Lords Sitting of 15 February 1966

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ROYAL COMMISSION AND PENAL REFORM
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they expect that the Report from the Royal Commission on the Penal System will be presented; and whether the two White Papers, The Child, the Family and the Young Offender and The Adult Offender, are being submitted to the Royal Commission for its consideration.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I regret that I am not in a position at present to forecast when the Royal Commission are likely to present a Report. The proposals in the two White Papers have been formulated wholly independently of the Royal Commission, who have however been kept informed of the Government's plans from an early stage.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he can give us an assurance that when the question of penal reform is dealt with it will come forward as one whole unity and will not be dealt with piecemeal?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, the terms of reference of the Royal Commission are extremely wide and the Commission will inquire into their subject in great depth. They include, for example, re-examination of the concepts and purposes underlying the punishment and treatment of offenders in England and Wales. The Government regard the question of crime as a matter of vital urgency and importance and
966
have had to reserve to themselves the right to deal with some aspects of the matter which are regarded as particularly urgent. The Royal Commission are well aware of this fact and from the beginning have been kept informed of the Government's plans.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, while recognising the urgency and importance of dealing with the present wave of crime, is it not extraordinary that the Government have not asked for the views of the Royal Commission on the contents of these two Reports which, as the noble Lords has said, have been made quite independently? Would it not be extremely valuable to have the views of the Royal Commission on these Reports, and could not the noble Lord ask the Royal Commission to submit an Interim Report? In fact, has that not been done? Is it not a very serious disadvantage to have a piecemeal approach to this whole problem?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Royal Commission received copies of the two White Papers at the time of their publication. My right honourable friend accepts that the Final Report of the Royal Commission may suggest modifications of any arrangements resulting from implementation of the proposals in the two White Papers. In January of last year, when the Royal Commission were informed of the Government's intention, the Chairman of the Commission acknowledged a mutual understanding that the Government would not wish to be inhibited from introducing reforms which they thought essential, but that the Government would keep the Commission in touch with their thinking about proposed measures. What we cannot accept is that since the Royal Commission have a huge task—a task which will obviously occupy years—we should meanwhile be inhibited from introducing reforms which we consider both urgent and essential.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not think anybody has suggested that the Government should be inhibited from introducing reforms by the fact that the Royal Commission have been appointed. But in considering those reforms, which have yet to be considered by this House and by another place, surely it would be of great value to have upon them the seal of approval of the

967
Royal Commission, if the Royal Commission were prepared to give it. What I am suggesting to the noble Lord, and what he has not dealt with, is this: could not the noble Lord and the Government ask the Royal Commission for their views on these particular proposals? It would be of great help to Parliament to know the views of the Royal Commission upon them. No suggestion that has been put forward by my noble friend, or by me, would inhibit the Government from taking action.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Viscount that the views of the Royal Commission on this and on all allied subjects are of the greatest importance, and the Government will welcome those views when they are received. The noble and learned Viscount, with all his experience, will be aware that the Government cannot dictate to any Royal Commission what their procedure should be. The position was that my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary informed the Royal Commission of our immediate intentions and proposals, and at that time the Commission were unable to give any indication of when they might be able to give an expression of their views. I am quite sure the noble and learned Viscount's suggestion will be fully noted, but it is not possible for me to give an assurance on behalf of the Royal Commission on the manner in which they will conduct their work, or if and when they will present an Interim Report.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I was not asking for any such assurance; nor am I suggesting that the Government should seek to dictate to the Royal Commission. What I am asking the noble Lord to do—and it would have been better if it had been done a long time before—is to invite the Royal Commission, if they thought fit, to submit and publish in an Interim Report their observations on these Papers. That is an invitation—there is no dictation. The Royal Commission could do it if they wanted to; or they need not. I understand from what the noble Lord has said that no suggestion has been made to the Royal Commission that they should comment on these Reports.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, with great respect to the noble and learned Viscount, I think he will see, when he reads his last remarks in Hansard to-morrow, that they were not in any sense a question. I would venture to hope that we might pass on to the next Question.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not accept the noble Earls rebuke, because I was putting a question to the noble Lord as to whether he would ask the Royal Commission to submit a Report. To that we have had no answer. We have had talk about dictation and matters of that sort, which I have not suggested. I think I am entitled, when it has been put to me that I have suggested the Government should be inhibited, or that the Royal Commission should be dictated to, to make it clear that no suggestion of that kind was made.

FUTURE OF NEW COURT
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the decision taken by the Minister of Housing and Local Government with regard to the limitation of the use of New Court, Carey Street and conveyed on behalf of that Minister to Messrs. Goodman Derrick and Company, in a letter dated July 13, 1965, still represents the views of the Government; and, if so, what steps they are taking to ensure the implementation of those views by the local planning authority.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, this limitation was imposed in a planning permission granted in 1964. There was an outline permission for a smaller building on the same site which was granted in 1962 and contained no such limiting condition.

969
Any action to modify the 1962 permission by adding a similar limiting condition was a matter in the first place for the Westminster City Council as local planning authority. They decided not to do so and they approved the details for the 1962 planning permission on November 25, 1965.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, but will he not agree that the reason why no condition was included in the 1962 permission was an oversight by an officer of his Department? Therefore, will he not exercise his powers under Section 207 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 in order to ensure that the condition is imposed now?
LORD M1TCHISON: No, my Lords, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the first suggestion. If there was any oversight it was an oversight by the London County Council, and I have always understood that we never say anything but good about the dead. However that may be, in relation to this building, and to this area of London generally, the circumstances in 1962 were rather different from what they have since become; and if there was a mistake, I think it was an excusable one.
On the second point, my right honourable friend took the view, which I tried to express in the Answer, that this was a matter for the Westminster City Council. The noble Viscount will be well aware that if an attempt is made to modify an existing permission—and there was the 1962 existing permission—the planning authority incur a considerable liability, and it may well be that the possibility of a liability of that kind weighed with the Westminster City Council in their decision. It was, of course, only one of the elements to be considered. This is an area at the back of the Law Courts, which is not reserved exclusively for the legal profession. There are other buildings in that same block, and if one goes along from Chancery Lane to the back entrance of the Law Courts one passes premises such as shops which are not occupied by members of the law profession at all. If I may say so with all respect to my right honourable friend, I think it is a case which ought to have been left to the Westminster City Council, who are a highly responsible planning
970
authority and would, I am sure, be most reluctant to place any additional liability for rates on the Law Society, who are, I think, one of the Council's ratepayers.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, again I am grateful to the noble Lord, but will he not agree that this particular area of New Court has for the last 80-odd years been substantially a legal precinct, or a precinct for those persons who work in businesses ancillary to the law? Would he please look again at the question of whose mistake it originally was?—because, according to my information, the lack of imposition of a condition for the redevelopment of this property, restricting it to being substantially a legal precinct, was the mistake of his Department. Therefore, accepting the fact that the Westminster City Council, if they now limit the planning condition, will have to pay a substantial sum of money by way of compensation, will the noble Lord not accept that that responsibility should be shouldered by his Department?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I do not think it is quite a case of the Department shouldering a responsibility. Of course, I know how very careful the noble Viscount is about his facts, and if his information on this differs from mine it may well be that he is right and I am wrong. I do not know. But assuming that his information is right, the fact remains that the 1962 planning permission for a smaller building was given without this condition, so that when the disputes about the 1964 planning permission were concluded the prospective developers were left with a choice between using the 1964 planning permission—with its condition—for a larger building or using the 1962 planning permission— without a condition—for a smaller building. They chose the latter, and I cannot see that there is any responsibility at all on my right honourable friend or his Department in this matter. This seems to me to be, as it now is, rightly and properly a matter for the local planning authority, and particularly, if I may say so, for a highly responsible planning authority such as the Westminster City Council.
I think it is fair to the Westminster City Council to add that they did, in fact, give my right honourable friend an

971
opportunity of objecting, if he so chose, or of taking appropriate steps, and he regarded it—and told the Council that he regarded it—as a matter for the Council. That is what I think it was. I am sure the noble Viscount will agree that one must draw the line, sometimes with considerable difficulty, between the planning authority and the Ministry. I am sorry to have taken so long.

HOSPITAL PROJECTS AND DEVELOPMENT AREAS
2.45 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what constitutes a development area in respect of priorities for expenditure on new hospital projects and improvement of existing buildings.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, all capital expenditure on hospitals is exempted from deferment, regardless of where it is situated.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that in the Scottish Hospital Plan no provisions are made for extra facilities north of Dingwall? Would he tell me whether all of Scotland is a development area, and, if so, would he ask his right honourable friend whether he will revise his plan for the north tip of Scotland which is going to become considerably populated?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Scotland will become a development area when the necessary legislation passes through Parliament. In regard to the detailed point about whether there would be a hospital North of Dingwall, obviously I could not answer that without notice, but I will certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to it.

HUYTON-WITH-ROBY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2, and referred to the Examiners.
MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 2, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1, and to be printed.
PNEUMOCONIOSIS, BYSSINOSIS AND MISCELLANEOUS DISEASES BENEFIT SCHEME 1966
2.48 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I think it will be to the convenience of your Lordships if we discuss the two Orders on the Order Paper together, but of course I shall move their approval separately later. Although on the Order Paper the Pneumoconiosis Order is down before the Workmen's Compensation Order, I think it would suit the House better, and would be historically sounder, if I spoke first of the Workmen's Compensation Order.
Both Schemes give effect to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Amendment) Act 1965, which was recently before your Lordships. They replace the existing Schemes dealing with these subjects and consolidate the provisions of those Schemes other than those which have now to be replaced as a result of the new concepts introduced in the 1965 Act. They also continue the administrative boards which control the existing Schemes. These boards will consist of a chairman and deputy chairman, both very experienced lawyers, two representatives of employers' associations, two of employees' associations and two senior members of the Minister's staff. All have been chosen for their specialised knowledge of the problems of workmen's compensation. Both Schemes deal with men injured at work or suffering from diseases contracted at work before July, 1948. Such

973
men fall into two categories, each of which is dealt with by the appropriate Scheme.
The Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Scheme deals with men entitled to weekly payments of workmen's compensation in respect of injuries sustained as a result of their accident. The scheme itself is solely concerned with the provision of supplementary allowances payable in addition to those payments of workmen's compensation. As your Lordships will be aware, liability for workmen's compensation was a matter between the employee and his employer (or his covering insurance company), and cases of dispute fell to be determined in the courts. The Scheme does not interfere in any way with the existing machinery for dealing with claims for workmen's compensation by the worker, or for death benefit by his dependants if death was due to the compensation accident.
The new Scheme provides three kinds of allowances. I think that perhaps these allowances may be better explained if I take them in the following order. First, there is the major incapacity allowance for the totally disabled man. This is to be at a rate which, together with the compensation payable to him, will amount to the 100 per cent, disablement pension payable under the Industrial Injuries Acts. Secondly, there is the lesser incapacity allowance, which goes to men entitled to weekly payments of workmen's compensation who do not qualify for the major incapacity allowance. The lesser incapacity allowance is payable at one of a series of rates set out in the Schedule to the Order, each of which is related to a specified range of loss of earnings. The board administering the scheme will determine the loss of earnings for this purpose in accordance with the generous rules provided in the Scheme, and the Scheme expressly provides and makes it clear that the board are in no way to be fettered by the now out-moded concepts of the workmen's compensation legislation as to the interpretation of the phrase "loss of earnings". This is a great step forward. Lastly, there is the basic allowance which merely continues the existing special provisions for men injured before January, 1924. Its purpose is to ensure that they are put in broadly the same position as men injured after
974
that date whose compensation was assessed under the more generous provisions of the later workmen's compensation legislation.
The Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme deals with men disabled as a result of industrial diseases contracted at work in the days of workmen's compensation, but who were Statute-barred because the disease manifested itself only after the time for claiming under those Acts had expired. These men have no compensation and cannot qualify under the Industrial Injuries Act. The Scheme, therefore, sets out to provide redress by putting them broadly on the same footing as the men on compensation, taking the latter's compensation and supplementary allowances together. Consequently, this particular Scheme provides not only allowances for the totally disabled and the partially disabled, but also a death benefit for the dependants of those whose death was due to the disease in question.
The totally disabled men will get the same as the aggregate accruing to the men under the Workmen's Compensation Scheme—namely, the current rate of the 100 per cent, industrial injuries disablement pension. From the point of view of the partially disabled, it was not possible to achieve exact similarity of treatment, since the nature of the disease— the imperceptible deterioration which sets in over a long interval, and the heavy overlay of other effects; for example, old age—made it neither possible satisfactorily to find a reliable estimate of the loss of earnings due to the disease alone, nor to make any precise determination of the degree of disablement. Consequently, it was decided in the original Scheme to set out the allowance at a flat rate irrespective of either loss of earnings or exact loss of faculty. All are therefore paid at the same rate. The provision merely reiterates the existing allowance paid under the existing Scheme, which is now to be replaced. The death benefit provided under the new Scheme is also carried over from the existing Scheme.
I understand from what has transpired in another place that it would be helpful if I could give an idea of the steps which are being taken to ensure, so far as is reasonable, that none of those who may benefit under the Schemes will be unaware of

975
that possibility. To begin with, men who draw allowances under the existing schemes and who may be immediately affected by the changes—there are over 10,000 of these—will each receive a personal notification from the board running the Scheme. Thanks to the ready cooperation of employers and insurance companies, the board has also been able to find out the names and addresses of most of the 10,000 potential new beneficiaries, and well over half that number have already been invited to claim. There will also be publicity by the usual media of Press and radio. It will be specially directed at the workers most likely to be affected.
I think your Lordships will wish to know that those who are administering this Scheme have been very busy since Royal Assent was given to the empowering Act. None of this work, however, can be given full effect until the Draft Schemes are made. It is planned that they will operate from March 1, the date on which the 1966 Act formally comes into operation, but until the Schemes have been approved by this House the board cannot go ahead with the remaining stages of their work. I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the Draft Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme 1966, laid before the House on January 26, be approved.— (Lord Bowles.)
2.55 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his extremely clear exposition of a complicated matter. Indeed, I think I could go further and say that, as Regulations and Orders of this description go, these are amazingly clear. I would also congratulate the noble Lord on the work that has been done already to notify people in advance of possible claims they may be able to make under the Act.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask the noble Lord. First of all, there is no specific provision in the Workmen's Compensation Scheme for a review of the rates of the lesser incapacity allowances under the scheme. This, of course, is in marked contrast to the rates of the major incapacity allowances—that is, for the totally disabled—and I wonder whether the noble Lord is able to give us
976
some assurance that, in view of the rapid increase in earnings and the change in the value of money, such revisions will be possible under the new Scheme.
Secondly, I should like to mention the question of the revision of decisions. This was a matter to which I referred on the Second Reading of the Bill. The point here is that both Schemes enable awards to be varied if there has been a relevant change of circumstances. The Workmen's Compensation Scheme also enables review of a decision not to grant an award if there has been an exceptional change of circumstances. I pointed out at an earlier stage that, as these regulations have been interpreted in the past, the change of circumstances has had to be very exceptional indeed before anything of this kind could be taken into account. I hope that in this case the word "exceptional" means an "exceptional change" and not a "virtually impossible change" of circumstances—in other words, that where circumstances are unusual or exceptional they will be taken into account.
The third point I should like to raise is a curious difference in language between the two Schemes. There are two Schemes, and under paragraph 13 of both of them the boards are to give the claimant a hearing unless they are satisfied that the question can be properly determined without a hearing. Then the Workmen's Compensation Scheme goes on:
"… in which event they shall inform the claimant in writing and may proceed to determine the case without a hearing."
That is very fair and proper. However, the Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Miscellaneous Diseases Benefit Scheme says
"and shall proceed…".
I should hope to hear that the difference in wording reflects the difference in the approach to the two schemes. The Pneumoconiosis Scheme is administered very much in line with medical opinion and medical advice; whereas I would hope, under the Workmen's Compensation Scheme (where a great deal more discretion is available to the board) the word "may", in distinction to "shall", really conveys that there will be room for a certain amount of argument as to whether a claimant should or should not be heard.
I am told that under the Scheme so far, the number of claimants who want

977
to be heard is not very great. Nevertheless, this is a point which can give rise to a great deal of friction, quite out of proportion to the number of refusals, if there are any refusals; and in circumstances like that a good deal of prejudice is apt to arise against the Board. I understand that it is to be the same Board which deals with both Schemes. I do not know whether this is a case where there could be reference to the Ombudsman (which I understand is a subject to be considered in another place) if there should be a refusal. These are the points I should like to put forward. They are essentially points of interpretation— although I think that the special points I have made, regarding the revision of the allowances, and getting the lesser incapacity allowance in line with changes in the cost of living, are extremely important. While putting forward these matters, I would express a welcome for the two Orders and congratulate the Government in having made them so clear.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those kind remarks. The position as regards the difference between partial and major incapacity allowances is this. Major incapacity is a total, 100 per cent, incapacity, and therefore if a person is found to be totally incapacitated he gets a major incapacity allowance of 100 per cent. The lesser incapacity allowance relates to disablement at a rate of less than 100 per cent.; that is, anything from 1 per cent, to 99 per cent. When the main major incapacity allowance goes up there will be a review of the lesser incapacity allowances, which are scaled according to loss of earnings, with a view to raising them appropriately, as with the major incapacity allowance.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the point is that the major incapacity allowance goes up automatically along with the standard rates. When the standard rates of Industrial Injuries benefit are raised, that goes up automatically. On the other hand, the lesser incapacity rates will not go up automatically. But I think I can rest on the assurance the noble Lord has given that when the standard rate goes up then, at the same time, the lesser incapacity allowances will be reconsidered.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, that is what I tried to say. When the major
978
incapacity goes up, so will the others. They cannot be varied without the major one being altered.
About the decision by the boards and the question of acceptance, those boards are, as the noble Lord knows, the same. They administer both Schemes and they have a great power to review their own decisions. If any good cause is shown, they are prepared to look again at any case. The word "exceptional", to which the noble Lord referred, will probably be interpreted by the chairman of the board to see whether or not the review should take place. If there are no new facts, I do not see any reason why the board should change its mind. But if evidence is brought, then I am sure, from what I have been told of the boards and of what I have heard, that they will be ready to go into the matter again. If there has been any serious miscarriage of justice, then I gather that the ordinary writ of certiorari could be used and the matter taken to court to see whether the board were doing their duty properly. There have been no suggestions that they have not been doing their duty properly, and I am surprised that there could be any criticism of the decisions that have been made. I doubt whether the noble Lord has any particular case in mind. He has been in the Ministry himself, and knows the personnel of these boards; he knows that they carry the great confidence of all who have anything to do with the administration of these Schemes.
On the question of the determination, in the pneumoconiosis part of the boards' activities they are bound by the advice of medical officers, referees or commissioners. They cannot do anything about that. If a doctor says, "This man does not suffer from this disease", then the board, of course, cannot deal with it. If, on the other hand, a medical officer says that a man comes within the Scheme, then the board deal with the matter on the basis that this is an established claim and they go into the matter of the amount of loss of faculties and other matters arising under the Scheme. I hope that that answer satisfies the noble Lord.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I briefly join with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in welcoming these Schemes very much? We are obviously writing in something which had been a little

979
unfair, a little difficult, and I think it is a good thing that it should be done. There are a few verbal points I should like to take up with the noble Lord, Lord Bowles. He spoke about major disability as being "100 per cent." In English, that would indicate that disabilities of 98 or 99 per cent, would be minor disabilities. I am sure that he does not mean this. Perhaps that point could be watched as the matter goes through.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, "100 per cent." is the phrase that is used in the Scheme. I can read the relevant passage.
LORD REA: My Lords, I was only querying the identifying of "total" with "major".
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SUPPLEMENTATION) SCHEME 1966
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Draft Workmen's Compensation (Supplementation) Scheme 1966, laid before the House on January 26 be approved.—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

VETERINARY SURGEONS BILL [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection 1(a), to leave out "twenty" and insert "twenty-four". The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Balerno and myself. The purpose
980
of the Amendment is to substitute 24 as the number of members of the College elected by registered veterinary surgeons. As the noble Lord the Minister will know, there is strong feeling that the profession should be autonomous and that its disciplinary body should be controlled by practising veterinary surgeons, who should be in a majority. At the present time there are on the Council 20 elected members, 12 university members, 4 Privy Council members, plus 2 Irish elected members and 3 Irish appointed members—that is, 22 elected members and 19 appointed members. From my experience of Irish delegations abroad, I am bound to say that they have a habit of voting with considerable solidarity, and if the Irish members were to vote the other way from the elected members, that would tip the balance the other way.
The main trouble here is that there has been a feeling in the profession as a whole that they have not been sufficiently informed about this legislation. They tend to ascribe this, at any rate in part, to the fact that there is not at the present time a majority of practising veterinary surgeons on the Council. That is due to a variety of reasons, and though they could have elected a majority, they have not done so.
In any case, so small a majority in favour of the elected over the appointed members seems to be quite unsatisfactory. That is why I make the proposal that there should be 24 elected members. I should have thought that it was not unreasonable that there should be twice as many elected members as those appointed by the universities. In a moment we shall be dealing with another Amendment, the object of which will be to raise the number of elected members as the number of appointed members is automatically raised through the recognition of new veterinary faculties, but the present Amendment is to secure that basically there should be a majority of elected members on a body which is essentially an autonomous, self-disciplinary body. The number of elected members should be in such a definite majority that they can be expected to control the Council. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("twenty") and insert ("twenty-four").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BALERNO: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. This is not just a question of status. We must realise, of course, that the veterinary profession has acquired well-recognised status in the land in recent years, and that this should be recognised, but my noble friend has put forward the democratic aspect, that matters pertaining to the profession should be looked after by the profession itself to as large an extent as possible. This is very much felt by many veterinary surgeons, and I sincerely hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): I am grateful to the noble Lords who have moved and supported this Amendment for the way they have done so. I am not going to talk about what the Irish members are likely to do. We know that they have certain characteristics, as I am sure the noble and gallant Field-Marshal would tell us, if he were going to speak. Perhaps I shall have to return to the Irish members later on. The Government definitely accept that the Council of the College should always have a majority of elected members, and if your Lordships agree to reject this Amendment, I am prepared, on the subsequent Amendment on this matter to be moved by the noble Lord (I thought that perhaps the two would have been discussed together) to give an assurance that I will put down a Government Amendment giving effect to this principle.
There is a trifling point about the Amendment: it is defective, in so far as it does not deal with the second paragraph of Schedule 1, though I do not regard this as being a major objection. I must point out that the Royal College is not a trade union. It is a body incorporated by Royal Charter and entrusted by Parliament with a number of duties designed to protect the public —not the veterinary profession; and this fact must be kept in mind. The protection is for the public and not for those people who happen to constitute the profession at this or any future time.
Among the important duties of the Council is that of ensuring that veterinary education is of a standard required to provide the proper training of veterinary surgeons. In order to do this, it is not necessary to have elected members
982
Indeed, some might think that elected members might favour less stringent examination conditions, which would not be for the benefit of the general public. Therefore, to my mind, a strong representation from the universities is essential in order to enable the Council to carry out its educational duties.
But, despite everything I have said, the Government accept the principle of having a majority of elected members. We think that in the present circumstances, and under this Bill, to have 20 elected members 12 nominated by the universities and 4 by the Privy Council gives a reasonable balance from the point of view I have stated. When it comes to the noble Lord's second Amendment, I shall give an explicit undertaking to introduce a new Amendment which will provide for a majority of elected members, because we do not think that the way that the noble Lord has suggested is quite the way to do this. Having regard to my plea, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I regard this as a matter of some importance. I am sorry that the 24 I propose is not divisible with 5, because that, I think, was the point the noble Lord had in mind about the second paragraph of Schedule 1. I could easily have put down 25 instead of 24. As he probably realises, I was in some doubt in my own mind in what form to put down the Amendment. I could have put it down as four elected members for every two university members; indeed, that is what was first in my mind. I should like to impress the noble Lord with the strength of feeling that has come to my attention on this matter. For example, only this morning I received from the University of Bristol a memorandum signed by one professor and 36 lecturers, readers and other teaching staff in which they strongly stressed this point. Although they belong to universities they propose that the number of university members should be cut to half—that is to say, one university appointed member—if there were any question of the Council's becoming unwieldy. I think that a mere majority of this kind is not good enough.
It is true that one of the main functions, if not the main function, of the Council is the protection of the public. But this is a self-disciplinary profession,

983
and a responsible profession. Surely it ought to be given that protection and discipline itself through a Council on which there is a clear majority of elected members. I am doubtful whether it was envisaged at the time of the passing of the 1948 Act that the disparity between elected and non-elected members should be whittled down to the extent that it was. Twenty to 16 is a very different thing from 22 to 29. While I do not propose to press this Amendment to-day, I would ask the noble Lord to think further about this matter between now and the Report stage. We shall on the next Amendment be considering the changing relativities as more veterinary schools are developed. But I think we should start with a clear majority of elected members at least corresponding to the original proportions of 5 to 4 that existed under the 1948 Act. If the noble Lord can give me some hope that this will be reconsidered, I will gladly withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to take up one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. He said that if there were more elected members it might lead to laxer methods by which students qualify for the veterinary profession. My own impression is that the opposite would be the result, if it did have any major effect, because as a rule, the older generation like to be more stringent on those who come up. It is a natural phenomenon of man.
LORD CHAMPION: I bow to the greater knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in this field. He is quite right, of course: that as we get older the more we tend to frown on the younger generation and think that they are not doing half enough, or not doing it half as well as we did it at their age, and so on. I feel bound to give to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, the undertaking for which he has asked—namely, that this matter will be looked at carefully, between now and Report, in the light of the points he has made. The noble Lord has mentioned this whole business of the Council being a self-disciplining body, and I must in this connection look at the other bodies which have these powers of applying discipline to their own profession. If it is the case that in other professions which come under
984
something similar to this the elected members are in a clear and substantial majority, such as the noble Lord rather wants in this field, then obviously we shall have to give careful thought to it. But I can only give him the undertaking that we will look at this carefully between now and the Report stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment,
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN had given Notice of an Amendment to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that for every two additional persons appointed under paragraph (c) above in excess of twelve the number of persons elected under paragraph (a) above shall be increased by three.".
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Champion, has already said that he will consider the substance of this Amendment, the purpose of which is to ensure that for every university that is recognised, so far as its veterinary faculty is concerned, for the purposes of this Bill there will be three elected members. Each university brings in two new appointed members to enable three new elected members to assist in keeping the balance between the elected and non-elected members—that is to say, the appointed members. Having briefly explained this Amendment, I would add that, unless the noble Lord wants to say anything further, I do not propose to move the Amendment.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7:
Temporary Registration
7.—(1) The Council may, with a view to permitting—

(a) a person who satisfies them that he has attended a course of study, and has passed the examinations, leading to a degree to which a recognition order relates; and

(b) a person holding a Commonwealth or foreign qualification in veterinary surgery,

to practise veterinary surgery temporarily or otherwise subject to restrictions, direct that he be registered in the register subject to such restrictions as the Council may specify in the direction with respect to the period for which, the place or places at which and the conditions under which he may practise veterinary surgery; and any person with respect to whom

985
a direction is given under this subsection shall be entitled to be registered in the register subject to the entry against his name of the restrictions so specified.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "temporarily" and insert "for any period not exceeding three years". The noble Lord said: In this clause we are dealing with temporary registration—that is, registration on to the temporary list of the register under Clause 2. It is my understanding that the purpose of this clause is to enable those who are in the course of training, whether in this country or coming from abroad on some kind of post-graduate training, to be allowed to practise veterinary surgery subject to restrictions to be laid down by the Council.
LORD CHAMPION: If the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, would he care to discuss Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 together? It seems to me that they are so closely bound up that we cannot separate them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I apologise to the Committee. I meant to ask to be allowed to discuss this Amendment together with Amendment No. 5. It is thought that "for any period not exceeding three years" is the maximum period that could possibly be envisaged. For in the case of those who are training in this country, it is not thought that they would be allowed to practise veterinary surgery in the very early stages of their training; and, at the other end of the scale, it is not thought that it would be a good thing to allow people to go on indefinitely on a temporary basis. Therefore, it is thought that it would be a good plan to fix the maximum period firmly in the Bill.
There, Amendment No. 5 seems to me to overlook something which ought to be covered. There was no provision, so far as I can see, in the Bill as drafted to allow a temporary period to be prolonged. The purpose of the Amendment is to allow a temporary period to be prolonged up to a maximum of three years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 32, leave out ("temporarily") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD CHAMPION: The Amendment refers only to holders of Commonwealth and foreign qualifications not recognised for registration in the United Kingdom. The final decision whether or not to grant temporary registration will rest with the Royal College. The question is not likely to arise until the person concerned has been accepted for post-graduate studies, at a university or research institute in the United Kingdom. We say that thus there is a double safeguard. No university or research institute will take a post-graduate unless he can satisfy them of his capability to absorb further training or usefully to undertake research, and the Royal College would be failing in its duty if it, too, did not take steps to check the credentials of anyone seeking registration, albeit temporary registration, for a specific purpose.
As to what is meant by "temporary registration", this must depend, to some extent, upon the circumstances. That is why we have left this question open. It is not intended to be, nor will the Royal College allow it to become, a back-door entrance to private practice in this country. I am sure that the majority of the elected members would be very watchful of this aspect of the matter, to ensure that we did not have this back-door entry into the profession of competitors in this particular field. I understand that such registration will be confined by the Royal College to one year, with a possibility of a renewal.
I hope your Lordships will agree that it might be unwise to fix arbitrary limits which might or might not accord with the requirements of training postgraduate students or employing research workers. We must remember that this provision is introduced to cover not only post-graduate students at universities, but research workers as well. It may well be desirable for the latter to be registered for longer than three years. I can well imagine a research worker saying, "Unless there is a reasonable degree of guarantee in the case of a piece of extended research, I will not undertake it." I can well imagine that that might be the case, and that the three years' limit might not be long enough for him to be given such a guarantee. The British Veterinary Association, for example, hope for an extension of research into tropical veterinary medicine in the country. Research workers from

987
overseas may be of particular value here. Benefits can flow in both directions.
The Bill therefore allows the Council of the Royal College to set a term to each temporary registration, having regard to the merits of each case. I hope noble Lords will agree that this is something well within the competence of the body whose duty it is to protect the public against unqualified practitioners. I hope that, with this explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will withdraw Amendment No. 3, and not move Amendment No. 5. We think we have safeguarded the position in the clause, and that the noble Lord will agree with the explanation I have now given to the Committee.
LORD CHORLEY: As one who has had a good deal of experience of university work in a post-graduate school, I wonder whether I might add a word in support of what the Minister has said. In my experience, it is unwise to try to attach a period of, say, three years. All sorts of things happen during the course of an advanced student's work at a higher degree, or of some research work, especially when he has come from overseas. There may be family trouble at home which causes him to go back, and for one reason or another I find that in my own experience in the law—and I imagine it would apply in almost every other branch of work—one has from time to time to lengthen the period to four, five or even more years, each case having to be judged on its merits. To establish a statutory restriction of three years might well create a great deal of hardship in quite a proportion of the cases.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In view of what the noble Lord has said, I do not want to press this Amendment. I think it was a proper Amendment to put down, in view of the elasticity of the clause as it is drafted at the present time. I was a little puzzled by the noble Lord's opening remarks. He said, I think, that this applied only to persons coming from overseas with a Commonwealth qualification, whereas the clause as drafted seems to apply also to
"a person who satisfies them that he has attended a course of study, and has passed the examinations, leading to a degree to which a recognition order relates …"
988
That seems to be definitely a university in this country. Is that not so?
LORD CHAMPION: I commenced by saying that the Amendment refers only to holders. That is how I understand it. I was not referring to the part of the Bill to which the noble Lord is now referring.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is academic in view of the fact that I am not pressing the Amendment. I accept what the noble Lord has said. I think it is important that there should be flexibility in this matter, but I am quite prepared to accept the assurance that he has given that this will not be used in a way in which it is not intended to be used, and that it will be used in a responsible manner by the Council. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHAMPION: This Amendment, No. 4, is largely drafting, as is Amendment No. 6. In the context of the Royal College's powers to direct under this clause any conditions imposed must automatically be restrictions placed upon the temporarily registered person. We feel that it is better, therefore, to relate the word "restriction" to the circumstances under which the practice is permitted, and the Amendment to line 45 makes a simple reference back to the word "restrictions" in line 34. With that explanation, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 36, leave out ("conditions under") and insert ("circumstances in").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 45, leave out ("conditions") and insert ("restrictions").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8:
Supplementary veterinary register
8.—(1) There shall continue to be a register known as the supplementary veterinary register containing the names and addresses of the following persons (to be known as veterinary practitioners), that is to say—
(c) the persons entitled to be registered in that register under the next following subsection.
(2) Any person who for an aggregate of not less than seven out of the ten years immediately preceding 2nd December, 1965 held a licence under section 7 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1948 (licensing of employees of animal welfare societies) shall be entitled to be registered in the supplementary veterinary register.
3.37 p.m.
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: I understand that I should not move Amendment No. 8 until after the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has moved Amendment No. 9. As Amendment No. 7 is dependent upon Amendment No. 8, I propose to defer the argument on the subject until then.
LORD CHAMPION: In connection with what the noble Lord has said, Clause 8 is the clause which has aroused the greatest controversy, especially within the veterinary profession itself. Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 10 and 11 are all intended to alter in some vital particular the scheme for dealing with the licensees under Section 7 of the 1948 Act. I wonder whether it would be convenient for the Committee to discuss these Amendments together before deciding what to do with them separately? Amendment No. 9 is, of course, a drafting Amendment. I rather think that some advantage would accrue to the Committee in the understanding of the whole position if in fact we followed that course. If the noble Lord, Lord Somers, while moving Amendment No. 7, would speak also to No. 8, and if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would speak to his Amendment, I could then try to persuade the Committee that the right thing to do would be to accept the Government's Amendment. If this course is acceptable to the Committee, I think it will help us in our proceedings upon this clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: So far as I am concerned, I think it might save time even more if the noble Lord were to speak to his own Amendment No. 10, after the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has spoken to his.
LORD CHAMPION: I should be happy to do that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord's Amendment is not very different from mine.
LORD SOMERS: In that case, with your Lordships' permission, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together, because they relate to each other. The whole point on Amendment No. 8 is to avoid the use of the words "veterinary practitioners" for those who, up to the present, have been known as licensees. I do not think that the veterinary profession have any objection to such persons being put on the supplementary register, but I think it is confusing for them to be known as practitioners. After all, there are already veterinary practitioners who are to all intents and purposes unqualified veterinary surgeons; but these licensees are those who have been in the service of the animal welfare societies.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, intends to alter that, and I am not in the least opposed to it, but these licensees have been in the service of the societies and chiefly they have had experience with small animals—pets, cats and dogs and so on—and have not had any experience which will qualify them to deal with the larger animals. Therefore, I think it is confusing to the public that they should be known as "veterinary practitioners", which to the perhaps less expert mind means really much the same as "veterinary surgeons". It implies a qualified person. The whole purpose of Amendment No. 8 is to retain the present wording but at the end to insert the words:
"and such persons shall be registered as and entitled to use the name of veterinary licensees."
I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, leave out paragraph (c).— (Lord Somers.)
LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for agreeing to my suggestion that we might discuss this clause and the Amendments together. We discussed the question of licensees at some length in the Second Reading debate. I then explained that the Government had accepted the proposal of the Royal College following an understanding by the College with the P.D.S.A.—an understanding which was

991
endorsed by the British Veterinary Association some four years ago. That proposal we embodied in Clause 8 of the Bill. The consultations took place four years ago; and I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, who reminded us during the Second Reading debate that there have been considerable changes in personnel since that date and some people who were members of the B.V.A. at that time did not really know what their Council had done in that connection, and they sent out the memorandum, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—the Bristol Memorandum—from which it seemed to me that members of the B.V.A. were to some extent attempting to repudiate what their Council had done four years ago. I hope I am not saying anything harsh in that connection. I can understand that something done four years ago might well be forgotten in the interim and not known to the new members of the profession.
We have always understood the disadvantage of this clause, in that as it stands it would enable licensees to enter general practice without check, except for the disciplinary powers of the Royal College; and, as I hinted on Second Reading, I did not like it. I looked into the whole question of licensees when I was Chairman of a Committee which subsequently became known as the Champion Committee (which seemed to me to be a singularly appropriate name for it), and we subsequently submitted a very good report to the noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, who was then Minister of Agriculture. I did not like the original clause, but this was put into the Bill following an agreement which had been reached between the Royal College and the P.D.S.A.
The discussion on Second Reading of the Amendments which have been put down by the noble Lords opposite to this particular clause have caused us to give careful thought to the whole problem. I hope that, as a result of our consideration, we shall be found to have arrived at words and Amendments which will be accepted by the Committee as a reasonable compromise. What we are seeking to obtain here is a reasonable compromise between competing bodies and interests. The compromise is one, we suggest, that keeps to the essentials of the understanding between the Royal
992
College and the P.D.S.A. and at the same time gives adequate protection to the general public. When I refer to "the general public" I refer, of course, to their animals, because it is the animals which matter in this connection. The Government Amendments provide that all existing licensees still employed by animal welfare societies should be registered on the supplementary register. These licensees would be subject not only to the disciplinary powers of the Royal College, but would continue to be, as at present, carefully supervised. This will protect the public.
The licensees who have already left, within the last three years or so (and these are the ones whom the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is worrying about), or those who subsequently leave the employment of these societies, will not be entitled to automatic registration. They must first apply to the Royal College. If the Royal College gives permission they will then be registered, and permission will be subject to such restriction as the Royal College may think fit to impose. I cannot speak for this; I must leave it to the good sense of the Royal College, but it may well be a restriction confining them to practise on those animals to which they have become used in their employment, and as licensees within these societies. Here we see the safeguard against such a licensee entering into certain aspects of general practice for which his training and experience might not have fitted him. The conditions for registration will be noted in the register, and an ex-licensee would be liable to have his name removed from that register if he did not observe the conditions. That m is the safeguard, and it is a useful one.
Turning now to the Amendments upon the Marshalled List, we think those standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, do not go far enough. In effect they would establish a separate part of the supplementary register giving licensees a different name without adding to the control that the Royal College has over them should they leave their present employment. We think that our Amendments are better because they will enable the Royal College to restrict such ex-licensees to such aspects of the practice of a veterinarian's work as they are deemed capable of.

993
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, stressed the change of name. I must point out that, under Amendment No. 8, on the supplementary register in future two names would apply: "veterinary practitioner" and "veterinary licensee". That is his purpose. A veterinary practitioner at present, and as the position would be under the Bill, is a person registered under Section 6 of the 1948 Act. A veterinary licensee would be a person registered under Clause 8 of this Bill, as I understand the noble Lord's Amendment. In so far as that section of the general public who are interested in veterinary matters are concerned, there are two titles known to them now, "veterinary surgeon" and "veterinary practitioner". They are aware of the fact that all veterinary surgeons are holders of a university degree, having successfully completed a university course of study in the practice of veterinary surgery, and that veterinary practitioners are men who have not obtained a degree but who during the ten years preceding the passing of the 1948 Act had been engaged in diagnosing diseases of animals and in giving them medical and surgical treatment. That is to say, the men who are entitled under the 1948 Act to use the term "veterinary practitioners" are, in many cases, men who have picked up a bit of veterinary knowledge as they went along, while many of the licensees had received quite a bit of training with their societies and were kept up to date in their work by their respective employing societies.
Those of us who are old enough will remember some of these people who were included on this supplementary register as veterinary practitioners. The amount of knowledge they had was not sufficient, in my opinion, to justify their practising on any animals of mine. Nevertheless, this had to be done in the circumstances of the passing of the 1948 Act. The words "seven out of ten" governing the admission of licensees to the supplementary register are closely allied to those of the 1948 Act. I feel that we should be gaining nothing by adding another name in this field, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will decide to withdraw his Amendment No. 7, and will not move No. 8. We think that what we are proposing to do here will truly safeguard the public against anyone being deceived into thinking that a man coming
994
from practice within one of these societies is capable of conducting a major operation on a valuable racehorse, or anything of that sort.
The Amendments standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Balerno, seem to us to go a little further than is necessary. They would give the College too much power in relation to those licensees who continue in their present employment, and we feel that this might undermine the understanding which has been arrived at between the Royal College and the P.D.S.A. They might also have the effect, if the restrictions did not enable the licensees to undertake further training, of prohibiting them from improving their status. This we do not want to do. However, perhaps the noble Lord will tell me here that the restrictions ought to make provision for this sort of thing.
Having said that, I must thank the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Balerno, for giving us a clue as to the most suitable solution of this problem which we have embodied in our Amendments. With that just tribute to the noble Lords, I hope that the Committee will accept the Government's Amendments which embody a compromise and will, we think, be acceptable to the Royal College, to the British Veterinary Association and to the P.D.S.A. I have spoken for rather a long time on this matter, but these Amendments are of importance. Clause 8 is, as I said at the outset, the most controversial in the Bill, and I hope what we have now arrived at will find general acceptance within the Committee and certainly within the profession as a whole.
3.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I should like to say a few words on these Amendments. I certainly cannot agree with the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, or the Amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Balerno. I should have thought that the Bill as it stands was quite adequate, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said, there have been extremely intensive discussions between the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the British Veterinary Association and the P.D.S.A. on the drafting of this clause. As I understand it,

995
all three bodies were quite content with the drafting of this clause.
There are, I think, only 56 of these licensees in the country, 54 of whom have been trained and are employed by the P.D.S.A. I understand that of the 54 employed by the P.D.S.A. none of them has had less than 14 years practical experience. I should have thought that we could allow those licensees to go on to the supplementary register and to be called veterinary practitioners, because no more will be appointed. It seems to me that we are rather discriminating against them unnecessarily. I should be prepared to support the Government's Amendments on this matter, but I would prefer that Clause 8 were left as drafted. I certainly cannot support the Amendments in the name of Lord Somers or those of Lord Drumalbyn. I hope that, if the Bill cannot be left as it is drafted at present, the Government's Amendments will be carried; but I cannot agree with the other Amendments.
LORD SOMERS: I am perfectly prepared to accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Champion. There is only one point that puzzles me slightly, and that is, who is to enforce the observation of these restrictions? Presumably the veterinary practitioners will be given some form of licence or certificate, and will be asked by the public to produce it. Is that the idea? If the noble Lord could put my mind at rest on this point, I should be perfectly happy to withdraw the Amendment.
3.58 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment, perhaps I might say a word. The approach of my noble friend and myself to this clause was along these lines. Here, as I understand it, we have a limited number of licensees (I think there are 67, or something of that order) who at present are licensed to give such medical and minor surgical treatment for the relief of pain as is authorised in the licence. That is the information I have.
As it seemed to us, the position would be that if they were put on the supplementary register there would then be no controls at all over the types of work they could do, the only control being in the
996
types of work done by the P.D.S.A. and the other animal welfare societies. If, however they were to leave the employment of these organisations, they would then be able to put up a plate marked "veterinary practitioner" and would be able, so far as I could see, to do any kind of veterinary surgery at all, without any restriction whatsoever, and the public could not be expected to make much distinction between a veterinary surgeon and a veterinary practitioner.
That was the position as I saw it. But we then made inquiries, and we found that there had been some kind of understanding. I am bound to say that I do not think that understandings can overrule the will of Parliament; I think they must be made subject to what Parliament may decide. But since there had been some understanding, my noble friend and I thought that the best thing would be not only to place restrictions on those who may leave the animal welfare services, but to place restrictions, equivalent to those under which they hold their licences at present, on those who stay in the animal welfare services.
This was the purpose of our Amendment. The noble Lord says that he thinks that goes too far. I should not have thought it goes too far. I am glad that he has seen his way to putting restrictions on those who are licensed at present; who have been licensed for seven out of the last ten years; who are working with the animal welfare societies, and who leave the employment of those societies to work outside. I certainly think that that is an absolute minimum. But I should have thought also that once the licences of those who are now working under licence are abolished, they should have imposed upon them restrictions similar to those imposed by the licence. I cannot see that that can be any breach of an understanding. It seems to me to be perfectly right and proper, and certainly much in the interests of the animals and of the profession as a whole.
I do not say that the drafting is right; but that is why I still prefer the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend and myself. After all, there are fewer than 70 names to be dealt with on this register, and presumably it will be a diminishing number, because I think

997
that the ages of all those concerned must be over 45. If my calculations are right, as time goes on these will be a diminishing number.
In any case, I am not entirely happy with the drafting of Amendment No. 10,which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has put down. Is there not a loophole here? The Amendment says
"but if he"—
that is one of these licensees—
"is not an employee of any society or institution mentioned in subsection (1) of that section"
he
"shall not be entitled to practise veterinary surgery except with permission granted by the Council and subject to such restrictions as the Council may impose."
But a man may be a part-time employee of one of these societies. What happens then? Is he then allowed to practise without restriction at all? This seems to me to be an important point. There must be a loophole here, which I think we should close now. We could close it by omitting the word "and" and putting in the words, "a full-time employee of any society or institution." This seems to be a most necessary alteration to make, if we are even to secure what the noble Lord wants to secure. But, as I said before, I still feel—and I hope my noble friend still feels—that the Amendment in our two names is to be preferred.
I would not ask the Committee to decide on these two Amendments, and should be quite content at this stage for the noble Lord to have his Amendment in. But I hope that he will be able to say that he will look at the arguments that I have put forward, and will certainly satisfy himself before the next stage that those who are placed on the supplementary register will be subject to restrictions, so that they will be restricted to the kinds of work that they have previously been doing. I do not often disagree with my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. He talked about their having fourteen years of practical experience. But it is practical experience within comparatively narrow limits. If I am right in my interpretation of what the noble Lord has said, these narrow limits would be removed by his Amendment. So I hope that he will say that he will pay attention to the arguments that we have put forward and,
998
if necessary, will be prepared to amend his own Amendment at the next stage of the Bill.
4.7 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, because he has supported the Bill as originally drafted. The fact that he is completely opposed to the noble Lords who have put down Amendments seems to me some justification for our attempting to find a way between the points of view that have been expressed this afternoon, which is precisely what we have done by our Amendment. I am glad that the noble Viscount spoke.
I am not going into any of the figures (I have them somewhere, but they are buried deeply in the mass of papers that I have with me) as to the actual numbers who are engaged, their ages and so on. But the fact is that, although not many people are involved, this point aroused a lot of controversy in various fields.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked me about disciplinary proceedings if we allow these people to participate under a restriction. The disciplinary procedure will be under the control of the Royal College, and the restrictions will be enforced, as under Clause 7, by people who notice an offence complaining to the R.C.V.S. This sort of thing will quickly become known. It will become known that people are doing this on a restricted licence. "Restricted licence" perhaps is the right term, and people will soon get to know if something major, which is clearly not within the terms of any licence granted, is being done, and will report accordingly.
I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said. He queried our drafting after saying kindly that he was not going to move his Amendment. But perhaps he would consider it further between now and Report stage, as of course we shall have to do in the light of what has been said; and particularly his mention of a loophole in the wording, as to someone doing this job part-time. He rather challenged me to close this loophole now. I am not going to fall for that one. After all, I am not the Minister in charge of the Department; I am only in charge of the Bill. If I were to accept it at this stage,

999
I might find myself in trouble with the Minister when I report to him what had happened this afternoon. But I can give the noble Lord an undertaking, that this is something we shall have to look at carefully.
As to the restrictions that will be imposed, I cannot hope to commit the Royal College to precise restrictions. It will be for them to consider, and. the restrictions which they will impose upon these men will depend on the circumstances of each case. The sort of restriction which occurs to me, as a layman, is that the ex-licensee might have to confine his activities to small animals—that is, domestic pets; or he might be required to work only with, and under the supervision of, a qualified veterinary surgeon. Again, he might be prohibited from performing any operation which may go into the body cavities. But, of course, it could be that the Royal College would conclude that he was competent to practise generally. That would be up to the Royal College. I am sure that they would not give him a free licence to do some of these major things until they were absolutely satisfied that he was competent to do them. I am grateful to noble Lords for having accepted the Government Amendments. I promise that we will look at everything that has been said.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I hope the noble Lord will not miss the main point. The main point undoubtedly is that those who will be transferred from being licensed to the supplementary register will be subject to no controls at all; it will not be a matter of placing restrictions upon them. Under the noble Lord's Amendment they will place restrictions only on those who are no longer employees of the societies or institutions mentioned.
LORD CHAMPION: If I said anything contrary to that, I made a mistake. The restrictions will apply to people working outside the employment where they previously worked as licensees. The licensees will still be doing the same sort of job within their particular societies as they have been doing previously, and, as I understand it, there will be no difference here.
LORD DRUMALBYN: They will be doing it in fact. They will not be doing
1000
it because they are restricted by a license. There is a great difference between the two.
LORD CHAMPION: If we go on like this, we shall be making confusion worse confounded. I do not quite understand the noble Lord, but I shall be glad to talk to him about it afterwards, and if necessary do something about it between now and Report.
LORD SOMERS: There is a great deal in what the noble Lord says. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 7.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHAMPION: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 21, leave out ("animal welfare societies") and insert ("certain societies and institutions providing free treatment for animals").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 22, at end insert (", but if he is not an employee of any society or institution mentioned in subsection (1) of that section shall not be entitled to practise veterinary surgery except with permission granted by the Council and subject to such restrictions as the Council may impose.
( ) Where a person is registered in the supplementary veterinary register under the last foregoing subsection, the fact that he is or is not the employee of any such society or institution as aforesaid and, if he is not, whether he has been granted permission to practise veterinary surgery and the restrictions subject to which he may practise it shall be entered against his name in the register.
( ) Where a person registered in the supplementary veterinary register under subsection (2) of this section fails to comply with any restrictions subject to which he is so registered, the Council may cause his name to be removed from the register.").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 25, leave out ("the said section 7") and insert ("section 7 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1948"),—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Keeping evidential effect and publication of the register]:
4.15 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The purpose of this Amendment is simply to ensure that the register shall be printed at least every three years. There has been a certain amount of discontent about this in the past, and the object of this Amendment is to put the situation right. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 37, at end insert ("and in any case not less than once every three years").— (Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD CHAMPION: This is not a matter on which we as a Government feel very deeply, but we thought that in the interests of economy we should allow discretion to the Royal College in regard to the publication of the register. After all, this is a fairly costly job. Printing and postage costs to the Council incurred in producing their 1964 Report amounted to £2,395 19s. 2d. The sensible course for the Royal College to take here would be that, having published the register itself, it should then issue amendments to the register up to the point where it became extremely difficult to read and to understand what it was all about, and should then publish a new register. The register should not contain so many Amendments that it is practically impossible for anyone to find his way through them. We take the view that discretion should be allowed to the Council.
The Opticians Act 1958, which became law under the last Administration, accepted the principle that the General Optical Council should have complete discretion as to the frequency with which their register should be published. This also applied to the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. Therefore, although, as I have said, we do not feel deeply about this, we feel that it might be left to the discretion of such a responsible body as the Council of the Royal College to make its decision and to ensure that the register is reasonably readable to those who need to find their way through it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I would be prepared to make further soundings about this before the next stage. I do not press the matter at the moment. There is a great deal in what the noble Lord has said. For a register to be any
1002
use to the ordinary person as a book of reference, it must be reasonably up to date. I understand that there are some 8,000 veterinary surgeons on the register of this country, which means there will be at least 200 changes in it per year, and probably more, apart from various changes as to restrictions, and so forth. Therefore, I should have thought that any profession would wish, if it is at all possible, to publish its register annually. I should have thought that it ought at least to publish a register every three years. I do not feel that this is a matter which should be forced upon the Council by Parliament. It is really a matter for the elected members, if they think fit, to force upon the Council. I put down this Amendment because this matter was brought to my attention and it was thought to be a good idea. I imagine that now it has been put down the work has been done. Therefore, I withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Removal of names of deceased persons and of those who have ceased to practise]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a small point. If the power is to be taken to remove a name from the register after the registrar has written to a registered veterinary surgeon asking whether he has ceased to practise and no answer has been received within six months, when one remembers the far-flung areas of the world in which veterinary surgeons practise, such as the Falkland Islands or Mauritius, it would appear to be fair that his name should remain on the register until his current subscription has exhausted its validity. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 44, at end insert—
("Provided that the name shall not be removed until the expiry of any period in respect of which any such fee as is referred to in section 11(1)(b) of this Act has been paid.")— (Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD CHAMPION: This Amendment has the advantage of apparent justice, that a registered veterinary surgeon's name is not removed from the register until the period in respect of which he has paid

1003
fees expires. But this is more apparent than real. It is highly improbable that a veterinary surgeon having paid his fees will disappear so quickly and information will get to the College so quickly that much more than the six months' grace given under this clause will remain before the end of the year for which the fees have been paid. If this should happen, possibly something is wrong. A disciplinary case is difficult if the person cannot be traced and in such an unlikely event the power given to the Council might be in the public interest.
We do not hold strong views on this, but I suggest that this is a small area of discretion that might well be left to the common sense of the Council. I do not know what the noble Lord feels about the matter. I must admit that my note tells me, "Accept if strongly pressed"— but I do not imagine that the noble Lord will strongly press me on such a small matter as this.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Obviously, one cannot feel terribly strongly about a matter of this kind. I am bound to say that if the rule stands as it is the registrar has discretion not to remove the name, and in the circumstances I have indicated I do not think he would remove the name. Therefore, I see no point in pressing the Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Appeals in disciplinary and other cases]:
4.21 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "section may," and insert:
"in accordance with rules of court, appeal to the High Court.
( ) On any such appeal the Court may give such directions as they may think proper, and any order of the Court under this section shall be final.
( ) In the application of this section to Scotland for the reference to the High Court and to respondent there shall be substituted respectively a reference to the Court of Session and to defender."
The noble Lord said: This is really an exploratory Amendment. Under the
1004
legislation as it now stands, an appeal against the decision of the Council on a disciplinary case lies to the courts; that is to say, the High Court in England and Wales and the Court of Session in Scotland. The Bill as drafted transfers that appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The noble Lord said on Second Reading that this follows the pattern of the medical and dental professions, but before one makes a change of this kind one wants to have a little more substantial justification of it than that. After all, I understand that, so far as the solicitors are concerned, appeals still lie to the High Court for solicitors in England and Wales, and to the Court of Session for solicitors in Scotland. So far as Scotland is concerned, I would have expected that an appeal to the Court of Session would be preferred to an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
I would imagine that one of the reasons which might be put forward for changing to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is that the appeal might be taken more expeditiously; there might be less delay before the hearing than there would be if it were in the High Court or the Court of Session. I do not know whether the noble Lord is in a position to give us any comparative figures of delays between these two forms of hearing. I think that on Second Reading the noble Lord also mentioned the question of Commonwealth countries. I would not have thought that this was a substantial point at all. Indeed, it may be that to some Commonwealth countries, at any rate, the Privy Council is more a sign of imperial dominance in an appeal on a matter affecting the register of Great Britain, than the normal courts of Great Britain.
I am not quite clear about the position so far as Ireland is concerned. I take it that if a man were practising in this country, but was registered in Ireland, the appeal against the Disciplinary Committee would then lie to the appropriate court there. It appears from Clause 21 that there is to be machinery for ensuring that the case of a man qualified in Ireland, but practising here and on the register here, would be considered in this country and not in Ireland. In any case, I should have thought that where we had this joint arrangement between ourselves and Ireland, it would be advisable to have the

1005
same kind of procedure in both countries. I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us what is the procedure for appeals in Ireland.
As I said, this Amendment is exploratory. I believe that there is no very strong view held on this matter in the profession. But I should have thought there was no point in making a change unless there were very good reasons for making it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 15, leave out from ("may") to end of line 24 and insert the said new words and subsections.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord has made it quite clear that his Amendment is exploratory, so that I need not bother to say too much about the failure of the drafting to apply to Northern Ireland; this really does not matter. I am not in a position to give the noble Lord the comparative figures of delay. I am sure that he did not really expect me to be able to give them on a Committee stage, without previous notice. He mentioned the point about solicitors whose appeal lies to the High Court or the Court of Session, but what I have to say here is that, although the medical and veterinary professions are the same throughout the United Kingdom, different legal systems exist as between England and Scotland, as we know from legislation which passes through this House. So I do not think we can take the solicitors here—
LORD DRUMALBYN: Of course, the forensic medicine aspects are different between the two countries.
LORD CHAMPION: Well they might be. The noble Lord has caught me again. I wish he would not do that! But the simple fact is that, so far as the legal systems are concerned, solicitors who feel that they have a right of appeal go either to the High Court or to the Court of Session, because of the difference in the legal systems.
During the debate on Second Reading, I referred to the provision in the Bill for appeals from decisions of the disciplinary committee to lie once again to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, instead of to the High Court or Court of Session. One of the reasons for doing so was that in some Commonwealth countries—and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, mentioned
1006
this—the basic qualification is still membership of the Royal College, and it was thus considered that the Privy Council would be a more appropriate tribunal. There is another and very practical reason. The Royal College exercises disciplinary power throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, and it has told us that in the past difficulties have been experienced in knowing to which court the appeal should be taken, having regard to the place of residence of the accused and the place where the disciplinary offence in question is alleged to have been committed. These places may not be in the same country, so there is a difficulty here which I am sure the noble Lord will recognise. The 1948 Act itself gives no guidance at all on this point.
In addition, there were different rules of court to be considered. It was considered, therefore, to be simpler for, and in the interests of, the Royal College and the appellant if there were only one appeal tribunal rather than three separate ones. This proposal was considered with the Lord Chancellor, and it also has the merit of bringing the three medical professions, whose disciplinary problems are often very similar, once more into line. This is a matter which has been carefully considered, and it arises to some extent out of these difficulties which the Royal College told us about. It is not merely a matter of tidying up, although there is some measure of tidying up in it because it brings the appeal procedure into line with that of the doctors, opticians and professions supplementary to medicine, all of which have an appeal to the Privy Council.
I do not think I need say more at the moment. This system of reverting to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is, in all the circumstances, the best for the profession, and it will certainly be easier for those who have to appeal and those who have to answer the appeal—in this case, the Council of the Royal College. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not observe any strong feeling in the Committee on the matter. I thank the noble Lord for the explanation he has given, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Restriction of practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons]:
4.30 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in my name. During the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, called my attention to this matter, and I am grateful to him for doing so. He called attention to the fact that there was no reference in the Bill to those who are licensed by the Home Office to carry out operations of a veterinary character. I agree that it is prudent to put the position of these people, many of whom will not be veterinarians, beyond doubt so far as this Bill is concerned, and I hope that noble Lords will accept the Amendment. As I say, it stems from the remark which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, made, and I thank him very much. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert—
("Subsection (1) of this section shall not prohibit—
(a) the carrying out of any experiment duly authorised under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876;").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to thank the noble Lord for putting down this Amendment. It clarifies a rather difficult position.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 40, at beginning insert ("the carrying out or performance of").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20 all have the same purpose; that is, to enable Ministers to vary by order the provisions of Part I of Schedule 3 to the Bill as well as the provisions in Part II of that Schedule. We have a number of Amendments later on which we shall have to refer to Schedule 3, but this is an Amendment which leads up to something which may eventually be done to Schedule 3. I have to remind your Lordships that,
1008
basically, this Schedule was first worked out by a Committee under the chairmanship of Lt.-Col. Sir John Chancellor which reported in 1945, and was incorporated in the Veterinary Surgeons Act in 1948. It was not, however, until over a month after this Bill had been published that any of the interested parties made any representations to the Ministry of Agriculture to the effect that, in the general context, this Schedule did not work satisfactorily. I think the Government were therefore fully entitled to consider that the right thing to do was to incorporate the old Schedule in this new Bill.
Nevertheless, it is now obvious that some interests consider that amendment is necessary, but in my opinion satisfactory Amendments cannot be worked out in a short time. The real purpose of Schedule 3 is to exempt owners, and in particular farmers, in relation to their own animals and, in some circumstances, in relation to their neighbours' animals, from the provisions of the Bill which prevent laymen practising any sort of veterinary surgery. I am not arguing at the moment whether these exemptions in the form in which they stand are desirable or undesirable. I am, however, suggesting that more time is needed to work out alternative exemptions. I can assure your Lordships that, if this Amendment is accepted, interested parties will be asked for comments on the Schedule with a view to its early revision. I should also draw your Lordships' attention to the consequent Amendment to Clause 25 subjecting any Order made under this clause to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. But this is very much a paving Amendment towards a consideration of Schedule 3, and to eventual action by the Minister by means of laying Orders after he has consulted all the interested bodies. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 45, leave out ("such").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD BALERNO: I very much welcome this and later Amendments that have been put down. They meet points that have been raised and will, I think, make the Bill much more flexible in its operation.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to join my noble friend in welcoming

1009
this Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has said, it will enable consultations to take place after the Bill becomes law and any necessary amendments to the Schedule to be made. It will also enable us to short-circuit our discussions on the Schedule, to some extent, at any rate, this evening.
LORD SOMERS: As one who has several Amendments to Schedule 3 down on the Paper, I should like to say that I, too, am perfectly satisfied with the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 1, leave out from beginning to ("by") and insert ("interests so appearing to be substantially affected").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 2, leave out ("Part II of").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Power to give effect to agreements with Republic of Ireland]:
Lord CHAMPION: The purpose of the Amendment which I am now moving is to make it clear that Irish members of the Council of the Royal College represent the interests of the Republic as a whole in relation to the practice of veterinary surgery, and not simply the interests of individual registered veterinary surgeons in that country. This is a comparatively small drafting Amendment, and it is intended to reproduce the present position as shown under Section 20 of the 1948 Act and the 1954 agreement with the Republic. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 4, leave out ("veterinary surgeons of").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord CHAMPION: This Amendment is another small, drafting Amendment made to bring this clause into line with
1010
Clause 3, which refers to "degrees" and not to "qualifications". I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 13, line 8, leave out ("qualification of a class") and insert ("university veterinary degree of the Republic of Ireland").—(Lord Champion.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I just ask a question? Is it possible that in the future there might be a veterinary college in Ireland which would not be part of the university? Might not this wording be somewhat restrictive? Has it the agreement of the Government of Ireland?
LORD CHAMPION: This is a point which I would not care to answer off the cuff. I will think it over and answer the noble Lord by letter; or perhaps he would like to put down an Amendment on it at a later stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Regulations, rules and orders]:
LORD CHAMPION: Amendment No. 23 is consequential on that already accepted in Clause 19 giving the Minister power to amend Schedule 3. The same thing applies to Amendment No. 24. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 14, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) The Ministers shall not make an order under section 19(5) of this Act unless a draft of the order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION:I beg to move this Amendment formally.
Amendment moved —
Page 14, line 38, leave out ("or (5)").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Interpretation]:
4.41 p.m.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved, in the interpretation of "animals" to delete "birds

1011
and reptiles" and insert "all vertebrates". The noble Lord said: The purpose of the Amendment standing in my name is to include fish under the operations of the veterinary profession. I find it difficult to understand why fish should be excluded. There is mention in the Bill of birds and reptiles, but not of fish. People keep tropical fish in this country and veterinarians have been called in to deal with tropical fish diseases in aquaria, both public and private.
However, it is not for that reason that I would specifically press that fish should be included in this Bill; it is that fish farming may well come to this country in a big way. Fish farming has been going on in the East, and in China especially, for centuries; and in the postwar years, in the last twenty years, it has developed into quite a large industry in Scandinavia, and in Norway especially. Much of the smoked trout, particularly, that we get nowadays comes from Scandinavia; and trout are exported from the fish farms there to North America as well as to parts of Europe. In North America the fish farms are growing up, some of them being of considerable antiquity. They have developed from the old form of hatcheries for the restocking of rivers and, because of the demand for trout especially, have become quite big business. The work which has gone to develop the proper nutrition of fish is very considerable and great strides have been made in the United States on this very interesting and subtle point.
Directly one keeps animals closely together in congested areas, even though they be fish with fresh water running through all the time, one inevitably comes up against the problem of disease. Certain of the veterinary faculties in the United States universities have developed whole departments for dealing with diseases of fish. Factory fish farming has got into its stride in certain parts of America; and more particularly in the Southern States where there are no lakes and where it is a long distance from the sea. I would hardly expect the Committee to believe me, hut in Texas I have seen factory fish farming integrated with battery hens and intensive rabbit production. Certain of the by-products of the hens go to the rabbits and certain of the by-products can then be fed to
1012
the fish. The circle is completed by the by-products of the fish coming back to the hens. I have seen this; though, as I say, I would hardly expect noble Lords to believe me when I told them about it. It is not a particularly savoury operation and I would not advise people who are squeamish to go to examine it.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, said on Second Reading that one of the reasons that fish were not included in the Bill was that many scientific workers, not veterinarians, were working on fish and that the inclusion might somewhat inhibit them. Personally, I would doubt that. There are many scientific workers —in the past I myself was one. I held a vivisection licence and I worked with quadrupeds—who rub along very well indeed with the veterinary profession. If other scientific workers get into any difficulties with animals, the veterinarian is always called in; and there is always a veterinary surgeon within call of any place that is doing that kind of work. I would think that the fish are much more in need of veterinary attention than are reptiles. I would plead that fish should have the benefit of veterinary inspection and control.
In the drafting of this Amendment I encountered some difficulty. The animal kingdom is divided into two parts, vertebrates and invertebrates. Fish are vertebrate animals; this made it possible for me to use the phrase "all vertebrates" to allow for the inclusion of fish in the Bill. The Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, I discovered later, in fact does this much more elegantly than my proposal does. The 1876 Act says:
"This Act shall not apply to invertebrate animals."
The other point I have which was brought to my notice was that if we use the words "all vertebrates" this might include humans. T doubt whether this would hold good: but it is a legal point. Admittedly, scientifically, humans are animals; but legally, I believe, humans are not animals—and that is obviously the intent in the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. There it is intended that humans are not included in "vertebrate animals". Humans are also excluded from the Protection of Animals Act 1911. There, in the definition, it says that:
"the expression 'animal' means any domestic or captive animal".

1013
Scientifically, the human is as a rule a domestic animal. The further statements of definition in the Act specifically include "bird, fish, or reptile". So the omission of fish in the Bill would be a break with tradition. All the animal protection Acts in the past have included fish along with birds, reptiles and, of course, quadrupeds and the higher vertebrates, including primates.
I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that it would have been better if we could have gone back to the 1876 Act and used the phrase (perhaps as a special clause):
"This Act shall not apply to invertebrate animals."
It is more elegant. I would commend it to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, particularly as it has rather a familiar ring; for every now and again in an Act we read:
"This Act shall not apply to Scotland."
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 10, leave out ("birds and reptiles") and insert ("all vertebrates").—(Lord Balerno.)
4.50 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has to some extent cleared up this word "vertebrate". When I first read the Amendment, I thought that if we were to accept it, I was going to be in trouble with the British Medical Association, because if we accepted this word, it might preclude doctors from dealing with man—and I should really be in trouble if that happened. The noble Lord has gone much more deeply into the matter and has proposed words which would appear to get over the difficulty. I straightaway agree about the importance of fish farming. We have not reached that on any considerable scale in this country, but the time may well come when we shall be looking for additional sources of protein. This is being done in the East and it is something which will increasingly happen all over the world.
The definition of "animals" in the Bill, and the definition of "veterinary surgeon", are not primarily intended to show what veterinary surgeons may or may not do. They are intended to make quite clear what other people, however well qualified they may be in their
1014
occupation, cannot do. So I think the noble Lord's point is based on something of a misunderstanding. If fish were to be included in the definition of animals, it would mean that the various fisheries scientists of the fishery laboratories and aquaria would be unable to treat fish, diagnose disease in fish, or give advice about disease or treatment of fish, unless exempted under Schedule 3—that is, unless the fish were in their own or their employees' possession, or unless they were Crown servants, as this Bill will not bind the Crown.
It is true, of course, that courses in the veterinary colleges include fish in elementary zoology, but they do not include any specific instruction in the diseases of fish and their treatment. The vast bulk of fish in this country is, of course, wild and if disease can be diagnosed, treatment is impracticable. It is only for fish in captivity that the question can arise. Here the fisheries scientists are the experts, not the veterinarians. I am informed that frequently veterinary surgeons refer matters on fish to the Ministry of Agriculture's Freshwater Fisheries Laboratory. I expect the same is true of other freshwater fisheries biological stations in this country and in Scotland. The inclusion of fish in this definition would preclude owners, as well as veterinarians, from getting advice or treatment from the fisheries scientists. Therefore, I would strongly advise your Lordships that we should leave the definition of "animals" as it stands in the Bill, and not make veterinarians the sole custodians of a discipline in which they have received—if I may say so without offence—rather less training than a number of non-veterinarians. I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment. To say "exclude" would be wrong—it should, if I may say so, rather be to "include out".
LORD BALERNO: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for his explanation. I must say that although at one time I appreciated the extent of the advice which is being given by fisheries research stations and scientific officers, I had forgotten it. I wonder if it is altogether correct to have advice on veterinary matters given sometimes by agricultural colleges, N.A.S. people and others, who are not qualified veterinarians and are not precluded from giving advice, although it

1015
seems to work out all right. This is not a matter on which I would wish to divide the Committee, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Repeal, saving and transitional provisions]:
LORD CHAMPION: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 16, line 31, leave out from first ("the") to first ("of") in line 32 and insert ("commencement").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 16, line 39, leave out ("that day") and insert ("the commencement of the said section 2").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHAMPION: This Amendment is a little more than drafting. It has the effect of keeping in being all existing Privy Council orders giving recognition, for the purpose of Clause 3, to universities providing courses leading to veterinary degrees. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 16, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) any order made under section 1 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1948 and in force immediately before the commencement of section 3 of this Act shall have effect as if it had been made under the said section 3.")—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
LORD CHAMPION: This is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 17, line 43, leave out ("for different purposes") and insert "under this subsection for different purposes; and any reference in this Act to the commencement of any provision thereof shall be construed as a reference to the day appointed under this section for the coming into operation of that provision").—(Lord Champion.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Provisions as to the Council]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved, after paragraph 4, to insert:
".An appointed member of the Council may be removed from office by the persons by whom he was appointed if in their opinion he is unable to perform his duties or is otherwise unsuited to continue his duties."
The noble Lord said: This is a relatively small point. The Amendment reproduces, in effect, Section 10(2) of the 1948 Act. That subsection says:
"An appointed member of the said Council may be removed from office by the persons by whom he was appointed—
(a) if he is unable to perform his duties;
Or
(b) if he has been adjudged bankrupt or sequestration of his estate has been awarded or if he has made a composition or arrangement with his creditors"—
all of these, I should have thought, would have made him unsuitable—
"or
(c) if he is otherwise unsuited to continue to discharge his duties."
An elected member of the Council may resign, but there seems to be no way of disposing of an appointed member. The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that appointed members should have their appointments withdrawn if they are no longer fit to perform their duties. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 33, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord is right in saying that he is seeking to insert in the Bill something which appeared in the 1948 Act. The Government gave careful consideration to the inclusion of a similar provision in this Bill, but decided against it. Similar provisions are not included in other legislation dealing with the professions, and it seemed to us rather invidious to suggest that persons appointed to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons are more likely to be unstable than those appointed to other bodies. Furthermore, t is somewhat illogical to have this provision for appointed members but not for elected members, and it would be difficult to apply a provision like this to elected

1017
members. Any member, whether elected or not, can, of course, resign; that appears from Schedule 1, paragraph 3. I might add that, in any case, I could not accept the Amendment as it stands, as it requires some redrafting. But I hope that the noble Lord will not press it. It seems unnecessary to put it in, especially since, as I say, we have not included it in legislation dealing with other professions which might be regarded as being, to some extent, similar in character.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question on this matter. Elected members are, I understand, elected for four years. It is therefore appropriate to ask for how long appointments are made. Elected members will have to be re-elected after four years, but an appointed member may go on for ever unless there is some means of withdrawing his appointment. This is the point of the Amendment. There is no slur in it. This is the effect of the difference between appointment and election.
LORD CHAMPION: I should be sorry to think of anybody appointed going on for ever, unless I happen to be appointed and feel that I never want to die. I am not sure of this point. I must admit that occasionally it is well to "come clean". I remember the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth always used to advise me on those lines. He used to say: "If you don't know, 'come clean'. Send them the answer afterwards if you can." I will certainly do that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In anticipation of the noble Lord's answer afterwards, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3:
EXEMPTIONS FROM RESTRICTIONS ON PRACTICE OF VETERINARY SURGERY
PART I
TREATMENT AND OPERATIONS WHICH MAY BE GIVEN OR CARRIED OUT BY UNQUALIFIED PERSONS
Anything done, otherwise than for reward, by a person engaged or employed in agriculture, as defined in the Agriculture Act 1947, to an animal owned (whether by himself or
1018
another person) for the purposes of agriculture as so defined.
The performance by any person of or over the age of eighteen of any of the following operations, that is to say—

(a) castration or caponising;

(b) the spaying of a pig not over the age of three months;

(c) the tailing of a lamb;

(d) the docking of the tail of a dog before its eyes are open;

(e) the amputation of the dew claws of a dog before its eyes are open.

PART II
EXCLUSIONS FROM PROVISIONS OF PART I
Nothing in section 19(3)(a) of this Act shall authorise the castration of any animal mentioned in the following Table after it has reached the age shown therein.

TABLE

Horse, pony, ass or mule

2 years

Bull

15 months

Goat

15 months

Ram

15 months

Boar

9 months

Cat

6 months

Dog

6 months

LORD DRUMALBYN: I was going to ask the noble Lord if he could give us an official explanation or definition of what is meant by the paragraph beginning "Anything done, otherwise than for reward", but as it is going to be discussed, as he says, after the Bill becomes an Act, I do not think I need trouble the Committee. Therefore, I do not propose to move my Amendment to delete the paragraph.
LORD CHAMPION: The wording here is somewhat obscure. I could have said something about it, but as the noble Lord has not moved the Amendment, I need not do so.
5.5 p.m.
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS moved, in Part 1, in the paragraph dealing with specified operations, after "age of eighteen" to insert "(or sixteen if under skilled supervision)". The noble Lord said: I should have said earlier that my noble friend Lord Stonehaven, whose name appears with mine on a number of the Amendments to this Schedule, discussed the Amendments with me thoroughly, and he has asked me to convey his apologies to your Lordships for his inability to be here to-day. We came to the conclusion that eighteen is rather too late an age

1019
at which to start learning how to deal with animals. We therefore thought that we should put it at sixteen, if under skilled supervision. There is no doubt that it is a great deal easier to learn how to deal with animals at the age of sixteen rather than eighteen. It is well known that boys of sixteen are much more likely to be understanding and gentle with animals than tough young lads of eighteen. I think it is much better for them to start early, and to get to know their job really well. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 23, line 41, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Somers.)
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I take the opposite view from the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on this matter, and consider that sixteen years of age is too young to be engaged in this sort of activity. I well remember, when I first started to work on a farm at fourteen years of age, the crude methods used to perform some of these operations—and this was by farm workers with long experience in the job. I have seen some of the suffering caused to animals as a result of the crude methods used: just pulling a penknife out of your pocket, giving it two or three scrapes on a brick wall, and that sort of thing. I am sure many noble Lords will have seen this.
I think there may be a case for seventeen years of age: but sixteen, no. I will try to explain why I say this. We all know that quite soon the school-leaving age is to be raised to sixteen. If this Amendment is agreed to, it will mean, in effect, that a youngster will be able to leave school, go on a farm, and immediately, under supervision (I realise that the noble Lord is asking for this), carry out this type of operation. I think this is too soon. We have an agricultural apprenticeship scheme operating in agriculture, and I agree it is essential that before a youngster completes his three years' apprenticeship he should have experience in this. I should have thought it might be appropriate that for the last year of his apprenticeship, under proper supervision he could be engaged in these operations.
I should like to make this further point. When I say "under proper supervision",
1020
I think there is only one kind of supervision for youngsters, and that is the supervision of the veterinary surgeon. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will bear in mind the suggestions I have made. I trust, also, in view of what I have said about the change in the school-leaving age to sixteen, that the noble Lord will have second thoughts and not press this Amendment.
LORD BALERNO: I should like to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, I do not think that sixteen is too young an age. Actually, a boy of fourteen can be trained into this by a good herdsman. You can get the manipulative action at a fairly young age. It is like being taught to sew. How much better to teach them young than to teach them old! I should think that the trouble in the days the noble Lord has described was due to people learning to castrate too old, when they were clumsy. What is needed is a neat finger. In modern livestock production, you cannot afford to be clumsy with castration. With pigs, you have a terrible run of trouble with hernias, and other things, if you do not do it properly. I would say that it is never too young to learn a job of this nature, provided that it is done under supervision.
LORD SOMERS: In reply to the noble Lord opposite, I quite agree with him that many methods were extraordinarily crude and clumsy, and I should be the last to want to see them come back. But, as my noble friend has said, that was largely due to the fact they learned too late. As the noble Lord will see, the Amendment says, "under skilled supervision", and not "under any supervision". Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Surely the majority of these operations are now done with rubber rings. They are certainly done in that way on my farms. I cannot see that it makes any difference whether it is done by people of eighteen or, provided it is done under skilled supervision, sixteen. I support the Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: I am in some little difficulty about this. I do not know whether a youngster of sixteen is more sensitive to pain than one of eighteen—

1021
I really do not know. I recognise that this is something which must receive careful attention. The whole of Schedule 3 worries me a little. Like my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton, I have castrated young pigs by the most crude methods. I recognise that this was a bad thing—it was bad for the animal, and I am not sure that it was good for me to be doing it in this way. We have reached the point where the whole of Schedule 3 is to be considered. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, recognises this. When it is considered, it will be not only in the light of anything which interested bodies might say, but also in the light of what has been said in this Chamber to-day, and what will be said in another place when this Bill goes there. All I would care to say at this stage is that the Schedule will be carefully considered.
I think it would be wrong to import into the Schedule at this stage—having regard to the fact the whole thing is in the melting pot—the words which the noble Lord wants to put in. I hope that in those circumstances he will withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding, of course, which is implicit in the undertaking that I am giving, that all the information which will come in from interested bodies, and what noble Lords have said to-day, will be considered before the Minister presents, under the appropriate clause in this Bill, an Order amending Schedule 3.
LORD SOMERS: The noble Lord has been good enough to give me this undertaking and, of course, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is a drafting Amendment, and one which I thought would certainly be accepted. Now, owing to the previous Amendment, Section 19(3)(a) has become 19(4)(b). I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 24, line 6, leave out ("19(3)(a)") and insert ("19(4)(b)").—(Lord Drumnalbyn.)
LORD CHAMPION: I am bound to accept what the noble Lord has said. I had something a little different. The purpose of the Amendment is to correct a printing error. There is no Clause 19(3)(a).
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is correct.
LORD CHAMPION: In those circumstances, I am happy to accept the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The point is that the noble Lord has moved a new 19(4)(a), and therefore the paragraph in this Amendment now becomes 19(4)(b).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: I move this Amendment in some doubt, because I am not myself experienced in this matter. I have heard reports in two opposite directions: one that the mule is incapable of breeding, so that castration would be unnecessary, and the opposite view that it is necessary in order to soften his character and make him more manageable. Which of those is true I am afraid I cannot say and, therefore, I must leave it to the Committee to decide. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 24, line 10, leave out ("ass or mule") and insert ("or ass").—(Lord Somers.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: As I have had mules in Jamaica, I can tell the noble Lord that if you castrate them it makes them far more amenable.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Champion, is going to resist this Amendment or not. If he does, I would ask him for consideration to be given to hinnies. The mule is the off-spring of a jack donkey and a mare, and for a hinny it is the other way round. I am in no way an authority upon this much respected minority of animals, but I think their case deserves consideration.
LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, for the information he has given to the Committee. I had some doubt about this myself. I had always regarded the mule as having no pride of ancestry or hope of posterity. But the point of hinnies would have to be included if we are to deal with this, because it is a mule in reverse—if that is the right way to describe it—or, at least, bred in reverse. This is a matter under Schedule 3 which will have to be considered before the Minister of Agriculture presents an Order.

1023
There are certain features about this part of the Schedule which will have to be gone into rather carefully, because of certain things which appear in the Anæsthetics Act which determine the ages at which these things are done with or without an anæsthetic. I can give the noble Lord an undertaking, so far as the whole of his Amendments are concerned, that this will have to be considered before we come along with an Order.
LORD BALERNO: I think that legally a hinny is a mule, but in practice a hinny is the reverse of a mule. It is quite right that the mule should be included. I took advice on the matter from the veterinary profession, and I am assured that the inability of the mule to procreate in no way affects his natural instincts to mate.
LORD CHAMPION: What information we get here!
LORD SOMERS: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SOMERS: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to consider Amendments Nos. 36 to 40 inclusive together. The purpose of all these Amendments is to reduce all the ages in the Table in Part II to six months. Personally, I think that the ages given for the horse, pony, ass or mule, the bull, goat, ram and, probably, the boar, are far too high. A horse, after all, which has reached the age of two years is fully adult; and a boar, I should say, is very nearly so, if not entirely so, by fifteen months. As to the smaller animals, the cat and the dog, six months is certainly more than ample. To illustrate this, I can only say that our own cat, a female, had her operation to make her unable to have kittens at the age of four months. We were told by the veterinary surgeon who did the job that we were only just in the nick of time. Therefore, six months is ample even for the smaller
1024
animals, and I think it is certainly ample for the larger ones as well. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Page 24, line 10, leave out ("2 years") and insert ("6 months").—(Lord Somers.)
LORD CHAMPION: It seemed to those who advised me in this matter that there could be no immediately obvious purpose in reducing, in Part II, the ages beyond which castration of the species indicated shall not be carried out by laymen. It is thought that the Amendment may have been put down to initiate discussion, and the noble Lord did something a little more than that. He gave us some information which I admit was entirely new to me, as indeed has been a good deal of the information given this afternoon, but I do not really want to go into this subject now. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and others, have accepted the fact that this question has to be carefully discussed before the Minister presents his Order, and as I said, to some extent wrongly, on the last Amendment, this will affect the provisions of the Anæsthetics Act 1954, and at least a consideration of this must come into the matter. Therefore, I think it would be a mistake on my part to try to say very much about it this afternoon; but, rather, I would assure the Committee that this whole subject will be considered before an Order is laid under the provisions of this Bill that we have been considering this afternoon. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will withdraw this Amendment and will not move the subsequent Amendments.
LORD SOMERS: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am entirely reassured and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
5.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the promised financial reconstruction of B.O.A.C. This House is fully familiar with the troubled history of B.O.A.C. in the past, but if any noble Lord wishes to remind himself of the facts I recommend him to study the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries regarding B.O.A.C., which is dated June 9, 1964, and the Minister's reply which appeared in December, 1965. I may also remind the House of the important statements made by the then Minister of Aviation and by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place on July 22, 1964.
The position reached at that time was that B.O.A.C.'s future fleet composition was settled by the agreement of the Corporation to take 17 Super-VC.10s. In return it was accepted by the Government that not only would B.O.A.C.'s accumulated deficit be dealt with, but the capital structure of B.O.A.C. would be so reconstituted as to put the Corporation, for the future, on a fully commercial basis, taking into account its future fleet composition. In fulfilment of this commitment, the last Minister of Aviation announced the terms of the proposed reconstruction in another place on March 1, 1965, in the course of a debate on civil aviation policy. In short, B.O.A.C. was promised assistance of £110 million, which was large enough to enable both the accumulated deficit to be written-off and a useful reserve to be formed. The then Minister of Aviation judged this to be the right figure, on the one hand avoiding "featherbedding", and, on the other, offering the prospect, under firm management, of achieving financial as well as operational success. The first object of the Bill is, therefore, to bring to fruition, during the current financial year, the process of financial reconstruction of B.O.A.C. which can be said to have begun when Sir Giles Guthrie was appointed Chairman of the Corporation just over two years ago.
1026
The second object of the Bill, and from your Lordships' point of view probably its most interesting feature, is one which grows out of the first. This is the introduction of an experiment in what we term Exchequer dividend capital, whereby the Corporation, instead of paying to the Treasury fixed interest on all its borrowings, pays fixed interest on part only and a dividend, related to its actual results, on the rest.
The third object of the Bill, which need not, I think, occupy much of your Lordships' attention, is to use this opportunity to amend the Air Corporations Act 1949 in several respects, in regard to both B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., so as to put the two Air Corporations in the same statutory position as other nationalised industries. The most important innovation under this head is the Minister's right to approve capital investment plans of the Air Corporations, a power which has hitherto been assumed to exist but had no statutory basis. In addition, the opportunity has been taken for a number of useful but minor amendments, mostly in relation to the Corporations' finances.
I should not like it to be thought that the financial reconstruction for which this Bill provides reflects in any way discreditably on B.O.A.C. Throughout its past difficulties, the Corporation has preserved its enviable reputation for safety and standards of service, and it remains to-day a national flag carrier in which we can all take a legitimate pride. Over the past two years its financial results demonstrate that, following on the lead given by the previous Chairman, the Corporation has taken action to set its own house in order. It is now for the Government to do its part. I will now describe in more detail what the Bill will achieve in regard to these three objectives.
At the present time, B.O.A.C.'s borrowings from the Exchequer amount to £176 million, comprising £52 million of Stock and £124 million of Exchequer Advances. Clause 1 of the Bill reduces this figure by £110 million to £66 million, which will then be divided between £31 million of loan capital and £35 million of Exchequer dividend capital. I want to make it clear at the start that this £110 million is not a subsidy and in fact involves no new public expenditure of any

1027
kind. B.O.A.C. will, however, no longer be obliged to pay to the Exchequer annual interest on this sum of £110 million. The saving in interest to B.O.A.C. in a full year will amount to £5¼ million, and the taxpayer will forgo this amount of revenue, though the loss of interest will to some extent be offset by the introduction of Exchequer dividends, to which I shall come later. The whole of the £110 million will initially be credited to reserve. Of this sum £82½ million represents B.O.A.C.'s accumulated deficit. as at April, 1965—the operative date of the Bill—of the past losses which have necessitated the reconstruction. This will be written off. Your Lordships will not expect me to go in detail into the sad and ancient story of how these losses occurred. The aftermath of the Comet disaster; premature obsolescence of stopgap and late-delivered aircraft; unhappy experiences in overseas investments—even the need to borrow from the Exchequer to pay interest due on past losses: all these and other causes are well known to your Lordships and it is only a recognition of realities that B.O.A.C., under its new management, should be relieved of this legacy of the past.
The write-off of the accumulated deficit will leave a balance of £27½ million to form a starting reserve. The Government believe that, in a wholesale reconstruction of this kind, designed to enable B.O.A.C. to operate, in a competitive and fluctuating market, on a fully commercial basis for the future, there is a clear need to permit the Corporation to have a reserve of this character. The amount of such a reserve is a matter of judgment—not of precise calculation. The figure finally agreed is based on the Government's judgment of what the Corporation needs in order to be able to face its competitors on terms of equality, without the danger that it may need to come again to the Government for more assistance next time it runs into a squall.
The purposes which a reserve may serve include a defence against a downturn in the international market (there are no fewer than 17 competitors on the North Atlantic, and more seeking to join in), premature obsolescence of aircraft (a permanently recurring danger in this industry), a decline in the revenue rate,
1028
due to reductions in international fares (which are not in the Corporation's control), or even the political disasters to which all airlines, and particularly a world airline such as B.O.A.C., may be subject. And losses consequent on the Indo-Pakistan dispute are a recent example. Moreover, a decision has yet to be taken on the last ten Super VC 10s of the B.O.A.C. order which were in suspense at the time of the July, 1964, settlement and were not affected by it. If these ten aircraft are cancelled, the cost will be in the order of £7½ million, and this is something which could be charged against the reserve.
Thus the Government consider the figure of £27½ million out of the £110 million, write-off, a reasonable initial reserve, given the scale, nature and risks of B.O.A.C.'s operations. Under existing powers, the Minister possesses ultimate sanction over the application of reserves. However, because elements of judgment come in and such judgments can be at fault, I would draw your Lordships' attention to two precautions which have been provided in the Bill. The first will be found in Clause 2(2), which provides, among other things, that the funds from the reserves may be capitalised, in the form of Exchequer dividend capital. The second is in Clause 3(9), which gives the Minister power in three years' time, after March 31, 1969, to claw back to the Exchequer any sums which in his view are then surplus to the Corporation's requirements. In other words, if time has proved the accumulated reserves to have become too large, the Minister of the day can either capitalise the excess or require it to be paid into the Exchequer.
The £66 million of B.O.A.C.s remaining capital has been divided more or less evenly between loan-capital and Exchequer dividend capital. This gearing is a matter of judgment, but there are commercial as well as airline precedents. The loan capital figure of £31 million is a variable figure, which will go up or down according to B.O.A.C.s cash flow, and its need to borrow capital. The interest paid on this £31 million will be a weighted average of the interest rates payable on its present borrowing of £176 million; and this has been worked out and agreed

1029
at 4 per cent. The £35 million Exchequer dividend capital is of more interest to your Lordships, since this represents an important and potentially very valuable innovation in the policy towards nationalised industries.
The Government have decided that, following this reconstruction, B.O.A.C. becomes the most suitable of the nationalised enterprises for an experiment with a system of dividend-paying capital, in many respects equivalent to the equity capital of the normal commercial company. The essence of the system is that B.O.A.C. should pay on £35 million of its capital a sum to the Government each year related to its earnings in that year and not merely a fixed rate of interest, as in the past. Thus the Exchequer's receipts from B.O.A.C., on this element of its capital, would be directly related to B.O.A.C.s fortunes in the year in question—in other words, the Exchequer would share with B.O.A.C. the risks of the business and reap the benefit of any bonuses. Such an arrangement is undoubtedly particularly appropriate to an industry with the fluctuating results of civil aviation. It may also prove appropriate to other nationalised industries, if the experiment with B.O.A.C. turns out to be, as I hope it will, a success. But that is something which we must wait and see. We are concerned, for the moment, only with B.O.A.C., and the experiment will put the airline in much the same position as other large world carriers such as its partners, Air India and QANTAS, which, while substantially publicly owned, work on a basis of fixed interest and equity capital.
B.O.A.C's environment, which is free of the complications of domestic obligations of a social service nature or any suggestions of monopoly status, is much more suitable for an initial experiment of this kind than B.E.A. I hope that it will before long prove right and suitable to extend the system to B.E.A. also: but for the present it is the Government's view, with which I do not think that your Lordships will differ, that any such experiment is best confined to an individual undertaking, and that there is none more suitable than B.O.A.C.
The proposals for Exchequer dividend capital are set out in Clause 2 of the Bill, and there are two aspects to which I
1030
would particularly draw your Lordships' attention. The first is that, whereas it rests with B.O.A.C. to propose the dividend, it is reserved to the Minister, with the approval of the Treasury, to determine it. The dividend cannot be decided in total separation from the appropriations to reserves, which, under the existing Statutes, are determined by the Corporations but are subject to the Minister's direction. Thus, the arrangements which the Bill provides in relation to Exchequer dividend capital are consistent with those long in existence in relation to the treatment of the Corporation's reserves.
The second point is that the experiment is to be in the first instance for a period of five years. Under Clause 4, at the end of that period it will either lapse, in which case the relevant Exchequer dividend capital will revert to the status of loan capital, or the new system may be continued by order, temporarily or permanently. In the latter event it will have ceased to be an experiment, and become established, as indeed I believe it will. Your Lordships will note that this order will require an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament, and that your approval will therefore be required for its continuance.
The Bill permits future capital needs of B.O.A.C. to be met either by the provision of more loan capital or more Exchequer dividend capital, as the Minister may decide; but, because of the write-off, the existing statutory limits (260 million, increasable to £300 million) have ceased to be appropriate. The limit of combined loan capital and Exchequer dividend capital will be £90 million, which can be increased under Clause 1(3) by Affirmative Resolution to £120 million. There is no need to alter the existing limits of borrowing powers for B.E.A.—that is, £110 million, increasable to £125 million: the outstanding borrowings at March 31, 1965 being £87½ million. In both cases, the limits should be high enough to cover needs over the next three to four years, and in B.O.A.C's case they allow for progress and delivery payments on some pre-Concord capacity, as well as for some of the earlier progress payments on the Concord itself.
Having described B.O.A.C.'s financial reconstruction and the experiment in Exchequer dividend capital, I turn now to the third of the main purposes of the

1031
Bill, to bring the statutory position of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. into line with that of other nationalised industries. The legislation governing the Air Corporations was among the first of the post-war nationalisation Statutes, and it owed much to the Act of 1939 which first created B.O.A.C. Moreover, the two Air Corporations' financial duties were dominated at the time by provisions relating to the subsidies which they were receiving. There are, therefore, significant divergences between the provisions of the Air Corporations Act 1949 and the other main nationalisation Statutes which the Government think it right on this occasion to eliminate.
Your Lordships' House is, for instance, familiar with the White Paper of 1961 on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries(Cmnd. 1337), which laid down the principles on which targets of performance should be set for each industry. These targets are based on the Government's interpretation of the obligation placed on each one of them, so to conduct their affairs as at least to break even, after meeting all proper charges on revenue, taking one year with another. For the reasons I have explained, neither of the Air Corporations was set such a duty. Although B.E.A. has, in fact, been set a target (of 6 per cent. return on net assets over a five-year period from April 1, 1963, to March 31, 1968), this had no statutory basis. In fact, B.E.A., has more than met its target in the first two years of the five-year period. Accordingly, Clause 5(1) of the Bill creates for B.E.A., whose financial structure is identical with that of most other nationalised industries, a financial duty identical with theirs.
This financial duty will not, however, do for B.O.A.C. because of the introduction of Exchequer dividend capital. It would not be enough to require B.O.A.C. merely to break even, after meeting all proper charges on revenue (which include interest on loan capital). This would be a far less onerous duty for B.O.A.C. than for the other industries who pay interest on the whole of their capital. And it would impose no obligation on B.O.A.C. to pay a respectable dividend—and the Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer certainly expect that the proceeds of the dividends, one year with
1032
another, will be no less, and perhaps more, than the corresponding interest would have been. The stimulus of Exchequer dividend capital, the creation of a substantial contingency reserve and the Corporation's new more commercial approach should enable B.O.A.C. to show a much better return than that of breaking even. Consequently, Clause 3, subsections (1) to (5), of the Bill prescribes an appropriate procedure whereby the Minister can determine a target for B.O.A.C. over a given period large enough to permit the payment of a reasonable dividend to him under Clause 2. If B.O.A.C. do not think they are going to be able to achieve that target, then they have to tell the Minister and suggest remedies. The target is to be expressed as a percentage return on net assets. This is the usual way in which such targets are expressed, but it was recognised in Cmnd. 1337 that this was not the only way in which this could be done. In case it is desired, in the course of reconsidering the policy towards nationalised industries to express the targets differently, Clause 3, subsections (6) to (7), permits a change in the method of reckoning to be made, by order by the Minister, subject to Affirmative Resolution. Thus, in different ways for the two Corporations the Bill takes an important step forward in bringing to both a statutory financial duty, which I am sure the House will support.
Another duty, to be imposed by the Bill similarly on both Corporations relates to their capital investment programmes. The original Air Corporations Act failed to require the Corporations, alone of nationalised industries, to submit their capital investment programmes to the Minister for approval. This is a serious defect, since it is a cardinal feature in machinery for controlling public expenditure that the Government should have the power of approving or influencing the investment of all nationalised industries. This, indeed, is one of the reasons why they are nationalised. In practice, of course, both Corporations have been in the habit of seeking approval for substantial investment projects, particularly purchases of aircraft and investments in associated and subsidiary companies, more particularly overseas. It has always been unsatisfactory that this consideration was on a non-statutory basis, and has relied for such formal basis as it

1033
had on the Minister's position as the source of the Corporations' borrowings. Accordingly the Bill introduces, for B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. alike, in Clauses 3(8) and 5(2), an obligation, in framing and carrying out proposals involving substantial outlay on capital account, to act on lines settled from time to time with the approval of the Minister. This obligation relates not only to the Corporations themselves but also to their subsidiaries, of which B.O.A.C.-Cunard is the largest but by no means the only example. These provisions resemble those found in the governing statutes of other nationalised industries and thus bring the two Air Corporations into line. In the same way, Clause 8(3) of the Bill removes an anomaly of the Air Corporations whereby the remuneration of Board members determined by the Minister could be supplemented in respect of executive duties by payments determined by the Board. No other nationalised industry has such a provision, which has given rise to much argument in practice over the years. The Government considers it desirable that in this respect the Air Corporations should conform to the principle that the total remuneration received by Board members is a matter for the Minister.
The remaining provisions of the Bill, though minor and subsidiary, are useful. The opportunity is being taken to remove out-of-date provisions and otherwise bring up to date the statutory provisions in the Air Corporations Act 1949 with regard to the provision of information to the Minister. This information is required for various returns and estimates. These changes are made in Clauses 8(1) and (2). A useful extension is made in Clause 6(1) of the powers of the Corporations to borrow overseas, because this can sometimes be the cheapest course for them, especially in relation to overseas investments. At the same time the Treasury is given, in Clause 6(2), power to guarantee such borrowings, which can help to keep the cost down. These are sensible and, I hope, non-controversial provisions, for which experience has shown a need.
Finally, in Clause 7 provision is made for the Minister to extend by regulation the scope of the existing Airways Corporations Joint Pension Scheme so that it can also incorporate the subsidiaries of the Corporations and comparable bodies.
1034
This is a sensible extension, which is acceptable to the Corporations and to the employees' side. It will be observed that under subsection (3) no regulations will be made by the Minister except after consultation with the Corporations and with any appropriate trade union organisation. It will be seen, especially from these latter amendments, that the Air Corporations Acts are becoming somewhat of a jig-saw puzzle. I am happy to say that the minor amendments which I have been describing, together with the repeals in Schedule 2, have been designed to facilitate the process of consolidation, on which work has already started. I am sure your Lordships will join me in wishing a speedy outcome to this necessary step, as soon as the present Bill has become law.
I have no hesitation in recommending this useful Bill to your Lordships at the present time and inviting you to give it a speedy passage. It is needed by the end of the current financial year, so that it can readily and fully be reflected in B.O.A.C.'s annual accounts for 1965–66. We are just in time for that. We are launching a new era for B.O.A.C., which deserves all the success it is securing as well as all the support this House can give it. I understand its results for 1965–66 will be about the same as for 1964–65, which were a record.
Because we are to-day concentrating primarily on B.O.A.C., I do not want your Lordships to think that we in any way overlook or disparage the achievements of B.E.A. Indeed, it is a token of the remarkable success over the years of that organisation, both under the chairmanship of a much respected Member of this House, the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, and of his successor Mr. Milward, that it has not needed any such financial reorganisation as is contained in this Bill. As I have mentioned before, it has more than met the target which the Government have set it. B.E.A. is confidently expected again to meet the target return in the present year. Nevertheless, I trust that, though mainly in relatively minor respects, the Bill will have its utility for B.E.A.
In presenting to your Lordships the Air Corporations Bill, I want to make clear that the Bill is not about B.O.A.C.- Cunard, except incidentally. It is about B.O.A.C. The financial reconstruction

1035
of B.O.A.C. has taken a form in which the House may be assured that no benefit front it will find its way into the hands of the private shareholders in the Cunard Steamship Company. It would not be right for the relief afforded by the Bill to B.O.A.C. to operate to the benefit of private shareholders who have neither had any hand in the past losses nor made any contribution to the present reorganisation. Sir Giles Guthrie has given an assurance that there are no circumstances he can foresee in which any indirect benefit to Cunard is likely to happen, or indeed in which B.O.A.C. would permit it to happen. Moreover, the Corporation's auditors, appointed by the Minister, have agreed to give the Minister an annual certificate that no part of the reconstruction benefit is in fact flowing to Cunard. I think, therefore, your Lordships can safely leave aside from consideration, in connection with the Bill, the possibility of any unjustifiable financial benefits to the Cunard shareholders. Whatever doubts some of your Lordships may entertain about the benefits of the B.O.A.C.-Cunard association, they offer no sound reason to affect our attitude towards this Bill.
I do not wish unduly to detain your Lordships and I have, therefore, refrained from enlarging on many other topics regarding B.O.A.C.'s fleet plans, B.E.A.'s social services and other interesting questions discussed in another place in connection with the Bill. My noble friend Lord Shackleton will, I am sure, satisfy your Lordships on any such matters which you may wish to raise in the course of the debate, and I omit them now because I do not think they are truly germane to the questions to which this Bill addresses itself. These are important enough in their own right, and I trust that the measure I am putting before your Lordships to-day will help B.O.A.C. to maintain its record of outstanding service to the nation and Commonwealth, will put to the best possible use the national investment in the Air Corporations, and will fortify the high hopes we entertain for the continued success of both. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2. —(Lord Bowles.)
5.55 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am quite sure that the whole House will join with me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, for the most comprehensive and lucid way in which he introduced the Bill. I say at once that I accept his statements that there is no connection between the matters which are dealt with by this Bill and the affairs of B.O.A.C.-Cunard, and therefore I do not in my brief remarks propose to make any reference to B.O.A.C.-Cunard.
We on this side of the House welcome this Bill, because it was originally a measure conceived in the previous Administration by my right honourable friend Mr. Amery. As I understand it, it is designed primarily for two purposes: first, to write off B.O.A.C.'s accumulated deficit; and, secondly, and even more important, to put B.O.A.C. on a sound commercial basis. It is therefore designed to show that a nationalised air corporation can work in the best commercial manner. The principle of a nationalised industry working along the lines of best commercial practice is something which will be most welcomed by those of us on this side of the House. I propose to be brief, but I give the noble Lord warning that when we reach Committee stage it may well be that we shall wish to examine the Bill more closely and may wish to put down Amendments to certain clauses.
This evening I wish only to ask the noble Lord two general questions. The first arises out of Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill and concerns the size of the amount involved. I think the figure given by the noble Lord was £110 million. This sum includes the £90 million required to wipe out the deficit and also to provide B.O.A.C. with an adequate working reserve. I think the noble Lord in his speech said that the amount for reserve would be useful in preventing any "feather-bedding". Originally when the Bill was drafted it was estimated that B.O.A.C.'s accumulated deficit would be some £90 million. This provided a reserve of some £20 million, but in the event, thanks to the admirable results achieved by B.O.A.C. in 1964–65—and I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord as to the great service which B.O.A.C. has given to this country —and as a result of their high level of

1037
efficiency, the accumulated deficit dropped by some £81½ million. Therefore, the reserve has increased by that amount.
LORD BOWLES: That was the profit made in that year, £81½ million.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: Yes; if they made a profit it could be deducted from their accumulated deficit. Therefore, their accumulated deficit is now some £81½ million as opposed to £90 million, and therefore the reserve has risen by that amount.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord say that B.O.A.C.'s record in 1965–66 would be of the same order, so that we may assume that there will be another substantial profit. This is wholly admirable, and the last thing I should wish is to be thought to be taking a carping attitude in this connection. The point I want to make is that the reserve has risen quite substantially from what it was originally intended to be, and I query whether it is necessary to have such a very large reserve. I would have accepted the figure of £20 million in the first place, but now that it has increased to some £28 million—and it may well as a result of another splendid year's working be increased even further—I must express doubts as to whether the amount is not too large.
May I ask how these reserves are to be used? As I understand it, the object of reserves being held by nationalised industries is to permit those industries to carry out the expansion required by their activities. Any good large concern needs to expand its activities and at times has to call fully on reserves. This is a justifiable activity. I hope that I shall not be thought to be unduly suspicious if I say that I trust this is what these substantially increased reserves are to be used for. I hope there is no question that they might be used for any other purpose—possibly, for example, because they might be required by B.O.A.C. to honour commercial undertakings which they are already committed to. I have in mind those to meet the increased cost of the VC 10s which the Corporation are to purchase; or, again, whether part of those reserves have been earmarked for the purchase of the remaining ten Super VC 10s which are at present held in suspense and to which the noble Lord
1038
referred. These would be quite improper uses of the reserves which would become available once the Bill becomes law. So the question of the size of the reserves, which have increased since the Bill was originally drafted and which were designed to be £20 million, is something which it is highly possible we shall wish to probe further in the Committee stage.
The second point to which the noble Lord also made reference is the matter of the new capital. This amounts to some £66 million, as the noble Lord told the House, £35 million of which is to be Exchequer dividend capital. I think it would be fair to say that it is the equity element of the capital. Again, we on this side of the House warmly welcome this, because it seems to be an admirable innovation and one which we hope we will see extended. But it seems to me that this division of £35 million equity element and £31 million of fixed interest element is artificial and, indeed, arbitrary, and I see no reason why the equity element should not be larger. I believe I am right in saying that in the State airlines of Australia the whole of the capital is based on equities. I do not say that we should go that far, but it seems to me than an artificial division has been made.
The main question which I want to ask on this equity element is this. Why should it be confined only to B.O.A.C.? It seems to me that this idea will bring to B.O.A.C.'s affairs a valuable commercial stringency. Why should not the same idea be applied to B.E.A. now, rather than at some hypothetical date in the future? I listened with interest to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, as to why it should not be done for B.E.A., but I must confess that I was not convinced. It is wholly in the interests of the industry and, indeed, of the nation—as, after all, we are here dealing entirely with the taxpayers' money—that the stringency and the disciplines of equity capital should apply as widely as possible. So I should like to see this idea of equity capital playing a part in the finances of B.O.A.C. extended at once, rather than at some possible date in the future, to the affairs of B.E.A.
Those are the only two queries I have. We regard this Bill to put it rather vulgarly, as our baby. We welcome it in

1039
principle, but reserve the right to probe it in considerable detail on the Committee stage.
6.3 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I take your Lordships' silence as acquiescence, after, as the noble Duke said, the extremely lucid explanation of my noble friend Lord Bowles of a very complicated subject indeed. It is so complicated that I fear the noble Duke is a little confused on certain of the matters contained in the Bill, and I think it is right that we should perhaps pursue some of them in the Committee stage. It will be an educational experience for him and also for me, because I appreciate the difficulties.
However, I must make one point clear. The noble Duke really misunderstands the use of the word "reserves". The reserves are not cash, and it seems to me, if he is speaking on behalf of the Opposition on this matter—because this question was raised in another place—that he has not yet fully grasped the purpose of this reconstruction. The question of whether B.O.A.C. is being given too much or too little in the way of reserves is really not at all relevant to the future financing of B.O.A.C.'s operations. It seems to me that, having had a good year—although to a large extent the figure we are discussing is notional—it would be rather arbitrary, and indeed irrelevant, having thought of a figure, so to speak, merely to reduce the figure by the amount of that particular profit. I should be very willing to go into this matter in more detail, and I have some fairly lengthy explanations, but at this late hour I will not go any further into it. However, if the noble Duke really wishes to press me further I shall be happy to go into it at length.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My
Lords, I have no wish to detain the noble Lord, although perhaps his idea of "a late hour" is rather different from mine. Of course, I accept the fact that the reserve is not cash, but the reserve can presumably be spent; otherwise, what is the point of having a reserve? Presumably it is on call. I stick to my point, that it was originally estimated that the accumulated deficit would be £90 million. The figure quoted by the noble Lord
1040
in moving the Second Reading, and, indeed, quoted in another place, was £110 million which gave a reserve of some £20 million. We were told that the profit was £8½ million, but we are now told that this is a notional figure. I am afraid that I must ask for further enlightenment on that. What does the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mean by a "notional figure"? Is it £8½ million, or is it not?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I did not say that the reserve was a notional figure. But I think it would be better if we pursued this point in more detail in Committee. This is a very good individual clause point, and if it would help the noble Duke in any way in this matter I should be very willing to provide him with a more detailed explanation of what is a very technical subject. My reference to the late hour was largely because (although I have been in another place where this would be a very early hour) I have frequently heard your Lordships refer to "this late hour", and I thought I was merely conforming to the conventions of the House. But I am gratified to see that the noble Duke, who I think may have been in another place at one stage, thinks in terms of rather longer hours.
Again, the noble Duke referred to the size of what he called the equity. I really do not see that there is anything very secret about it. To start with, this particular form of shareholding, if one likes to call it that, is not strictly comparable to equity; but if we were to treat it as if it were, the figure is pretty similar to that of other airlines. In this case, it will be very much in line with the equity shareholding in a number of B.O.A.C.'s competitors. But, frankly, the proportion of equity to loan capital is a matter which we could argue about at very great length. In private enterprise public companies there is usually a ratio between the shareholding and the loan capital. This is, of course, determined not by legislation but under general rules which the Stock Exchange Council press on companies. It is sometimes an embarrassment to companies who rely very much more on loan capital and debentures than they do on ordinary and preference share issues. However, I do not think there is very much to this particular point.
The final question which the noble Duke asked was, if this is a good thing,

1041
why should we not apply it to B.E.A.? I think that if this is a good thing it is quite likely that in due course it will be applied to B.E.A. But it is an experiment, and at this stage I certainly could not say whether or not there is virtue in it. I think it is an intriguing idea, and it has certain attractions in the concept of B.O.A.C. which has had a great deal of money from the Exchequer. Of course, there is power to call back funds directly under this Bill if the Corporation's profits become too large. It is possible, indeed, in effect, to call back reserves: whereas in the case of the other Corporation, B.E.A., I think I am right in saying that it is possible to call back only the profits in a single year.
In due course, B.E.A. may or may not be a candidate; but I think that if one is embarking on what is an unusual experiment in this country it is only wise in this matter to follow the view to which we have come and apply it to B.O.A.C. Therefore, although these are interesting points, and are well worth making and discussing, I am inclined to think that the issues which the noble Duke has put forward are not ones of a kind to warrant a change in the Bill. But I shall certainly be willing to consider anything he may put forward on Committee stage.
My Lords, I should like to conclude my remarks by paying a tribute to B.O.A.C. I think we have all been rather obsessed by their unfortunate financial position; but, of course, B.O.A.C. are now well on the way to seeing the solution. In fact, noble Lords will recall that that very able and somewhat outspoken Chairman, Sir Matthew Slattery, did point the way very clearly as to how this reconstruction should be carried out. I do not wish to rake up the errors of the previous Administration, but I seem to remember that he did get rather at cross-purposes with the noble Duke's right honourable friend who was then the Minister of Aviation. Of course, we could, if we wanted to, go through this whole sad story. There are a number of former directors of B.O.A.C. who are Members of your Lordships' House, sitting on the Opposition Benches, who feel rather strongly on this subject.
However, B.O.A.C. has an enviable record for safety and efficiency; and I am sure that, while we can point to the satisfaction of the more profitable nature of B.E.A.'s operations—and again we pay
1042
full tribute to them—I do not think they had quite the same complications, particularly in the matter of equipment, as B.O.A.C. B.E.A. had an aircraft which was "a winner" right the way through: B.O.A.C., on the other hand, had great difficulties. And, of course, the Comet disaster was a great tragedy for B.O.A.C. as well as for this country's aircraft industry. None the less, although it was at fairly heavy cost, the investment is still paying off to this country; and, if I may revert to the Shackleton replacement, the Maritime Comet, that, of course, derives from the early Comets which B.O.A.C. helped to sponsor.
I am therefore glad that this Bill has been welcomed on its Second Reading, and I hope that, after some discussion on these rather interesting and technical points, your Lordships will speed it as quickly as possible on to the Statute Book. I may say that if we take too long over it we shall be in difficulty, because some of the figures may be altered by the next year's trading figures.
On Question, Bill read 2, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.