Lords Sitting of 13 February 1968

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS LAND SETTLEMENT
2.36 p.m.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN:
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 whether any settlement of land, and, if so, the number of people settled, has been sponsored by the Government in the Highlands and Islands since 1945.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, there have been four cases since 1945 where, in special circumstances, the State has acquired properties in the Highlands and Islands for land settlement purposes. The number of people settled on these estates was 34. In addition, three new holdings were formed on estates acquired before 1945.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, and also ex-
2
press the pleasure of your Lordships at seeing the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, back in his accustomed place. May I ask the noble Lord whether the Government consider that this is a record to be proud of—34 people settled on an area of land which is half the size of Scotland; 9 million acres? And have they still the same policy as they had in 1947, when the seven crofters of Moidart asked for one extra acre to increase their crofts and the Government were unsympathetic?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments about me personally, while having not at all the same feeling towards his comments about the Government. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the Highlands is that policies which were considered suitable prior to 1945 are not valid at the present time. We do not seek to rely on methods which have proved a failure in the past.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I also say how glad we are to see the noble Lord back again after his illness? I should like to ask him one supplementary question about the future of forest holdings, which are no longer very popular because a man who is employed for regular hours at a modern wage does not often want to grow food in his spare time. Are the Government aware that some forest owners are now employing on piecework rates independent men who can earn as much as they choose in their own time; and could we not in future aim at settling on the agricultural remnants which are being left by the expanding forest areas in the Highlands independent smallholders who

3
could do some forest work in their own time at piecework rates and without being liable for selective employment tax?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, an extension of the Forestry Commission's scheme of forest workers' holdings would not now be appropriate. This scheme was initiated many years ago and was based on the concept of part-time work in the forest. Forestry operations are becoming more mechanised and highly skilled—and I know that no-one is better aware of that than the noble Earl—and the pattern of work is tending towards highly skilled piecework teams organised on a full time basis. So an extension of the scheme on the basis of piecework for tenants would not be satisfactory. There is no longer a need for a pool of unskilled and semi-skilled workers who can be called upon at times of peak forestry activity. Furthermore, from the employees' point of view, part-time employment is unattractive, because a part-time worker cannot qualify for the super-annuation benefits which are available to a full-time worker.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS: SCHOOL CLOSURES
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: 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 how many schools have been closed permanently in each of the education authority areas of the Highlands and Islands since 1945.]
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the number of primary schools permanently closed in Argyll during the period referred to is 26; in Caithness, 24; in Inverness, 70; in Orkney, 12; in Ross and Cromarty, 26; in Sutherland, 7; and in Zetland, 18—a total of 183. The number of secondary schools or secondary departments closed in Caithness is 3; in Inverness, 7; in Orkney, 1; in Ross and Cromarty, 4; in Sutherland, 5; and in Zetland, 1. No secondary schools or departments have been closed in Argyll.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord
4
whether he does not consider that these figures show a shameful disregard for the economic and social conditions of the Highlands, and the people in the Highlands? Does he not consider that the centralisation of education which is represented by the closing of these schools is an admission, not only by this Government but by other Governments centralised in London, that they have no concern for these areas? Is the noble Lord aware that in the small township of Invershin—and I have the facts with me here—a school is to be closed which has 15 children still attending, and that they are to be sent to some other, centralised school? Further, is he not aware that these youngsters of five years of age may not see their homes in daylight during the whole winter period; and will he not, for the sake of those who live in the Highlands, condemn this centralisation?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not accept that what has taken place over this period of years is necessarily a shameful thing. What is done in the matter of the closure of schools is done primarily in the interests of the children concerned. I would point out that there has been no acceleration in this process during the period of the present Government. This is a policy that has been going on for more than twenty years. The first consideration given by an education authority—and let us remember that these proposals are initiated by the local education authority; they are not imposed on them by central Government—is what will provide a child with the best education. If we wish to have a continuation of schools at local level, then the thing most likely to bring that about is the policy now being adopted by Her Majesty's Government, of seeking to provide employment on a much wider basis in the Highlands. If the jobs are there, the local communities are larger and there are enough children to justify their receiving a proper education locally.
LORD BANNERMAN or KILDONAN: My Lords, does the noble Lord not consider that the influence of the home on the child at the impressionable age of five or six is far more important than that of any centralised education?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the influence of

5
a good home is better than the influence of a bad schools; but it does not necessarily follow that every home is good and that every centralised school is bad.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform me how many primary village schools have been closed in Devonshire?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the Scottish Office have not yet taken over the responsibility for Devonshire.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that not only is this not a shameful disregard over the last twenty years but this tendency of many people who were born and bred in that part of Scotland to prefer to live in England (whether for good or bad reasons) has been going on for a long time; and in fact was noted by Dr. Johnson.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not accept the fact that people who go to England necessarily do so because they prefer England.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: Is the noble Lord an English nationalist?
LORD HUGHES: I?
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, I was referring to the noble Lord who intervened.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the other noble Lord will not have the opportunity of answering Questions until perhaps the Government after next.

COAL TRANSPORT AND DISTRIBUTION
2.46 p.m.
LORD FOLEY: 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 what drastic improvements are contemplated in the transport and distribution of coal to households in order to avoid the recurrence of hardships imposed upon a great number of people, including the sick and aged, who were without delivery of coal for over a week after the recent short cold spell.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, it is true that during periods of severe weather there can be delays in the distribution of house coal. Where these occur merchants try to give priority to the aged and infirm. Delays happen because demand rises sharply, whilst rail transport and road distribution are hampered by snow and ice. This winter British Railways had some difficulty in maintaining a supply of wagons after the guards' and footplate men's dispute had disrupted their arrangements to establish reserves of wagons at strategic points. To maintain a general excess of wagons against all contingencies would add considerably to the railway deficit. To reduce the pressure on distribution facilities during the winter, consumers are encouraged to stock during the summer months. Last summer the National Coal Board increased the discount to 25s. 0d. a ton on purchases.

FLATS: INCREASE OF SERVICE CHARGES
LORD FOLEY: 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 they are aware that property holding and management companies, and estate managers acting independently or as their agents, are now seeking to increase the cost of their administrative services by 50 per cent. or over to persons living in blocks of flats, many of whom are elderly and living on fixed incomes; and whether this is not a proper matter for prior consideration by the Prices and Incomes Board.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, most flats are either subject to rent control under the Rent Act 1957 or let on regulated tenancies under the Rent Act 1965. In the latter case tenants may apply to the rent officer to fix a fair rent. The rent officer will take into account the cost of services and of management, and the rent he registers will incorporate what he adjudges fair provision for these. Tenants

7
—or landlords—who are dissatisfied with a rent officer's determination may appeal to a rent assessment committee. The service element in the registered rent will be variable thereafter only if the rent officer or the committee registers it as variable. Since the rent-regulation machinery provides for the review and determination of rents in the light of the individual circumstances of each case, reference to the National Board for Prices and Incomes of one component in the make-up of a rent is not necessary.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that property managements often consult with the Institute of Chartered Surveyors to make recommendations in regard to increases? Will the noble Lord say that this is not in line with the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if I understood the noble Lord aright, he was inquiring about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to property management's taking the advice of the Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
LORD FOLEY: Yes, my Lords; the Institute then state the increases that they consider should be made.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is within the free choice of any property management to take advice from whomever it pleases. It is the landlord who appears before the rent assessment committee and makes his case; and it is that which is taken into account by the committee.

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
ELY OUSE-ESSEX WATER BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

COMMONWEALTH TELECOM MUNICATIONS BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision as to the legal capacity of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Bureau and for the repeal of the provisions relating to the Commonwealth Telecommunications Board. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Sorensen.)
On Question. Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Second Reading of the Theft Bill from Tuesday the 20th instant to Thursday next.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ERSKINE BRIDGE TOLLS BILL
2.52 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Erskine Bridge Tolls Bill, has consented to place Her interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg leave to say a few words on this Bill, and I am informed that it is in order for me to do so. It is not my intention to debate the Bill, in view of the way in which it is marked on the Order Paper. But the fact that it is being advanced in this way means that it will not be possible for the

9
Minister who of course was unable, through illness, to be present on Second Reading, to answer the few points I raised then. Therefore I should like to emphasise them. We are all glad to see, from the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, dealt with Questions today, that he is very much recovered.
I repeat that it is not my intention to initiate a debate, otherwise the Third Reading of this Bill will have to be adjourned, but I wish to press the problem created by the cost laid down for removing vehicles which stop on the Bridge. If the figure of £5 is to be the fee, as it is in the case of the Severn Bridge, and if £10,000 is to be the cost of maintaining the £350,000 worth of equipment, it means that 30 vehicles a day will have to be removed in order to meet that cost. When the Government come to discuss the charges which are to be made, I hope that they will include in those charges a modicum to cover some measure of the cost of removing vehicles which have broken down and not expect recoveries from fees or penalties charged specifically to the owners of such vehicles to be so high as to be unreasonable.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, concluded his remarks by asking that the Government bear these things in mind when the charges were being fixed for the Erskine Toll Bridge. I am very happy to be able to assure the noble Lord that the Government will do as he has suggested, and have regard to the economics of these operations.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. The noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, who acted for him said that I should get all the information necessary later on. I gather that that will be the case.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

LONDON CAB BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

TRANSPORT HOLDING COMPANY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

MAURITIUS INDEPENDENCE BILL
2.58 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I have it in command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of this Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, if I move the Second Reading of this Bill briefly, it in no way detracts from the importance of the occasion, either to us here in Parliament or to the people of Mauritius. The cold, dry words of Clause 1(1) read:
"On and after 12th March 1968 (in this Act referred to as 'the appointed day') Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Mauritius."
It is hard to believe that those words will create a new, independent country. This Bill received a very warm welcome in another place and I am sure that a similar welcome will be given from both sides of your Lordships' House. It marks yet another step in the process of decolonisation, something in which we on this side of the House, and noble Lords opposite, have played our part since 1945. It may well be a reminder to those who attack this country regarding our decolonisation policy.
We have had a close relationship with Mauritius since 1810 and I do not believe that independence will in any way cut this long-standing tie. I take the view that when she becomes independent, our ties may become even closer. The Government of Mauritius have indicated their

11
desire to join the Commonwealth of Nations, and I understand from the Commonwealth Secretariat that all the countries within the Commonwealth have given a warm welcome to their admission.
Those who know Mauritius will recognise that there is no easy road ahead for her people. I am sure that we recognise and sympathise with their great difficulties. Perhaps the greatest of their problems is the distance of the island from Africa or from any major trading country. This makes industrialisation extremely difficult. In fact, the island and its people must depend on its primary products, such as sugar. The sugar industry is both modern and efficient, providing around 95 per cent. of the export revenue of the country and some one-third of its national income. Those who know the effect of fluctuations in the prices of primary commodities will know how vulnerable is the economy of Mauritius.
I am sure that your Lordships would agree that the root of the problem of Mauritius lies in the size of its population. There are some 1,000 people per square mile. Since 1944 we have seen an increase of population of about 80 per cent. A population explosion of this sort is bound to place great strain on any country, and on Mauritius, so dependent on primary products, it is exceptionally severe. It must be a matter of concern to the Government of Mauritius that if this trend continues there will be a population of some 2 million by the end of the century. I do not believe there is any immediate solution; we must depend on the long-term education of the people. But we should recognise this and sympathise with them in the economic difficulties—in particular, the unemployment problem—of the country.
On financial matters, your Lordships will know that a delegation from Mauritius, led by the Prime Minister, was in London in October for financial talks. More recently a high-level team of officials from the Ministry of Overseas Development visited Mauritius to follow up these talks; and of course there will be further talks in future. In the October talks the Mauritius representatives made plain that the rapid growth in population and the consequent higher unemployment had led to deficits in the capital and current budgets for 1967–68. Subject to
12
certain conditions and to Parliamentary approval, it was then agreed that a considerable additional aid would be provided. The more recent talks have clarified further the details connected with this aid and we have taken a further look at the position so far as 1968–69 is concerned. Apart from the question of direct aid, the resources of the Ministry of Overseas Development in the field of technical co-operation will, as is usual with independent members of the Commonwealth, continue to be available on request by the Government of Mauritius.
Mauritius has many problems to face in the years ahead, but I believe that all of them can be resolved with common sense, with prudence and with wise leadership. Small though Mauritius may be, those qualities are not lacking. I do not intend to dwell on the tragic outbreak of violence in Mauritius which led to a serious loss of life, the calling in of British troops and the declaration of a state of emergency, which still continues. I am glad to be able to say, however, that Mauritius has now to a considerable extent returned to normality, and to report the Governor's view that those disturbances were in no way political. Indeed, I am sure it is worth emphasising that the political leaders, both in the Government and in the Opposition, were quick to deplore the outbreak of violence in their public utterances and to do all they could to encourage a speedy return to law and order. I believe that this speedy and responsible reaction by Mauritian political leaders on both sides, despite the deep racial feelings that had been clearly let loose by the riots, augurs well for the future of the country. We all regret the recent violence and must hope that it is an episode that will be forgotten.
Clause 1 of the Bill provides for fully responsible status for Mauritius from March 12. Clauses 2 and 3 deal with nationality matters and follow the normal pattern. Clause 4 makes consequential modifications to other enactments. Clause 5 deals with interpretations and Clause 6 gives the Short Title of this Act as the Mauritius Independence Act 1967.
Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to add a few words in rather more detail about the effect of Clause 3 in the Bill. Citizenship arrangements are matters in which Parliament always takes the greatest interest, and a

13
number of questions were raised in another place by the friends of noble Lords opposite. The House will be aware that the Independence Constitution itself forms no part of this Bill but will be the subject of a separate Order which will be submitted to Her Majesty when the Bill has become law. But I can say that persons naturalised or registered in Mauritius as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies will automatically become citizens of Mauritius at independence. They will not merely be given a right to acquire that citizenship by registration. That is a point about which some concern was expressed in another place. Similarly, persons born outside Mauritius, of fathers of this category, will also automatically become citizens of Mauritius.
The further suggestion was made in another place that there should be a discriminatory power in the Bill to enable the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to persons who, having lost their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, might, on becoming citizens of Mauritius at Independence or later, show special reason why it should be restored to them. It has, however, never been a principle of our law that citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies is open to anyone who desires it. Indeed, an arrangement on the lines proposed in another place would be without precedent. There must always be a connection with the United Kingdom or with an existing Colony by way of residence or employment.
If any Mauritian settled, or proposed to settle, in the United Kingdom or in a remaining Colony, or was employed by the United Kingdom Government or the United Nations Organisation, or, for that matter, was in the service of any company or society established in the United Kingdom or a Colony, he could apply under the existing law for restoration of his United Kingdom citizenship after five years' residence, and a shorter period of qualification would be considered in special circumstances. But to make the arrangements sought in another place for anyone would amount to treating Mauritians differently and specially favourably, and I am in no doubt that it would be invidious to do this. Accordingly, I suggest that this Bill should not be amended to introduce this particularly novel feature.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this dual citizenship would apply with regard to France or South Africa? If a boy or girl is born in South Africa of Mauritian parents, or in France, which has close associations with Mauritius, would dual citizenship also apply in these terms?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is a particularly "fast one" in the middle of a speech. As I understand it, we are now dealing with the relationship of the United Kingdom and those who are in Mauritius, and with their particular status. I recognise the long connections of Mauritius and France. I will look into the point which my noble friend made, and perhaps I could write to him between now and the Committee stage. However, I think it is fair to point out that, whatever may be the attitude of ourselves to Mauritius, it is not for us to legislate or even provide a status for an independent Commonwealth country with a foreign Government or country.
In regard to the defence agreement, this again received considerable attention when the matter was dealt with in another place. Our negotiating team dealing with this has been in Mauritius for some weeks past, and very considerable progress has been made. Discussions are, however, still proceeding on a few points, and noble Lords will not expect me to go into details at this stage. But I can assure the House that, subject to the final settlement of these points in discussions with the Mauritius Government, a defence agreement precisely on the lines envisaged at the Constitutional Conference in 1965 will be signed immediately after Independence.
My Lords, perhaps I should deal now with another matter about which concern was expressed in another place in regard to the island of Rodriguez. This island is some distance away from Mauritius, but it has been a dependency of Mauritius since the Colony became British in 1814. Rodriguez has been closely linked with Mauritius and the closeness of that link has, if anything, increased in recent years as the output of agricultural produce for sale on the Mauritius market has increased under the imaginative Agriculture Development Plan which the Mauritius Government has fostered for Rodriguez. I myself am absolutely convinced that the best interests

15
of Rodriguez lie as part of this newly independent Commonwealth country of Mauritius and I am satisfied that within this framework scope will exist for the future development of mutually beneficial links.
Since this Bill was read in another place, and in view of the concern that was expressed, I have been in touch with the Prime Minister of Mauritius about Rodriguez. I have in fact received a special communication from him this very morning. It is a very long one. It certainly gives me all undertakings and assurances as to the relationship between Mauritius and Rodriguez. I do not intend to read it now, but I will certainly make it available to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, or to any of his colleagues; and I am quite sure that, if he were to read it, he himself would be satisfied with the views of the Prime Minister and Government of Mauritius. I hope that your Lordships' House will now give this Bill a Second Reading. I trust that we shall pass this Bill at an early date, and that we shall do it with confidence in, and great warmth towards, this new country.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
3.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has given us a careful description of this Bill and the somewhat complicated situation surrounding the forthcoming independence of the Island of Mauritius. We must be particularly grateful to him for the trouble he has taken, especially in view of the fact that, I think, during the past week he must have been more concerned with the problem of Gibraltar than other parts of the Commonwealth. We welcome him back to the House and hope that his negotiations on the Rock, which we shall be discussing on Thursday, will help to bring about a solution of our problems there.
Although I have never had the good fortune to visit it, I have always been fascinated by the island of Mauritius—this island in the South-West Indian Ocean, the idyllic island of Paul et Virginie, this former Ile de France, which ever since we captured it from one of Napoleon's Generals in 1810 has been
16
described as a French Colony, happily under British rule. It was indeed happily so governed by us throughout the last century. Having a French mother, who has lived contentedly under British rule in this country for over half a century, I have always been intrigued by this example of our enlightened administration of a people who have retained their French customs and whose elegant ladies have been well known in Paris and London drawing-rooms.
Mauritius also has some notable links with your Lordships' House. The noble Viscount, Lord Kemsley, whose passing last week so many of your Lordships must deeply regret—he was a friend of many of us—was, as we know, married to a most distinguished Mauritian lady; and I feel that all your Lordships would like to send her condolences. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who promised he was going to be with us this afternoon, has, I believe, a brilliant Mauritian scientist as a son-in-law. I believe, incidentally, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that he has dual citizenship. I hope we may be able to get an answer on Lord Brockway's point from the noble Lord at some time. Then, of course, during the last war your Lordships will know that a number of gallant Mauritians served, for example, in the Special Operations Executive and played an important part in the liberation of France.
We must on these Benches all welcome the independence of this island. But we must also be deeply concerned about the problems facing the island at this moment. We know, as the noble Lord said, that the population explosion has been particularly acute there, and that their single-commodity economy, sugar, is very vulnerable, being so largly dependent on the fixed prices laid down in the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. I recognise the difficulties they have had and their attempts to diversify their industry.
Then, of course, only very recently, as the noble Lord said, Mauritius has been undergoing a series of riots, which have taken place since this Bill had its Second Reading in another place. It was indeed as recently as January 21 that a state of emergency was declared by the Government, and this now covers

17
—still covers, as I understand it—the whole island. We can only hope that these riots, instigated, I understand, by rival gangs, will have been completely suppressed when the island becomes independent on March 12 and when, I understand, Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra is expected to represent Her Majesty during the celebrations.
I have read somewhat pessimistic articles in the Press about the economy of the country, and in view of this, and of the problem of internal security, I hope we may be assured that the company of Shropshire Light Infantry which recently flew to the country from Singapore will remain there for the Independence festivities, and that all necessary precautions will be taken. At any rate, since this company has been there, as I think the noble Lord indicated, no further incidents of violence have, I understand, occurred.
The noble Lord has referred to the Constitutional Conference which opened in London in September, 1965, and the elections which were held in August, 1967, at which the Independent Party, in alliance with the Labour Party and other Parties, won 39 out of the 62 seats provided and 54 per cent. of the votes cast. However, the fact remains that over 43 per cent. of the population, including the Mauritian Social Democrats, voted for Parties who were against independence. I am glad that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom stated at the Constitutional Conference that the Independence Constitution would contain important safeguards for the minorities, including the preservation of human rights, the independence of the Judiciary and of the public services and, of course, the police.
The Government also said that they were willing to negotiate before independence the terms of the Defence Agreement mentioned by the noble Lord, and I should like to ask whether negotiations leading to this Defence Agreement are well advanced and when he expects it will be signed. Also on the matter of defence I should like to ask the Government, first, what responsibilities shall we have for the external defence of Mauritius and how, with our withdrawal East of Suez, shall we fulfil them? Is this Defence Agreement really credible? I am a little worried about it. In another place, the
18
Minister referred to optional air transport routes for troops going to Mauritius, and mentioned the Island of Ascension. Is the noble Lord satisfied that on certain possible routes we shall be granted the necessary over-flying rights?
Secondly, on the question of internal security, which I understand will be dealt with in the Defence Agreement, the noble Lord say what our responsibilities will be? I do not see how we can argue that we should not give any undertakings about internal security because we ourselves have helped Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika after their independence. Should we not, therefore, accept some responsibility? But should there not also be a terminal date for this agreement or, alternatively, the possibility of re-negotiation after a stated period? How long do the Government think that a defence agreement should remain in force?
Thirdly, on defence, what facilities shall we continue to have after Independence? We are apparently continuing to have the use of H.M.S. "Mauritius", which is a land-based establishment, and of Plaisance airfield, but what form of supervision of these facilities do the Government contemplate? Can the noble Lord say what has been agreed on these points? Also, what should we do in the most unfortunate event, which I think the noble Lord rules out, of the Island of Rodriguez wishing to secede from Mauritius? The noble Lord did not mention this point, but I think I am right in saying that 90 per cent. of the population of Rodriguez, despite their close links with Mauritius, voted against independence. Might not a similar situation develop as has happened in St. Kitts and Anguilla? I am sure that it is in the best interests of Rodriguez to remain with Mauritius, and I should very much like to accept the assurance from the noble Lord on this point, and that of the Prime Minister of Mauritius. I hope the noble Lord is fully satisfied with the communication which he has received from the Prime Minister. I shall be most interested to look at it myself.
On the question of aid, I have already indicated that Mauritius is getting her independence in a situation of grave economic difficulty. The sugar industry is not healthy, and the country has this appalling population problem. As the noble

19
Lord said, the population has now risen to over three-quarters of a million and is likely to reach 2 million towards the end of the century. As I understand it, we have given in aid a total of £4·3 million to meet the residual deficit of the Mauritian budget. I will not go into the breakdown of that figure, but I should like to ask the noble Lord what he believes will be the effect of devaluation on that sum. I assume that the cost of imports is bound to rise.
I gather from the noble Lord that talks about economic aid have been taking place. Can he say when these talks will be concluded?—for the financial year 1968–69 is not far off. I think I can say that we on these Benches would welcome generosity to this small island which is going into independence under conditions which are certainly far from ideal and which may run into all kinds of difficulties.
Then there is the complicated question of citizenship, to which the noble Lord referred. I am grateful for what he said in reply to my honourable friends in another place. As I see it, the position is that, once this Bill has passed through all its stages in both Houses, Parliament has no further control. The Constitution is granted by Order in Council and is not debated. I gather that we wish to avoid giving United Kingdom citizenship to a category of people who have no special claim to it. Paragraph 3 of Annex E to the Report of the Constitutional Conference states that the Constitution should either automatically confer citizenship or a right of registration on all those naturalised or registered in Mauritius as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and also all those born outside Mauritius of fathers in this category, provided in both cases that they are still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies on Independence Day.
I understand from what the noble Lord has said that Mauritian citizenship will be conferred automatically on these people, and I gather that if they obtain automatic Mauritian citizenship they will not be able to claim United Kingdom citizenship. The Minister in another place agreed that this question would be answered by the noble Lord here, and I think that in fact the noble Lord has cleared up this point. I am grateful to
20
him for it but I shall have to look carefully in Hansard at what he has said.
Secondly, there is the question of avoiding taking United Kingdom citizenship away from some of those who are reluctant to lose it. I am thinking, in particular, of all those who have in different ways served this country well and whom I mentioned earlier; and in this connection I had wondered—and my right honourable and honourable friends in another place also wondered—whether the Home Secretary might not have the discretionary power to which the noble Lord referred. I refer to a discretionary power in certain cases to grant United Kingdom citizenship as he thinks fit, and we wondered whether it would not be worth adding a new paragraph (c) to Clause 3(2) to cover this point.
In another place my honourable friend pressed the point about granting British citizenship to those Mauritians who apply for it and can show special reason, and the Minister, Mr. George Thomas, gave the Committee the firm assurance that the answers which he had hoped to give there would be provided by the noble Lord in your Lordships' House. I think the noble Lord may have satisfied us on this point, but I will look carefully at Hansard before deciding whether or not to table an Amendment to-morrow for consideration on Thursday. I hope, however, that this will not be necessary.
Next, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether I am right in thinking that independence will not affect the position of Mauritians now in Britain as regards their remaining here. Am I also right in thinking that if they or their fathers or grandfathers were not born in Britain they will become citizens of Mauritius on the appointed day and will cease to be British citizens, and that, provided Mauritius remains in the Commonwealth (and this is evidently her intention), this will not affect the question of whether or not they can remain in this country. I gather that either they are here as permanent residents, in which case they will be able to remain, or they were admitted conditionally under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Am I right in thinking that for those who were admitted under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act the conditions will be unchanged and that there will be no question of the Home Office seeking them

21
out and telling them to leave? As I understand it, Mauritians here can in any event apply for registration as British citizens; and if they have been here for five years, or maybe less, as the noble Lord said, and provided that they qualify under the normal regulations, they will then become British citizens.
I hope that I am right about all this, because the noble Lord must know that some Mauritians, who most certainly would have voted for the Party, or one of the Parties, that was against independence, are naturally sensitive about the loss of British citizenship and anxious to know whether they can reclaim it in the future. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give me answers to some of these specific questions.
I understand that all existing members of the Commonwealth have now agreed that the island should become an independent member of the Commonwealth. I need hardly add that we on these Benches welcome this Bill, and only hope that independence can be achieved in circumstances which will not further weaken the economy of the island or put in jeopardy its internal security. I hope, too, that the efforts of the Governor, Sir John Rennie, and the Prime Minister and his colleagues, to all of whom I think we should offer our very best wishes, will be sufficient to ensure that this Island, which will be the 23rd member of the Commonwealth, has a happy and prosperous future.
3.31 p.m.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, I rise in order to have the great pleasure for me of supporting a Bill for the independence of Mauritius and commending it to your Lordships' House. I had the great happiness of spending some time in Mauritius a little while ago, following an invitation from the Ministry of Overseas Development at the request of the Government of Mauritius that I should go there and see whether I could advise them in any way on the kind of public information service they should set up, both before and after Independence, in order to carry through what they felt to be an essential, and perhaps the most essential, task facing Mauritius: that is, to integrate a multiracial community and make members of many races and many religions feel themselves to be truly Mauritians. One can understand the size
22
of that problem when I mention that I was told at the Mauritius radio station that they commonly put out every evening radio bulletins in, I think, twelve or thirteen different languages and sub-languages. Mauritius, this tiny and very delightful island in the Indian Ocean, is indeed in some ways a laboratory of many of the world's problems of racial intergration. It is only fair to say that my own conviction after being there was that it was making immense strides in that integration and in enabling men and women of many races and many religions to live together.
I spent a good deal of time with the Prime Minister, Sir Seewoosagur Ramgoolam—whom everybody, all his friends, calls "Dr. Ram", and I should like to also. I was very pleased to see that in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth paid great tribute to his wisdom and his statesmanship. He is, indeed, a very great statesman in that small island and in this tiny part of the British Commonwealth one of the great Commonwealth figures. He started life as a doctor. Mauritius rather goes in for doctor politicians, a course that I am sure my noble friend, Lord Taylor, who I see has just dropped in from Newfoundland, will thoroughly applaud. In addition to a doctor Prime Minister, it has Dr. Teelock, the Commissioner in London, a man of great charm and ability with a most delightful and able wife; and all of us who know Mauritius will be most delighted to welcome him as the first High Commissioner.
I spent, as I say, a good deal of time with "Dr. Ram" and I also met all the members of the Council of Ministers, all the leaders of the Opposition parties, including Mr. Duval, the leader of the Parti Mauricien. I had long sessions with all the permanent civil servants, both British and Mauritian, with leading businessmen and sugar planters, with chairmen of young farmers' clubs and youth clubs, and with indeed people representing every aspect of the country's life, including a great many newspaper editors. If there is one thing Mauritius is certainly not short of it is newspapers. It has far more newspapers than London has, all activated by the belief which, as some of your Lordships may remember, is said to have been the driving force

23
of a young man who once applied for a job on the old Morning Post and who, when asked what he was good at said, "Invective", and when pressed as to what invective in particular said: "Oh, just general invective". That is the guiding principle of the Mauritian newspapers. But it is, on the whole, invective written with charm and wit, although not always with a great deal of responsibility, and it is one field of Mauritian affairs in which a little consolidation would perhaps be desirable. It might be a good thing if we could persuade Mauritius to develop something like our own Press Council. But freedom of the Press, along with all the other democratic institutions, is much prized in Mauritius and I am sure will stay.
As a result of this wide survey of the many people that I saw in Mauritius I came back convinced of the general desire of all sections of the population to avoid any development of racial antagonisms. They are convinced and determined that they must build a genuine inter-racial community, and I think that under "Dr. Ram" they will be able to do so. It is important to point out that although the recent riots have been a great disappointment to everybody and obviously created immense problems at the time, they did not in any way reflect, as they might have done and as many people assumed they did at first, a kind of clash between the dominant Hindu group and the Moslem groups, such as has sometimes been seen in India.
The dominant Hindu group was not involved at all and although the difficulties may have been triggered off in the first place, I understand, by some quarrel as to who should be the Lord Mayor of Port Louis—problems of local government which rarely in this country lead to such consequences—they were then taken up as an excuse by non-political, although obviously dangerous, youthful gangs. They were, in the main, as your Lordships are aware, clashes between Moslems and Creoles, and I think it is to their great credit that not only the Prime Minister himself but the Leader of the Opposition Party, the Parti Mauricien, Mr. Duval, spoke and acted with the greatest strength they could to try to bring those riots to an end and to make the
24
Mauritian people see that this conduct offered no possible hope of progress.
While I was there with my wife I spent some time staying with the Governor, Sir John Rennie and his wife. At this moment one perhaps ought to pay a tribute to the British Colonial service, in this case represented by Sir John Rennie, the Governor, by the Chief Secretary and by other Colonial officers. It is not an easy business to be an eminent Colonial officer in a Colonial Empire that is running down, when you know that your time is short and that your main business is to make possible that the place where you have worked will not miss you too much when you are gone. I have a great affection and admiration for Sir John Rennie and his wife, and I hope that he will have many years of valuable service in the future.
Of course, as has been said on both sides of the House, it is no use pretending that Mauritius starts out on independence with favourable winds blowing and the sun shining. It has serious economic problems. Some of them are perhaps inevitable, because its climate and nature make it so dependent upon the one crop, of sugar. But I cannot help feeling that after more than a century and a half of British colonial overlordship we ourselves must accept some responsibility and must, as a consequence, be prepared, as I was most delighted to hear the noble Earl opposite say, to be generous in our approach and in our aid in the future to Mauritius.
I remember when I was a young man, and platitudes tripped perhaps more easily from one's tongue than they do as one grows older, saying something to Ernie Bevin, who had just returned from a world trip, about colonial exploitation. He replied, "The problem is not exploitation it is neglect." To some extent, I think we must take the responsibility that, because Mauritius was obviously a natural sugar plantation, we explored with the Mauritians too few alternative possibilities. Such alternative possibilities are now being sought. Plans for growing tea are well under way. Agriculture which will enable other crops to be grown between sugar lines is being developed.
A number of new industries have been started up. I was rather fascinated, when

25
I was there, to go over a Swiss watch factory which had been set up, where Mauritian girls were, with great skill, polishing and perfecting rubies for Swiss watches which were flown in and then out again. I think there is a possibility for a number of new industries in which I hope British capital may be able to help. There are great links between Mauritius and Britain, a great fund of friendship for Britain in Mauritius, and I hope that we shall develop it as much as we can.
I would recommend some of your Lordships who may wish to get away from the world to take a holiday in Mauritius. It is a long way away, but it is a beautiful island with wonderful scenery and a charming people. Although the fare is high, I am told it is steadily getting lower, and I can think of no nicer place in which to spend an away-from-it-all holiday. It has wonderful fishing, silver beaches, coral reefs. There are no sharks at all except outside the coral reefs, and I am told that even they have never been known to attack anybody. So Mauritius might almost be called the island where even the sharks are friendly. Perhaps that might seem to be going a little too far, but I hope that we shall conceive it our responsibility and our pleasure to retain close and the friendliest possible links with Mauritius.
I wonder whether it would be possible, because not many persons would be involved, to extend more short-term holiday-work permits to Mauritians, perhaps for six months, extended, if everything went well, to a year or eighteen months. No more than a few hundred would probably be involved, but to Mauritians, and particularly to the young people of Mauritius who are bound to feel themselves rather lonely in the world, it could be a great advantage. I think we must also prepare for the fact that although there is a great desire to make it into a truly inter-racial community, a desire which emanates certainly from the Prime Minister and all members of the Government, there are great social problems which will have to be overcome. In Mauritius it is still possible to find immense disparities in wealth and poverty such as elsewhere have mostly disappeared. I think it is fair to say that some of the French sugar planters, delightful as they are, are still living not merely a century but sometimes two cen-
26
turies ago. They have a life of culture and privilege which is delightful but which has, to some extent, kept them aloof from the problems of the modern world. One lady said to me, I remember, with great tragic horror, that things were beginning to get so difficult that she feared that soon she would no longer be able to have a man chef and might have to put up with a head woman cook. Because of this difference, there are bound to be problems as the independent Government presses on, as I believe it must and will, with social reforms. If those problems arise I hope that they will meet with great sympathy in this country, and that if we can help with technical or economic assistance we shall do so.
We are saying goodbye to a Colony, a little island which was once inhabited by the dodo, which, as your Lordships know, is dead. It is a Colony which, by the accident of history, has become in miniature a sort of laboratory for many of the world's racial problems and which perhaps can contribute a great deal to the world in the way in which it handles those problems. Ultimately I believe that it will solve them. Although to-day we say goodbye to an ancient Colony of ours, I am sure that we shall all welcome, with the greatest of good will and best wishes for the future, the newest and one of the smallest members of the Commonwealth, but a member which, although small, has a great deal to contribute to the human family.
3.52 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, this is not a controversial Bill, and I do not often seek to intervene in debates which are not controversial; but I have such a warm feeling for the people of Mauritius, such a love for the people of that island, that I cannot possibly allow this historic occasion to pass without expressing good wishes for its independence. It is fourteen years since I visited the island, yet the memory is as vivid as though it were yesterday. I had been to Madagascar, which was then a police State. I had been under the care of the secret police during the whole of that visit. When I went to meet Malagasi leaders, the secret police were always there. I am glad to say that nearly all those leaders are now members of the Government. One of them is now the Ambassador in Paris, and only last week he sent me a message

27
of greeting. In addition to the strain of those difficult psychological conditions, I had a high fever, and the French gave me a day to leave that large island. I went to Mauritius and I got well in a day. The wonderful welcome which its people gave me, the loveliness of the island, the friendship and the freedom there—all these have meant that ever since I have felt an intimate relationship with the people of the island of Mauritius.
To-day, I do not want to do much more than welcome the fact that Mauritius is now to become independent. I do not think anyone can speak on the subject without paying a tribute to the man whom we always call "Dr. Ram"—now "Sir"—and the Prime Minister, a man we have always loved as a comrade and a fellow human being, as well as admiring his almost philosophical statesmanship. Equally, I should like to pay my tribute to the Leader of the Opposition. After the critical election which was held to decide whether Mauritius should have its independence, although M. Duval opposed that independence at the election, when he was defeated he said, "We must accept this democratic decision and do all we can to make Mauritius a success." I also pay my tribute to the British Governor, and, like my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams, I want to pay a special word of tribute to Dr. Teelock and his charming wife. Dr. Teelock will soon be representing independent Mauritius as High Commissioner in this country.
I believe that our Government have been courageous—and I welcome their decision—in agreeing to recognise Mauritius's right to independence at this moment. After that General Election there, in which the Opposition parties opposed independence and obtained a 43 per cent. opposition vote, Her Majesty's Government must have wondered in face of that strength of opposition, whether they should proceed with the granting of independence. I am glad that they went ahead, and I am quite sure that the responsible leaders of the Opposition will now co-operate with the new independent Government in Mauritius in a constructive effort for the future of the island.
The second reason why I believe that our Government have been courageous in this matter is that their decision has been against the background of the recent
28
troubles in St. Louis, although in fact those troubles occurred after the decision for independence had been reached. I was very glad indeed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, emphasise that these disturbances in St. Louis were not due to the opposition of political parties, or to any fundamental antagonism among the different races. The explanation for those disturbances in St. Louis is rather curious. They were the direct result of the closing of the Suez Canal.
When the Canal was closed the ships which had passed through the Canal centred on the Port of St. Louis. As is often the case when ships of different nations arrive at a port, they brought with them the problems of prostitution and drug distribution. The riots which began in St. Louis were nothing whatever to do with opposition parties or with race differences. In the beginning they were disturbances caused by gangs who were concerned with profiteering out of prostitution or with the drug trade. It was only the fact that one of these gangs was from Istanbul, Muslim in background, and that two of the other gangs were associated with the other side, that brought any racial conflict into the situation. I think the British Government were right in accepting the invitation of the Mauritian Government to send forces there. But I am quite confident that that is a problem which can be overcome, and I am glad that the Government did not accept it as a reason for postponing independence.
I do not want to hide the fact that there are racial problems in Mauritius. One was fascinated by meeting representatives of the different races. There was the French owning class. I have never met them in France itself, and never met them in Paris. They were the French aristocratic élite—handsome, beautiful in manners with all the cultures which came from the last century—and they were there in a British Colony owning the greater part of the economy, such as the great sugar plantations. They were the élite, distant from the people, and yet when one met them personally they were extraordinarily charming. There was the Indian community of the professional classes, doctors, journalists, teachers and perhaps the higher range of the working class. There were the Creoles of mixed race, representing mostly the less well-paid working class. Then there were the

29
Chinese traders—small in numbers, but rich.
The task was somehow to integrate not only four different races, but four races which represented different class structures. I am not suggesting that under British administration we have solved that issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, has said, it is a social problem of the relationship of classes as well as a problem of the relationship of races, which the independent Government of Mauritius will have to solve.
There are two other matters to which I would refer. First, there is the problem of population. I am very glad that the Government of Mauritius has assisted the Roman Catholics in the distribution of their education regarding natural methods of control of the family. I am very glad that it has also helped to subsidise the family planning activities of those who are not Roman Catholics. But quite clearly the problem is not going to be solved like that. I will tell your Lordships what one feels as one goes to Mauritius, whether one flies from East Africa, from Tanzania, or calls in at Madagascar on the way. One feels the absolute absurdity of our present political divisions in the world, because under British administration the island of Mauritius has been crowded, over-populated, while nearby Madagascar remained nearly empty, with all the possibilities of development. If it had not been that one island was in the British sphere and the other was in the French sphere, that problem could have been solved long ago. I am only expressing the hope that when Mauritius is independent and Madagascar also is independent, there may be consultation between those two independent Governments so that the distribution of population may be made easier. I hope this may also extend to East Africa, Tanzania, and other countries.
The last problem at which I want to look is the neceessity for the diversification of industry. Mauritius is now almost entirely a sugar planting island. Sugar may fail, but even if it does not fail prices may fall, and obviously one of the great necessities is the development of new industries. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, refer to the Swiss watch factory, of which I had heard. But there are now all kinds of possibilities of diversification. There
30
is the possibility of the development of a soap factory, there is the possibility of the development of a shoe factory and there is the possibility of the development of a brewery. However, I hope that the British Government will think not only in terms of money aid to Mauritius, but, perhaps even more, will think in terms of giving Mauritius that technical advice and association with us, such as introductions and negotiations, which will enable a diversified industry to be developed.
This is a daring and great time upon which Mauritius is entering, and all of us will wish it well. We have problems which cause us to go into a panic, and to be under the mental malaise which there is in this country, but the problems in Mauritius are far deeper and far more intractable. On this occasion we want to extend our affection for the people of Mauritius, together with our hope that they will overcome their problems, and our desire to be associated with them in making their island not only a beautiful place, but the happy place which it can become.
4.8 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, purely by good fortune I find myself in the position of being able to bring greetings from Bitain's oldest Colony to the newest Commonwealth country. I am very pleased to do this, because I had the pleasure of presiding with my right honourable friend Mr. Anthony Greenwood over the Mauritius Constitutional Conference. They really are the most delightful, lively, vigorous, controversial people in the world. They are a highly literate and wonderful race, and I am quite delighted that they should be getting their independence now, because I am sure they will use it well. It so happens that a colleague of mine from the University of Edinburgh is now Vice-Chancellor of the University of Mauritius, and I think that possibly one of the most important things which Mauritius can do, and which we can help to do, is to develop that University.
It is interesting when one meets Sir Sewoosagur and Mr. Duval, and the other politicians of the Parti Mauricien and the Labour Party of Mauritius and the Mohammedan Parties, to find that, strangely enough, they went to the same

31
public school. They have a common British-style public school, and this has the strange effect of making them very much less inclined to cut each other's throats, other than verbally, and much more inclined to indulge in the acrimony of debate and friendship after debate; and that is why I think hopes are very high. Mr. Duval played a splendid part in the Constitutional Conference with a very difficult wicket to bat on, because some of the Parti Mauricien were indeed old-style French aristocrats, and were indeed somewhat conservative in their outlook. Mr. Duval led them a long way towards co-operation, even at that stage; and had he been able to swing his friends a little further, there might have been complete agreement at that Constitutional Conference. There was not; but good has come of it, and everything has come out all right.
I remember very well that we had to try to entertain them at the end of the Conference, and Mr. Greenwood and I had a long consultation as to what would be the best thing to do, what was the best show to take them to. I said, "Let us take them to The Sound of Music; and we went to The Sound of Music. The Mauritians had all seen the picture, but they had not seen the play, and they were delighted. Most of them wept: they are a very lively, emotional people. I wept with them, too: and a good time was had by all. It was very exciting, this last summer, when my university, the Memorial University of Newfoundland, were running an extension course under the External Aid Department for Canada for fishery co-operative work, and among our students, who came mainly from South-East Asia and Africa, I found a student from Mauritius. It was a big step from one tiny island to one rather larger island, across nearly two oceans, and it was very nice to be able to find this warmness and friendship surviving the transition.
I hope Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can, through the Ministry of Overseas Development, to foster and nourish and help the University of Mauritius. I am sure that in the long run that will have the integrating effect that my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams was speaking about as being
32
so vital and so important—as indeed was my noble friend Lord Brockway. The University has not found it too easy to recruit staff in this country. I hope that anything that can be done will be done. One can assure any university staff who are wanting a really exciting and interesting pioneering job that here is somewhere well worth while working, in a really delightful society, full of vigour and enthusiasm, and full of hopes for the future.
We in Newfoundland are very proud to have been a British Colony and to have been Britain's oldest Colony. We do not regard colonialism in any unfavourable light. In fact, we always fly the Union Jack alongside the Canadian Flag; and we sing all three anthems—O Canada!, God Save The Queen and The Ode to Newfoundland—which makes it a rather long performance on all public occasions. I hope Mauritius will never be sorry that it was a British Colony. I think this is something of which to be very proud. We are very proud to have had Mauritius with us, and we are very proud that they are going to be with us still. I am very proud that Sir Sewoosagur, who was a graduate of University College Hospital, is to play a part, and I am very proud and glad that their High Commissioner will be our dear friend Dr. Teelock. We wish them well; and I am delighted to be here on this occasion.
4.15 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I feel it a privilege to reinforce from these Benches the expressions of good will and good wishes which the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, expressed at the beginning of this debate. I say this because, as your Lordships know, the ties between Mauritius and Western India are very close, and I am prepared to wager that a number of the dialects to which the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, referred as being broadcast in Mauritius are the dialects of what used to be the Province of Bombay. Also I cannot help but refer to the predecessor of the present H.M.S. "Mauritius", the cruiser of that name, whose stay on the East Indies station I well remember and with whose personnel we all had such close and friendly association.
Of course, my Lords, there are anxieties. As the noble Lord, Lord

33
Brockway, said, this is a courageous step—perhaps an over-courageous step—but that does not in any way lessen the sincere good will which we all have for this wonderful little island. Of the many problems that there will be, I wish to refer to only one, and that is this problem of the population explosion. Your Lordships may remember that when the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, introduced a Motion in your Lordships' House on the problems of U.N.O., I spoke on the subject of the world population explosion and asked what Her Majesty's Government were doing about it and whether they were doing enough. It is along that line of thought that I ask the only question I propose to ask of the noble Lord, which is this. Can he assure us that the Ministry of Overseas Development will keep in the closest touch with the International Planned Parenthood Federation; and, if possible, when the matter of aid (which is hard enough to come by) is discussed, will they encourage the Federation to use some of their massive resources—massive in terms not only of finance but of personnel and the like—to help in this matter? This problem is complex enough in most parts of the world, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, pointed out, with the great multiplicity of creeds, of races, in Mauritius, the problem is even more complex than it is in places where one ethnic group represents the predominant number.
My Lords, with that remark I feel that all I can do is to reinforce again from these Benches the good will which we all feel towards Mauritius in this bold and great step forward, and to express the hope that the anxieties which we all have in our minds may before too long become as dead as the dodo.
4.18 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Francis-Williams has two advantages over many of us in your Lordships' House. I say that with some diffidence. In the first case, he clearly knows Mauritius very well; and, secondly, as a journalist he has the power to paint a word picture so that those of us who have not been to Mauritius can see this lovely island in pretty clear perspective. Therefore one is very grateful that he should have intervened this afternoon.
34
Another illustration, if I may say so, of the warmth and friendliness felt for Mauritius is that it was possible for my noble friend Lord Brockway to rise from his seat on this occasion, admitting that normally he took part only in controversial debates. Whether it was the sunshine of Mauritius which he experienced some forty years ago, or whether it is your Lordships' House, he has clearly turned over a new leaf, and I am glad that he was prepared to participate in a debate which is non-controversial and in which we can all, in all parts of the House, have a united view. It was also a great delight to hear from my noble friend Lord Taylor, who has just returned from the great new university in Newfoundland. I hope he is going to spend a little time with us, for there is much that I, in a Department new to me, should like to discuss with him in regard to Commonwealth affairs.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, paid tribute to the numerous Mauritians, from many different walks of life, who in the course of our long association with the Colony have rendered fine service to the Crown, both in peace and in war. I am happy to associate Her Majesty's Government with what the noble Earl has said. Many Mauritians have given long service to the Crown, and it is pleasing to know that although Mauritius is to become independent she will not be breaking her connection with the Crown, for she has decided to remain a Monarchy.
The noble Earl spoke about the clash of opinion between the two major political Parties over the question of independence. I thought it was opportune that my noble friend Lord Brockway should have drawn the attention of the House to the fact that the Opposition Party, which has from the very beginning opposed independence, said that they would accept the verdict of the electorate at a General Election. I must say that in their activities, while clearly they have a reluctant approach to this matter, the Opposition have not in any way challenged the right of the Government to proceed to independence.
I think it is right also to say that in the case of Rodriguez—where, it is perfectly true, the Opposition Party received some 90 per cent. of the votes—the Government Party did not put up candidates, although it may be that they

35
gave support to others. I do not think that this should be taken in any way as a possible secession from Mauritius. I think this would be disastrous, particularly to those in Rodriguez who are so dependent upon Mauritius. As the noble Earl will see when I show him later the communication I have received from the Prime Minister, all the safeguards and assurances are there; and it will show him, I think, when he reads it, the spirit in which the Prime Minister approaches this difficult subject of Rodriguez.
The noble Earl asked me whether it is intended that the company of Shropshire Light Infantry should remain in Mauritius until, or perhaps after, Independence. This clearly must depend on the local circumstances and on the advice we receive from the authorities who are responsible for internal security. For our part, we should not withdraw them unilaterally and certainly not prior to Independence. In regard to the defence agreement, our discussions are very well advanced. As the noble Earl will appreciate, they cover both external and internal matters, and will also have some connection with our own installations and facilities in Mauritius. I hope that the noble Earl will not press me to go into detail in this matter, particularly as the discussions are still continuing. In regard to our capability of assisting Mauritius in the event of need, and our agreement to participate, I am satisfied, having discussed this matter with the Ministry of Defence, that with our capability particularly now based in Europe we should be able to meet any of the requirements we are likely to be called upon to fulfil if ever the defence agreement had, unfortunately, to be brought into operation.
In regard to aid, we are going to have further discussions. Certainly, we have given an increased sum for 1967–68 and we are now considering with the Mauritian authorities what will be required for 1968–69 I know that the House will wish us to treat this matter with great generosity and to bear in mind that we have an obligation, in the sense that we created the basis of the island. But I think it is fair to say that we also have other very heavy demands placed upon us by other countries—some of them perhaps not so badly off as
36
Mauritius but others perhaps in some ways worse off. Therefore we shall approach the problem of Mauritius with fairness, taking into account both our own ability to assist and the needs of other territories.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the matter of the economy of the country, and in connection with aid, may I remind him that he has not answered my point about devaluation? I do not know whether he will answer it later.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, devaluation must have an effect. The ceiling which we have provided for the current year will, I think, be sufficient but clearly the effects of devaluation will have to be taken into account in future talks.
The noble Earl and my noble friend Lord Brockway asked me about dual citizenship. I understand that the Mauritian Constitution will not prohibit dual citizenship; although I do not know whether countries such as South Africa or France will permit their citizens also to be citizens of Mauritius. The noble Earl also asked about the position of citizens who may be resident in the United Kingdom—people who may have lived here for some long time, or who may have been admitted under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Their position in regard to remaining in the United Kingdom will remain as it now is. In the case of Mauritian who has been resident in this country for less than five years, the Home Secretary has discretion to register him as a United Kingdom citizen; and any application will be looked on sympathetically if the applicant had connections in this country before coming here or if there are any other special circumstances. If a Mauritian is ordinarily resident here and wishes to leave the country he has a right to return within two years, provided that his residence in this country before leaving was free of conditions under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. I think it can be said that a Mauritian resident in this country will not be subject to undue harrassment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, spoke about the problems of population. I am sure that this is a matter of education; and particularly important in this connection are the activities of the family

37
planning organisations. Further, as the noble Lord knows, the Ministry of Overseas Development takes a very active interest, particularly through the United Nations' organisations, in this very difficult and important problem. I do not have the information with me at this moment, but I will see that the point he made is considered by the Department.
I hope that I have dealt with all the questions that were put to me. There is no doubt that certainly Doctor Teelock, who is to be the first Mauritian High Commissioner in this country, when he reads the Report of this debate—or he may have heard it—will appreciate the warmth of expression of those who have spoken and the sympathy of those who have listened. We in your Lordships' House, like those in another place, wish this new independent country Godspeed and great success and happiness. My Lords, in closing, I think it would be right to pay a tribute to all those persons, past and present, who have served this country so loyally. I hope that you will now agree to give this Bill its Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PONIES BILL [H.L.]
4.32 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. This is a Bill designed, in the words of the Explanatory Memorandum:
"to improve the conditions under which ponies are exported from Great Britain by imposing restrictions on such export."
I feel that I owe it to the House to state my credentials for moving a Bill of this kind. For many years my wife has devoted herself to looking after a number of ponies and donkeys which at the time when she acquired them were in such a condition as to be fit only for slaughter; and they would have been slaughtered, either in this country or abroad, if my wife had not acquired them. She has made it her objective to give these animals proper food and to have them cared for in her own fields. The result has been that she has been able to give comfort and happiness to a number of these animals for many years. One in particular, which was apparently
38
incapable of any further activity or interest in life, has been with her for 15 years and to-day it looks like going on for another 15 years. So, my Lords, I have a real personal interest in the welfare of ponies, and that is why, when asked, I was very willing to introduce a Ponies Bill.
The export of ponies has substantially increased in recent years, and continues to do so. To-day nearly 6,000 ponies are exported each year, and the number is growing at an average rate of some hundreds every year. Many of these ponies are perfectly suitable for breeding, riding or exhibition purposes. Indeed, I would say that that applies to the great majority of them. Riding, in particular, has become much more popular on the Continent and also in the United States and Canada. Such ponies are registered by one of the 15 or so recognised pony societies. These societies keep stud books and register certified ponies of the breed being exported. They are exported by reputable dealers and breeders of thoroughbreds.
On the other hand, it is unfortunately the case that a number of ponies are being exported which cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be regarded as of any immediate, or even ultimate, value for the purpose of breeding, riding or exhibition. Whereas the thoroughbred ponies will sell at high prices ringing perhaps from £100 to even £1,000 or more, these other ponies sell for only a few pounds. Sometimes they are taken from market to market for the sake of securing a profit of a few shillings. Eventually they go for export. These are known as scrub ponies and are of no particular breed. Very often they are wild. Sometimes they are taken from their dams before they are weaned. In many cases they are less than a year old and unbroken, and even were they capable eventually of being trained for riding, it would be two or three years before they could be used for that purpose. Others are old, barren ponies. It is hard to conceive that buyers abroad would purchase them in order to keep and to train them for two or three years. The fear among a great many people in this country is that the animals are sent abroad for early slaughter for human consumption. The object of my Bill, my Lords, is to prevent this from happening.

39
These ponies are transported from many areas in England and Wales under conditions which, at the best, are unsatisfactory and at the worst cause considerable suffering to the ponies. Some of these animals may have been running wild in places like Dartmoor, the New Forest and the Welsh mountains, and they have never learned to take their food or drink from a trough in the way in which animals normally feed. Often they are made to travel long distances to a port of departure and inadequate facilities are provided for supplying them with food and drink. Sometimes they are overcrowded and no provision is made for a rest period, and this causes a great deal of suffering. I am not suggesting that there is deliberate cruelty. I think that very few people would, consciously and deliberately, ill-treat animals, certainly not valuable animals. But I submit that the conditions of travel and export are not always sufficiently known, and among people engaged in the trade of exporting scrub ponies there are those who are indifferent to these conditions. It is only with such ponies that the Bill is intended to deal, by controlling their export.
Experienced members of some of the pony protection societies, of which there are quite a number (not, of course, to be confused with the breeding societies to which I have already referred, who register ponies) have from time to time inspected ponies being sold at markets. They have no difficulty in detecting a scrub pony, and their judgment is confirmed by the prices for which such ponies are sold. The same ponies have been inspected at the port of shipment. In one case members of a protection society saw 90 ponies in a group being embarked after a superficial inspection by an inspector. These people are satisfied that conditions up to the port of shipment, and on board the vessels, are often most unsatisfactory and that in the main the ponies are not suitable for riding or breeding nor are they thoroughbreds suitable for exhibition. Indeed, any attempt to ride a pony before it is three years old in itself amounts to cruelty, and in any case would be a somewhat hazardous proposition. Investigators have also seen ponies put on a ship for export where the inference was inescapable that the purchaser abroad
40
was buying them for immediate slaughter except where he might find a rare case of a pony fit to keep for training or breeding.
There has been a good deal of legislation for the protection of animals, going back to 1847. The latest of the Acts of Parliament dealing with horses is the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. That is a lengthy measure which deals with animals generally, but Sections 37 to 41 deal specifically with the export of horses. Those provisions provide for the examination by a veterinary inspector appointed by the Minister of horses being shipped for export, and its object is to ensure that the horses are capable of being conveyed to any port outside the United Kingdom and disembarked without cruelty and are capable of being worked abroad without suffering. The examination is not generally a very close one. I think that anyone who has had any connection with it would agree that the inspection by the inspectors is of a superficial character. The Act also provides that horses should be of certain categories, should be not more than eight years of age and of not less value than certain figures which are stated in the Act.
The word "pony" is never mentioned. Although I recognise that the term "horse" covers a pony, it is quite clear from the language of the relevant sections of the Act that ponies were never in contemplation in 1950 when the Act was passed. The Act talks of heavy draught horses, vanners, mules and genets, but never mentions ponies. In 1966 Mr. Kimble, a Member of another place, introduced a Private Member's Bill on lines similar to mine, to deal with ponies for export. Unfortunately it came on late on a Friday afternoon and was talked out, after a somewhat hostile speech by the Government spokesman—the sort of speech which I believe I am going to receive this afternoon.
It is only in recent years that those concerned with the welfare of ponies in particular have thought it necessary that a specific provision for the protection of ponies for export should be enacted. A number of Statutory Instruments have been passed relating to horses and ponies. The earliest of them, so far as I have been able to ascertain, was in 1958, and it restricted the export of ponies to places

41
outside Europe and defined a pony. I believe that it defined "pony" for the first time as being a horse of not more than 14 hands in height. The latest of these Statutory Instruments is dated April 28, 1966. This, however, does not deal specifically with ponies and does not meet the demand for a rest period before export. So the legal position at present is that there is no restriction at all on the export of ponies, except that they have to be certified as being capable of being conveyed to their destination and disembarked without cruelty and are capable of being worked without suffering. It may well be that at the moment when they are being inspected by a veterinary inspector—often in bulk, as I have said—there is nothing to justify him, on a superficial examination, in refusing a certificate. Therefore the Bill lays down certain conditions which ponies going abroad have to satisfy.
Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to ensure that only ponies which are intended to be exported for exhibition, racing, jumping or polo, or for breeding, shall be permitted to be exported. In doing this, the Bill provides that ponies should have the same protection as is laid down for horses in the Diseases of Animals Act 1950—that is, that there should be a minimum value for ponies so being exported. The minimum in the Bill is £80, and in the case of a pony not exceeding 12 hands in height, £50, or such other values as may be prescribed by the Minister.
Clause 2 provides for a rest period for ponies being exported and sets out in some detail what is meant by a rest and the conditions to be complied with. These are taken verbatim from the two Statutory Instruments, Nos. 170 and 1254, of 1947 which cover the cases of cattle, sheep and swine going abroad. These have been in operation now for nearly 11 years and there is nothing revolutionary in extending them to ponies, particularly in the light of the long distances which some ponies travel from the places they are gathered, such as Wales, to ports of export, such as Great Yarmouth.
Clause 3 prohibits the export of any pony mare which is heavy in foal or showing fullness of udder, or of any pony foal which in the opinion of an inspector is less than six months old. It also prohibits the export of registered ponies
42
unless there is a certificate from the Pony Society in whose stud book the pony is registered stating that the pony is fit and suitable for export. This places responsibility upon the registered societies, but I am sure, from their reactions to this Bill, that they will be only too ready to accept this responsibility. Clause 4 extends the Act of 1950 in respect of offences against that Act to the present Bill, so as to make quite sure that it does include the ponies provided for in this Bill.
Since the publication of the Bill I have received a large number of communications welcoming the Bill, including letters from almost all the pony societies expressing the view that its provisions are necessary for the purpose of preventing suffering. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals strongly support the Bill but would like some detailed provisions modified, particularly in the case of registered ponies. This, and any other suggestions, I am of course prepared to consider with sympathy and with, I hope, understanding at the next stage of the Bill. Only one body—the International League for the Protection of Horses—are against the Bill and regard it as unnecessary. They deny the truth of the facts I have given, attack those who have made personal investigations as well as the Press, such as The Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Sunday Telegraph
and many others who have published articles on this trade in scrub ponies.
I have said very little about the fate of ponies once they reach foreign soil. As I have already said, there is a great fear among many people that a number of scrub ponies which are sent abroad are used for immediate slaughter. I am bound to admit that direct evidence of this has been most difficult to obtain, although it seems to me a reasonable inference from the fact that these ponies are useless for any other purpose, unless they are kept and trained over a period of two or three years. Even then, as I have already said, they are of inferior quality and breed, and it is doubtful whether they will ever make the grade. I cannot think that in many of these cases the importing of ponies would be regarded as an economic proposition; to buy them and keep them for two or three years, knowing they may never be very suitable for riding or other purposes.

43
I want to emphasise again that I do not wish to do anything whatever, in this Bill or elsewhere, to prevent the export of ponies for the legitimate and beneficial purposes which I have already stated. Although the numbers are small, they constitute a valuable export and one which does a great deal of credit to this country. But I am sure that no one would wish to undermine this object by allowing the export of ponies which are not of this high standard and are no credit to us.
We in this country have an instinctive and emotional objection, which is not the case on the Continent, to the use of horses for human consumption. This objection is of long and historic standing. But, of course, tastes differ. Admittedly, pony meat is regarded as a great delicacy in some countries, and the people there are entitled to enjoy it without any moral dictation from us. It is, however, no part of our business to provide it at the expense of a popular revulsion of feeling. In this country, the horse and the dog hold a special place in the hearts and affections of most of us. Although many countries regard horsemeat, and some even dog meat, as delicacies and as very suitable and desirable for human consumption, most of us regard it with horror and repugnance and would not wish to associate ourselves with it or permit such a trade.
I understand that the Government spokesman is going to contend, as he did in another place, that this Bill is unnecessary, I presume because existing legislation already safeguards the condition of ponies about to be exported and because, as I understand it, everything that is contained in this Bill is already contained in existing legislation. I shall listen with great interest to what my noble friend has to say, but I hope I have shown that this is not so, and that Clause 2 of the Bill is essential to ensure a rest period, under proper conditions, for ponies being sent abroad. I maintain that there is nothing in existing legislation which provides a rest period for ponies being so exported. I maintain also that Clause 3, which restricts the export of certain ponies, such as those heavy in foal, or too young or too old, is not covered by existing legislation, and ought to be.
I understand that the noble Lord will also tell us that the Bill will damage
44
our export trade in ponies. How, I wonder. Surely only on the basis that ponies such as I have described are prevented from going for export. This Bill does nothing to prevent the useful and valuable pony from being exported; and the more, the better. It seeks to prevent the scrub pony from going abroad. And I say to your Lordships, with confidence, that we do not want an export trade in ponies which we have every reason to believe are going for immediate slaughter, having no other worthwhile and profitable use abroad. In any event, such a trade does harm to the very high reputation we have for the export of thoroughbred ponies or of the recognised breeds for riding and similar purposes. We have our societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals, and for the protection of ponies in different parts of the country where they are endemic to the area, and they all support this Bill in principle. I am sure that the people of this country will welcome the Bill as a further step towards preventing suffering of our dumb friends; and I am equally sure that this House will do the same, and give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Silkin.)
4.55 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend on the very fine way in which he presented his Bill to the House. My noble friend, with his vast Parliamentary experience, is a master at presenting Bills. This is not the first one he has presented with success, but to-day I think he probably excelled himself. He gave the House a number of examples of ponies being exported in what he described as very unsatisfactory conditions, and actually spoke of cruelty to ponies in some cases. My Lords, I speak early in the debate, and not at very great length, to give the attitude of the Government to the Bill; and, despite the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Silkin, I hope to convince him and your Lordships that this Bill is quite unnecessary, and at the end of the day I trust that, having aired his views, my noble friend will not press the matter further.
I think it is true to say that the motives which have led to this Bill stem from the traditional British concern for the

45
wellbeing of animals, evidence of which is provided by the impressive amount of animal welfare legislation at present in force. I think we can take a justifiable national pride in this. Generally speaking, we are, as we know, an animal-loving people—and we are proud of it. But I hope to prove to your Lordships that much of the concern felt for ponies as reflected in this Bill is quite unfounded, and that their welfare is well catered for by existing legislation, despite what my noble friend has said.
As I see it, the Bill seeks three main objectives: one, to eliminate the export of cheaper ponies; two, to provide a compulsory rest period for all ponies immediately before export; and, three, to prevent the export of mares advanced in pregnancy and of young foals. These objectives raise important issues of principle. First, there is the question of whether ponies are being, or should be, exported for slaughter. Some years ago, a general concern over the known trade in the export of worn-out working horses to the Continent for slaughter led to controls which set a maximum age and minimum value for this class of horse. This trade subsequently died out. In recent years, a trade has developed in the export of ponies to Europe for breeding and riding. Some animal welfare interests allege that the cheaper ponies, ostensibly exported for these purposes, are in fact slaughtered for meat and skins. Other welfare bodies disagree. All inquiries into specific cases have not yielded any convincing indication of a systematic slaughter trade, but I suppose that when the ponies are too old for breeding purposes, and too slow for riding, they will then eventually be slaughtered.
I think I should make it clear that to export a pony for the purpose of slaughter is not of itself an offence against the law of this country; although I am aware, as my noble friend pointed out, that this is very distasteful to many people in the country, especially real horse lovers. It is necessary, however, to say this, because some who argue that a systematic slaughter trade exists seem to imply at the same time that it is the duty of the Government to stop it. This is not the case, but if it were argued that it ought to be the case and that the law should be altered to make it so, we should have to remember that we allow
46
the export of cattle, sheep and pigs for slaughter, and it is difficult to see why we should afford a lesser degree of protection to those species than we do to others.
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Silkin has given thought to this aspect of the matter. The difficulty in using minimum values as an export control is that in setting figures high enough to make certain that slaughter would be an uneconomic proposition, much of the export trade in ponies for breeding and riding would be prevented. The adoption of minimum values in the Bill would cut out nearly half the export trade in ponies for riding and breeding. This would particularly affect the Shetlands, where pony exports have afforded a useful addition to the income of many of the islanders. I think this answers one of the questions posed by my noble friend Lord Silkin. He wondered how this would affect exports, and I am sure that few people would wish to damage the economy of the Shetlands, even to this extent, bearing in mind that it is an already limited export trade.
One of the arguments advanced in favour of eliminating the export of lower quality ponies is that these animals are not so well treated as the more expensive ones. My noble friend referred to this point, and he also stressed the fact of cruelty in some cases. I hope my noble friend will take particular notice of what I am about to say. Our current regulations, which apply to all ponies, irrespective of value, require that the animals must he inspected at or near the place of embarkation by a Ministry veterinary officer and certified by him as fit to travel before they can be exported. If an inspector thinks that because of fatigue, pregnancy, injury, disease, youth, old age or for any other reason a pony cannot travel without unnecessary suffering, it cannot be exported for any purpose. Welfare conditions on board ship are also the subject of detailed regulations. If my noble friend thinks that out I hope he will agree that the welfare of animals is quite well catered for.
The statutory arrangements which already exist provide reasonable and practical safeguards up to the time the animals are disembarked. We have no control over the welfare of ponies, or indeed over the welfare of any other exported animals, once they have landed in

47
their country of destination. I know this is another point that worries my noble friend and his supporters, and there is no escaping the fact that we could only alter the situation by not allowing any animals to be exported at all. The Convention for the Protection of Animals in International Transport, which the Council of Europe has promoted and which we hope will shortly be finalised, should do much to secure uniform welfare safeguards for ponies and other animals in transit on the Continent.
On the question of compulsory rest periods for exported ponies immediately before export, we gave careful consideration to this in 1966 when drawing up the current Orders governing veterinary inspection for fitness to travel and related matters. This rest period was made mandatory for cattle, sheep and pigs in 1964, but we concluded that it was not necessary for horses, including ponies, because the horse is better able to withstand travel stresses and, unlike those other animals, it can rest and sleep while standing. Also, the veterinary inspection for fitness to travel makes it unnecessary because it detects the pony which is too fatigued to be allowed to be shipped. Therefore we see no justification for the additional restrictions proposed in the Bill.
May I give a brief summary of the views of the Government. An export trade in ponies for slaughter has never been proved. Even if it were, it would not warrant serious interference with the export of ponies for breeding and riding. The current statutory requirements relating to veterinary examination as to fitness for export and to conditions of transport provide reasonable welfare safeguards for all ponies, irrespective of age and condition.
In conclusion, may I say that I have listened with great care to what my noble friend Lord Silkin had to say but I really feel there is no justification at all for the additional restrictions proposed by his Bill. I wholly understand and appreciate the motives of my noble friend, and I hope he will be able to accept that the Government are unable to go along with him, for the reasons I have given, in suggesting that we should give the Bill a Second Reading to-day.
5.8 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are faced to-day with a Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, which has been put forward with his customary clarity, and with soft words by the Government turning down his proposals. I find myself in some difficulty in regard to this Bill, because frankly it seems to me to be odd in principle that we should take chunks out of Orders and introduce them as a Bill. However, I understand the noble Lord's difficulty in this matter, because of course he cannot introduce an Order but he can introduce a Bill. I am bound to say that I had hoped the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, would be able to say that the Government would take over that part of the Bill where they manifestly could introduce an Order under Section 20 and Section 23 of the Diseases of Animals Act to cover the point of the rest period.
The noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, has argued that this is not necessary. I am not an expert in this matter and it is too early in the debate for me to express a firm opinion on it. There is no doubt that the pressure from the breed societies is very strong. I think one is bound to conclude in this matter that it really depends on the efficiency of the inspection. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said—and I think I can quote his words:
"There is no deliberate cruelty but there is evidence that inspection by the veterinary inspectors is often superficial."
I also have had evidence of that. I had a constituent who spent her entire life looking after the welfare of horses, trying to see that they were not maltreated, either in this country or on export. She was able to produce quite a lot of evidence, most of which was almost consistently denied by officialdom, but one could not but feel that there were grounds for what she said. And this is the difficulty the House is in: we have to weigh the evidence of people who go around and make it their life's work to see that the horses are not maltreated against the evidence of those whose job it is to do the inspection and, quite naturally, resent any suggestion that they are not doing it properly. I hope that the noble Lord will at least be able to undertake to carry his investigations rather further on this issue.

49
As I have said, I do not think myself that it would be right to have a Bill for the purposes of Clause 2, simply because all these things can be done under the Diseases of Animals Act. The noble Lord has said that the Government considered doing this in 1966, when they introduced the Exported Animals (Protection) Order (I think it was originally drawn up in 1964), but decided not to do it. I hope that the noble Lord will undertake, in view of the obviously very strong feeling about this matter, that the Minister of Agriculture will receive representations and go into this matter even more fully than was done at that time.
On the other parts of the Bill I must confess I am not altogether happy. There is the question of imposing the minimum value as a means of protection. I am very doubtful whether this is the right way of securing the protection of horses. As the noble Lord has said, it will reduce the amount of export. It will affect not only the export of animals that may be going for slaughter but also the export of animals that are being quite legitimately sold abroad, even though they are not of the highest quality. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I think by a slip of the tongue, gave, at least to me, the impression that the Diseases of Animals Act, Section 37, put a minimum limit of value on all horses, although he also mentioned, at another stage of his remarks, that the horses in respect of which the minimum values are imposed are restricted to heavy draught horses, vanners, mules or jennets.
The other point is this. I can quite see the noble Lord's intense interest in ponies, but everything he said about ponies applies also to horses. So far as horses are concerned—and that includes ponies—of course they are covered, so far as carriage by sea is concerned, by the Horses (Sea Transport) Order 1952. So if there is anything wrong, it is something wrong in the enforcement of that Order, rather than, in the case of sea transport, a need for any further legislation. But the point I am really making is that that applies to all kinds of horses, including ponies, and I should have thought that if it was necessary to fill the gap in the Orders by a fresh Order relating to rest periods that should relate also to horses.
Finally, there is another point on which I am not happy. I think we shall all be
50
in favour of anything that can be done in order to stimulate the demand for our quality breeds of ponies, and to encourage exports and enhance the reputation of the breeds, provided of course that it can be done without undue restriction on trade. The Bill seeks to tackle this by the provision in Clause 3 which says:
" … it shall not be lawful to ship, or attempt to ship …
(c) any registered pony unless there has first been obtained from the secretary of the society in whose stud book the pony is registered a certificate … that the pony is fit and suitable for export."
So far as fitness for export is concerned, if that means physical fitness then, of course, it is already covered. As for suitability for export, I am extremely doubtful whether the pony societies are necessarily the best judges of this. I should have thought that suitability for export was rather a matter for the buyer abroad to decide, for the market to decide, and. I should hesitate very much to confer on these nine societies powers to decide, because they would actually be deciding whether or not a particular pony should be exported, whether it was suitable for export. I feel that this is going too far. It seems to me that this is the real nub of the Bill; this is the point on which the Bill is seeking to achieve the purposes which the noble Lord has in mind, and I do not think this is the right way to achieve those purposes.
To sum up, it seems to me that, so far as the aspect of cruelty, or the avoidance of suffering, is concerned, this can be done by Order under the Diseases of Animals Act, and it is a question of convincing the Government that they should bring in such an Order. If the Government were to be absolutely obstinate about this, if they were to say that they would not receive any further representations and that they were firmly opposed to considering any such Order, then I think your Lordships would be justified in carrying this Bill further and supporting the noble Lord. But if the Government are going to be reasonable about this matter, and will undertake to meet what I am quite certain is the wish of your Lordships, that every possible care should be taken, then I think that the best thing would be not to proceed with the Bill, for the reasons I have given.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he does not think that it is up to the Department to decide, not the pony breeders? Surely the Scottish Office, in one case, or the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, are the responsible people who should decide on the merits of the case.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not certain that this should be decided by anybody except the customer abroad. If the customer abroad wants to buy a particular horse, it seems to me there is no reason why that horse should not be exported, so long as no suffering is involved for the horse, and no cruelty.
5.20 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Silkin has made a very fair case for his Ponies Bill, and I hope very much that it will get a Second Reading to-day. As he said, it seeks to amend the 1950 and the 1954 Acts. My noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton said that he thought the existing Acts were adequate to give proper protection and safeguards. But if this Bill does nothing else, it defines the value, the size and the age of these ponies for export. The 1950 Act, as my noble friend Lord Silkin said, lays down that a heavy draught horse must be of a value of not less than £80; a vanner of a value of not less than £70, and a mule, jennet or ass of a value of not less than £10. But there is no definition of a pony for export.
As I say, if this Bill does nothing else, it defines the value, size and age of such a pony for export. It says that a pony shall not be over 15 hands, nor less than £80 in value, or in the case of a pony not over 12 hands of a value of not less than £50. It also deals with ponies in foal, with proper rest facilities at the ports, with health conditions which should be carefully supervised, and whether the ponies are fit for breeding or riding.
As has been said, the 1950 Act stipulates that horses exported must not be over eight years old. What I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton is whether these conditions to-day are adequately supervised, particularly before the loading of the animals for export. Is he sure that, even under the existing 1950 Act, these conditions are being properly supervised? Perhaps in
52
his reply he can tell us whether the Ministry has sufficient staff at the ports to deal with this matter, and also whether there is sufficient accommodation for these animals for the rest period before they are loaded on a ship. And also, most important, has the Ministry a sufficient number of veterinary surgeons available for the purposes defined in the 1950 Act? Can he assure us, too, that on ship and at the ports they have sufficient of the various humane devices which have to be used from time to time?
If this has not been done under the 1950 Act, it may be one reason why so many people outside are anxious and worried about this problem. I would say to my noble friend that this is some thing that must be looked at, to see that the strictest possible control and supervision is applied in regard to these exports.
I am also concerned about the supervision of the actual conditions on the ships which take these ponies abroad, and what happens to them at the other end. The 1950 Act says that the Minister may make such Orders as he thinks fit for prohibiting their conveyance, and
"for ensuring for animals carried by sea a proper supply of food and water and proper ventilation during the passage and on landing; for protecting them from unnecessary suffering during the passage and on landing."
I would ask my noble friend whether he can assure us that these Orders are in fact being made by the Ministry of Agriculture. Can he assure us that these qualifying conditions are being strictly carried out and are properly supervised?
I am glad to see that in this Bill my noble friend has included the Republic of Ireland. That is important and essential. Unfortunately, years ago Ireland had a poor history with regard to the export of horses, and I am glad that the Bill refers specifically to the Republic of Ireland.
I should like to quote from something which has been written by Lieutenant-Colonel Hope. Would the Minister, when he comes to reply, tell us, if he can, whether this is an exaggeration or whether he can refute this suggestion? The Colonel says:
"With regard to the pony exports, witnesses describe overcrowding in lorries carrying them to the East Coast ports; mares with foals at foot: foals separated from their dams; inadequate feeding arrangements; hurried

53
veterinary inspection—92 ponies in half-an-hour; exhausted animals at subsequent Continental sales, one foal dying from its treatment, there being no facilities for putting it down quickly. The issue here is not so much the destination of these animals, but the treatment they get on the way."
I should like to ask my noble friend whether he can reassure all pony lovers that that is an exaggerated statement or something which could not possibly happen in the export of these ponies.
It has been suggested that the export of Shetland ponies is an obstacle to my noble friend's Bill. I should have thought it was not beyond the powers of the various pony and stud-book societies to devise a certificate which would cover this particular aspect. I should like my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton, if he can, in his reply also to tell us whether, since the previous Bill in 1950, the value of ponies and horses has considerably increased beyond the value of £80 stipulated in that Act. I understand that ponies and horses have increased greatly in value in recent years, which would possibly make nonsense of that particular table in the 1950 Act. There seems to be a great lack of information about these questions, and I should like to know whether the records show the number of ponies which are exported from this country. One report suggested that the figure is something like 5,000 a year. Of course,
no-one knows where they go and, when they get there, the purposes for which they are being used. Has my noble friend or the Ministry any idea of the market when the ponies get to their destination, and their real purpose when they are sold abroad?
I do not think that my noble friend's Bill is an unwanted child. In my view it is necessary: the 1950 Act is out of date on values and many other matters. I think it is extremely important that the Ministry should make sure that these charges of lack of supervision are not being exaggerated. One often says that the horse is man's best friend. These ponies are the best friends of thousands of children all over the country: they are their domestic pets in every since of the word. The children, all the time they own them, and ride them and care for them, give to those ponies love and devotion; and they have a most acute feeling of anxiety as to what will happen to their pony when they have outgrown it. How often
54
does one read in the papers, "Will sell only to a good home "?
I hope that the noble Lord's Bill will receive a Second Reading and that the Government will give careful consideration to this matter in Committee. May be we ought to amend the Bill to include the horse, and so make it a much better and stronger Bill, but your Lordships will earn the undying gratitude of a large number of children by giving this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon.
5.30 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I wish to make a few brief comments from these Benches in expressing appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for raising this question to-day, and for the obvious humanitarian principle which lies behind this Bill. Although he will not perhaps expect very much expert knowledge on this subject from this quarter, it is significant that, sandwiched between a debate on the future of the little Island State of Mauritius and a debate on the agony of the present situation in Nigeria, your Lordships find time to deal with the fate of a small section of the community with no voice of its own whose case might so easily go unheard. Although there is perhaps a great deal of ignorance in the country as to what is happening on this matter, I feel that there is a concern which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has rightly recognised, and we owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord for bringing this matter forward for debate.
The Bill has already been criticised as to whether it is necessary and, indeed, as to whether it is workable. I do not feel competent to speak on that aspect, but I would comment that animals which are involved in any kind of cheap export trade will in the nature of things be exposed to dangers. Because they are cheap to breed, and because the price which they fetch is not large, they may suffer either from indifference as to the (methods and conditions under which they are transported—which, inevitably, do not perhaps involve more cost and effort than is necessary—and they may also suffer from the indifference and the treatment they receive in the country to which they are exported. Yet these are animals which are capable of feeling suffering, and whether or not they are costly animals the suffering will be the

55
same. And one must remember that as they come from this country they are under our control and protection.
Although we cannot control their destinations or the purposes for which these animals are exported, we at least have a right to insist that every possible step is taken to ensure that the conditions within this country when they are exported to their destination are satisfactorily guaranteed. This in itself will not only alleviate suffering, but may put some brake on the rise of a callous or cheap kind of export of animals which we ourselves would not wish to encourage. As for the question of a minimal value of the animals themselves, this is no doubt an extremely difficult distinction to draw. The treatment and the usage of such animals in the country of destination, which lies beyond our control and yet is certainly not beyond our concern, will depend in part upon the value of the animal. We can at least ensure that the animal which is to be exported will be subject to responsible judgment and not be the victim of a trade which we should like to stop. As to whether this is being adequately carried out, or whether this Bill might include other animals within its provisions, I cannot say; but I hope that it will promote further investigation, so that at a later stage we shall be able to decide whether or not these provisions are adequate.
5.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to give a welcome to Lord Silkin's Bill and to thank him for introducing it. The two objects of the Bill are, in brief, to prevent cruelty and to maintain and improve the quality of our exports of ponies. It is a failing of human nature that if one gets something cheap one is rather inclined not to take much notice of it and, perhaps, to disregard it. By bringing in price restrictions on the export of ponies, the Bill will go a long way to prevent the export of these so-called scrub ponies. It may be that the minimum price of £80 for ponies, and £50 for Shetland ponies, is too high, but I do not think that that is so, since the prices of all ponies have greatly increased during the past few years.
56
On the question of the traffic in cheap horses, I should like to tell your Lordships a short story of something that happened to me in Spain a few years ago when I was at a bull-fight. I have seen many bull-fights, although it is not an entertainment of which I am especially enamoured. It is true that the horses are heavily padded, but they can be knocked over and badly bruised, and can even suffer broken bones and ribs. I said to a girl—who happened to be a very beautiful Spanish girl, which made it all the worse—"Don't you think it is very cruel to the horses?" She said, "Oh no, you do not understand. They are not thoroughbred horses but are old hacks of no value."
To return to the Bill, these scrub ponies are bred on the hills; the stallions often are not licensed; they are completely wild and are sold cheaply. The dealer goes round to small farmers buying these ponies, and he will take them from fair to fair. During their transit from fair to fair they will probably not be well looked after, they will no doubt be maltreated, and they will go hungry and be frightened. I should like to see the trade in the export of these scrub ponies stopped.
I do not agree with a number of the things said by the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton. He said that we export cattle for slaughter. That is true. But if one is logical about these matters, if one slaughters a bullock, why should one not slaughter a pony? But there are two points to be considered in this matter. The first is that cattle, sheep and pigs have a rest period and are very well looked after, whereas ponies do not have a rest period and are not so well looked after. The noble Lord said that ponies and horses can stand travelling and hardship far better than cattle. I have had a great deal of practical experience of horses, ponies, cattle, and sheep, and it is true that a horse or pony can go to sleep on its legs, but a horse is a more sensitive animal. No doubt through his contact with human beings for thousands of years the pony or horse has probably developed into a more sensitive being. I really cannot adhere to the argument that cattle sent for slaughter must have a rest period, but that ponies do not have to have such a rest period. With due respect, I really think that is nonsense.

57
The trouble with these wild ponies, and I have seen them driven into market, is that a foal is often forcibly weaned from the dam. Perhaps the foal is only three months old; it is completely terrified and will not eat or drink. The noble Lord said that we have our vets to look after this, but when a crowd of ponies are driven in the vet is not going to examine each one independently. I have the highest regard for the veterinary profession, but there is the question of time, and people are often in a hurry in big markets so that these inspections are quite often very brief.
I should just like to refer to the last paragraph of Clause 2 which says:
" … if during the rest period of any ponies, other ponies are introduced into the pen or enclosure where ponies already resting are detained, then the rest period of the ponies already detained therein shall be deemed to have commenced at the time of the entry of the last of the ponies so introduced."
I quite realise that that was in the original Act regarding horses, but I should have thought that, for practical reasons, it would really be better to mark the ponies with a tag to show the time when they had been introduced into the rest period enclosure. Otherwise, one might have ponies being introduced into the enclosure for two or three days and the original ponies would still have to re main in the enclosure. That is perhaps a little far-fetched, but from a theoretical point of view it could well happen.
As I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, pointed out, we have had a restriction on price regarding heavy horses, mules, jennets and asses, and I cannot see why there cannot he a restriction on ponies. The noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, said that it would destroy a great deal of the export trade from the Orkneys, but I have a few Shetland ponies—I do not have them in the Orkneys; I have them in the Western Highlands, in the Hebrides—and I also have hill ponies. Now you do not usually sell Shetland ponies under £50, or Highland ponies under £80. If you sell Highland ponies or Shetland ponies under that price, you can only presume that they are going for slaughter, and the chances are that during their transit they will be badly handled. I quite agree that if you slaughter cattle you cannot logically object to slaughtering horses, but the point is that we want to be absolutely sure, if those ponies are
58
going to be slaughtered, that they will have the best of treatment possible so as not to cause them suffering on their way to the abattoir.
I quite agree that there are many horse-lovers in this country. I do not know how many votes they command but, from the emotional point of view. I should really think it would be worth the Government's while to abide by the horse-lovers' wishes and prevent the export of ponies for probable slaughter. I will not go further than that, because I agree that one has to be logical. But from the emotional point of view it would be well worth the Government's while to give this Bill a Second Reading.
I will not detain the House any longer, but I should just like to point out that Clause 3, which deals with the export of ponies heavy in foal and foals under six months old is an excellent part of the Bill. I presume that if a pony was very heavy in foal the vet would not allow her to be exported; but, as I said, those inspections are very often brief and a pony mare heavy in foal could easily be overlooked.
There is one point which has always rather puzzled me. I understand that importing countries usually have to have a document from the Ministry of Agriculture stating where the ponies have been for the previous six months. If they have been roaming about on the hills, completely wild, I fail to see how the Ministry of Agriculture can produce a document saying with any accuracy where the ponies have been. Regarding the question of registered ponies in the stud books of the various societies, I agree with the noble Lord who asked whether the Secretary of the Pony Society is really the right person to tell whether a pony is suitable for export. Obviously, he cannot go round all the ponies whom the members of his Society desire to export, but he could certainly verify a pony's breeding and give a certificate which would be useful in itself.
I should like to give this Bill a welcome and to suggest that it gets a Second Reading—it can always be amended—because the export of ponies is a rapidly-growing trade. I think I heard one noble Lord say that it is now running at about 6,000 ponies a year. Some of these ponies are priced extremely highly—they

59
can be priced at £2,000 or £3,000—and, to be practical, we do not want this trade spoilt by these Continental purchasers buying inferior ponies. Therefore, my Lords, I should like to give this Bill all my support and I sincerely hope that it will get a Second Reading.
5.51 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, I have first of all to declare an interest, as I have in the past bred Welsh mountain ponies and I am a member of the Council of the Welsh Pony and Cob Society. The Welsh pony, mountain bred, is a very popular breed in this country—indeed, all over the world. It is a very attractive breed, with great character and a great freedom of movement. It is in great demand as a child's pony. Indeed, many people are of the opinion that the Welsh mountain pony, the one under 12 hands, is ideal as the child's first pony. Welsh mountain ponies, Welsh ponies and Welsh cobs are to be seen at all the major shows throughout the country, shown either in hand or under saddle, or in harness.
Naturally enough, there is a considerable export trade in these ponies, and the great majority of them are fully registered and of a value considerably above the minimum value mentioned in the Bill. The bona fides of these ponies are not in any way in question; but it must be admitted that there is a certain traffic in what have been referred to as the scrub ponies—and nobody knows what happens to them once they get to their destination. We all know, however, that something happens, and the object of this Bill is to try to prevent it happening. That object, so far as it goes, is a very laudable one.
The Welsh Pony and Cob Society welcome this Bill. We think it is both sensible and humane in its objects; but, at the same time, there are drawbacks. The first of these is the manner in which the Bill has been presented to Parliament. I think it is very much to be regretted that the Bill has been introduced and printed without there having been any prior consultation between the promoters and the different breed societies. I gather that copies of the Bill, with a request for comments from the other breed societies, were not sent out by the promoters until
60
about the second week in January, some considerable time after the Bill had been printed.
Surely, my Lords, it would have been far better if all these societies could have been consulted in advance on the drafting of the Bill. My Society, for one, would certainly have been very happy to cooperate in the drafting; and the result, I think, would have been a very much better Bill than the one which is now before your Lordships. Most of the creases would have been ironed out before the Bill was presented. There are certain points, such as the age of foals, minimum values and the question of lairage at ports, which should have been matters for discussion and agreement between the people involved in the trade—in other words, those people who are most closely affected by this Bill—and it should not have been a matter for arbitrary decision. I hope that if this Bill receives a Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will be receptive to Amendments which may be introduced to make the Bill more practical.
My Lords, I have one or two points on different aspects of the Bill. First of all, there is the question of lairage at ports, which is mentioned in Clause 2. Most ponies which leave this country for the Continent leave from Great Yarmouth, and the facilities there for lairage of ponies are quite adequate and very suitable. But there are also quite a large number of ponies which leave this country from other ports, such as Dover, Newhaven, the London Docks and also London Airport, and there are no lairage facilities at any of those places. It would be hard to justify the erection and staffing of lairage facilities at those places simply for ponies. It is possible that lairage might be found at farms in the neighbourhood with suitable equipment and responsible staff, and I wonder whether places such as those would be approved for the purposes of this Bill.
There occurs in Clause 2 the rather vague phrase, "at or near the place of loading". I wonder how one is to define "near the place of loading", because it seems to me slightly unnecessary, if you bring ponies from a stud, say, fifty miles or less from the place of loading, that they should then be compelled to have rest periods for the prescribed time. It seems to me that an exemption could be

61
introduced into the Bill to make it unnecessary for ponies which have travelled less than a certain distance to have to take this prescribed period of rest.
Then there is the question of foals in Clause 3. In the case of the Welsh pony breed—and, I dare say, in the case of many of the other mountain and moorland breeds—many of the mares live out all the year round, many of them are running out on the open hill with premium stallions; and in the Welsh Pony Society we have a very comprehensive system under which premium stallions are licensed to run out on the hills, but they are not turned out before a certain date. The result is that although the majority of owners try to get their mares to foal in the spring, about April, when the grass is growing nicely, many mares do not foal until May or even June. When you realise that the main sales are held in the autumn, in October, it is only a matter of simple arithmetic to realise that there must be many foals coming to those sales which are well under six months old.
This age limit of six months is obviously unrealistic. One must face the problem of what age one is to set. I have heard many different opinions on this, but I think that one ought to differentiate between foals at foot and foals which have been weaned from their mothers. I think it would he reasonable to suggest that the minimum age of six months should be retained for weaned foals, but that foals still at foot should be allowed to be exported at the age of four months. That is a point which can be argued out at a later stage, if this Bill gets a Second Reading.
Then there is the question of values in Clause 1. I feel myself that these figures are rather arbitrary, and that the values of ponies, like the values of so many other things, fluctuate according to the state of the market and demand. Most veterinary inspectors are not really qualified to value ponies; they can certify that the pony is sound and fit, but they are not qualified to value them. And as for the dealers, the exporters, it would be very easy for some dealers to produce receipts for any desired figure. I think that this clause is unrealistic; but, at any rate, if it does not do any good, it probably will not do
62
any harm either. At probably the most important sale of Welsh mountain ponies, I might mention that, in the first place, only ponies which are fully registered can be entered and, secondly, an upset price is imposed below which no pony can be sold. If a pony does not reach that minimum price it is not sold. That is, in part, a safeguard, imposed voluntarily by the auctioneers after consultation with the breed society, which already has many of the effects which this Bill now seeks to achieve.
My Lords, I turn now to the question of the export certificate, which is mentioned in Clause 3(1). I think that this provision is quite unworkable because no secretary of a breed society could sign such a certificate without either seeing, or someone authorised by him seeing, the pony. The offices of the Welsh Pony and Cob Society are at Aberystwyth; and although moss Welsh ponies are bred in Wales there are a great many bred practically throughout the United Kingdom. It would place an impossible burden on the breed society if the secretary, or some other authorised person, had to travel around the country inspecting ponies to sign an export certificate. Moreover, many secretaries of breed societies are not judges of ponies; they are just administrators. They run the secretariat and issue registration certificates for ponies; and in the case of the Welsh Pony Society they issue what is referred to as an export certificate but what is simply, in fact, a certificate of identity. It certifies that the pony to which the certificate relates is what it purports to be according to the records of the society.
The export certificate proposed in this Bill is, however, quite a different thing. It is supposed to certify that a pony is fit and suitable for export. I wonder what is meant by this. If the word "fit" means that the pony is well and sound physically, then the person to sign that certificate is not the secretary of the breed society but the veterinary surgeon. And who is to say whether the pony is or is not suitable for export? The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, mentioned this point, but I did not quite follow his reasoning. I think the clause is badly worded, and if the Bill gets a Second Reading to-day we shall have to do our best to improve it.

63
My Lords, there is another point on exporting. Clause 2(1) of the Bill says:
"No person shall ship, or cause or permit to be shipped, any ponies by sea or by air from any place in Great Britain to any place outside the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or the Republic of Ireland …"
In Clause 3(1) there is what looks at first sight to be similar wording; but the words "by air" are omitted, and so are the words the Republic of Ireland". I am not sure whether that is by accident or by design. If it be by design, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would like to tell us why. In any case, it is hard to see why the Republic of Ireland should be included in Clause 2(1), because once a pony is exported to the Republic of Ireland it is outside the jurisdiction of Her Majesty's courts exactly as if it had been exported to France or to anywhere else. I should have thought the same conditions ought to apply to the export of ponies to the Republic of Ireland as to any other country overseas.
My Lords, those are the points which I wanted to raise to-day. I have been rather critical of the Bill. I believe that there is plenty of room for improvement, but that it is none the less a desirable Bill. I hope that it will achieve a useful purpose and that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading.
6.10 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I shall be very brief. As one who has been concerned almost from birth with ponies and horses, I should like to say that I welcome the introduction of this Bill, because it has provided a chance to ventilate the question of whether inspection at the ports and elsewhere is sufficiently strict. From what I have heard I am convinced that it is not. It would be difficult to get an inspection which was sufficiently strict, but, even so, I do not think it necessary to have a Bill on this subject. A pony is only a small horse. Undoubtedly the breed societies have done an enormous amount of good; but regarding the scrub ponies (to use that term for want of a better) no breed society comes into it at all.
There is no doubt, in my opinion, that the valuation clause is not worth the paper it is written on. Scrub ponies come in hatches and are probably all put in for
64
sale at the same price. A few might be better than others, but by putting in the whole lot at a basic minimum price it would be perfectly easy to include a few which were suitable only for slaughter. I remember many years ago going to Ireland, and after a good deal of "argybargy" and "blarney" I bought two high-class four-year-old hunters and a middle-class pony for a lump sum. I was asked, "If you will not give me my price for the chestnut four-year-olds, won't you give me a bit more for the pony?" In the end we put them all in for a lump sum, and if I were asked what was the price of any one animal, I could not say. That is a very elementary bit of bunch-trading, and the amount of such trading which goes on in this export business is enormous. So, as I say, I do not think the valuation clause is worth the paper it is written on. I repeat that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for producing this Bill, but merely because it has been a means of ventilating a point: because I do not think that it is a necessary Bill.
6.13 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I find myself in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue. In my view, there is no need for a Bill on this matter. My noble friend Lord Granville of Eye drew our attention to the real reason why the Bill has been introduced; that very often ponies are treated as pets and with great love and devotion by their owners, who do not like the idea of the animals being sent to become juicy steaks, perhaps, on a Belgian dinner table. I can perfectly understand the attitude of such people, but I think it to be a mistaken one. I am told that pony steak is very good and I do not see why anyone should not eat it if he wishes to.
I also think that ponies designed for export should travel under the same regulations as apply in respect of cows, and that inspections should be thorough. It is most important that we should care for all animals, whether we are proposing to eat them, ride them or whatever it may be. It is a mark of civilised people that they should do so. But I shall not support the Bill; I do not see why ponies need different protection from that afforded to cattle, sheep and pigs. I hope that my noble friend Lord Silkin will agree to

65
withdraw his Bill, if he can be given an assurance by my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton that the matter of regulations and inspections will be looked into thoroughly.
6.15 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Raglan has said that he will not support the Bill I feel constrained to say that I shall support the Bill out and out, on sheer, sloppy sentimental grounds. I do not wish to enter into any of the arguments we have heard about the technicalities and difficulties of enforcement and so on. I believe that ponies are loved by hundreds of thousands of people in this country and that we should try to set an example regarding kindness to animals. When all is said and done, my Lords, as has been said, "Kind hearts are more than coronets", and I should like us to be kind-hearted when we come to consider the merits of this Bill.
I have never owned a pony, but many years ago I owned two or three hunters and I used to follow a pack of foxhounds once or twice a week. I do not know quite where the kindness came in vis-à-vis the fox, and I have heard many theories about it, but I learned to love horses very much, both sick horses and healthy horses; and if we look upon a pony as a little horse, I am sure we shall be doing the right thing. If we pass this Bill and protect the ponies, we shall set an example to other people to treat them with kindness and consideration.
In recent years your Lordships' House has shown the way in many liberal-minded reforms. We were responsible for the Abortion Bill about which, naturally, there were many points of view and differences of opinion. We were responsible for the Sexual Offences Bill, another measure about which there were many sharp differences of opinion. Many noble Lords felt this to be a subject which had been too long neglected and which ought to be brought into the open and discussed. From time to time we have discussed divorce, another matter on which there are sharp conflicts of opinion, both inside and outside your Lordships' House. I appeal to your Lordships to show the same liberal-minded attitude towards this Bill.
66
We had a most interesting and delightful speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. I found myself in complete agreement with nearly everything he said. It was a very forceful defence of the proposals in this Bill. I do not necessarily agree with him that this is the kind of Bill which will win votes for the Government. Goodness gracious! they need the votes, but I hardly think that, "Vote Labour and save the ponies" will secure many votes. Of course, I was not able to accompany the noble Viscount in his delightful story about the beautiful Spanish girl he took to the bull-fight. Perhaps that is a treat which is in store for me, though, with my advancing years, I hardly think it is.
I think it is a fact, as my noble friend Lord Granville of Eye hinted, that the present inspection of horses travelling in trains and on ships is not thoroughly carried out. I remember that one of the Sunday newspapers (I forget whether it was the Sunday Mirror or the People) conducted a close investigation a year or so ago into the question of the shipment and exportation of horses. This investigation disclosed gross cases of cruelty with which I am sure no noble Lord would agree. I certainly would not agree with it, and that is why I wish to see this Bill supported—because it will help to prevent the kind of cruelty that was exposed on that occasion. Many of us have seen the way in which animals are treated on the Continent. Some of the ponies undoubtedly go to Belgium, and I do not share the opinion of my noble friend Lord Raglan about the delightful taste of pony steaks.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, it is not my opinion.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Personally, my Lords, I try to go without meat whenever I can., and that probably makes me biased. I have seen horses very cruelly treated in Belgium. I have seen dogs very cruelly treated there, when they have been harnessed to little go-carts and made to pull them along when they are heavily laden while the lazy peasant merely holds the shaft behind them. I would not trust any British animal in Belgium. They have no sense of decency where the treatment of animals is concerned.
But I think that in approaching this measure the Government ought to try to

67
find some reasons for supporting it. They will find many things wrong with the Bill. There have been many criticisms in your Lordships' House this afternoon, particularly of some of the technicalities, but if the Government will approach it from the point of view of trying to remedy such defects as there are in the Bill rather than from the point of view of trying to smother the Bill at first sight, then I think it would be to the Government's credit and perhaps to the pleasure of most of the Members of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I take up the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, on one point? I understood him to say that he saw no reason why ponies should be treated better than sheep, cattle and pigs. That is a perfectly logical argument, but the fact is that in transit they are not treated as well as sheep, cattle and pigs, because they do not have any rest period before embarkation.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, with permission, may I briefly reply to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan? The noble Lord asked whether the Government would be prepared to consider carefully any further representations made to them on this point. I readily give the assurance that they will do that.
6.22 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not know whether that statement is intended to induce me to withdraw this Bill, but I assure my noble friend that I cannot and will not do so. I feel that this is a Bill which ought to get Second Reading. Every noble Lord who has spoken has been critical of something. I am quite accustomed to that. I know of no Private Member's Bill ever submitted to your Lordships' House which has not been torn to pieces on Second Reading. But surely that is the purpose of the later stages of a Bill. I think that this House, with its unique knowledge and experience, is eminently suited to discuss a measure of this kind and to knock it into shape as something which will be satisfactory to all parties. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, who was critical of the way the Bill was
68
produced, that a Bill was produced in 1966 and I understand that before that Bill was introduced all the organisations concerned with ponies were consulted. Not that it did much good. There were nine or ten organisations and they had nine or ten different views about the matter.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, I think that the version which the noble Lord has been told is slightly different from the story I have been told, which was that in the case of the previous Bill some of the societies got their first sight of the Bill 48 hours before the debate on Second Reading and there was simply no prior consultation at all.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, that just illustrates the difficulties of this matter. What I am prepared to do is this. If the House will be good enough to give this Bill a Second Reading, I will give a number of assurances. The first is that I will study what my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton has said about this Bill's not being necessary at all. So far as I can see, I cannot give him very much encouragement, because I believe that what is in this Bill is not covered entirely by existing legislation. He may say that he is not in favour of such matters as are not covered by existing legislation—that is a different point. For example, a rest period for ponies is not covered by existing legislation, but then my noble friend is not in favour of it. I am very willing to give an assurance to take full consideration of what has been said by him, and I should be happy to discuss the matter with representatives of his Department.
I would assure the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who thinks that this matter could be dealt with by Statutory Instruments, that I will certainly consider what kind of Statutory Instrument we could provide; but I would point out that the weakness of a Statutory Instrument is that we cannot amend it; we either take it or leave it. I certainly think that it is worth while considering whether a rest period could be provided by Statutory Instrument. It has been done in the case of sheep, cattle and swine, and I agree with the noble Lord that this matter could perhaps be dealt with by an extension of the existing Statutory Instrument to make it apply to ponies.

69
This debate has brought out a number of matters as being worthy of consideration, and I should not like the whole matter to drop. If I were to withdraw the Bill, then the thing would be dead and there would be no further discussion about it. I should like to keep it alive and have an opportunity of discussing the various matters which have been raised. If, at the end of the day, I am of the opinion that I cannot get satisfaction from my noble friend or get this matter dealt with in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would like it to be dealt with, I would reserve the right to ask my noble friend—my noble and unwilling friend—to give me a date for the Committee stage and further stages of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NIGERIA: PEACE TALKS AND ARMS SUPPLIES
6.28 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY rose, to ask Her Majesty's Government—

(a) whether they are aware of the offer made by Colonel Ojukwu for immediate peace talks with the Nigerian Federal Government on the basis of no preconditions on either side;

(b) what steps they have taken to secure that such talks are put in train forthwith;

(c) whether pending the outcome of such talks they will make clear that no further arms from this country will be supplied to either side.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, last night I watched on television a film of the book of my friend George Orwell, Animal Farm, and as I listened to the debate on ponies which we have just concluded I rather wondered what would be the attitude of the ponies to the suggested legislation. But I now rise to ask the Question which is on the Paper in my name. It is now eight months since I first initiated a debate on the grave situation in Nigeria. That was before the civil war began, and I sounded a warning about it. I urged the Government then, first, to encourage the Commonwealth Secretariat to seek a settlement of the problem and, secondly, to
70
look with sympathy to the Organisation of African Unity, representing the African Governments, with a view to their contributing to a solution. My Lords, I find it extraordinary that eight months have passed and that no debate on this subject has taken place, either in another place or here. It has become the forgotten war.
I find it extraordinary, first, because of the tragedy of the event. The Colony of Nigeria was regarded almost as a showpiece of British decolonisation. It was a quite extraordinary experiment of the federation of different tribes and regions within a vast area; and we looked to it with hope. Secondly, this war has deformed the image of Africa throughout the world. There are other events in Africa which are disappointing, but the fact that in Nigeria Africans should be slaughtering fellow Africans on a large scale is in an ugly contrast with what was hoped when African Governments moved towards their independence. Thirdly, I think that all of us must have been distressed by the atrocities which have occurred: the shootings in cold blood of 700 people; the quite unnecessary bombing of a hospital. These atrocities occur in every war, and I do not want to over-emphasise them. All I will say is that, moved as we have been by the atrocities in Vietnam, we surely should be conscious of what is happening in one of the member States of the Commonwealth.
Then, there is the very great danger of virulent epidemics extending front the East, Biafra, in Nigeria. They cannot be contained by any frontier, and the conditions of death, of the destruction of sanitation, and the absence of doctors and nurses, now make that a real cause of fear for the future. Lastly, and most important of all, is the depth of bitterness which has now been aroused in Nigeria. It has gone so deeply that it will almost require a miracle before the wisdom of political effort can bring cooperation between the peoples of the Federation.
When I have put Questions on this issue to Her Majesty's Government the line has been that there is a Federal Government in Nigeria; that it is the recognised Government, and we must support it against any rebellion. My noble friend

71
Lord Shepherd said, in answer to a question which I put recently:
"… there is a legal Government in Nigeria and … we are bound to support it".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January 1968, col. 600.]
I do not criticise that principle in normal circumstances, where there are Governments democratically elected and there is an unprovoked rebellion. I accept what the Government have done in sending their troops to Mauritius in recent weeks; I applauded what the Government did in sending their troops to Tanzania, to Kenya and Uganda. In these last three cases there were revolutions within the armed forces against democratically elected civilian Governments. It is exactly the opposite in Nigeria. The Federal Government in Nigeria has resulted from the second of military coups begun by overthrowing democratically elected Governments.
My main purpose to-night is to serve the cause of peace and ending the war. I shall therefore be very objective and try to be impartial. I should like to make it clear that I do not attach special or isolated blame for the seizure of power by the present Administration in Nigeria. They inherited circumstances, and those responsible for those circumstances must also bear the responsibility for the consequences. But these circumstances should prevent us from reliance upon the traditional formula that the de facto Administration of a country at any time should necessarily be supported. The present situation reflects the conflict of tribal and constitutional factors which historically deny the validity of the conclusion, without qualification, that the Federal Government must automatically be supported.
It was a very daring experiment when the British Government, through my right honourable friend Mr. James Griffiths, with whom I have been on a deputation to-day to the Commonwealth Office on this very subject, established the Federation in Nigeria. There were four distinct races there, antipathetic: the Hausas and the Fulani in the North; the Yorubas in the West, and the Ibos in the East. It is a little ironic to-day to realise that in that period, when there was opposition from the different races to any coming together, or any federation, it was the Ibos in the East who led the whole
72
movement for the unity of Nigeria. Dr. Azikiwe was the great advocate of that principle and he and his Party, the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons, went very far indeed in order to establish unity. After independence they entered into a coalition with the largest Party from the North, although they were radical in their views and the Party from the North were conservative in their views. They entered into a coalition with them in order to secure the unity of the whole of Nigeria. That coalition of the East and North had one unfortunate effect: it meant the isolation of the West; it meant within the West agitation which led to a new State, the state of the Mid-West.
My Lords, please forgive me for reminding your Lordships of these facts. I do not propose to give the subsequent history in detail, but if we are to estimate what we should do in the present situation we must understand what has led up to it. First, a census was taken of the North, West, East, Mid-West, in order to establish the registration for the elections. There was great criticism of that census—I think probably justified—from the East and the West. Secondly, there was an election upon the basis of that census, and there was an intimidation and a suppression of opposition candidates in the North and elsewhere which made that election of little value. There was victory for the North; there was intense dissatisfaction after discussion and controversy. Nevertheless a broad-based Government was established.
Then there came disillusionment and despair. The election in the West had been postponed and there was worse—not only gross malpractices but loss of life. Then came economic collapse throughout the country, growing unemployment, strikes, a general strike. In that condition of utter disillusionment and despair there came the first military coup. I hope I have already made it clear that I am opposed to these military coups. This one was accused of being under Ibo domination, and undoubtedly the personnel of the Armed Forces was such that members of the Ibo race were in control.
There were two events which happened following this second coup which none of us who has been to Nigeria and has met the individuals concerned can speak

73
about without deep distress and anger. One was the assassination of the spiritual leader in the North, and the other was the assassination of the Prime Minister of Nigeria, who also came from the North. I want to be the first to recognise the depth of feeling which there must have been in the North when those terrible crimes were committed. Nevertheless, the Federal Government handed over the power to General Ironsi, who was an Ibo, but I would not say a very prejudiced Ibo. One democratic Government had been overthrown by a military coup. Now came another military coup. Officers in the North revolted against higher officers who were Ibos. They retorted to the assassination of their leader in the North and the Prime Minister who came from the North by assassinating General Ironsi and also the military governor of the West. This second coup was successful, and General Gowon was appointed to its head.
I want to say this to the Minister and to the Government, with all the emphasis that I can command. It is not possible to equate the Government in Nigeria claiming authority over a federation of different races, one of which, the most industrially and educationally advanced, repudiates that authority, and which has assumed power by a military coup after a preceding military coup—democracy once removed, thus revealing not only that it has no democratic authority but also that it represents a divided army—with legal government. How can one accept that such an administration has the moral attributes of a legal government in the accepted sense?
I recognise that one of the first actions of General Gowon was to call consultations with representatives of the Regions. That conference declared for a constitution in Nigeria on the basis of confederation. Nevertheless, the General announced his proposal to divide Nigeria into 12 States, each with very limited powers, and to strengthen the powers of the central Government. Then came the worst tragedy of all. In the North of Nigeria there was a massacre of every Easterner to whom the Northerners could turn their hand. I have heard from ordinary Christian people going to Christian churches there, how, as they came out of their churches, they were just slaughtered—men, women and children. It is estimated that 30,000
74
Easterners, not only Ibos, but from other tribes in the East, were slaughtered in that massacre. It is not necessary to put the figure as high. It was deliberate genocide. From that terror between one million and two million refugees somehow struggled to get back to the East. One in three of the homes in the East had refugees from the North. The emotional effect of that can be understood. It was from that moment that the Federation and the Eastern Governments began to arm.
I wrote to the Heads of all the African Governments. I asked them to try to get common action to intervene. I want to acknowledge a rather strange thing here: that whilst I had the response that I expected from my closest friends in the struggle for African freedom, the most dedicated responses came from General Ankrah of Ghana and from the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone, whose Administrations I have criticised. Thanks to General Ankrah in Ghana there was a meeting in Aburi of the Supreme Military Government and representatives of all the Regions in Nigeria. This was in January, 1967. It reached agreement to renounce force and on a re-definition of the powers of the Federation and the Regions. I think the crisis came then. General Gowon went back to Lagos. He failed to implement the agreement and reverted to his proposals of twelve States with limited powers and stronger powers at the centre.
I ask the Minister, how can one say, in this confused and tragic situation, with its deep-seated racial divisions, with its rights and wrongs on both sides, with no Government democratically elected by all, that the British Government was bound to support one side? That is red tape formula, which becomes blood red, death tape, without any consideration of the deeper historical causes or the disastrous inevitable effects.
There was developing crisis when General Gowon repudiated the agreement reached at the meeting in Ghana. General Ojukwu cut off the Eastern revenue to the Federation; General Gowon imposed blockade; General Ojukwu threatened to secede; General Gowon issued a decree dividing the East into three States, depriving the East of access to the sea through Port Harcourt, despite its Ibo population; and then war.
One of the strange things in this situation has been the different attitudes of Governments. There has been an extraordinary coalition between Soviet Russia and the British Government. Soviet Russia and the British Government have supplied arms to the Federation. There has been a coalition between France and Portugal which have supplied arms to the East, Biafra. Not only have the British Government continued to supply arms, but the British High Commissioner has declared on several occasions that we are wholly—I quote "wholly"—behind the Federal Government. The attitude of African Governments is interesting. They also had the problem of secessions from their territories, and they are naturally opposed to a secession from Nigeria. That is one factor why there has not been more active, effective pressure from African States.
What I want to do in conclusion is to urge what action the Government should take in this situation. In the first part of my Question on the Order Paper I draw attention to the offer which General Ojukwu has made which appeared in the Financial Times on February 1. I am not a reader of the Financial Times because I have not got any finance, but I should like to congratulate it upon the despatches which it has published from Nigeria. Nearly every other newspaper has only a correspondent in Lagos. We are seeing only one side of the picture. I quote from the Financial Times of February 1:
"Lt. Col. Ojukwu, the Biafra leader, told a Press Conference in Umuahia on Tuesday that although Biafra still wanted sovereignty the whole question of sovereignty would have to be re-assessed and examined in the light of the current situation. Much would depend on the timing and the spirit of the negotiations. He hinted that Biafra might be willing to enter into a Confederacy with other Nigerian states. … " "Last Sunday Col. Ojukwu announced his readiness to agree to peace talks without pre-conditions by either side. He suggested that such negotiations might take place under the auspices of the Commonwealth, the United Nations or the Organisation of African Unity. Unlike similar moves in the past, the proposal did not stipulate acceptance of Biafra's sovereignty."
This is an extraordinary advance. Before this, Biafra has insisted on secession and cancellation of the decrees for the twelve States. The Federation has insisted on the cancellation of secession
76
and the acceptance of the twelve States. Biafra has now said, in the clearest possible terms, that it is prepared for unconditional negotiations; that sovereignty is not necessarily a condition; that it is ready to look at the unity of Nigeria on the basis of confederation. I put it to the Minister that this entirely changes the situation. This is a new opportunity for peace.
I have good feeling towards the Ministers at the Commonwealth Office, and if I may say this to the noble Lord who is to reply, this is particularly the case with him because of my friendship in great old days with his father, when he was the agent in Blackburn for Philip Snowden. No one in the House of Lords will believe this, but I actually had Lord Shepherd in my arms as a baby in his home—no doubt that is why he has become so good now. I have all that friendly attitude towards him and his fellow Ministers. I recognise that the Government have made great efforts towards peace and that they have had to act under limitation. If they had proposed mediation in Nigeria there would immediately have been the reaction there that it was the old Colonial Power intervening. The strength of that probability I completely realise.
I know more than I can say publicly of what the Government have been doing. I will tell your Lordships where I differ from the Government. They have been doing these things secretly so that they cannot be announced. They have been doing these things secretly because they do not want to embarrass the Federal Government of Lagos. I ask the Minister just to consider whether that secrecy has not meant that, because publicly the Government here have appeared to be doing nothing, the bitterness and antagonism in the East, in Biafra, has grown. Surely it would be possible to balance the effects on the Federal Government and the East if, in reply to me this evening, the noble Lord would only say something that would go all over Africa: that Her Majesty's Government are at this moment seeking through every possible channel to bring the war in Nigeria to an end. If only he said that, the effect would be tremendous.
But I am going to ask him to say more. And I am myself going first to say something more. I know what the

77
Commonwealth Secretariat have been doing. I have tremendous appreciation for them and for their unceasing efforts. I know what some African leaders have been doing. I am aware of all this. Yet eight months have passed and the war goes on. There is now this new opportunity.
I want to ask the British Government to do something rather drastic. They have been sending arms to one side. They have been sending arms to the Federal Government, on the ground that it is the de facto Government. I should hope that, from a democratic point of view, I have to-night destroyed that case. At least I am going to ask the Government to prove their sincerity in this way, by saying that, in view of the offer which General Ojukwu has made from the East, the Government will not send further arms to the Federal Government unless that Federal Government will now accept the opportunity for peace which has been made from the East by General Ojukwu.
The other proposal that I want to make is this, that there should be a great appeal to the members of the Commonwealth. If they, unitedly, were to make their pressure for peace in Nigeria, I think that the Federal Government and General Ojukwu would respond. Lastly, I would say how much I welcome the suggestions that are now being made for a Commonwealth peace force in Nigeria. It would have to be there not only during the negotiations but, I am afraid, for a considerable time afterwards, because of the bitterness which has been aroused. But it would be a magnificent reflection of constructive, creative contribution if the Commonwealth were to go into Nigeria now and prevent this slaughter.
These, my Lords, are the alternatives. Did your Lordships read that striking phrase in the leading article in The Times to-day asking whether Eastern Nigeria is to become "half cemetery and half concentration camp"? It will if this war goes on. I appeal to my noble friend. I know that his attitude about this is just as sincere as mine. But I ask him, as Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs within the Commonwealth Department, with the influence of the Commonwealth Department within the Government, to depart from this policy of giving arms and support to one side, and of being silent in case it may arouse
78
criticism from that side, and instead to come out boldly in favour of the cessation of the war and negotiations for a settlement, and for doing all he can for the constructive future of Nigeria.
7.8 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I intend to add but a few words to what has been said so movingly by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I am sure that any noble Lord who has visited Nigeria at any time has been struck, as I was struck while visiting there, by the immensity of the differences between the different peoples within that vast country—differences in physique, in culture and in religion; differences as great as those between any group of diverse European countries. For the very different peoples of this vast territory to be united within one Federal State would indeed be a wonderful achievement—something of a miracle. I believe that we must ardently hope still for that possibility, because some of the alternatives are most dangerous to contemplate.
But the peace and unity of all these peoples can come about only by agreement and tolerance, and it is quite impossible on the basis of one or other section of the peoples imposing its will upon the other sections. If there is to be a peaceful settlement, it seems that certain conditions are utterly necessary. First, it must be recognised by both sides that it is impossible for either side to get all that it wants in its ambitions for its people. There must be "give" as well as "take" if any settlement is to be practicable.
A second condition is that if Biafra is to continue to be included within a federal Nigeria, there must be very definite and secure guarantees for the safety of the Biafran people. They have suffered the most terrible violence, and there can be no settlement including them which does not effectively guarantee them against some of the things which they have suffered in the past. The same is true in every direction, but it has now to be emphasised in relation to Biafra.
A third condition for a peaceful settlement—and here I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—is the cessation of the supply of arms to either side. I hope that the argument of the

79
noble Lord has convincingly undermined the naive, unimaginative thesis that there is in Nigeria "a Government" and "a rebellion", and that therefore we must support the Government against the rebels. That is too unimaginative in relation to the complexities of history which the noble Lord's speech has exposed.
Those being the necessary conditions of a peaceful settlement, we wish great success in what the Government are doing towards a peaceful settlement. I very much hope that the Government will be able to tell us of their positive attitude towards the most recent peace feelers and will be able to speak encouragingly about them. I hope also that the Government will be able to speak encouragingly about the latest proposal of a Commonwealth peace force. The presence of a Commonwealth peace force among the belligerents would at least bring a pause in the terrible slaughters. Looking to the future, one remembers that African peoples are very quick to acquire resentment and bitterness, but that they have sometimes proved themselves quick to drop them if the conditions for dropping them really exist.
7.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has put down this Question, although it would be wholly wrong if he were to give the impression that, merely because there had been no debate on this subject for some months, the problems of Nigeria have not been constantly in the minds of all noble Lords in this Chamber and indeed in the minds of most thinking people in this country. One does not always express every thought in this Chamber. There are many reasons why we should think of Nigeria. Nobody who has met some of the leading Nigerians can fail to be deeply impressed with the quality of men who live in that country and to see the justification for the high pride which we all had in the future of that country.
We must face the fact that we have had in the past a great responsibility. The form of Constitution we gave them has not, apparently, suited them, and we must accept some responsibility for that. Moreover, as the noble Lord has said, the longer the fighting goes on the
80
deeper the bitterness will be, the greater the hatreds, and the longer it will take them to recover. We have considerable commercial contracts with Nigeria, and it is important to recognise that business contracts are mutual—they are the best form of aid. We have devoted a great deal of effort to that country, particularly in the development of oil, and £200 million has been invested there following investigations over twenty years. All this has given us a deep interest in Nigeria.
I detected in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, a tendency to judge the rights and wrongs of an internal situation. This is really a legacy of paternalism. Nigeria to-day is independent, and it is not for us to say how she should govern herself. This is a matter for the people of Nigeria and is not for us, whatever the rights or wrongs of the matter may be. Civil wars always create great difficulties. One has only to recall the American Civil War to realise how difficult these situations can be and how easily they can lead to very much greater problems than exist at the beginning. I consider that the Government are right to maintain normal relations with the Government of Nigeria—in fact they have no option. But I hope that they will not just stop at that. I hope that they will lose no opportunity to bring about peace in that country, since the longer these troubles go on, the more difficult it will be for the people there to recover.
There is much gossip as to what is happening. I have great confidence in Mr. Arnold Smith and his assistant Mr. Adu. I hope that it will not prove necessary to take these discussions outside the Commonwealth to the United Nations. This is a matter which it should be within the compass of Commonwealth organisations to settle for themselves. I warmly welcome the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, of a Commonwealth force, should this be necessary. But let it be quite clear that we must be invited in such a matter. It is no good thinking that we can do anything there unless we are invited to do so. I hope, of course, that the Government will pick up any invitation, though my own feeling is that one will not get any real finality until General Gowon and Colonel Ojukwu meet: and the only

81
place they could meet to-day is at sea. If they are asked for their assistance, I hope that the Government will not hesitate to give it. I will not press the Government further. but I hope that they will use every endeavour to see whether they can bring about peace; for without peace no development of Nigeria will be possible.
7.18 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, previous speakers have properly adopted a tone of great moderation, and it would be wrong to depart from that tone in a situation as tragic as this. At this moment we know that men of goodwill are making earnest efforts to mediate in a situation which should be brought to an end at the earliest possible moment. I would venture to comment on the remark by the last speaker that he hoped that the Government would not seek to determine moral issues. I am not sure that in this particular case that is the right approach. But if it is the right approach it must at least amount to this: that if arms are to be supplied, then they should be supplied to both sides and not to one side. That is the approach recommended by the last speaker. My own view is that if this debate is to serve any purpose at all, it will have achieved all we can hope for if it persuades the Government to cease supplying arms to either side, for there is no rational, moral or legal justification for supplying arms to one side and not to the other.
One repeatedly hears the parrot-cry that the Federal Government is a legal Government. If it were a legal Government—and I do not want to go into the legal and constitutional considerations—we should still be under no moral obligation whatever to supply arms to a legal Government which was using them for a purpose of which we did not approve. I am told that the Biafrans are rebels. I venture to doubt whether some decades ago we would have used that phrase about Garibaldi. Garibaldi was certainly a rebel. Would we have said that we were entitled to provide arms to the people who were seeking to defeat him in his fight for freedom? Would we have said that we were entitled to deny arms to the Greeks in their battle against the undoubtedly legal occupation of the Turks, because the Greeks were rebelling
82
against oppression? This is an argument that must be totally intolerable in this Chamber; it is an argument that has no validity of any kind. To suggest that, because people are rebelling against undoubted oppression, against terror for their very lives, they are on that account to be regarded as rebels and, therefore, we are morally justified in providing their oppressors with the weapons with which to oppress them is an argument which I hope will find no countenance here.
I believe that the Government are pursuing this course only because they are receiving advice which I regard, to put it no higher, as extremely dubious. I think it is due to the simple fact that the advice they are receiving emanates from Lagos, and if your Lordships will bear with me for a moment you will see why they are receiving that advice. Lagos is the active centre of Nigerian life if you are living there. You see things going on around you which suggest that it is the capital city, and that in some remote corner of a large country of which it is the capital city some unimportant insurrection is in progress. The advice which we are receiving from the Commission in Lagos is that, somewhere remote from Lagos, there is a minor insurrection taking place and it is quite right that the Lagos-controlled Government should receive aid and assistance in order to suppress it. So I venture to say—
LORD MCCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord really saying that anybody would suggest that this was a minor insurrection in a far distant part?
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I am seriously suggesting that, if one has to find some sensible justification for the Government's policy, that is as sensible as any that I can imagine at this moment of time. I cannot imagine a sensible justification for the Government's policy in seeking to supply arms in this dispute.
Consider the facts, which have been retailed with such accuracy by the noble Lord to whom we are indebted for this debate. Unarguably, there was a massacre in the North of the Ibo tribe. Unarguably. Ibos resident in the North—expatriates from their own Eastern territory—were massacred to the extent of 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 people. Nobody

83
knows the numbers. Unarguably, a vast flood of refugees fled back to their homes. Unarguably, that is the case. The Government are not going to dispute any of those facts. The Ibos have now taken refuge within their own territory. They have their backs to the walls. They have nowhere to which they can fly. The Cameroons are behind them. The Western Territory, full of their enemies, is in front of them. They have nowhere to go. They are fighting for their very lives. That is the simple situation.
This is not a case of people who have raised the flag of rebellion because they have nationalist aspirations, because they have expansionist aspirations. This is a case of people who have raised the flag of rebellion because they have no conceivable alternative. They are fighting for their lives. Is it remotely justifiable that in those circumstances, having regard to that known background of facts, we should be supplying the people who are attacking them with the means to destroy them? Can it be that this House will accept for one moment that this is a policy which ought to be pursued for another second by Her Majesty's Government if the facts are those? I know that Her Majesty's Government are as conscious of moral rights and moral positions as I am. I know, therefore, that if they are pursuing this policy it must be because of some serious misapprehension, because information that they are receiving from some quarter is misleading or inaccurate—not deliberately misleading but conveying an erroneous impression.
I plead with Her Majesty's Government that they should give the most serious consideration to these facts and if there is any doubt, the facts can be ascertained by the simplest inquiry from a great number of people in this country. It is very significant that Biafran representatives who come here are never received. This is not a scandalous matter but it is a tragic matter, because they return to Biafra believing that their voices are still unheard. I venture to say that if we are in any doubt as to the truth of these facts, if we do not believe that this pogrom of 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 Ibos took place, if we do not believe that one million or two million refugees fled for their lives, let us send a fact-
84
finding mission out to see whether it is right. In the meantime, let us at least suspend the dispatch of arms to these territories, so that we cannot be open to the terrible, shameful criticism of having provided people with the means of destroying other people in circumstances as totally unjustifiable as this.
I urge Her Majesty's Government, in whose judgment and wisdom I have the highest confidence, to give the most careful thought to this position and not to continue with a policy which, whether brought about by ignorance or by mistake, is in my view utterly shameful and will be so regarded in the light of history. The suggestion that we can plead the cry of legality to justify the dispatch of these arms is historically unjustifiable and runs against the whole trend of British history. Alas! we do not have a Byron, and we do not have a Palmerston, here to-day who can speak in terms appropriate to this matter. But in such inadequate terms as we have been able to muster, I most seriously and urgently plead that we should cease a traffic which is wholly inappropriate, wholly shameful and wholly wrong.
7.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I rise to make one point only, and to make one request with which I am perfectly sure Her Majesty's Government will be very glad to comply. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has made an extremely important pronouncement and has put forward suggestions, with which I am sure everybody must agree, for a basis of settlement of these disputes. I beg Her Majesty's Government, considering the great importance which Africa will attach to the most reverend Primate's words, to give every publicity to the suggestions that he has made and to ensure that they are fully conveyed by wireless, by all the means of publicity in our power, to both sides in this conflict.
7.27 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate which was initiated by my noble friend Lord Brockway, but I should like to follow my noble friend Lord Goodman. I feel that we have found ourselves in an inevitable trap of this piece of history in which we live. I have reminded your

85
Lordships on many occasions that we now see around us some 35 countries which are under military government. I will repeat what I have said; that military or junta Governments are the official receivers in political bankruptcy, and I suggest to your Lordships that, if we recognise that they are, in fact, the official receivers in political bankruptcy, it raises a very serious question of what we mean by de facto recognition of abusive and destructive régimes.
I will not catalogue them. I would only remind your Lordships that at this moment we are confronted in relation to Nigeria with the same sort of situation as we face in relation to Greece. We accept a de facto situation; and if we stop and say that we cannot but recognise them, that may not be too bad. But I suggest most seriously to Her Majesty's Government that it is a very grave matter when, in support of a de facto situation, they insist upon providing arms and providing support for a régime which has no basis whatever by any democratic definition, and certainly had no basis whatever when we gave freedom to Nigeria.
7.29 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I fully understand the very deep emotion that has been expressed here this evening, and also the distress felt about events in Nigeria. My noble friend Lord Brockway has been some time in dealing with the events which led up to what he referred to as the second military coup. My noble friend Lord Goodman, if I may call him that, spoke from the Cross-Benches about the massacre of Ibos. In speaking from the Box, I do not think that I shall serve the cause of peace if I attribute blame to one section or another. My noble friend Lord Brockway's Question does not deal with the past. It really looks to the present and the future; to the achievement of peace.
I do not believe that there is anyone who does not deplore the suffering and the damage in Nigeria, and who does not share the regret that the high hopes that we once had for Nigeria may appear for a time to be very bleak indeed. But I think we must make it perfectly clear that we have no right to tell the Nigerians how to order their affairs. What we say here must be judged, not as to its effect at home but as to its effect in Nigeria; and
86
I am bound to say—and I say it with a degree of temerity—that some of the speeches that have been made here this afternoon could be construed in such a way that they do not serve the long-term interests of obtaining peace, although I fully recognise that the motives behind those speeches were quite to the contrary.
My Lords, the central point of the Question that my noble friend Lord Brockway has asked is: What is the British Government's attitude to Nigeria? Our position has been perfectly clear throughout, but in view of some of the speeches I think it needs to be re-stated at greater length than perhaps the hour might condone. We regard the breakdown of understanding in Nigeria and the outbreak of hostilities as an appalling tragedy. We did our utmost—and my noble friend Lord Brockway recognised this when he spoke in June—and all that was humanly available to us, to prevent the outbreak of fighting in Nigeria. Our attitude both before and after the outbreak has been based on three principles. The first is that, as the founders of modern Nigeria, we are against its fragmentation. One reason is perfectly dear: that this great country of Nigeria, in unity, could realise its full potential and, perhaps of greater consequence, as a united Nigeria, prospering and developing, it could have a very significant effect throughout Africa. As my noble friend Lord Brockway well knows, there have been moments in which splinter action was likely in Africa. This, therefore, was a matter of very grave regret to us.
I think it is also significant that no African country, or any other country in the world, has recognised any other Government than the Federal Government in Lagos. If we were to say that because a Government has not been constitutionally elected we should not recognise it, I am bound to say that there would be many countries throughout the world with whom we should have no diplomatic connections whatsoever, and the world would be in an infinitely more dangerous position than it now is. I think—and I hope my noble friend Lord Brockway will not consider me unfair in this—that when my noble friend spoke on June 20, 1967, about the inherent rights of independence he said:
"The rights inherent in independence must be very much in our minds as we seek to find

87
a way to help heal the wounds in Nigeria now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, col. 1367.]
At that stage the present Government, the Federal Government, was in power. They came to power in 1966. I find it hard to say that you recognise that Government in seeking to prevent war and yet, when war unfortunately breaks out, you then cease to recognise it. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said that we take advice only from Lagos. We have a High Commission office there. The only reason we have no diplomatic connection in Biafra is because of the attitude of the Biafran authorities. Much could have been done if we could have maintained our office in the Biafran territory. It is not that we do not wish to have an office there: the position is that it was made impossible for us to remain there.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I hesitate to interrupt him because it is late at night, but the fact is that there was in London a most responsible delegation of Biafrans, including, if I may say so, a very old friend of mine, Sir Louis Banafo, and other gentlemen whose friendly disposition towards this country cannot be exaggerated. Will the noble Lord tell me why the opportunity was not taken of the presence of these gentlemen, educated in England—Anglophiles, if ever there were any—to discuss this matter and secure the opportunity of proper representation?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, our relations are with Nigeria. We regard Biafra as part of Nigeria. If we had an office there in Biafra, we should have our connection. In regard to these eminent gentlemen, of whom I have heard, I am bound to say that Her Majesty's Government are in very grave difficulties. We have never recognised Biafra as an independent country, but it has seceded from the Federal State of Nigeria, and it would therefore seem to me wrong, at least in an official capacity, for Her Majesty's Government to make contact with these gentlemen.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I interrupt? Really, is this not nonsense? We are not asking Her Majesty's Government to have official talks with these gentlemen. My noble friend knows, as I
88
know and as others of long political experience know, that there are all kinds of methods by which one can have unofficial conversations which are nevertheless of the greatest value in finding a solution to these problems. Our complaint is that although these responsible and distinguished individuals have been in London, not even on the circumference has the Commonwealth Office been prepared to have any connection with them.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have stated what Her Majesty's Government's position is, but if the noble Lord will permit me—because I think we are perhaps going slightly away from the Question that is on the Order Paper; and this is as much my fault as the noble Lord's—he will see the steps that we have been taking to achieve peace in Nigeria. We believe that we must seek a solution by negotiation. I do not believe that it can be said that we have ignored this whole affair. My noble friend Lord Brockway spoke of the eight months of the forgotten war. I share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that while we may not have debated it in your Lordships' House, this has been very much on all our minds, not only in Parliament, among Parliamentarians and the Church, but very much in the minds of those Ministers who have particular responsibility in the field of the Commonwealth.
We have welcomed the continuing efforts of Mr. Arnold Smith and the Commonwealth Secretariat to assist in the restoration of peace in Nigeria, and we have given Mr. Arnold Smith—and will continue to give him—maximum support. We are and will remain in close touch with him. I cannot, however, comment on the various Press reports about Mr. Smith's recent visit and his proposed return to Lagos. The position of Her Majesty's Government in their relationship with the Commonwealth Secretariat is well known. I hope the House will feel that if there are negotiations taking place between Mr. Arnold Smith and the Nigerian leaders, perhaps a delicate position has been reached. Therefore I think it would be best to leave the Commonwealth Secretariat's particular effort for the time being; but we will give all possible support to Mr. Arnold Smith and the Commonwealth Secretariat. I

89
think it should be said also that we ourselves have been working very actively—and genuinely actively—behind the scenes, as have many other friends of Nigeria. I personally take the view that while it may be more attractive to take a positive public position, the situation now in Nigeria is such that the more secret forms of diplomacy are more likely to produce a settlement.
I should like now to turn to the three basic questions on the Order Paper. My noble friend asks first, whether we are
"aware of the offer made by Colonel Ojukwu for immediate peace talks with the Nigerian Federal Government on the basis of no preconditions on either side".
I have seen the Press report to this effect to which this offer is attributed, but I am bound to say that there are some other versions of that particular conference which make no mention of this particular offer but which refer more generally to a call for early negotiation. Without an authoritative text, I therefore should not wish to place too much reliance upon it. But this report and the fact that the noble Lord has drawn our attention to it will be taken note of, certainly in Lagos and, no doubt, by the Commonwealth Secretariat.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords, but this report appeared 13 days ago. Did not the Commonwealth Department, immediately on its appearance, make some inquiry about whether it was accurate or not?
LORD SHEPHERD: We have not been able to obtain an accurate, authoritative report in regard to that statement. But if there is some authenticity, I believe that this will have been taken note of, particularly by the Commonwealth Secretariat.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, this is a matter of such importance that I do not apologise for interrupting. There are in London at this moment other distinguished Biafrans in a position to confirm totally the accuracy of this offer. May I ask whether the noble Lord will be prepared to meet them and receive at their hands information about whether this offer exists or whether it should be regarded as being sincere?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if there is anything I can do I will certainly
90
do it. If the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would care to meet me privately or in my office on this matter or can give me any information that might give us a glimmer, then I should be only too happy to see him and to convey whatever information he has to the highest possible authority in Her Majesty's Government.
LORD GOODMAN: I am very much obliged.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps I should now turn to the question of pre-conditions. I cannot myself believe that there can be any settlement in Nigeria if either side insists on preconditions and we shall be working towards that end. Perhaps I can now come to the more controversial element, the supply of arms. My noble friend asks that no further arms should be supplied from this country to either side, pending peace talks. I fully sympathise with the views that have been expressed that it is wrong for us to allow any weapons to go from here to a country where there is a scene of civil war.
I should like to make it clear that there is no question of arms being supplied now, or having been supplied in the past, to anyone except the internationally recognised Government of Nigeria. But there is a good deal more to this than what I have just said. I do not disguise the fact that the question of arms supplies has presented us with some very difficult problems. I dealt with some of those aspects of the subject in the Answer to a Question by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on January 29. We cannot divorce these problems from their general political background. We helped to found a single Federal Nigeria. Like every other country in the world, we accept that the Federal Government is the Government of Nigeria. We do not recognise a separate State of Biafra and we warned the Ibo leaders in advance that, while we sympathised with many of their fears and anxieties, we could not support any attempt by them to secede. In addition, we have always been the traditional suppliers of arms to the Federal Government of Nigeria. Whether it was the constitutional one or the two succeeding military Governments, we have been the traditional suppliers of arms. To cut off all supplies, as is now suggested, would be seen by them as an un-neutral and one-sided act against them and against our

91
own declared policy of support for a single Nigeria.
It would scarcely have any immediate effect on the fighting. It would not, in our view, actually bring peace nearer nor improve our chances of working for peace; and I am bound to say to my noble friend that such an action might well be to the reverse. There is no question of arms exports from this country being unrestricted either in type or in quantity. What we have agreed is that the export should continue of a reasonable quantity of arms and ammunition of broadly the same type which have been supplied in the past before the civil war broke out. We have not supplied such things as aircraft or bombs. The noble Lord should not exaggerate what is the flow of arms to Nigeria. Unfortunately, in this unhappy world there are many others willing and able to supply arms in considerable quantities—and, incidentally, arms more powerful and destructive—perhaps for scruples and motives different from ours. I would ask the House to accept that we have given this matter the deepest thought. We have no wish to play a part in a civil war. We feel that our decision in the present circumstances is right.
I should like now to end on a more constructive note, on the question of the Commonwealth peace force. It has been suggested in the newspapers, and again in this House, that a Commonwealth or a neutral presence of some kind, such as observers or an organised military force, should be offered to bring about a settlement. I agree that it is possible that some such presence could have a useful part to play; although I am bound to add that the mounting and deployment of a force—and it would need to be a force of some considerable size—would entail acute political and practical difficulties.
It would, of course, be essential that both sides in the present dispute in Nigeria should favour its use. It would not be possible for us to impose such a
92
force at the request merely of one side. All I can say now is that if there should be a serious request, agreed to by both sides, for such a force, we should naturally be prepared to consider it. This would be in line with our undertaking that we would look at any suggestion that the Nigerians wish to make for our help in getting peace talks going or in any other way. My Lords, any proposition would have to be examined with extreme care, but the noble Lord knows our attitude towards the United Nations peace-keeping force; and I am quite sure that we should treat such a proposal, if it could establish peaceful conditions in Nigeria, with the greatest possible sympathy.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, put one question and said he would be satisfied if I could say that we would seek by every means available to us to bring an end to this bloody war in Nigeria. My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord needed to ask that question. Our record as a Government is one which reveals that although we may not always have succeeded, we have sought, and never ceased to try to find a way to end conflict and war. My Lords, I give my noble friend that assurance.
I think it was the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and also the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who said that merely bringing an end to a war was not to provide peace. Peace is a much more constructive thing, and I hope that there are men and women in Nigeria and in the Commonwealth who will now be putting their minds to what will need to be done in Nigeria, when the fighting ceases, to heal the wounds and revive this country into a force which I believe could have a tremendous effect in Africa. My Lords, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, in regard to his suggestion about a meeting on board ship, that I cannot believe, if that was what the Nigerian leaders themselves wanted, we should fail in our duty.