[Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD in the Chair.]
(1) No animal shall be slaughtered in a slaughter-house or knacker's yard except in accordance with the provisions of this Section and it shall be the duty of the local authority to enforce the provisions of this Act within their area.
(2) Every such animal shall be instantaneously slaughtered, or shall by stunning be instantaneously rendered insensible to pain until death supervenes, and such slaughtering or stunning shall be effected by a person who is at the time the holder of a licence issued by the local authority under Section two of this Act by means of a mechanically-operated instrument in proper repair.
(3) The rules as hereinafter mentioned in the schedule to this Act shall apply to slaughter-houses and knacker's yards.
(4) If any person contravenes or fails to comply with or causes or permits any contravention or non-compliance with any of the provisions of this Section, or attempts to slaughter an animal in a slaughter-house or knacker's yard otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions, he shall be liable on conviction by a court of summary jurisdiction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds or on a second conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds or on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds, or to both such imprisonment and fine, upon an information laid by any person."
Amendment moved [1st July] in Subsection (1), at the beginning, to insert the words: "Subject to any special resolution passed by any local authority to the contrary for their own area."—[Mr. Womersley.]
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Mr. WOMERSLEY: I will continue the Debate where we left off when the Committee adjourned on Wednesday 40 last. I remarked on that occasion that I moved my Amendment with every confidence that it would be accepted, because I know that the Ministry of Health are very favourable to leaving matters that can be dealt with by local authorities to those authorities. We have had expressions of opinion on that subject from time to time when discussing various Bills before Parliament. Indeed, hon. Members will recollect that at our last sitting I brought forward an Amendment seeking to give power to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries to deal with this very question, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health then stated, very emphatically, the views of the Government in regard to leaving these matters to any particular Department. She told us that after consultation between the Minister of Health, and the Minister of Agriculture both Ministers were of the opinion that matters such as these should be determined by Parliament, and not left to any particular Department. I know, from what has been said in dealing with other matters, that, where it is a question upon which local authorities can exercise their power with proper discretion, it is far better to leave it to them rather than lay down hard and fast rules. At the present moment there is a model By-law, 9B, which sets out the conditions under which local authorities can issue regulations as regards the question of the slaughter of animals for food. That by-law was issued because there has been a good deal of agitation similar to the agitation that has been recently conducted by certain people who hold the view that to stun an animal by a mechanical instrument such as is known as the captive bolt pistol was a better method than the older method of the pole-axe. As the Ministry were of the opinion that this was a matter which should be dealt with by the local authorities, they issued by-law 9b, making the Act purely adoptive. If certain local authorities thought it desirable to adopt that by-law they could do so, but this had to be done by a resolution of the local council, duly elected by the people. What has happened? The position is that some 370 local authorities throughout the country have adopted that bylaw, but over 1,000 local authorities have refused to do so. I submit that there must be good and sufficient reason why 41 over 1,000 local authorities have refused to adapt the by-law. Further, the authorities which have adopted it, have granted exemptions, in most cases, as regards the slaughter of swine, and the reason why it is desirable that local authorities should have the right to continue on the lines on which they are now operating is that everything depends on local circumstances. For instance, the authorities which have adopted the by-law, with the exemptions I have mentioned, are authorities in whose areas large bacon-curing factories are situated. They have made the exemptions because, after going thoroughly into the whole question of whether or not the flesh would deteriorate by reason of the animal being slaughtered by this mechanical instrument, they have come to the conclusion that the use of the instrument would mean a great hardship to the industry in their midst which they desire, not to cripple and cramp, but to foster and encourage. They realise that these local bacon factories have to compete with oversea products from countries where this mechanical instrument is not used upon swine, and they know that when bacon is cured from animals slaughtered by the mechanical method, there is what is known as blood splashing, causing the bacon to look loathsome, so that people are not inclined to buy it for consumption. That has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt, and these local authorities, having satisfied themselves that such is the case, have, for that reason, granted exemptions in regard to the slaughter of swine. I have served on a local authority for about 21 years and the question of adopting model By-law 9B has been before the council of that local authority on two occasions. We have a set of men and one, lady member on that council who are as humane as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) or anyone else. During the period when I had the honour to he the mayor of that town I took a great interest in this question and, after considering the arguments put forward on behalf of the society which my hon. and gallant Friend so worthily represents in this House, I felt that a case had been made out for the use of the mechanical killer. I attended a meeting of butchers in my town and heard what they had to 42 say on the other side of the question. They took the right course. They suggested that the only reasonable way of testing the matter was to have a demonstration in the largest slaughter-house in the town, which the members of the council were to be invited to attend—an ocular demonstration of the different methods of slaughter. I arranged for such a demonstration, and the members of the health committee of the corporation attended in large numbers, because great interest had been aroused in the town on account of the agitation on the question, and also because they felt, as I felt, that if there was a method by which animals could be more humanely slaughtered than the existing method, then it was the bounden duty of the council to put the model by-law into operation. We invited the society to send down an expert, and they had the right to choose their expert. We did not dictate to them in the matter and, I imagine, they brought along the most expert man they had. We had three methods—the method of stunning by the pole-axe, the method of stunning by the mechanical killer, and we also invited the Jewish Rabbi to give a demonstration of killing by the Jewish method. It was explained that it was necessary, whichever operation took place, that the animal's throat should, later on, be cut, so as to provide for proper bleeding, otherwise the flesh would not be fit for human consumption. We were prepared therefore to witness what might be termed a very gruesome sight.
Mr. LEE: On a point of Order. This is the same story that we had at the last meeting. It is exactly the same as will be seen in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Mr. McSHANE: Are we not discussing whether or not local authorities should have the option of contracting out of these provisions? Is that not the essential point of this Amendment and is the hon. Member in order on such an Amendment in going into the merits or demerits of different methods?
The CHAIRMAN: I am very much afraid that the hon. Member is quite in Order. He is giving reasons why local authorities should be given the right to decide, and, as long as he sticks to that point he is quite in Order.43
Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am trying to demonstrate why I think it absolutely necessary to leave a discretion with the local authorities. I am pointing out that local authorities who have been asked to adopt this by-law have to my knowledge taken great care to ascertain whether it is in the best interests of all concerned or not. I cannot present my argument properly unless I am able to prove that the precautions such as I describe have been taken by local authorities. To continue, I must say that, at this demonstration, as far as the larger animals were concerned—the bulls and cows—there was very little to choose between the two methods. The slaughter-man employed by the local butchers was a young man of 19, and he brought down a very sturdy beast with the first blow of the poleaxe. The Official who operated the mechanical killer brought down his beast in just a little longer time, but there was very little indeed in it. In both cases, the animals had to be bled afterwards, otherwise it would not have been a proper operation. I ask the Committee to note, however, what happened in regard to the smaller animals. This is an important point, because I am asking that local authorities should have the right to say yea or nay, and that if they think it is in the best interests of all concerned to exempt certain animals, they should be able to do so. There is no difference of opinion between myself and my hon. and gallant Friend as regards the larger animals, but the question of the smaller animals arises here. At this demonstration, as far as they were concerned, either the operator for the society was very unfortunate on this occasion, or else the instrument he was using was not suitable for the smaller animals. I am inclined to think that the latter was the case. I do not think that it was lack of skill on his part.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now going too far. I cannot allow the details which he is giving now.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: I need only say that as regards the smaller animals, the demonstration of the so-called humane killer, which I prefer to call the mechanical killer, was a failure. Later on, I may have an opportunity of giving the reasons why, because they have a bearing on this subject and to my mind 44 prove up to the hilt that local authorities should have the power to decide whether exemptions are to be made or not. This Bill has been introduced simply because over 1,000 local authorities have refused to put model by-law 9B into operation. If they had done so there would have been no need for the Bill. The model by-law is there and can be adopted by any local authority which desires to do so. Over 1,000 of them, for good and sufficient reasons, have refused to adopt it. Therefore, it is sought to apply compulsion to properly-elected local bodies, whose members have to appear before the electors, who are in close touch with local opinion, who know what the people in their districts are thinking and upon whom great pressure can be brought to bear if it is thought by the public, that they are not acting in the best interests of all concerned. There is another point. In some districts a good deal of slaughtering is done for the larger towns. The meat has to travel long distances and probably has to be kept for a considerable time before being offered for sale. Therefore, it must have proper keeping qualities, otherwise great losses would be entailed to those engaged in the trade, and the public would not get the article of food which they ought to get. In those districts, if it has been proved that the flesh has not the desired keeping qualities in cases where the animal has been slaughtered by the mechanical killer, the local authorities, if they wish, as most of them do, to foster local trade and enterprise, will, after carefully considering the whole question, come to the conclusion that it is not in the best interest of the trade that this instrument should be used and they will grant exemptions in those cases. I believe that ours is the finest system of local government in the world. It has been a model for other nations to copy and the men and women serving on local authorities are there to do their duty, without fear or favour, by the public who have sent them there. It is offering a grave insult to these people to say that because over 1,000 bodies have refused to put the model by-law into operation Parliament will put a mechanical killer to their heads, and say "You must do it."
Mr. McSHANE: It is an outrage!45
Mr. WOMERSLEY: I quite agree with the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane). It is an outrage. It is a grave insult to those who are serving on local authorities who—
Mr. EGAN: After careful consideration.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Egan) is one of those who will have to listen to what local authorities have to say, and I think he will support me when he knows the position of his own town. In Birkenhead, a large county borough with two Members of Parliament, there is a large industry employing thousands of men, directly or indirectly, when in full operation, and if this Bill becomes law without this Amendment, or those Amendments which will be moved later, the effect will be very bad on the lairages in Birkenhead, because instead of the animals from Ireland being slaughtered at Birkenhead they will be slaughtered on the other side of the Irish Channel and sent here as carcases. Nothing in this Bill can prevent carcases coming into this country of animals which have been slaughtered by the pole axe method. This Amendment, therefore, will be very helpful to Birkenhead. They may decide to adopt this Bill with the exception of animals slaughtered—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now merely repeating arguments which he has used several times over. If he has nothing further to say he must resume his seat.
Mr. MARSHALL: On a point of Order. Other hon. Members are interested in this matter, and we cannot contemplate with equanimity the hon. Member taking up all the time of the Committee.
The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has a perfect right to speak as long as he keeps in order and does not repeat himself.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am quite prepared to place myself in your hands, because I know that I shall receive fair treatment. I would suggest that the hon. Member will have ample opportunity of speaking on this Bill, although I do not notice that he has anything very helpful on the Order Paper.46
Mr. WINTERTON: We have noticed the same thing about the speech of the hon. Member.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: Evidently, some hon. Members have had no experience of Parliamentary work—
The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to speak to the Amendment.
Mr. SUTTON: He cannot.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: If I am continually interrupted in this way—
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): Order, order!
Mr. WOMERSLEY: The hon. Lady must allow me to finish my sentence, instead of interrupting. There is no one more troublesome in that respect than the hon. Lady. No doubt hon. Members have received a circular from the Association of Municipal Corporations, which represents practically all the municipal authorities in the country. They take great exception to certain things in the Bill. If my Amendment is accepted their objections will be met because the power will be in the hands of local authorities and they will be able to deal with this matter as they think fit. It is only right and proper to leave it to local authorities who understand local conditions, and know what is to the best advantage of their areas. They are composed of men and women just as humane as any hon. Member who is supporting the Bill, and they should have the right to say whether the Bill shall operate in their area or not.
Sir JOSEPH LAMB: With many of the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) I am in complete accord, but I cannot support the Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill has said that he proposes to exclude pigs and, of course, I accept that statement. So far as the Jews are concerned, I do not think it is possible for any Bill to be passed which does not give fair consideration to the special case of the Jewish religion. Consequently, on these two points I cannot support the hon. Member. There is, however, another reason, and a very strong reason why I cannot support the Amendment. He 47 says that it is much better to allow local authorities to decide on the ground that they have local knowledge. I say nothing disparagingly about local authorities, but they are purely administrative bodies, administering Acts which have been passed by this House, and I object to putting into their hands the power to decide whether certain provisions passed by this House shall or shall not be administered in their own areas. Some of these matters may create a great deal of feeling in local elections. For these reasons I. cannot support the Amendment.
Mr. LANG: I support the Amendment, and I am surprised that the principle of local option has not been received with a chorus of approval. The Bill throws a heavy responsibility upon local authorities and therefore they should have a right to decide whether it shall be applied in their locality or not. Hon. Members who have been interested in these matters for some years know with what thoroughness local authorities have considered applications which have been made to them by the representatives of various societies which exist for the protection of animals. The representatives of the butchers and meat traders have also placed their case before local councils and they have adjudicated upon the whole case. In my constituency that was done with great thoroughness on both sides, and the borough council of that very large town decided, after careful consideration, that the use of mechanical means for slaughter was desirable in the case of large animals but was not desirable in the case of smaller animals. That decision was based upon a knowledge of local matters and after careful hearing on the spot, and it was not only the fairest method of arriving at a decision but it was a decision which was therefore less likely to cause irritation and rankling in its operation. That is a matter of some importance in connection with so controversial a subject as this. It must be remembered that the mechanical instrument is no guarantee of humanity; there is quite another view upon that matter. Those who support the Bill will agree that if it becomes law its success will depend very largely upon the willingness of the people who have to operate it. People, of course, must carry out the law 48 whether they approve of it or not, but much can be done by getting a willingness on their part to carry out any provision that is passed. Even that is not sufficient. I received only yesterday a letter from a lady who takes a great interest in this matter and she told me of a very large concern of butchers in which she is interested who have for a long time row employed the mechanical killer in their abbatoir. So thorough was the manager of this concern to see that it was carried out properly that he insisted upon the immediate dismissal of any man who did not use the mechanical apparatus, and no less than seven men have been dismissed in the last 18 months.
The CHAIRMAN: I cannot see that this has anything to do with the question as to whether local authorities shall have power to decide.
Mr. LANG: I am trying to show that here is a case in which a refusal to operate meant the dismissal of seven men and consequently great cruelty. The sole point is this, that a great deal of the success of the mechanical killer depends on the co-operation of the people who are engaged in its use. The point I was making was that if local authorities, after hearing the case for both sides, decide to adopt this method of slaughter, there is likely to be much less rancour and wrangling and it will be carried out with far more thoroughness than otherwise. I am a firm believer in the principle of local option. I hold the view that the people on the spot know the requirements, and I am not able to accept the argument of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) that if this question were left for decision locally it would introduce a good deal of extraneous feeling into local elections. I regret to say that I do not think local electors are so very much alive—
Sir J. LAMB: If the electors are not alive to this question, what becomes of the hon. Member's previous argument?
Mr. LANG: My previous argument was not concerned with the general body of electors who, as the hon. Member knows, are concerned with very few things, and the local things they are concerned with are in the main forgotten the morning after the election. [Interruption.] Well, 49 that is the experience of a great many of us, and I think some hon. Members have been glad, occasionally, that local electors do have short memories. In answer to the hon. Gentleman I would only say that my argument in favour of discretion being left with local authorities was based on the fact that they are the responsible administrators on the spot, and would hear the case for and against. I cannot cenceive this question entering as an issue into local elections, except that here and there ladies will be writing letters and doing things of that sort; but it is my experience that people who are very much concerned about animals generally have something much more vital to interest them when elections come round.
Mr. GUINNESS: The arguments we have heard in support of this Amendment are more directed against the Bill as a whole than in favour of the Amendment itself. I recognise the knowledge and experience in this matter of my hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), and I regret to have to disagree with him, but, after all, his object is to prevent the general use of the mechanical killer, because he does not believe in it. This Amendment would not secure that object, but it would go far to destroy the case for fresh legislation. Already local authorities have the power to decide, and the case for the Bill is that the methods have been tried out sufficiently to justify Parliament in deciding that on the result of those experiments the use of the mechanical killer should be made universal. That does not mean, however, that it must apply to all animals under all conditions. My hon. Friend argued that this method of slaughter is unsuitable in the case of pigs, and I agree with him, but this Amendment is no solution of that difficulty. Pigs ought to be left out of the Bill. We ought not to traverse the whole object of the Bill by retaining the existing discretion of local authorities, but get on to the real point of what animals should be made subject to the provisions of the Bill.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I hope that my hon. Friend will not press this Amendment. I support strongly the attitude taken up by the late Minister of Agriculture the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness). This Amendment would kill the whole pur- 50 pose of the Bill. Why should Parliament try to avoid its responsibilities? On the Second Reading of the Bill Parliament decided, in principle, that the humane method of slaughter should be adopted, and in face of that all the arguments in favour of this Amendment must fall to the ground. I have been round the country speaking on behalf of this movement amongst local authorities, and in many cases members of a local authority have said to me, "Take away from us this burden of decision. We have numerous other interests pressing us from every side and we are placed in a most invidious position. You are satisfied, Scotland is satisfied, and Parliament ought to be satisfied, after the experience gained, that the time has come for general legislation." I am fortified in that statement by a report by the Metropolitan Cattle Markets Committee made to the Common Council of the City of London, and dated the 16th October, 1930: "It is, in our opinion, desirable that, in the cause of humanity and to avoid disturbance in an essential trade, there should be uniformity of precept and practice throughout the country, and we are convinced this can only be obtained by general legislation. We therefore recommend that the Members of Parliament for the City of London be approached with a view to the presentation of a Bill in Parliament to deal with the slaughter of all animals throughout the country, and that the Government be asked to give facilities for the passing of such a Bill." That recommendation from a distinguished and knowledgeable body should have weight with this Committee. They have decided that the time has come for general legislation. They want to be freed from the unhappy position in which they find themselves of being called upon to decide these matters; that is a responsibility which Parliament ought to undertake. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and let us get on to the fundamental issues under the Bill.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I hope the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) will not withdraw his Amendment. This is obviously a matter to be dealt with by the local authorities. They have to administer the Food and Drugs Act and to look after the purity of food supplies, and why a matter of this kind, which very much concerns the food of the people, should be withdrawn from their 51 cognisance, I cannot understand. I do not believe that it would be made an issue at local government elections, but, if it were, there is no doubt the question would then be gone into with much more thoroughness and detail than is possible here. It is true that the principle was approved on Second Reading, but we had no real evidence before us, only the ex parte statements of the promoters of the Bill. This is really a scientific question. I yield to no Member in my fondness for animals and in my humanity, but it is unfair that we should be involved in this maelstrom of statements and counter statements.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: It is our job.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: But how are we to decide? The hon. Member referred to the Committee set up in 1908, but there is a salient passage in the preamble to the Admiralty report which said that the decision of the committee was taken on purely humanitarian grounds and had no regard to the quality of the food produced, and in refraining from quoting that the hon. Member was not quite frank with us. He was disingenuous. He also quoted a report from an assistant sanitary inspector of the Ipswich Corporation. That man was a paid inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who had been put in for the purpose of getting entrance to the local bacon factory. He was not an unbiassed witness. All through the whole of the statement is redolent with suppression of things.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: May I contradict the statement just made by the hon. Member? He said that a statement I made on the Second Reading of the Bill was inaccurate in that the Admiralty report was based on the evidence of a humanitarian committee.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: No. I did not say that. What I said was, that in the preamble to their report it is stated that the Committee laid particular emphasis on the fact that the inquiry was a purely humanitarian one and that the hygienic side of the question, while of the utmost importance, was beyond the scope of their terms of reference. Therefore, I say, it really ought to be left to the local authority, who already have to deal with food questions. If there is a bacon factory or 52 a slaughterhouse in a particular district, they will have all the evidence on the matter; the electors and the men who work in it will all be interested in the question, and it will be thoroughly gone into. That will not be the case in districts which have no such places. I am reminded of those districts in the west end of important towns which always vote for local veto because the people there have wine cellars of their own. We find that in Scotland. The people who have the bacon factories and the slaughterhouses are the people to decide, and they will decide on evidence; on scientific evidence. It is very wrong in the present state of frantic, one might Almost say fanatical, controversy that we in Parliament should be left to decide. I have had personal experience of the methods of controversy adopted. I have had a copy of a document sent to me with the bits that seemed to reflect against the views of the promoters of this Bill excised. I have found the original document and compared it with the version sent to me, and have found how those people were trying to mislead me.
The CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. and learned Member of the text of the Amendment. He is wandering very far away from it. The Amendment concerns local authorities and not the communications the hon. and learned Member has received.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is my point, that the local authorities will get at the facts.
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member must put his points forward on the appropriate Amendments and not on an Amendment dealing with local authorities.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I accept your Ruling. What I wished to say was that the local authorities will be in a far better position to get information and evidence than are the Members of this House. The promoters of this Bill baptise this thing with a humane name and then come to Parliament and say we must accept it or else run the risk of being branded as inhumane persons. Already 370 local authorities have adopted this procedure, and that is a very good number to be going on with. 53 Why cannot the promoters be satisfied with carrying on the good work in that way instead of asking us to make it compulsory all round? Local authorities may find that they get a specimen of ham such as I now exhibit to the Committee. There are the blood splashes on it. If this Bill is made compulsory, it will be too late for the local authorities to go back to the older methods, whereas now they are given the opportunity of adopting the by-law and trying the experiment, and of retracing their steps if they find that it is a failure, and that the food of the people is affected. Once they are forced at the point of the pistol, then there is no way out for them, whereas this Amendment gives locus poenitentiae if that trial is found unsatisfactory. Surely, that is the proper way to deal with this question, and it is utterly wrong for these people to have these things rammed down their throats. My Amendment will give elasticity, and the opportunity of really trying the thing, not as a laboratory experiment and not as a question of the theories of doctors or veterinary surgeons, who are only expressing their own opinion. Let us try
|Division No. 2.]||AYES.|
|Lang, Gordon||Macquisten, F. A.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Jones, Llewellyn-, F.||Marshall, Fred|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Lamb, Sir J. Q||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Cowan, D. M.||Lawrence, Susan||Peake, Captain Osbert|
|Egan, W. H.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Sutton, J. E.|
|Freeman. Peter||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Gower, Sir Robert||McShane, John James||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm., Ladywood)|
|Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.||Mansfield. W.||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Marcus, M.|
The CHAIRMAN: The first six Amendments standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) are to a great extent inter-dependent on one another, and the debate on the first Amendment might well cover the six Amendments.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "No" ["No animal'], to insert the words: "carcase, nor any part of the carcase, of any animal shall be offered or exposed for sale unless such." It will be necessary to make the Clause read, after inserting my Amendment, "unless such animal has been slaughtered," instead of "unless such animal shall be slaughtered," which is54
my suggestion, and leave the decision to the local authorities, who will, no doubt, be on the humanitarian side and do their best to carry out the principles of the Bill. If they find that the Measure will not work, and that all the fine statements which have been made about it are not going to be carried out in practice, then they can go back upon what they have done. For these reasons, I ask that this Amendment should be accepted.
Miss LAWRENCE: The Government have left this matter to the responsibility of Parliament. Parliament has decided the principle of this Measure, and it seems to me that all the arguments we have heard which are directed against the main principles of the Bill are more suitable to the Second Reading, and were all adduced in the Second Reading Debate. I suggest that we are now debating something which Parliament has already settled in principle.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 3; Noes, 23.
better grammar. I do not see why people should be encouraged to use other methods of slaughter. Our feelings ought to be just as much opposed to cruel methods of slaughtering sheep in Tierra del Fuego, the Argentine, or anywhere else, and also in the case of oxen and other animals. Why should we not have the same human sympathy for animals slaughtered in any part of the world, which are destined to be consumed in Great Britain?
The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment has nothing whatever to do with sympathy or cruelty. It is merely a question of carcases offered or exposed for sale. I must ask the hon. and learned Member to address himself to that question.55
Mr. MACQUISTEN: This Amendment, if carried, will prevent any animal in any part of the world, destined for sale in the British market, from being slaughtered in any other way than by the mechanical killer. I think that argument is consistent with the principle which is inspiring this Bill. I have no objection to spreading the use of this beneficent mechanical killer, if it be such, all over the world, but I wish to point out its effect. Many people are convinced that the use of the mechanical killer will affect the saleable quality of their produce, with the result that they will have to compete unfavourably with the Danish or the Irish people, or with people in any other part of the world from which our food supplies are drawn. Our own breeders of live stock, which have to be sold in the open market, are entitled to equal treatment, and the foreigner or the Colonial breeder who is sending his supplies into our market should be compelled to adopt the same methods that are being enforced in this country. I think that is a very fair proposition, and I feel quite sure that the promoter of the Bill will not controvert that statement. It only means equality of treatment, and it is entirely in the interests of humane killing. It would be a monstrous thing to think that carcases may be brought to this country which may have been killed by all sorts of brutal methods and even torture to improve quality and our farmers and butchers would suffer. My proposal ought to appeal to all those who are trying to make the practice of humane killing general.
Sir ROBERT GOWER: May I point out that the object of this Bill is "To provide for the humane and scientific slaughter of animals, and for purposes connected therewith" ? I respectfully submit that the hon. and learned Member's argument does not come within the Title of the Bill.
Mr. McSHANE: I think the main point of the argument of the hon. and learned Member is that humane slaughtering methods should be adopted overseas, where our Parliament exercises no control whatever.
The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment deals with "exposing for sale.' Therefore, the argument of the hon. and learned Member is quite in order.56
Mr. MACQUISTEN: All I contend is that the local man who is selling the meat should be able to show that the meat was humanely killed, or else he should not be allowed to sell it. I do not think there could be anything more fair than that. That is the acid test of the promoters of the Bill, and if they really believe in the principle of the Bill they must accept my Amendment. We have been told what has occurred in regard to British sheep. One has only to read the speech of the promoter of this Bill to be made acquainted with all the horrible things that are being done. Why should these humane principles not be applied to animals which are being imported into this country? If my Amendment is carried I think the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ought to show their appreciation by making me their next president, although one would not like to be subjected to such contumely as the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower), in regard to which I sympathise with him. One does not like to come into conflict with these violent people. If the Committee adopt the extension which I suggest, we shall be the pioneers in this matter, and there would be glory for the society to be able to say, "We lead the way. We were the St. Paul of humane killing in every land." I am sure that the Amendment will be greatly appreciated by the promoters of the Bill.
Mr. WINTERTON: We have had a most extraordinary gymnastic performance from the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten). If we carry our minds back a few moments we shall recall that he was then telling us how important it was that this tremendous issue should be decided not by this Parliament but by the local authorities.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: You refused that Amendment.
Mr. WINTERTON: We have now listened to another speech in which he has destroyed completely his previous argument that this is a matter of the parish pump. He now asks us to believe in the principle of humane slaughter—as long as it is extended to the furthest bounds of the Empire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of the world!"] In fact he has envisaged a really remarkable situation in which all the nations of the world would come together to 57 elect the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire as the new president of the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. I was touched by his reference to the sacred right of looking after the people's food, but I am exceedingly sorry that he has fallen from his high estate as one who has always been regarded as a champion of the sacred right of looking after the people's drink. It is pleasing at any rate to see how widespread are the interests of the hon. and learned Member. His ubiquitous performance is one which I hope his constituents will duly note and when he comes to the position of requiring a testimonial for election to the world Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, I shall have the greatest pleasure in giving him what support I can.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: I desire to associate myself with the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire in this Amendment and I take exception to the remark of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton), describing the hon. and learned Member's speech as a gymnastic performance. It was nothing of the kind. He suggested to the promoters of the Bill that the Amendment was a test of their sincerity in this matter. It is also a test of whether we are going to allow our own people to suffer from the competition of other people who are not compelled to comply with the regulations in this Bill. The hon. and learned Member is asking for fair treatment all round and I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) himself would prefer that this instrument, of which he is such a strong advocate, should be in universal use throughout the world. It is impossible for Parliament to pass a law of that universal kind, but it is not impossible for Parliament to say that, if we are going to compel English and Welsh butchers to use a certain method, which many people think will have a deteriorating effect upon the meat, then we give them the assurance that they shall not have to suffer from the competition of those who send from abroad meat not slaughtered in that way. Hon. Members may ask how this proposal is going to affect the question at all. During the Second Reading Debate evidence was produced to show that in certain countries 58 the mechanical killer is used for meat for home consumption whereas, in the case of meat for export, its use was not insisted upon. All meat allowed to come into this country not slaughtered by mechanical means will be in direct competition with the produce of our farmers unless this Amendment is included in this Bill and the Amendment is therefore only reasonable and fair to our own people. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs in refusing to accept a previous Amendment said that representations had been made by the London Market Committee that the use of this instrument should be widespread, so that there would be uniformity of practice throughout the country. That is because London is the greatest meat market in the Kingdom and if it had to depend on animals slaughtered within its own area, it would not have a quarter of the supplies it requires. The local butchers, acting under the model by-law, have to use the mechanical methods, but people can send in meat, slaughtered in the other way, from other parts of the country. Thus, there have been repeated complaints that those who killed locally were in an invidious position, as compared with those who slaughtered in outside areas, where this restriction did not apply. Therefore the London committee asked that instead of local authorities having the right to adopt or reject the by-law its application should be made general. The same argument applies in this case, if the restriction is imposed in England and Wales while at the same time, meat slaughtered by the ordinary method is allowed to come into the country from abroad. Remember that we import far more meat for consumption than we kill and producers of meat here will be faced with that competition and will lose by it. If we put restrictions on our own people we ought to protect them against the competition of those who are free from such restrictions. It would be a splendid instrument of propaganda on behalf of the society so well and worthily represented by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs if we laid it down that foreign producers must use the method which he advocates or else they will not have the benefit of the British market. That would help the hon. and gallant Member's cause enormously, but if he resists the Amendment it will be 59 a proof that all he is anxious about is to harass our Own butchers and those who produce cattle and sheep and pigs here. We have been told that pigs are to be left out, but they are still in the Bill. The refusal of this Amendment by the hon. and gallant Member will be a proof that he is not much concerned about whether this is a right method or not and that he is prepared to allow a situation to exist in which, possibly, two-thirds of the meat consumed in this country will not be from animals slaughtered by the humane method. That is an illogical position. If he accepts the Amendment we shall realise that there is deep sincerity behind this movement in favour of a method of killing which is, however, described quite wrongly in the Bill as "humane." It has never been proved yet. No Committee of Inquiry of this House has yet—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is getting away from the text of the Amendment.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: We shall get back to it. There is no difficulty about that. I am sure that if we accept the Amendment it will be in the interest of the hon. and gallant Member's Bill, and it will—
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has made that contention several times already. I must ask him not to indulge in continued repetition.
Mr. WOMERSLEY: With all due respect, this is the first time I have said that to accept the Amendment would help the Bill. What I said before was that it would show the hon. and gallant Member's sincerity. I say now that it would help him considerably with the Bill because it would remove a good deal of opposition. Many people in this business look with apprehension on the prospect of having to meet competition from outside sources and from those who will be able to kill by the ordinary method as against the restrictions imposed in this Bill. The hon. and gallant Member will find on the Order Paper an Amendment asking that animals from abroad shall be exempt—that is animals from abroad, killed in this country. I do not know what he is going to do 60 about that Amendment, but if he accepts the present Amendment then he can claim that he has struck one of the greatest blows ever struck for the cause he has at heart.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Winterton) talked about my gymnastic display. I do not think that the hon. Member is likely to have much knowledge about anything connected with athletics but what I would point out to the hon. Member, and to other hon. Members associated with him in this matter, is that in voting against this Amendment they are again voting against their own country and voting for the foreigner. They are taking an utterly unpatriotic line. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) suggested that the firm of Messrs. Marsh and Baxter were going to raise a large sum of money to oppose this Bill, but how do we know that the opposition to this Amendment -is not supported by foreign importers and that they may not have raised an even larger sum for that purpose. Messrs. Marsh and Baxter completely denied the statement to which I refer and were very indignant about it, and there is just as much evidence for it as for the assertion that if this Amendment is opposed, it is because there is some foreign influence at the back of the opposition, which is trying to penalise British farmers and producers and offer them up like lambs at the slaughter. We know where all the unpatriotic votes come from, but we did not expect one to come from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: It is obviously intended by this Amendment to waste time and kill the Bill.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member entitled to make that statement?
The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that that is an argument which ought to be adduced in the circumstances.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Very good. I withdraw that, but I leave it to the opinion of hon. Members.
Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is not withdrawing it.61
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: It is quite obvious that we could not accept the Amendment, because we could not enforce it. It involves passing the whole responsibility in this matter from the butchers to the salesmen. Why should the butchers be relieved from their responsibilities and the salesman saddled with those responsibilities. I think that the distributive trade would take a very great Interest in this point and I am sorry that the hon. Lady who represents that union is not here. We are faced with this position. We must regretfully admit that we bring into this country a large proportion of foreign meat. It is necessary to do so to supply the needs of our people. But it is for us to put our own house in order first in this country, and give a lead to the rest of the world, as Scotland has given a lead to us. By adopting this Amendment we should be shelving our responsibilities and abandoning the position which we aught to occupy in this country as the protagonists of humane methods.
Sir J. LAMB: I am in favour of the principle underlying the Amendment. If animals are killed here or elsewhere it is only fair and right in the interests of the consumers of this country that the same method should be adopted elsewhere as is adopted in this country. The hon. and gallant Member says that we could not enforce this proposal in other countries. I must controvert that statement. We can. We can say that every carcase imported into this country shall be accompanied by a certificate stating that the animal has been slaughtered in this way. In the case of potatoes a certificate is given on importation that they have been produced in clean areas. That certificate is accepted, and it is to the advantage of the country growing potatoes that their areas should be kept clean, otherwise they would endanger their market in this country. I am in favour of the principle of the Amendment.
Mr. WELLS: I desire to support what has been said by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb). This is a vital point. I do not follow the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) in his statement that we cannot enforce this proposal. I think we can, and I think it can be enforced by 62 the method suggested by the hon. Member for Stone. I can follow the argument of the hon. and gallant Member that this may mean a restriction of trade, but I cannot agree with his remark that it is impossible to enforce this provision and, therefore, I shall support the Amendment.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: If this Amendment were carried it would mean that we should not have enough meat in this country to feed our own people. We do not produce anything like sufficient to supply our people, we have to import it. The Amendment would immediately create the necessity for legislation in other countries which we could not enforce. The Amendment would simply kill the Bill.
Mr. McSHANE: The principle of the Amendment is one which everyone who is in favour of the humane slaughter of animals would support, and to that extent it is a pure platitude. The only question is whether it would not destroy the Bill. I know one thing which it would certainly do, it would have the effect that the poorest of our people would suffer, and would suffer first, because they would not be able to get the meat which is now coming in from abroad. Imagine the effect of an Amendment which says that on a certain day no meat at all shall be allowed to come into this country and to be exposed for sale unless it can be proved that the animal was killed by the humane killer. Imagine the chaos which would exist in this country and the situation in which the poorest of our people would be placed. The wealthy people would not be inconvenienced at all. If the hon. and learned Member really knew what he was doing I think he would hesitate. The Amendment punishes the poorest of our people—I hope he takes a pride in such a proposal. The Committee is in entire sympathy with the principle of the humane slaughter of animals all over the world, we wish it could be done by this Bill, but it cannot be done. I do not suppose that hon. Members opposite have the slightest hope of carrying the Amendment; it has only been moved for the purpose of delaying the progress of the Bill.63
Sir J. LAMB: The hon. Member has inferred that the Amendment will inflict hardship on the poor. Nothing of the sort. The poor people, so called, and perhaps the real poor, are the people who have the best meat. You will find according to the Ministry of Agriculture returns that there is more national mark beef sold in the east-end of London than there is in the West-end.
Mr. McSHANE: Does that mean that wealthy people are buying foreign meat?
Sir J. LAMB: It means that many wealthy people have their food so cooked
|Division No. 3.]||AYES.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||McShane, John James|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Jones, Llewellyn-, F.||Mansfield, W.|
|Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Marshall, Fred|
|Egan, W. H.||Lawrence, Susan||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Freeman, Peter||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm., Ladywood)|
|Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Macquisten, F. A.||Marcus, M.||Womersley, W. J.|
The CHAIRMAN: Only 19 Members have voted for the Closure, therefore, the Motion is not carried.
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. McShane) has said that he agrees with the spirit of the Amendment; but that it was a pure platitude. I should never accuse the hon. Member of having an original mind, but I would point out that if he agrees with the principle it is his conscientious duty to vote for it. That is another platitude which, unfortunately, he seems to disregard. The hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill says that we must put our own house in order. That is exactly what I want to do. We have already a precedent in this matter because we do not allow prison made goods to come into this country. Why should
|Division No. 4.]||AYES.|
|Lamb. Sir J. Q.||Wells, Sydney R.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Macquisten, F. A.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Marshall, Fred|
|Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.||Lawrence, Susan||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R (Ayr)|
|Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Egan, W. H.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Freeman, Peter||McShane, John James||Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Gower, Sir Robert||Mansfield, W.|
that they do not recognise whether they are having foreign meat or English meat. I am not saying anything against restaurants, but a great deal of that which goes into restaurants is not seen by the people who eat it.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Question put, "That the Question be now put."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 19; Noes, 3.
we allow this meat to come in As far as creating confusion is concerned, we can put in a longer period so as to allow foreign countries to put their houses in order. The hon. Member for Walsall referred to the poor. Apparently, he is not aware that the poor get the best meat. The poor man's wife selects the meat herself whereas the housewife of the wealthier man leaves it to the cook, and in nine cases out of 10 the butcher plants foreign meat on them. That is a common experience. I have had it myself. The working class housewife picks her own little bit of meat, and she gets the best. Do not let us load the dice against our own people. A great many little farmers are going to be poleaxed by the Bill.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided, Ayes, 4; Noes, 17.65
The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in, the name of Mr. LANG:
In Sub-section (1), after the word "animal" ["no animal"], to insert the words "except a sheep, ewe, wether, ram, lamb, pig, boar, hog, sow, and goat."
Mr. LANG: This Amendment seeks to exempt two classes of animals, sheep and pigs, from the Bill, and as it raises an important point it may be convenient if I move the Adjournment at this point. The Amendment if moved in that way would be complicated. I am led to understand that the hon. and gallant Member in charge of the Bill has already made up his mind to exclude pigs from its operations. If we could be assured that that was the case it would shorten the Debate. As the hon. and gallant Member knows, I have always spoken very strongly against applying this Measure to sheep. I wish to move the Adjournment in order that we may have a statement from the hon. and gallant Member as to his intentions and as to which Amendment he proposes to accept.
The CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept a Motion that the Committee do now adjourn. The hon. Member has two Amendments on the Order Paper, and he can move either of them.
Sir J. LAMB: Would it be possible for the hon. Member to move his Amendment with the words "pig, boar, hog, sow, and goat" left out?
The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member can alter his Amendment before moving it if he wishes to do so.
Mr. LANG: Do I understand that if I move my Amendment to except "sheep, ewe, wether, ram, lamb," that the next Amendment—after the word "animal," insert the words "except a pig, boar, hog or sow"—standing in a large number of other hon. Members' names, could be moved subsequently?
The CHAIRMAN: That would be in order.
Mr. LANG: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "animal" ["no animal"], to insert the words, "except a sheep, ewe, wether, ram, lamb." On the Second Reading of the Bill I endeavoured to make out a case for having this matter referred to a Select Com- 66 mittee for inquiry. That Amendment was not pressed to a Division, but I was anxious clearly and definitely to make out a case against the inclusion of sheep. Probably the great majority of hon. Members are agreed that, on balance, the case for using a mechanical instrument upon large cattle has been made out. Those animals have to be stunned in one way or another and the particular method may not be of very great importance. Apparently either it is thought unnecessary, for humanitarian reasons, to include pigs, or else the pressure of the trades interested is so great that it cannot be resisted. The case of sheep appears to be totally different because there seems to be a very strong body of opinion that sheep will not be very much benefited by the operations of this Bill. I shall have to trouble the Committee with statements describing certain experiments which have been made and upon which my case must largely be based. The case of the sheep is distinguished from that of the other animals on account of its small size. I said on Second Reading that the real suffering and terror of any animal is antecedent to the actual moment and operation of slaughter. The real suffering of an animal comes when it is being man-handled. Those of us who have been brought up in the country and have observed animals all our lives are well aware of that. Whatever the operation, whether it is the operation of shearing or of merely securing an animal to convey it in a vehicle to market, or to transport it to the slaughterhouse, the whole suffering and terror of the animal arise from the man-handling of it, a much longer process and a much more painful process than the actual process of killing. I have not the least doubt about that. If I had I could very much more easily and comfortably subscribe to the proposal to apply this Measure to sheep. These small creatures have to be brought into position to be shot by the mechanical instrument. They are so small, and they struggle so violently, that there is often considerable delay in getting them into position. In support of that view I would draw attention to a paragraph in the report to which the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) referred. It is known as the Waterlow Report and was a report made 67 to the late Lord Mayor of London, as head of the Common Council, on 16th October, 1930. On page 2 of that report it is stated: "We accept, as a result of trials and reports of experts, that the use of an approved mechanically-operated instrument, skilfully applied, lessens the sufferings of animals brought to slaughter, except in the case of sheep, where opinions differ, having regard to the handling necessary before insensibility is reached." That is a very important statement by the committee of investigation. What they put forward as a matter of opinion, I put forward as a matter of fact, and that is that there is considerable delay in dealing with the sheep and getting it up to the point of slaughter. Three or four weeks ago I was in Bolton and during one day I visited something like 14 or 15 abattoirs and private slaughterhouses. In every case my visit was unknown beforehand, no special arrangements were made because I was going, and there was no alteration in the usual methods of killing. It was a Monday, which is a particularly busy day, and I was able to see the whole ghastly business at its maximum. I noticed there that in the only case where there was an attempt to use a mechanical instrument the operation was very much longer. I am referring now to the operation antecedent to the actual killing, not the question of insensibility or bleeding, but the task of getting the animal into position. It took much longer in that case than in any other case. There is a remarkable piece of evidence of which the Committee ought to know and which, if they will listen to it, may substantially affect their vote on the matter. It is the evidence upon which the Corporation of the City of Birmingham based its decision last year. The Markets and Fairs Committee of that corporation were so much concerned to get the most humane methods of slaughter adopted that they appointed a special committee to look into the question. That committee not merely conducted investigations in this country, including a remarkable demonstration in Birmingham itself, but was so thorough in its investigations that it went to the Continent, visiting the leading slaughtering centres in many Continental countries. After all that, the committee re- 68 ported in favour of the existing methods of slaughter being retained. I hope I am using the correct words, though I am sure I shall be put right if I am not. They said that the existing methods of slaughter were not only more speedy and humane, but necessary in the interests of hygiene—and the rest. I am not concerned with the last words of that recommendation. This committee, which had no axe to grind, and no vested interest in the matter, came to the conclusion that the existing methods were more speedy and at least as humane as any other methods. I have no hesitation in asking this Committee to accept my statement that if I believed the method of mechanical stunning advocated in this Bill were likely to reduce to any degree the sufferings of sheep, I should support the process, but I am perfectly sure that the contrary is the case. I must draw attention to other statements made in the report to which I have referred, and which is the most important part of my case. That special report said, without any qualification at all, that the method of mechanical stunning was quite unsatisfactory in the case of rams. That view has never been controverted at all, nor has any argument been put forward in answer to it. Some four or five different mechanical killers were tried, and the report was that in every case they failed completely with rams. I hope that we shall consider our action well before we reject this Amendment, and condemn rams which are killed for food to what is regarded by an unbiassed and expert body as a more unsatisfactory and more cruel method of slaughter, because I am sure we are concerned to secure the most humane method and are not concerned with the views, very often quite high and dry, of any society which may have a special bee in its bonnet. It is for us to decide, according to the evidence before us. I have stated the position with regard to rams, and I would like to read this extract from the report of the Birmingham Committee in regard to the No. 1 mechanical killer.
Dr. HASTINGS: What is the date of that report?
Mr. LANG: It was submitted to the Birmingham Corporation in December 69 last year. It reached my hands only two or three days before the Second Reading Debate in the House of Commons.
Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is not the hon. Member referring to the investigation carried out in 1923? The wording he has used is remarkably like the wording of the 1923 report?
Mr. LANG: Oh dear no. The report from which I am quoting was submitted 70 to the Birmingham Corporation as recently as December last year, and is the report upon which that Corporation took its decision to reject the use of the mechanical killer.
The CHAIRMAN: Order! The Committee stands adjourned.
Committee adjourned accordingly at One o'Clock, until Wednesday, 15th July, at Eleven o'Clock.
THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:
Ward, Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert (Chairman)
Adamson, Mr. William M.
Davies, Mr. David
Davies, Mr. Rhys
Gower, Sir Robert
Jones, Mr. Llewellyn-
Lamb, Sir Joseph
Lewis, Mr. Thomas
Macdonald, Mr. Gordon
Whiteley, Mr. Wilfrid