I shall immediately get in touch with the noble Lord and we can return to the point at a later stage. With the assurance that I have given, I hope that he might feel that for the moment the point is covered.

Before my noble friend Lord John-Mackie responds, may I underline one point. The amendment speaks of, "on the farm slaughter" and farmers have been referred to through-out the discussions so far. I hope that we can distinguish between "on the farm slaughter"—that is, the farmer slaughterer—and the small poultry slaughterer. There is a distinction. One can concede something to the farmer given an order for a dozen hens or cockerels for Christmas who says, "I will slaughter them and dress them". I am anxious, however, that we should not be led into thinking that cover can be given to someone who sets up as a small slaughterer. He is not a farmer. He is just pulling in birds and slaughtering on a small scale. Then he becomes a slaughterer on a big scale, or a bigger scale. So the thing grows. We want to be clear that we are talking about "on the farm slaughter". The noble Lord the Minister in considering the matter further will have to bear that distinction in mind.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, says this because it is important to take that point on board. In saying that one of the things to be taken into account in making the regulations was the number of birds being dealt with, I was in no way seeking to cast any reflection upon the standards of the very large-scale slaughterers. I was addressing myself entirely to the point that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, made, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has also drawn attention. It was that which, I was saying on behalf of the Government, would need to be considered along with a whole lot of other matters when the regulations are made. I believe that there is power in the clause to be able to do so. I feel rather shamefaced in having to put it like that and not being absolutely certain. But, shortly before the Bill came on to the Floor of the House, I and those advising me felt that we were not absolutely certain in giving a complete undertaking to the noble Lord. That is why I have spoken in this way.

I should like to thank those noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I am not a lawyer or a draftsman. I recognise that the amendment is not well drafted and that it leaves out the point mentioned by my noble friend. It uses the expression "on the farm". I meant the farmer and I meant small-scale. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for the point that he made in order to try and get over the difficulty of the size. I do not wish in any way to make slaughtering any different. I would like to think that slaughterers are liable to be inspected to see that they have a proper stunner and carry out the job as it is done where regulated by licence. In saying that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:

moved Amendment No. 7:

I think that the word one should use about my noble friend's remarks in moving his amendment is "wide-ranging". This is a paving amendment to his schedule at the end of the Marshalled List. My noble friend hs put forward a very strong case for his code. He admits that it is not complete and that it could be improved. Before we reach any decision on it I await the Minister's reply as to whether or not he thinks it should be included in the Bill in due course.

I should like to ask the noble Lord whether there are not two misprints here. One is in Amendment No. 8, which says:

"…during which vehicles containing live birds may remain unloaded on reaching their destination".

Does not the noble Lord mean "loaded on reaching their destination"?

Is that in the schedule?

No, this is in Amendment No. 8.

At the moment I have only moved Amendment No. 7.

Yes, I know, but we are coming to Amendment No. 8. Am I in order to speak to the schedule?

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was moving Amendment No. 7, but the noble Lord was also speaking to Amendment No. 14.

I fully appreciate that the whole matter of this Bill is a most emotive subject. We all have our store of horror stories based on varying degrees of factuality, and it always tends to lead us to believe that someone else is scurrilously opposed to our own particular hobby-horse. Therefore, it is with particular regret that I rise to oppose this amendment as a paving amendment for the inclusion of the new schedule to the Bill. I do not have anything at all against the schedule itself; I think that its conditions are admirable. I just oppose the fact that they come as an amendment in primary legislation because, as such, it becomes more or less inscribed in tablets of stone, for ever immutable, or only alterable with immense administrative effort.

I think that noble Lords would be generally agreed that, owing to the extreme sensitivity of this subject, the trade federations concerned have been very worried over their image and they have themselves been to great lengths to assist in establishing codes of practice, often based on extensive and most expensive research which they have carried out. In this case I suppose that we are referring mainly to the British Poultry Federation, but I think that the Minister would probably agree that all those organisations have been very responsible, and have been very responsive in providing on-going advice as to what is the up-to-date state of the art.

Once we include codes of practice in primary legislation, we are fixing ourselves at a point in time, with the attendant difficulties regarding change. It is for this reason, and its lack of flexibility in change, and not the provisions of the schedule to come under the later amendment, that I must oppose this amendment.

The effect of Amendment No. 14, to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was speaking as well as moving Amendment No. 7, is to put into this Bill different items which would form part of the code of practice for which the Bill is providing in general terms—a code of practice for the practical application of the legislative provisions for the welfare of poultry, both before and up to the moment of slaughter. I think I can allay Lord Houghton's apprehensions when I say straight away that all the points the noble Lord has listed in his schedule in Amendment No. 14 are, so we intend, to be covered in a code of practice. All of those points in Amendment No. 14 are listed in the Government's response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report as being suitable for inclusion in the code.

I would go further and say that we shall shortly introduce the proposals for regulations to cover many of those points, and the ones which do not go into the regulations will anyway be going into the code. The noble Lord made the point in moving the amendment that in addition to the points in Amendment No. 14 there are other things which the Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended. It is here that we come into a practical difficulty, because it would certainly disturb the Government if we felt that we had put into primary legislation certain points which were said to be necessary for a code and then had left other points out. This would start us off on the wrong foot.

In addition to that there is the general point of principle which the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, put to the Committee, and I am bound to say that I agree with the noble Earl. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will accept my assurance that the points—important points in many cases—are going to be covered in the code of practice for which Clause 6 makes provision, and some of the points will be in regulations also.

I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his reply. We are almost getting on friendly terms, and I am grateful for that. I appreciate, too, the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. This gives me the opportunity of paying great tribute indeed to the work being done by enlightened leaders of some of the trade associations. A good deal of expense is being incurred by the British Poultry Federation, for one, in trying to seek answers to deficiencies of which they are as fully aware as anybody who goes to look at them, and probably more so.

They are conscious of their image and the unfavourable publicity given to particular cases which are reported, or may be the subject of prosecutions. One must not overlook the fact that the RSPCA are as vigilant as they can be on matters of this kind. I sometimes wonder why it is left to the RSPCA to engage in prosecutions when it is the duty of somebody else. When you find that a person who is prosecuted and convicted for neglect and then not long afterwards is prosecuted and convicted a second time, you wonder what sort of person he is to be doing this job at all. Yet it is the RSPCA, a voluntary organisation, which embarks on this task.

Prosecutions cost the RSPCA over £100,000 a year, and yet, in a sense, this is not their duty. They have no right of entry. Unlike the inspectors of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, they have no power to go into premises and take anything away. Indeed, I think the National Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is the only voluntary body which has a statutory right of entry. This is all a part of the general scenery in which this work is undertaken, and everybody is playing a part. Those who are doing it voluntarily and on subscriptions from the public, and so forth, want to be encouraged in the work they are doing.

The Minister has naturally pointed out that this is not a very tidy or efficient way of adding a schedule to a Bill. It was highly selective, and I am glad to have included in it matters which the Minister says are to be covered by the code of practice, and some of them by regulations when the time comes. Yet again, I must be content with very small mercies—very small indeed—and accept the Minister's assurances, and offer some hope to those who clamour outside, and who write to me, and say, "Why isn't something being done?" It is not an exciting role for anybody who takes up a cause in Parliament. You get letters from hundreds of people asking you why you are not doing more, and why animals everywhere at all times are not being protected by some legislation worldwide. It is moving to get letters and representations of this kind. and also other activities provide one with serious anxieties from time to time.

I accept what the Minister has said, and I am grateful for the opportunity of making a few comments in reply to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment No. 7, and with it Amendment No. 14.

moved Amendment No. 8:

Arranging lorries to arrive at a particular time so that they can be unloaded is a very difficult problem, and it is one which applies to all haulage situations. It does not matter whether it is wheat, potatoes or anything else: there are always hold-ups; lorries break down and the timing is very bad.

When it comes to the transport of livestock, of course, the birds, or the beasts for that matter, suffer. I think my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby is quite right to raise this as a real point. He mentioned that birds were standing for 5 or even 6 hours on one occasion before there was a prosecution. But whether this should go in as part of the Bill, I do not know. I will leave that with the Minister, who I am sure must take the point that this is a very real problem and it is one we should try to solve one way or the other.

I think good management at a poultry slaughter-house would alleviate the situation considerably. I think of trying to make people come at the time the birds are required. I see no reason why that should not be done. But whether it should be in the Bill is a different story. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say.

I still think that "loaded" would be less misleading than "unloaded". But if the noble Lord wishes to include "unloaded while still in their crates," why not limit the time that birds shall remain in their crates on arrival?

I should like to support this amendment. As Lord John-Mackie pointed out, the troublesome question arises when lorries arrive at the slaughterhouse. If there is not good management, they may arrive at the wrong time. Then the lorry might breakdown. This could prove extremely inhumane and cruel, especially when the lorry is parked in the sun, and the birds become dehydrated. If they are extremely firmly packed they will be extremely uncomfortable and may well die.

I should like to recount something that happened in that regard. I had a big dog show in my grounds this summer, and it was a hot day. There were a lot of cars parked in the sun and some people were so ignorant that they left their dogs in the cars and did not open the windows. We had to go around smashing windows with hammers in order that the dogs should survive. We thought three were dead, but the vet was able to revive them. We broadcast over the Tannoy system, but if the people concerned do not turn up you cannot let the dogs die; so we just smashed the windows.

This is rather outside the scope of this amendment, but great distress can be caused if birds going to the slaughterhouse are not unloaded promptly. Whether it is practical to put it into the Bill I must leave to my noble friend the Minister.

I fully appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, wishes to make this amendment. I think all of us in the Committee this evening feel that he is rightly concerned about the condition of birds which may spend long periods in a lorry outside the slaughterhouse before they are unloaded for slaughter.

Incidentally, in passing, I should just say that the suffering of birds in a vehicle through lack of ventilation would, of course, be an offence now against the Conveyance of Live Poultry Order 1919 or the Slaughter of Poultry (Humane Conditions) Regulations 1971.

Having said that, the noble Lord has a very important point here, and the Government share his concern. We are determined to do what we can to improve the welfare of these birds. I was very grateful to the noble Lord for the generous words he spoke about the British Poultry Federation on the last amendment. I was very glad the noble Lord saw fit to do that, and I feel sure that what he said will be appreciated by the federation, which indeed is doing good work in respect of poultry welfare.

There is, I think, a real difficulty about this amendment, and not perhaps quite the kind of difficulty which noble Lords may expect me to put forward; it is a practical difficulty. I think it may be that this amendment could lead to a deterioration in the welfare of some consignments of birds, and I will explain why I say that. If, for instance, a consignment arrives at a slaughterhouse at a time when the operator knows that he will not be able to process the poultry within the time laid down, he might, in order to avoid breaking the law, refuse the lorry admission so that the birds might end up in an unprotected lay-by or a car park somewhere else. This is, I think, a very real possibility.

To take another example, the birds may be kept on the lorry for the period laid down in circumstances in which welfare considerations would have required immediate unloading. In other words, those concerned may simply say, "The law allows us to continue to have the lorry loaded for a period of time." And they just go off and leave the load instead of unloading immediately, as perhaps they otherwise would have done. For these reasons I think we need to think very carefully about the way in which we make regulations, if we are to tie it to the formula in the noble Lord's amendment.

There are two further points which I must make. The first is that we already have powers to make regulations governing the welfare of poultry on lorries, both on the road and at the slaughterhouse. The second point is that this matter is under review at the present time, and I should just say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, that if he puts a pistol to the head of the Government so far as timing is concerned, I think we might well find we have not got quite enough time to continue the necessary consultations on this matter. The Farm Animal Welfare Council has already been consulted on the Ministry's proposals for a new order on the transport of live poultry. I understand that the council has recently suggested some modifications to try to cover the problem with which the noble Lord is concerned, and, indeed, to try to cover the sort of problems that I have outlined in my remarks. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the suggestions of the Farm Animal Welfare Council are under consideration now.

So without in any way wanting to appear that we are dragging our feet—I assure the noble Lord that we are not—I give an assurance that we are fully seized of the concern on this matter and that we most certainly intend to take action. But for the reasons I have given, I think that the amendment might be counter-productive as it is drafted. I will not conceal from the noble Lord that I am a little worried about having a pistol put to our heads concerning the timing, although we intend to try to get this difficult problem put right.

Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, whether it would be possible to achieve the same end by, starting from the beginning, limiting the time in which the birds are allowed to remain in a crate?

This may be one of the options which is being considered at present. The difficulty one has to contend with is in trying to make absolutely certain that what is not done is to find that when a lorry arrives at its destination the time limit has run out and the operator may say to the driver: "I am going to break the law if you are allowed to be unloaded," and therefore turn the vehicle away. That is one of the greatest difficulties. But I repeat my assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. We have received some alternative, revised suggestions from the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and I assure the Committee that those and other considerations are under active deliberation at present.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. The last thing in the world I would do is to put a pistol at the Government's head, in case it was loaded and accidentally went off. The Minister has given a full explanation of the difficulties. I am bound to confess that in my own amateur way I have tried to pick out suitable subjects for debate on the Bill in Committee. I realise that in this matter I have only half the problem, and it is a difficult half as well—but all in all it is the transportation and waiting time problem not only at the destination but at intermediate stages.

There is a good deal to consider in this regard and I am glad to receive the assurances of the noble Lord. This is the final word I shall be putting on the Committee stage, and I should like to thank the Minister very much for his patience and endurance to thank also the noble Lords who have stayed to listen to my afternoon of harangue on cruelty to poultry and kindred matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 9:

First, I should like to make it perfectly clear to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the Government most certainly will make arrangements for the distribution of codes of practice issued under this clause. However, the noble Lord's amendment would appear also to oblige the Government to put copies on sale, and we would not wish to be contrained to do so, since, in the interests of promoting the welfare of poultry in slaughterhouses—and precisely because, as the noble Lord has pointed out in his speech, at the end of the day there is a sanction in the criminal law—it is our intention to distribute copies free of charge to, for instance, the slaughtering industry and others with an interest in the humane slaughter of poultry. The Government are anxious to avoid the problem that the amendment would cause in the way I have just explained. With assurance that we shall most certainly be distributing copies, I hope that the noble Lord may think it is right to withdraw the amendment.

I am grateful for that reply, but I am sorry to say that I do not find it satisfactory. What we need to do, surely, if the Government are with me as far as the first part of the subsection goes, is to redraft it so that there are separate obligations. One is that Ministers "shall" make proper arrangements for distribution and need not put them on sale, but may distribute copies freely, which I am delighted to hear may happen. It is simply a matter, is it not, of separating two things and applying my amendment to one and not to the other?

I admit that what the noble Lord has said is not particularly complicated and I do not know that I need to go away to think about it for too long. But it is the noble Lord's amendment and not the Government's and if I think about it a little perhaps the noble Lord would think about it a little, too, and perhaps we shall come to an arrangement at the next stage of the Bill.

I think that is a very happy and satisfactory arrangement and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 10:

The effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be to provide that the price which would be charged when a price is to be charged for the distribution of codes of practice must be reasonable. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in the final words he addressed to the Committee a little earlier this afternoon—they were characteristically generous and I was most grateful to him—came close to saying I think that Ministers—at any rate sometimes—are not unreasonable. I would say that those of us who serve in governments are always reasonable—not because I have an inflated idea of what those of us who work in governments are like but because the advice I have received is that it is the case that all Ministers' decisions are subject to judicial review and a test of reasonableness.

The noble Lord has endeavoured to persuade us that whether or not that is so, if the court came to look at the price which was being paid it would be important to have the word "reasonable" in. The noble Lord felt the court would take the view that "reasonable" would mean "reasonable from the point of view of the person who is paying the price". I do not know whether that is the construction which the court would put on the word "reasonable", and the noble Lord may be right or he may not. At any rate, I shall not attempt to contradict him. I am not entirely sure, for the reasons that I have given about ministerial decisions being subject to the test of reasonableness, that it is completely necessary to have the word "reasonable" in. However, the noble Lord has made a good case and I have great pleasure in accepting his amendment.

moved Amendment No. 11:

The noble Lord on Second Reading made the point that he was a little concerned about the level of fees, and the effect of this amendment would be to require an estimate of these fees to be provided to an applicant. I think that I can give the noble Lord the assurance which he wants, although I do not think it is necessary, if I may say so, to accept the amendment.

It is the intention to levy fees according to a standard scale, and the assurance I give to the noble Lord is that the scale will be published when regulations on charging are made. The scale of fees will be updated from time to time as necessary and all changes will also be published. Therefore those who are liable to pay fees will know in advance, and that is the effect of the amendment. An applicant therefore will know the fees to be charged under the regulations in connection with any approval, licence, test or appeal. I hope the noble Lord will feel that my assurance meets the intention of the amendment.

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think that it meets the intention of the amendment, but it is essential that any applicant should know beforehand what he has to pay. Of course, he also has the right of appeal. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 12:

Here, again, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, raised this matter on Second Reading and if the Committee will forgive me I shall spend a moment or two in replying, because it is important and I should like to get on the record what the situation is as people are concerned. The noble Lord is quite right: people want to know exactly where they stand and the noble Lord himself will wish to hear the explanation.

With respect to the noble Lord, if this amendment were accepted there would be no control whatsoever on the incorporation by on-farm mixers of medicines in animal feed, because the amendment would remove from the scope of the new Section 40 all on-farm manufacture of medicated feedingstuffs. It would mean that the new Section 40 was more restricted in scope than the existing section which it will replace. Under the existing Section 40, an on-farm mixer may only incorporate a medicinal product into a feedingstuff in accordance with either the terms of the product licence or, in the case of a prescription-only medicine, a veterinary prescription.

I should like to emphasise, as I said on Second Reading, that these are enabling powers and there will be full consultation with all interested organisations, including, of course, the farmers' unions, before any regulations are made. The important subsections here are subsections (1) and (2) of the new Section 40. Subsection (1) gives Ministers power to prohibit the incorporation of a medicinal product in an animal feedingstuff unless conditions specified in the regulations are satisfied. The conditions are set out in subsection (2). I should like to make it clear that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) will not necessarily all apply in every case. The regulations will be drafted in such a way that an on-farm mixer will not have to be registered with the Pharmaceutical Society under subsection (2)(c). He will, however, have to comply with the conditions specified in subsection (2)(a) and (b) which are already contained in the existing Section 40.

Some on-farm mixers may, of course, choose to register in order to be able to obtain and incorporate products with a high level of medication. As I explained on Second Reading, it is our intention to ensure, through our existing powers in relation to licensing, that products with a high level of medication will be available only to those manufacturers who are capable of incorporating them into feed under carefully controlled conditions; in other words, manufacturers who are registered. Similarly, registered dealers in medicated feed will be able to sell or supply products with a high concentration of medicine to registered manufacturers only. On-farm mixers who can meet the conditions for registration which will be contained in the proposed code of practice will be able to register, if they wish to do so. But on-farm mixers who are not registered will have access to products with a lower level of medication, which can safely be incorporated into feed with fewer controls on the mixing process.

I am sorry for the length of that explanation, but I hope it is enough to demonstrate that it is essential for on-farm mixers to remain within the scope of the new Section 40, and to show that we do not intend to restrict the activities of on-farm mixers unduly. However, we consider it essential that products with a high concentration of potent medicines are available only to those who are capable of ensuring that they are safely mixed into feed. I repeat the assurance that there will be full consultation before these new powers are exercised.

To go back to the beginning, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, the effect of the amendment is not acceptable because it would take on-farm mixers out of control, so far as mixers for animal feed are concerned, which would change even the existing law. I hope the noble Lord will feel that that would not be desirable. On the other hand, I also hope he may feel that it has been valuable that he has given an opportunity for me to put this explanation on the record.

I thank the noble Lord very much for that very full explanation. I can see the point that with their high potency some of these medicines may be misused. Of course, a farmer is not pevented from using lower potencies of medicines which are approved. But the point I was making was that most of these medicines are approved and the noble Lord seemed to be saying that it is not the medicine but the mixing of it that is the difficulty. Modern farm mixers will do as good a job—probably a better job—than a huge mixer in a feedmill, so the noble Lord has not made a very strong point. The incorporation of the medicine is what he was concerned with—not the medicine itself. I do not think any farmer would put in more than was necessary, because these medicines are expensive. All of the medicines that I have seen and used have had instructions on the label and the incorporation of them can be done just as well on the farm, if not better, as elsewhere. I do not want to press the point—

May I make the point that in the sort of case which the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is speaking about—and he knows about such cases from personal experience—the answer is surely for the farmer who is doing on-farm mixing to become registered. That is open to him, as I endeavoured to make clear in my remarks.

I do not want to press the amendment and I take the point that the farmer can register. But I just felt that the subject should be aired, because it creates a drag on farming if they have to register and operate under regulations which have to be applied on a big scale, but which do not need to be applied to farm mixing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved manuscript Amendment No. 12A:

said: I beg to move this manuscript amendment which I shall read, because it appears to me that the Bill is positively wrong. I am suggesting that the words on page 15, lines 34 and 35, should be omitted. These words are:

"In this subsection 'the Agriculture Ministers' has the same meaning as in the Medicines Act 1968".

I am proposing to put in much more straightforward words:

"In this Act 'Ministers' means the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food".

That is a true statement of what is happening.

I ought to take away this point and have a look at it. My noble friend has made what seems to be a formidable case, that the drafting could be clarified, an objective which we all want to achieve. On a manuscript amendment I do not believe that I ought to say anything, from the Government's point of view, which might change the drafting. If my noble friend feels that it is reasonable for me to take the amendment away in a constructive spirit, I shall be very happy to do so.

I thank my noble friend for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 13:

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 97A:

After Clause 65, insert the following new clause:

I appreciate the intention behind the amendments which have been moved by my noble friend. Clause 95 of the Bill already provides for seizure and detention by the roads authority of any animal which is left on or strays on to a public road, unless that road runs through unenclosed countyside. I doubt whether my noble friend intended the amendment to apply in an area such as that. Clause 95 covers the situation where an animal is at large on the road with nobody being in charge of it. If an owner were so imprudent as to put a horse or cattle in charge of someone who was not able to exercise effective control, he might well lay himself open to a charge under the common law. I am aware that Clause 95 does not include an offence provision, but it provides for the authority to recover from the owner its expenses in seizing and detaining the animal. And administrative costs being what they are, the sums involved, and consequently the degree of deterrence, are likely to be much greater than the fine proposed in the noble Lord's second amendment.

There is another question. I have no complaint about the drafting of these amendments, but there is a question as to whether criminal responsibility should be put upon the owner of the animal. For example, it could be that the owner of the animal has left it in charge of some estate or stable which is perfectly competent to have charge of it, so far as he knows, and the animal is allowed to get out as a result of some failure on their part. There seems therefore to be a question as to whether it would be appropriate in any event to put this responsibility upon the owner.

For these reasons, we feel that the amendment which has been moved by my noble friend is probably unnecessary. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he may feel able to reconsider the matter.

It is true to say that we touched on this subject during our debate last year on the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill. I remember making a brilliant speech on the subject of the offence created there of being drunk in charge of a horse. I made reference to Tam o'Shanter on that occasion, but I bow to the superior knowledge of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in this respect.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for reminding us of that occasion. I am reminded of other occasions on which he also made brilliant speeches on that Bill. The speech to which he referred introduced the element of being drunk in charge, whereas this does not.

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for what he has said. It appears that the other clause to which he referred is intended to cover the situation to some extent. I assume that is how the recommendation of the 1972 working party is being dealt with. I hope that my noble and learned friend will confirm that point. I am sure that those who are interested in this matter will want to read what he said in relation to that other clause of the Bill before reaching any further conclusion. I am sure that they will also be grateful that the drafting, which did look a little strange to the layman, has nonetheless passed the Lord Advocate's eagle eye. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 98:

I appreciate the point which the noble Lord is making, but there is a substantial difference between what he has proposed and what we have proposed, and I shall try to explain that difference briefly. If the noble Lord will refer to Clause 66(1)(b), he will see that what is being contemplated is that the road,

"is or will become unnecessary".

If the noble Lord's amendments were given effect to, the possibility of dealing with a road which "will become unnecessary" will be prejudiced. The existing subsection is an important improvement on the situation because, under the law without that provision, it would mean that, if one were making a new stretch of road, one could only close up the old stretch of road once the new stretch was in position and in use. It takes some time to make an order under that provision, whereas we wish to have the additional facility of making the arrangements in advance so that, when the new road comes into action, the old road that has become superseded and unnecessary can be taken out of action immediately. That will have some benefit, as I am sure the noble Lord will immediately appreciate. As I understand the amendments proposed, that is the difference between us. A substantial and important benefit will be damaged by the approach that is proposed.

These two amendments were the brainchild of my noble friend Lord Hughes, who is not here to argue them. It would be presumptuous on my part if I proceeded to cross swords with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in respect of this matter. I am prepared to examine what the noble and learned Lord has said because there are other stages in the Bill at which we can tackle the subject again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No.100:

moved Amendment No. 101:

moved Amendment No. 102:

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 103:

moved Amendment No. 103A:

These amendments are eminently sensible and I am very grateful that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has covered the point. I fully support what he has done.

Is it to your Lordships' pleasure that I put Amendments Nos. 103B, 103CA and 103D together?

I beg to move Amendments Nos. 103B, 103CA and 103D.

moved Amendment No. 105:

moved Amendment No. 106:

Before the noble and learned Lord replies, may I put a question on Clause 82? At line 20 on page 54, Clause 82(2) says:

"Such permission…in subsection (1)(a)…may be granted either unconditionally or subject to such conditions".

and when it mentions the conditions it says:

"and the conditions may in particular relate to".

It is not for me to interfere in a family debate about Scottish roads, except that something always happens to me on Scottish roads and so I watch them with the greatest of care whenever I have the privilege of being in that lovely country. I particularly wanted to ask the Minister about the siting and lighting of the skip. It does not look as though Clause 82 makes it mandatory for the skip to be lit; only that it may be lit if the local authority desires it. Because skips are so dangerous —and again because I have such danger on Scottish roads, sometimes simply because of the speed at which I go; I find that the police force in Scotland watch for English bishops, but that is a personal matter—may I ask, what about the lighting of skips?

The first thing I would like to say is that we regard "clearly" as including the kind of considerations the noble Lord mentioned. If a skip is clearly marked with the owner's name that means that it is clear to those who look at it what the owner's name is, and therefore I would suggest that "legibly" does not really add anything to this provision. I have had a look at the dictionaries and I think they confirm my earlier impression that that would be the situation; there is a good deal of common ground between "clearly" and "legibly".

Now if I might address myself to the question posed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, first of all may I say how much I welcome his participation in our consideration of this Bill because what happens in Scotland is of course vitally important for everyone, including the bishops. I should also say perhaps that the Scottish police are extremely impartial in their dealings with people, and therefore no particular favour is to be expected by an English bishop travelling in Scotland; on the other hand, I think it is also fair to claim that no special disfavour is likely to be meted out to him either.

So far as his question is concerned, what we have done is to give power to the local authority on the basis that they may grant permission for the use of the road by the builder's skip either unconditionally or subject to such conditions, including, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the siting and lighting of the skip. We have done it on that basis because there is no question that if the skip was to be there overnight in the hours of darkness then it would be a reasonable condition that one would expect the local authority to impose. On the other hand, if it is going to be there an hour or two during the day any condition about lighting would be inappropriate.

Of course, the siting is also a question of circumstances; what one would impose in the way of conditions as to siting would also be a matter of discretion for the local authority. The right reverend Prelate will also be aware that Clause 58(1)(b) makes other provisions for the lighting of obstructions. I hope that in the light of these explanations the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Even before this came to my notice I had been taking a close look at some skips. Many of them are clearly marked, but not legibly; one cannot read who the owner is. That was the point I wished to cover. It may well be that one is clearly marked at the time it goes out and is put on the site, which may be on a pavement or just off a pavement. By the time loading up is finished—and many of these things lie there for two or three days—it has become illegible.

The right reverend Prelate has a very good point. I have seen a skip in the small quiet street in which I live lying there for about a week or so. In many cases mud is splattered over them, and although they are marked they are not marked so as to be legible all the time. That was the only point I wished to make. There may be other points we can raise on this on the Question that the clause stand part, more validly in respect of the point raised by the right reverend Prelate. So far as the amendment is concerned, it was designed to be helpful. As the Lord Advocate knows, I always agree with him when he is being sensible about these things, and if he is satisfied I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

I return to a point which has been mentioned before and which I feel will come up on many other discussions on the Question that the clause stand part. This clause gives the roads authorities powers to control the siting and operating conditions of all types of builders' skips which are unlike their present powers. I understand Section 22 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970 limits skips being used for purposes other than building to only the roads authority. It seems a logical extension that all skips on the road be now the responsibility of the roads authority rather than the district authority.

The problem arises—and this is the point we shall continually come back to—that it will add, with all the other conditions in the Bill, additional expense and responsibility to the regional authorities, who are in most cases the roads authorities.

I think that there will be perhaps substantial increases in the work load. It is not an easy matter. Inspectors or other highway people may be out on the roads representing the district, doing 101 other jobs and merely noticing these things as they pass, taking notes and getting the process going. The responsibility cannot just be taken from them with the assumption that money is being saved by transferring the responsibility to the roads authority and that it will all balance out.

Various other responsibilities will be put on the roads authority and the Bill will cause regional councils considerable extra expense. I have been approached by regional councils which are concerned about this. This is not perhaps a matter for the Lord Advocate in his judicial role but perhaps it is in his role as a Government Minister generally. He should be aware that the regional authorities are concerned about the amount of extra work that will be put on them as a consequence of the Bill.

I believe that skips are not always used by their owners but are let out to others from time to time. Therefore, would it not be the person operating the skip who would require permission from the roads authority?

I shall draw to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. I have no doubt that such considerations are taken into account. We are doing what we can to make sure that the arrangements for distribution of the powers are as economical as possible. That is one of the reasons why my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston was asked to chair a committee to examine these matters.

I say to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that the permission is not particularly to be given to the owner. It is not specified particularly who asks for the permission, but the identification of the skip is by reference to the owner. That seems a good arrangement. Whoever happens to be using the skip at the particular time, it is important that when the skip is found on the road it shall be easy to discover who owns it and who therefore has the ultimate responsibility for the way that it is being used.

moved Amendment No. 107:

Noble Lords opposite can certainly take it that the Lord Advocate is always grateful to them for all the help they can give. I appreciate the spirit in which the amendments are moved. I appreciate the elegance of the noble Lord's drafting, but the difficulty is that if the drafting in Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 is given effect to, there is no connection necessarily between the projection and the building. The responsibilities accrue according to the building which is owned or occupied. Therefore, I think it is necessary to specify some connection between the building and the projection which is the source of the trouble.

The phrase:

"and is specified in the notice",

is already in the clause.

But what is specified in the notice must be a projection from the particular building. It is that concept—the connection between the projection and the building—which is required as the basic power, apart altogether from the notice, which the noble Lord's amendment does not leave clearly in the clause.

I think that Amendment No. 109 is not necessary for this reason. The amendment is being suggested to subsection (3). Subsection (3) plainly refers to compensation. "payable under subsection (2)". When one looks at subsection (2), it is plain that the person paying the compensation is the roads authority. That is the obligation of subsection (2).

Much as I appreciate the spirit in which these amendments are moved, we have considered them carefully and have concluded that on this occasion the present drafting is to be preferred. I hope that the noble Lord may feel persuaded by that.

I am not persuaded. I should like to argue the matter out, but this is not the Scottish Grand Committee. May I tell the Government that if ever they get this Bill into the Scottish Grand Committee in another place they will never get it out. That is not a warning, because I am not there now, but others have followed on.

I disagree with the noble and learned Lord in respect of the wording of subsection (1). In respect of subsection (3), I was making it absolutely clear as to where responsibility would lie and clarifying the phrase:

"No compensation shall be payable",

by making it clear to whom that referred—the authority. When I read the Bill I see the number of otiose phrases in it. The amendment has much more to commend it than have many of the other things that we have in the Bill and will be putting into it. But at this late hour of the night I do not see why we should prolong the argument. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I shall not move the two succeeding amendments.

I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 109A is agreed to, then I cannot call Amendment No. 110.

moved Amendment No. 109A:

I am prepared to agree to this amendment. I think it is an improvement. The point that also concerned me when I put down Amendment No. 110 is that very often the offender is the local authority parks department which allows trees to overhang roads, completely shrouding the light from the lamps that it has put up, which are then not effectively lighting the roads. I know of roads where there are lights on only one side, and the local authority fails properly to trim the trees that overhang the road. I have even seen people having to walk on the carriageway because of bushes and so forth overhanging, not from the gardens of private dwelling-houses, but from public parks. I hope that this point will be taken notice of not only by other people who are concerned, but also by the local authorities themselves, so that they meet their obligations to pedestrians and motorists in regard to branches and bushes that obscure and overhang.

I should like briefly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has said. I have been trying to work in a certain idea which I should like to mention. In many cases local authorities dig ditches and then leave the spoil on the side of the road. I have tabled one or two amendments to deal with the point, though I am not sure that they are in the right place. In this part of the Bill all the emphasis has been on the ill-deeds of frontagers, and so I think that the noble Lord is perfectly right in that a certain obligation should be placed on local authorities. I know of cases where on narrow roads there has been built up from the spoil of ditches—which no doubt are necessary—a considerable bank which interferes with the view down the road. I do not think that that point is covered, and I should like my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate to look into it to see whether a duty can be imposed on the local authority to ensure that it does not restrict or obstruct vision in this way. I have down an amendment which roughly covers the point, though, as I say, I am not sure that it is in the right place, and I should like my noble and learned friend to consider putting it in the most appropriate part of the Bill.

I certainly take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk have made—that it behoves authorities which have powers to keep other people in order to make quite certain that their own parks, trees, and shrubs are in proper order. I have no doubt that, if they failed in their duty to see to that, they would certainly lay themselves open to questions at common law if damage resulted.

With regard to my noble friend's concern about the view being obstructed by the placing of spoil on the roadside, I think that we discussed the point at the last proceedings of the Committee, and I agreed to look at it in detail. We are in course of doing that, and I should not like to take the matter further at the moment, though I shall certainly let my noble friend know when I have completed my consideration of it. I think that some of the amendments are still to be dealt with, though really we dealt with them all effectively on the earlier occasion. I am grateful for what has been said, and I am glad of support for the amendment

moved Amendment No. 111: