Lords Sitting of 30 January 1969

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.

BRITISH STANDARD TIME PROBLEMS
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 they are aware of the extreme inconvenience caused to many people, particularly to farmers and those in the North, by British Standard Time during the winter months.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the Government always realised that British Standard Time was bound to cause some inconvenience to certain sections of the community, just as it would benefit others; but the experiment has not yet been running long enough to judge the balance of advantage and disadvantage.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that in the North of Scotland, from which I returned ten days ago, 35 per cent. of the working day is in total darkness and that this is grossly inconvenient for agriculture and forestry? Further, may I ask why the majority of the British population should be put to the great inconvenience of of British Summer Time for the convenience of businessmen exporting to the Continent? Is that not the only reason for the change that has been made?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it has always been the case that there has been a difference of an hour in daylight betwen the North and the South, and in the
1276
North people have been going to work in the dark during the winter for a long time. With regard to complaints, the Home Office have received complaints from 34 organisations—20 from the South and South-West, 9 from Yorkshire and 5 from Scotland. So it does not seem that the matter complained of bears very hardly on the North. With regard to farmers, the National Farmers' Union estimated that it would cost them an extra £15 million in overtime and £11 million in electricity. They now find that the difference is negligible. I think that I have covered the points raised by the noble Viscount, but if there are any other questions I have not answered I will try again.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount said that 35 per cent. of the day was in darkness in the North. Will there still be 35 per cent. of darkness no matter how we play around with the clock?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount was saying that there was 35 per cent. of darkness in the North judging from the time he went to bed and the time he got up.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I said "35 per cent. of the working day", which is a very different matter from "the day"? And I get up just as early as the noble Lord.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, having been brought up in the North of Scotland, I always went to school in darkness and came home in darkness?
A NOME LORD: My Lords, the noble Lord is still in the dark!
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this may account for some of my noble friend's singular qualities. When this proposal was mooted, teachers were very much in favour of it because they thought that it was likely to be less dangerous for small children to go to school in the dark than to come home in the dark.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, taking the farming population of England and of Scotland, is it surprising that fewer complaints have come from farmers in Scotland?

POST OFFICE AND INCORRECT DELIVERIES
3.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: 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 what is the reason for the number of incorrect postal deliveries, particularly in the London area.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount will understand that some mistakes in delivering about 35 million letters daily to 18 million households throughout the United Kingdom are inevitable. The task of our postmen is sometimes hindered by poorly written or inadequate postal addresses, and some premises are not numbered. I do not know that the position is worse in London than elsewhere, but if the noble Viscount has in mind any particular trouble spots and will let me have details, my right honourable friend will be glad to look into the matter.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. May I ask whether he is aware that at my address in London for the last three months I have been receiving on an average two incorrectly delivered letters every week—something that never used to happen? May I ask the noble Lord whether he will ensure that the postal authorities, when they engage postmen, will ascertain first of all that they can read English?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I think that that remark is rather insulting. The noble Lord has not told the Postmaster General anything about these complaints which he is raising for the first time, and I think that that is a mistake sometimes made too often in this House. I understand that the noble Viscount keeps sheep. Supposing the noble Viscount had a flock of 350,000 sheep and one went astray, would he think that very had?—because that is the comparative figure.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I tell the noble Lord—is he aware that if one sheep went astray—
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, the noble Lord may ask a question, but I do not think he can put it in that way.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would the noble Lord address his question about sheep to the Bishops' Bench?
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, would my noble friend accept the fact that many of us are very pleased indeed with the ingenuity of the postal delivery service in dealing with the incorrectly addressed letters that we get from our correspondents?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I was told of an address being put on the back of a stamp which was quite accurately delivered.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the great majority of people in this country are full of admiration for the postmen and postwomen, even allowing for what is happening to-day? What they are unhappy about is the lack of direction from Her Majesty's Government.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as one of the sheep who has never gone astray, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not the fact that the British postal service is now one of the best and cheapest in the world? Is he also aware that the postman's lot is not a particularly happy one, and that many of his deliveries have to be effected in the dark early hours of the morning? Does the noble Lord not think that if we indulge in too much nagging at the expense of the postman it will not be a very tactful thing to do at this moment?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his kind remarks. I agree with everything that he has said. We have the best postal service in the world, and the cheapest.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the weekly communication from the Whip which was posted by first-class mail last Thursday evening arrived at my house in London at midday yesterday?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, that may be a reflection on the noble Lord's Whip.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government Whip arranges it much more quickly?

POST OFFICE PAY DISPUTE
3.16 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given them Private Notice; namely, whether they will make a Statement on the postal strike?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be answering this Question in the form of a Statement at a convenient moment round about half-past three.

ELECTRICITY (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS (SOCIAL NEED) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SHARING OF CHURCH BUILDINGS BILL [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is, I think, a rare occurrence for an Archbishop of Canterbury to introduce a Bill into your Lordships' House, and it must be a good many years since this has happened. This is because, since the enabling Act of 1919, the bulk of Church of England legislation comes before Parliament not by Bill, but by Measure, and Measures passed by the Church Assembly receive the Royal Assent after no more than a single Resolution in each House of Parliament.
The present Bill, which I am happy to be introducing, concerns not only the Church of England, but the Free Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church in Wales and, indeed, all the Churches which are represented in the British Council of Churches; and I think the fact of the introduction of this Bill,
1280
with the keen support of all these Churches, is a significant indication of the growing desire of the Christian Churches in this country to be working together.
The need for this Bill arose out of actual cases in which the Church of England and other Churches tried to make satisfactory arrangements for sharing their church buildings and found the existing legal difficulties too great. As a result, we in the Church of England set up a Commission, under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Leicester, which studied the difficulties, in consultation with the six Churches mentioned in Schedule 2 to the Bill. It was not practicable to have wider consultations, and these six Churches had already shown a practical interest in the problem.
On the basis of the Commission's Report, a draft Bill was prepared, and it went through various stages of consideration by all the Churches concerned and their advisers. Provisions substantially similar to those contained in the Bill now before the House were approved by the Church Assembly last July. The appropriate bodies of the other Churches have also given their approval either to the provisions themselves or to the principles embodied in them. Throughout it has been a partnership effort, and I am hopeful that some noble Lords who are members of the other Churches concerned will join me later this afternoon in commending the Bill to your Lordships' House.
The Bill enables sharing agreements to be made by two or more Churches for the sharing of church buildings as defined in Clause 12. These buildings include churches, church halls, youth clubs and hostels and residences for ministers and lay workers; in fact, all the categories of buildings used by Churches in their own work, except church schools. Sharing agreements may be made in respect of existing buildings owned by one of the Churches concerned or new buildings, and the agreement may provide for single ownership by one Church or for joint ownership. In the former case the primary responsibility for management will rest with the owning Church, subject to consultation with the other Church or Churches on all matters of common concern. In the case of joint ownership, the building will be managed by trustees

1281
representing all the Churches which share it.
Speaking for the Church of England, I think that if an existing consecrated church is shared, especially a parish church, the usual thing will be for the church to remain in the single ownership of the Church of England. In the case of new buildings, and perhaps existing church halls and other buildings used for social purposes, it may be that joint ownership will prove to be the right basis for sharing. We are likely to learn from experience, and the Bill is, I hope, sufficiently wide and flexible to enable us to find the best solutions for different circumstances.
I believe that there are certain situations in which the Bill will confer great benefits. First, there is the new town or large housing estate where the sense of community, and even of identity, may be lacking, and where the Churches have an opportunity and a vital role to play in the building up of community life. The Bill will enable the Churches to pool their resources in these circumstances and to build the right kind of buildings for the mission of all of them in these new areas. Furthermore, the fact that they will be in partnership, and will be seen to be so, rather than competing with one another, will surely make their endeavours in these localities more fruitful. I believe, too, that in the older communities the Bill will give an opportunity to cut down the crippling expense of maintaining large churches in areas from which a large part of the population has moved away. And here, too, it may sometimes be found that a fresh start can be made by pulling down old buildings and selling the sites, and building a new kind of centre for the work of the several church bodies together.
I must, however, be careful not to exaggerate the probable immediate effects of the Bill So far, the number of instances in which we know of definite projects to share church buildings is limited—partly, no doubt, because of the present legal difficulties—and this Bill is an enabling Bill which we hope will be of some immediate benefit and will grow in usefulness as a result of the experiences of its operation.
I ought also to make one other thing clear: that this Bill is in no way a dramatic ecumenical project. The Churches
1282
which agree to share a place of worship will not in the normal way worship together; they will worship separately at different times, in accordance with their respective forms of worship. Clause 4 of the Bill enables joint services to be held on special occasions, and also enables ministers of one sharing Church to take part by indication in the services of another sharing Church. But otherwise the participation of the different communities in each other's worship within the building is to be governed by the practices and disciplines of their own Churches; and, of course, at this time the practices and disciplines of the different Churches are undergoing modification. I cannot suppose, however, that the rules proposed by the Bill will prevent the two communities which share a building from getting to know each other far better and from going together in Christian fellowship.
I should now like to deal a little more fully with certain features of the Bill. Let me mention first the legal difficulties which the Bill seeks to overcome. The main difficulty is that church buildings can be used only for the purposes of the Church to which they belong. In the case of churches belonging to the Church of England, this limitation arises from the form of the consecration of the church, which is limited to worship according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England and the Ecclesiastical Law governing consecrated buildings. These churches, and indeed other buildings belonging to a benefice, are held by the incumbent for the time being as a spiritual corporation, and the incumbent cannot give legal or permanent share in them to other persons. In the case of other church buildings, including those belonging to other Churches, the trust deeds on which the buildings are held limit their use to the purposes and practices of the owning Church. For example, I believe that the model deed on which Methodist churches are held permits religious worship only in accordance with the Methodist doctrinal standards.
Another present difficulty is that the bodies who hold property or funds on behalf of the Church concerned are limited in the same way and would not have the power to hold or manage a shared church building or contribute to

1283
the provisional maintenance of such a building. In the case of the Church of England, the main bodies concerned are the diocesan boards of finance, the parochial church councils and the Church Commissioners, whose powers are defined by Measures and Statutes. These legal difficulties, which at present enter the sharing of church buildings, are dealt with in the first three clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 also deals with the important question of who are to be the parties to a sharing agreement and whose consent is to be required.
Here I think it is necessary to strike a balance between the wishes of the local community and the need for supervision and co-ordination by a wider Church authority. In the case of the Church of England, subsections (3) and (5) of Clause 1 set out the parties of authorities concerned, which equally represent the parish and the diocese. In the case of the other Churches the parties are to be determined by the appropriate authorities of those Churches, and these are set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill. A sharing agreement is to be binding on the successors to the original parties. This is provided in Clause 1(8). This provision meets a difficulty that arose when recently we were trying to share in Woolwich an Anglican church with the Presbyterian Church of England. The incumbent was willing to allow the church to be used by the Presbyterian Church, but he could not bind his successors, and so could not give the other Church which wanted to share any adequate security about tenure.
I have already mentioned Clause 4, which concerns the sharing of buildings for the purposes of worship. This clause removes two impediments arising from the Acts of Uniformity. The first is that Anglican clergymen have to conduct Morning and Evening Prayer according to the Church of England rites in every parish church on Sunday, and this might not be compatible with a fair sharing of time on that day. The last few lines of subsection (1) provide for dispensing, so far as is necessary, with that requirement. The second difficulty is that Anglican clergymen are not allowed by existing Acts to take part in the services of other
1284
denominations, and this is overriden by subsection (2).
We have thought it right to propose under Clause 5 certain safeguards in respect of the sharing of existing consecrated churches in the Church of England, particularly parish churches. Either they must remain in the sole ownership of the Church of England or the agreement must be authorised by a scheme under the Pastoral Measure 1968, subject to appeal to the Privy Council. Only in the former case can the church remain the parish church, although it can in any case be designated what the Pastoral Measure calls a "parish centre of worship" and so have, for practical purposes, the status of a parish church.
This same clause assumes that a Church Assembly Measure will be passed making the necessary amendment to the Pastoral Measure. The amending Measure, which also makes some amendments arising on Clauses 3 and 7 of the Bill, has received general approval by the Assembly and will be ready for approval by Parliament, we hope, by the time this Bill has passed. It seemed to us appropriate that these amendments of Church Assembly Measures, which of course concern only the Church of England, should be made by Measure, although their effect will be to provide a necessary supplement to the provisions of this Bill.
I come now to an important clause of the Bill, Clause 6, which enables a shared church building to be used for the solemnising of marriages, both by Anglican and by non-Anglican clergymen. At present an Anglican church cannot be registered under Part III of the Marriage Act 1949 for non-Anglican marriages, and buildings so registered cannot be used for Anglican marriages. This is the last of the legal difficulties with which the Bill is concerned, and although the clause and Schedule 1 are fairly complicated the principle is quite simple. Let me at this point express warm thanks to the Registrar General and his office for the help that they have so readily given us in preparing these provisions concerning the use of church buildings for marriages. Let me also add that this Clause 6 covers, in subsection (4), certain chapels, such as university or college chapels, which are used by different denominations but

1285
which do not come within the sharing provisions of this Bill.
I do not think that I need say much about the remaining clauses. On Clauses 8 and 9, and indeed on other parts of the Bill, we have had the benefit of advice and help from the Charity Commissioners, and we hope that the arrangements for terminating sharing agreements under Clause 9 are fair and practicable.
I should like to add a word more about Clause 11, to which I have already referred briefly. Clause 11 defines the Churches to which the Bill is to apply. The application of the Bill need not be limited to the Church of England and the six Churches set out in Schedule 2. Any other Church represented on the British Council of Churches can apply to come within the operation of the Bill by applying under subsection (3) of the clause, and if a Church wants so to apply, all it needs to do is to decide who shall be its "appropriate authorities" for the purposes of the Bill and to give notice to the General Secretary of the Council. Let me add that while the Bill as it now stands applies only to the Churches named and the Churches which belong to the British Council of Churches, it would be perfectly possible in the Committee stage to amend the Bill to name other Churches as coming within its operation. I believe an Amendment is to be moved for this purpose on behalf of the Churches of Christ, and I welcome most warmly any such Amendment for the inclusion of a Church not hitherto named.
My Lords, this brings me to the end of my account of the Bill. I believe it will be a valuable piece of legislation which will enable the Christian Churches to enter into practical partnerships with each other in new ways, to share the difficulties and problems of a practical kind and, of course, to make economies in the provision and upkeep of buildings. I believe also that the practical partnership that this Bill will enable and encourage will be one of the many things which will lead to a better understanding between the Christian Churches in this country and greater co-operation between them, especially in the new areas of population.
These things will not happen all at once, or necessarily on a large scale, as
1286
a result of this Bill passing, but I believe the Bill will provide the means and the opportunity, and experience will lead to a growing and considerable use of what the Bill allows and encourages. It is therefore my happiness to commend the Bill to your Lordships for a Second Reading. From time to time in the course of history your Lordships' House has been the scene of intense religious controversy. I believe that in contrast noble Lords to-day will welcome a Bill which represents the ardent desire of different Churches in this country to co-operate more closely in ways which the law as it at present stands makes difficult. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
3.39 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sure we shall all wish to thank the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury for his lucid and cogent explanation of this Bill. It may, as he said, be rare for an Archbishop to introduce a Bill in this way, but I do not think he could have chosen a Bill which, so far as I am concerned, more truly represents practical practising Christianity. But more than this, I am sure we shall wish to congratulate the most reverend Primate—as representative of the Church of England—and all the Churches of other denominations equally concerned, on working together to solve their common problems in this sphere, and on arriving at this practicable and enlightened measure. Listening to the Archbishop's exposition of the Bill one was conscious of the very large number of legal as well as ecclesiastical problems which had to be overcome, which I am sure could not have been overcome unless there had been the best of leadership, a complete absence of bigotry and the utmost good will and patience.
The most reverend Primate did not claim for this Bill any major advance towards ecumenism. But whatever it may contribute towards that movement it surely marks the progress that has already been made, because a Bill of this kind would, I feel sure, have been impossible even two or three years ago; that it should have become possible now must be a matter of particular satisfaction to Christian opinion in this country which has that movement at heart.

1287
But, my Lords, it is less, as it were, from the spiritual than from the strictly practical standpoint that the Bill has been commended to us and is to be welcomed. Provided the opportunities for sharing are taken up by the various denominations it will mean that in our new towns and areas of redevelopment, where land is at a premium, overlapping and duplication of buildings will be avoided, and economies, not only in land but in money, material and labour, will be effected. And, more than that, as the most reverend Primate suggested, a sense of united community purpose will be inculcated. I would hope that church buildings commonly used will provide a focal meeting point in the new housine areas, which is so necessary where families are moved to a new and therefore unfamiliar environment.
My Lords, the Government themselves have certain responsibilities in the sphere which this Bill covers. For example, in our prisons, where, of course, everyone is free to worship as he pleases, it has hitherto been the practice to provide in a prison two or more separate chapels. In our new prisons, however, we are providing a single church building capable of being used, either wholly or in part, by different denominations and we are doing this by providing within the single church building separate chapels and altars. The intentions of the Bill are therefore already being reflected in the Government's own practice in an area for which they are responsible.
I appreciate that there are difficulties, and perhaps in future there will be difficulties in carrying out the underlying purpose of the Bill. But I believe that, with good will on the part of all those concerned, this measure will ultimately be of great benefit to the Christian faith in this country, and for that reason I as an individual unreservedly welcome it. It is not for the Government to pronounce in any way on the spiritual purposes of the Churches; but what is proposed here accords closely with the social and economic objects we are pursuing. Therefore, in adding my own commendation of this Bill to that of the most reverend Primate, I should like to make it clear that this is a measure which the Government, as such, welcomes and will support.

POST OFFICE PAY DISPUTE
3.45 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I now, with your Lordships' permission, repeat a Statement now being made by the Postmaster General in another place on the Post Office dispute. This is the Statement:
"As the House knows, the strike of overseas telegraphists which began on 20th January has been extended by the Union of Post Office Workers to a ban on overtime by all their members at the beginning of this week and to a complete withdrawal of labour in the major cities throughout the course of to-day.
"The effect on the telecommunications services has been very much as I predicted. In the overseas services the non-operation of the telegraph message and manually operated telex services has led to some congestion in the automatic services. But this has not caused serious dislocation. The ban on overtime has not worsened the position in the overseas services significantly and the effect on the inland services has been slight.
"The effect of to-day's strike is inevitably great. The number of staff reporting for duty in the telephone service has varied from a very few in some places to nearly 100 per cent. in others. In all the 19 affected towns a skeleton service is being maintained in most switch rooms and a service of better quality in some. The '999' service has been maintained in operation everywhere. The inland telegram service is virtually closed. In the 18 provincial towns affected by the strike a skeleton service is being given. Outside the 19 affected areas the inland telephone operator and telegram services are functioning with little disturbance.
"To-day the overseas automatic telex and telephone services are working normally and the overseas operator telephone service is handling reasonably successfully all the traffic offered it which is mainly from London.
"In the cities where postal workers are on strike to-day there will be a massive backlog of mail by to-morrow.

1289
"In order to give priority to really urgent mail I have therefore decided that from start of business to-morrow the inland second-class letter service (that is, the 4d. service) will be suspended, and also the inland printed paper service for packets between 1½ and 2 lb. In addition Regional Directors are authorised to refuse at their discretion to accept local parcels, and large batches of first class (5d.) mail, newspapers and periodicals.
"I am giving Regional Directors similar discretion to maintain or reopen services internal to their own Regions, or with neighbouring Regions by arrangement, as circumstances permit.
"Information about local restrictions and services will be made available in the towns concerned.
"For the time being I am not imposing any restriction on the overseas services.
"I hope these measures will be successful in keeping the urgent mail flowing reasonably well.
"Second-class mail already in the pipe-line will in some cases unfortunately be subject to heavy delay.
"I repeat what I have already told the House, that I greatly regret this escalation of the dispute and the great inconvenience which it is causing to our customers.
"On the actual negotiations I have nothing to add to the Statement I made on Monday in the House."
My Lords, that Statement, of course, was made in the course of a debate in another place when your Lordships were not sitting, and therefore it is not formally before the House; but if there are any questions on that aspect I shall be glad to try to answer them.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement his right honourable friend made in another place. I should just like to ask him this question, referring to the debate in another place and his right honourable friend's speech. He said in that speech that on Monday—that was the day of the debate—he had made a further approach to the Union suggesting
1290
two slight differences in approach. I would ask the noble Lord when his right honourable friend expects to meet the Union again with regard to getting an answer on this further approach; and will he keep the House informed as to anything else that can be said on this subject?
My Lords, while nobody would want to say anything that would prejudice the settlement of this unfortunate dispute, will both sides bear in mind that in most disputes between employer and employed the people who really suffer are the unfortunate British public; and this is especially so in this case. This morning, on my way into London, I passed a procession of Post Office workers carrying a large placard which said, "Blame the P.O.—not us". When will the general public reply, "Take it out on the P.O., then; not on us"?
3.50 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Denham, but to say that I have no comments to make on the arrangements which are being made. I am sure that they are absolutely adequate. But may I ask the noble Lord what action the Government are taking to try to do something about the dispute itself? Does this not show the absurdity of not having adequate machinery for conciliation in the Civil Service? And is the Minister or the Government proposing to bring in the Department of Employment and Productivity, or, for instance, to refer the productivity angle of this dispute to the Prices and Incomes Board? I ask the Government, apart from the arrangements that they have made, what is going to be done to try to bring this dispute to a conclusion? The country cannot afford this strike.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am not absolutely certain what are the two points to which the noble Lord, Lord Denham, referred, but I will give answers on the two that I think he had in mind; and if I am not answering him no doubt he will ask a supplementary question. One particular proposition which was made—in fact I made it because of my responsibilities under the Prime Minister for the Civil Service—was to summon that particular meeting, though I should like to make it clear that

1291
of course the Postmaster General is responsible for the Post Office, and is responsible, and continues to be responsible, for carrying on actual negotiations.
This will bear a little on what the noble Lord said. The Union were reluctant to use the well-established procedure in the Civil Service (and the Post Office are still within the Civil Service) of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. I do not wish to be drawn into discussing in detail the points at issue. The Union, which is the Union of Post Office Workers, do not wish to go to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, for reasons which seem good to them, though I must say that, like the Postmaster General, I regret that they are not doing so. We suggested, therefore, that instead of going to the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal we should create a different type of body, of which, however, the Chairman might be Professor Hugh Clegg, who is the Chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal, a man who is extremely experienced in productivity questions and a former member of the Prices and Incomes Board. This was not acceptable to the Union, who do not wish to go to arbitration.
The only other point that I think the noble Lord has in mind is in relation to the additional 2 per cent. on top of the 5 per cent. which was offered—the 2 per cent. which was related to increased productivity. This offer had, I understand, been made, but it was perhaps further clarified that the Government were prepared to have this costed locally after the event and any adjustments made on this.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, whether the machinery for conciliation is adequate. On this I would ask him to be extremely careful, because the Civil Service, through its Whitley system and the system of the Pay Research Unit, in fact has a most successful and sophisticated method of consultation on all questions of wages, and although difficulties arise, the negotiations are conducted against a background of an established drill which, as noble Lords opposite who have been in Government will agree, has led to an extraordinary degree of mutual understanding and of successful negotiation.
The noble Lord is suggesting that there should be a different machinery
1292
of conciliation. It is true that the Post Office is a halfway house at the moment. In a few months' time it will cease to be part of the Civil Service. But it is still part of the Civil Service, and therefore there is much to be said against just tearing up existing machinery. But I would make clear to noble Lords that the Department of Employment and Productivity are naturally advisers to the Government in this matter—indeed, at the meeting which I had earlier in this week they were represented by an Under-Secretary and by Mr. Cattell, who is of course an expert and is the Director of the Productivity Service Division. I think, therefore, that although I have noted the noble Lord's point, I should prefer not to be drawn any further on it.
The noble Lord also asked what further steps the Government are taking. At the moment it is exceedingly difficult to make a suggestion when in fact the threat of industrial action is being pressed and we are now in the middle of that industrial action. I would only say that the Government are extremely anxious, as is the public and, I do not doubt, the Union itself, to see an end of this matter. But there is a fundamental disagreement on certain aspects of how it should be approached, and I fear I have nothing to add on this at the moment.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask one more question? If the Post Office were not regarded as a Civil Service organisation, would not the Minister of Employment and Productivity have intervened?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is translating this issue into a different environment where there is not the same established machinery. I hope that when the Post Office moves into the new area they will adopt a satisfactory arbitration procedure. But the fact is that they have not so far moved. I could give answers as to whether I would have said the conciliation machinery is appropriate in these particular circumstances. This is a highly technical question, and I would say to the noble Lord that the Government have given, and are continuing to give, close consideration to the very points he is making.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, could the noble Lord clarify how far the responsibilities for the negotiations in this dispute lie with him as Minister responsible to the Prime Minister for the Civil Service, and how far they lie with the Postmaster General?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the responsibility must rest with the responsible Minister. I do not wish to be drawn into the philosophy of government, but noble Lords opposite who have served in Government will be aware that in this respect the Government are indivisible. But there have been occasions in the past—indeed, in the days when Mr. Bevins was Postmaster General—when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the time when the Treasury were responsible for the Civil Service, has in fact been involved. This was an initiative which one took in order to establish quite clearly the position of the Government in the matter, and it was an attempt to arrange, within a different environment, for the two sides to talk. It is a difficult area to clarify, but I would emphasise that responsibility remains with the Postmaster General; but there are times when other Ministers get called in, and on this occasion I was asked to assist, and so was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary from the Department of Employment and Productivity.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what is the position if any arrangements are made for private delivery and receipt of letters during this emergency? Of course, in normal circumstances this is quite illegal. What is the position of anybody trying to assist or to organise such a service privately in this situation?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a winner. I simply do not know the answer. I should imagine that if it was illegal before it is probably illegal now. None the less, I have taken the noble Lord's point. Perhaps I had better get advice on that one.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is widespread concern that the Postmaster General, because he is not a member of the Cabinet, has insufficient power to deal with this dispute, and that it has been stated that he has to take every individual point back to his Cabinet colleagues?
1294
Secondly, has it been possible to examine whether or not the Royal Corps of Signals, or other suitable military organisations, could help at least in keeping the international manually operated telex services working?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think I have already dealt with the first point in the general principles I have enunciated, and one of the purposes of the meeting I had was to make it clear that in this matter the Government, like all Governments, have to act as a unified body. I must reject the idea that the Postmaster General—as a lot of the Press reported—was taking a different view. In regard to the manually operated services, I did say—and I am not sure whether this entirely answers the noble Lord's point—that the overseas automatic telex and telephone services are working normally, and the overseas operated telephone service is handling reasonably successfully all the traffic offered to it.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I find it very difficult to follow this dispute because, so far as I can understand, the overseas telegraph people claim that they have not been treated as well as the other Post Office employees; in fact, that they have been left out of a settlement that was accepted by the others. Is it the Government view that the overseas telegraph people have been treated already on all fours with the others, or are they trying to catch up?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I forgot to answer Lord Trefgarne's second point about the Signals Corps of the Army. I am afraid I have nothing to say on that at the moment. I think it would be dangerous for me to comment on that type of suggestion at the moment.
I must make very clear to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that the overseas telegraph operators have not been left out. They are merely dissatisfied with the terms they have been offered. When I say "merely", perhaps that is not the right word; but the offer that was made to them was, in the view of the Government, entirely consistent with other offers that have been made to other telephone and postal workers. In this case they were offered 5 per cent. plus a 2 per cent. productivity rise related to particular improvements in productivity. Without being drawn into great detail, I may say

1295
that there is a particular argument with regard to one type of productivity equipment which has been in use in the past, and it is on this that the area of dispute rests. There is a genuine difference of opinion on this point, but they certainly have not been left out.

SHARING OF CHURCH BUILDINGS BILL [H.L.]
4.3 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, as a humble lay member of the Church of England I feel diffident about my ability to contribute anything of value to a debate which has been so admirably initiated by the most reverend Primate. But I think it is appropriate that speeches should be made on this Bill from both Front Benches, and I have authority to say from this Despatch Box the few words that I am going to say.
I welcome this Bill and have no criticisms at all of it, in general or in detail. I am delighted to see that noble Lords who belong to other Christian Churches have indicated their desire to speak in the debate, and I look forward to hearing what they have to say. I greatly hope, and sincerely believe, that they also will recognise this as an important advance and as a piece of legislation which can be most widely welcomed. In a sense, it seems to me that by this Bill we are now seeking to do for Christian Churches in general throughout the country very much what has already happened in the case of the Crypt Chapel of the Palace of Westminster. I am not quite sure whether the Crypt Chapel is brought in at all—for instance, by subsection (4) of Clause 6. I am not sure whether it is a chapel of a "public institution", but it sounds to me very much as though it may be. I cannot see, from my own superficial reading, that it will matter a great deal whether it is in or out but I think that each House of Parliament ought to satisfy itself that we are not inadvertently making any change in the position of the Crypt Chapel.
I must confess to having a special interest in the Bill, in that some months ago I accepted an invitation from a Bishop to become Chairman of a Commission
1296
which he was setting up to advise him on any needed changes in the Church of England structure in part of his diocese; and that has brought my colleagues and myself to a closer realisation—in my own case, at any rate—of the nature of some of these problems. One is so well aware, when one is looking at the existing parochial structure of the Church of England in an area, that the resources may be ill-distributed. There may be far too many churches in an area from which much of the population has moved away, while there are too few church buildings in new housing estates which have been built more recently. All of this has to be considered against a background of financial stringency, because the days are long past when any Christian Church in this country has had ample money for all the purposes which it would wish to serve. Certainly my experience on that Commission has convinced me how wrong it is that the scant financial resources of the Church of England, at any rate, should be overmuch concentrated on either the erection or the maintenance of buildings if, because of that, the work which that money could otherwise assist through the agency of people may be straitened and limited.
In the case that I have in mind I doubt whether there will be occasion for the sharing of an existing building, but I can well imagine other cases and other parts of the country where it may be thoroughly desirable that an existing building which is not fully used by the Church to which it belongs should be shared with another Church, or Churches, in order, first of all, that that building should be more greatly used to the Glory of God, and, secondly, that moneys that have been contributed by devoted supporters of one Church or another should be put to the best possible use for the saving of souls, and not eaten up by buildings.
That is as regards old buildings. Where a new housing estate is being created I hope that everybody will agree nowadays that it is desirable that the various Churches which hope to have ministers of their own working among the new population should consult together to see whether the total expenditure on church buildings can be limited by a sharing agreement, not so that God may be worshipped less well or less

1297
gloriously, but so that there may be more resources left free for Christian work among the people and in the homes of the people. I can myself think of several cases, having served in local government in the years since the war, of new housing estates where the multiplicity of new churches which have been erected at great cost in a limited area is now a matter for regret. The money could have been used to greater Christian purpose if a Bill like this had then been on the Statute Book.
I am glad to see that in subsection (4) of Clause 1, it is stipulated that:
"A sharing agrement shall not be made on behalf of the Church of England without the consent of the bishop and the Pastoral Committee of the diocese concerned";
and there is a similar provision in that subsection relating to other churches. I note that Clause 4(1) says:
"A sharing agreement … may dispense, to such extent as may be necessary, with the requirement to hold certain services of the Church of England on Sundays and other days."
There are already certain parts of the country where Church of England services on Sundays are thin on the ground, due to inability any longer to provide a separate incumbent for each parish church. It would be regrettable if subsection (1) of Clause 4 were to be used to reduce still further the number of Church of England services which have to be held by law, in any area where those services are already rather scarce for meeting the needs of the people. However, I can see that subsection (4) of Clause 1, to which I have referred, should be an adequate safeguard against that, because these decisions will not be taken simply by one man; they will have to be looked at in the context of the whole neighbourhood and diocese.
One cannot help regretting that it is necessary for Parliament to be asked to pass complex legislation of this character in order that a very simple aim, which nowadays must be approved by almost everybody, shall be achieved. I am not a professional in these matters, but sometimes laymen like myself are appalled at the extent to which the original work of Christianity has become overlaid with legal structure.
I notice that in subsection (2) of Clause 4 (perhaps what I am going to say may
1298
be regarded by some as controversial, but probably not in your Lordships' House) it is proposed to make special provision that:
"Notwithstanding any statutory or other legal provision, a minister, reader, or lay preacher of one of the Churches sharing a church building under a sharing agreement, may, by invitation of a minister, reader, or lay preacher of another such Church, take part in conducting worship in that building in accordance with the forms of service and practice of that other Church …'.
It seems to me a sad thing that, even now, this is to be allowed only in a shared church. For my part, I shall welcome the day when restrictions imposed by the Act of Uniformity and other Measures upon Church of England clergy are removed (I may get into trouble with the most reverend Primate for saying this), and when there is no restriction upon a minister of the Church of England who desires to take part in the conduct of a service in another church in accordance with the doctrines of a Church represented on the British Council of Churches.
My Lords, we are here making an advance, and I dare to think that if this Bill can go through with general support and approval in both Houses of Parliament it will mark the fact that Parliament has reached a stage where it is ready to assist the Church of England and other Churches in lightening this heavy legal structure in posed on the work of Christ. I venture to believe that that will assist that work to go forward with greater success and to the greater Glory of God.
4.16 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in thanking the most reverend Primate for moving the Second Reading of this Bill and explaining it with such clarity. This is, of course, not a Party political measure, and I welcome the opportunity to support the Bill. The fact that the most reverend Primate should have introduced it and that a number of other denominations should have approved it illustrates the great change which has taken place in the last fifty years, and indeed in the last five years. And, incidentally, it shows how completely out of touch with the spirit of the times are the speeches and actions of persons such as Mr. Ian Paisley.

1299
This, as has already been said, is an enabling Bill. It will not bring about a very dramatic change and to some extent it legalises what is already happening. I am aware that there are some people who consider that progress towards the union of all Christian denominations is exceedingly slow. Perhaps that is inevitable, since some of the differences are very real and cannot easily be bridged; but there are many different ways of achieving closer unity. One approach to Church unity is by the sharing of church buildings and the sharing in the many causes which are part and parcel of church life and which do not necessarily involve theological differences. I suggest that the actual saving in expense is not the first priority, although it is important. The amount of time, energy and money that is spent on the maintenance of the fabric, or renovation of the organ and on all kinds of efforts to preserve buildings seems to me at times to be quite out of proportion.
I do not wish to embarrass the most reverend Primate who moved the Second Reading of the Bill by anything I may say in supporting it, but I have some sympathy for those who say that the burden of buildings has become so great that, in the kind of society in which we live to-day, nothing less will suffice than a completely fresh start without the handicap of buildings, however drastic the consequences may be. I know there are some who hold that view. I do not go quite so far as that. I recognise the great historic and architectural importance of some of our church buildings and that there are few communal activities that can be carried on without some buildings, but anything which may help to lessen the excessive concern over the maintenance of church buildings is all to the good. This Bill seems to me to be a move in the right direction.
The various clauses have been explained and it would not be appropriate to discuss them in detail on Second Reading, but I have three points of detail which perhaps merit some mention on the Second Reading of this Bill. I appreciate the fact that a considerable part of the Bill deals primarily with the legal position as it affects the Established Church, but it also affects other main
1300
Churches as set out in Schedule 2. The first point may be of importance to other Churches as well as to the Church of England. I know from experience of cases where congregations of two different denominations, both of them Nonconformist, have decided that it would be right and proper that they should join together and worship in one building. They have decided that this sharing would be the right course to adopt. As a result of this, the other church—the church that is not to be used—becomes redundant, and then the congregations have been disappointed to find that they could not in any way modify the trusts of the church which has become redundant. In the case of a Nonconformist church, it is likely that the building will be held upon certain trusts as a result of which if the building is disposed of, the proceeds, both capital and income, must be held for the benefit of that particular denomination, generally in that particular area, and that in no circumstances can the funds be used to benefit the sharing church. I am not quite sure whether this Bill will remedy that situation.
If a church of the Church of England is declared redundant following a sharing agreement having been entered into with another denomination, and the church is eventually disposed of under ordinary circumstances—of course, I speak without great knowledge of the Church of England—the proceeds will presumably go to the Church Commissioners. In the case of a Nonconformist church, the proceeds would be held upon the trusts on which the building was originally held and apart from this Bill there would appear to be no power to use either the capital or the income for the benefit of the shared church. This point may be covered by Clause 3(1) of the Bill. I am not quite sure whether that subsection will override the trusts upon which the redundant church is held, but if it does it could be of considerable practical importance.
The second point may be a rather technical one. It has been suggested to me that if two or more churches are considering entering into a sharing agreement, it might be advisable to have a trial period. But if there were a trial period before the sharing agreement was entered into, then technically there would be a

1301
breach of the law or, at any rate a breach of trust until the sharing agreement was actually signed. I do not think the Bill covers that point. Perhaps the best method would be to have an agreement with a clause enabling either party to terminate the agreement after a specified period, although, psychologically, that might not be the best way of starting upon this form of co-operation. But if nothing is done in that respect, there might be two churches coming together and after a while finding that the sharing does not work out quite so well as was hoped, and the members of the redundant church might find that it was too late to go back to the original arrangement.
I raise the third point with some hesitation, because it has been put to me by some Methodists and I am not a Methodist. I have spoken very briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and I have no doubt that he will be able to answer the point. It has been suggested to me that there is an anomaly in Schedule 2 in the reference to the appropriate authority which is to determine who shall be a party to a sharing agreement. The Schedule sets out the appropriate authorities. In the case of the Baptists it is the Baptist Trust Corporation, acting with the concurrence of the Church meeting. In the case of the Congregationalists it is the Congregational Trust Corporation, acting with the concurrence of the Church meeting. In the case of the Methodist church it is the Annual Conference of the Methodist Church. It has been suggested to me that there ought to be some provision for consultation with the local church. I understand that the comparable body would be the leaders' meeting as well as the local trustees of the fabric, and that they should be parties to an agreement. It may well be that there is a clear and simple answer to this point. I raise it because I have been asked to do so, and also because I know that it is the intention of some Members of another place to table an Amendment to this Bill, unless it is clarified before it reaches there.
I have one general observation. In some respects the fact that buildings are made to last, not only for generations but very often for centuries, is a disadvantage. Population moves, circumstances alter and redevelopment is very expensive. But when redevelopment is practicable, I hope more thought may be given to what kind of redevelopment
1302
it is. I think it provides an opportunity for something rather more than just the sharing of a church building. I should like to illustrate this by reference to just one example; namely, the Carrs Lane Church, Birmingham. This is an independent church of the Congregational order which was built in 1748, and has, I believe, great influence not only within the City of Birmingham but farther afield. However, the building has become unsuitable for the present day and is to be pulled down. On the site a new church is to be built, which will be shared with the Lutheran church, and I believe there are some who would have been very willing that there should be a sharing agreement with other churches if that had been desired and had been practicable.
The point I should like to make is that on this same site there will be the headquarters of the Birmingham Council of Christian Education; there will be a counselling centre offering help to people with a great variety of different problems; there will be a junior church; there will be a youth club; there will be a club for people not necessarily of that denomination—people who are wanting to undertake personal service in tie City—and, in addition, there will be a block of 12 flats for letting to overseas students and their families who are temporarily resident in the City. It seems to be that development of that kind should be welcomed and encouraged.
My point of view may be a little unorthodox. I should not mind very much whether there was one church with several different services, perhaps at different times of the day and the week, or a church, a chapel and perhaps a Roman Catholic church together, surrounded or adjoined by various other buildings which would be used by all denominations for general purposes in connection with church activities. It seems to me that there is a great prospect for advance along those lines.
I can see the merit—and I am speaking here as one who would probably never be fit to be admitted to membership of the Established Church—of the parish church of days gone by, which was the centre of life of the community. To-day, when the majority of people do not go to church at all, there is not much point in looking back to the past

1303
with a feeling of nostalgia. This is the time to look forward. But in looking forward we should realise that there are many ways in which greater unity might be achieved, and there are many joint activities which do not necessarily involve the difficult problems of theology and Church government. Be that as it may, I am sure that this Bill is a step in the right direction, and I hope that it will not be long before it reaches the Statute Book.
4.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am afraid I did not quite hear something that fell from the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I thought I heard him say that he did not think he would ever be admitted as a member of the Catholic Church.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I said that I did not think I should ever be fit to be admitted to the Established Church.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: On that point, of course, I have no opinion to offer. I was only going to say that so far as my Church is concerned I felt that he was already absolutely fit, and that it was just a question that depended on him, when he felt like applying. I just wanted to make that clear from the point of view of my particular Communion.
My Lords, I rise with the greatest pleasure to offer the most enthusiastic support for this measure. What is vastly more important than any personal support of mine, enthusiastic or otherwise, is that I come here to-day to offer a very cordial welcome on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church in this country—and in saying that I know I have with me the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and other Roman Catholic Members of your Lordships' House. We Roman Catholics welcome this as a measure good in itself, practical, sensible and economical, and therefore prudent and expedient in every way. But we also welcome it on lines referred to by other speakers: as a symbol of this wonderful ecumenical movement which has made such terrific, such unexpected, such staggering progress in the last few years.
Perhaps some of us here will cast our minds back to the debate on Christian Unity initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, in, I believe, 1961. Some progress had already been made by then. Lord
1304
Fisher of Lambeth, had already paid that historic visit to Rome. But when we compare the position to-day with the position in 1961, we seem to be living in a different world. And when some of us—I hope not many Members of your Lordships' House, but quite a few people who used to be called "men of light and leading"—take the view that everything in this country is getting worse and worse, let us at least look at something which is clearly getting better and better by any standard at all. So I think we must all be very cheered when we think of the ecumenical movement.
There used to be the phrase, "How these Christians love one another!" sometimes used in admiration and sometimes in sarcasm. I do not know how much we all love each other—love is a very profound emotion which cannot be scattered about indiscriminately—but I think we all like each other, in our different Communions, much more than we used to, and this liking is half way to love. So let us all draw great consolation from the events of which this is just an expression this afternoon. Certainly we in the Roman Catholic Communion who have listened to the Archbishop of Canterbury should pay a special tribute to him—for his speech, of course, but also for the policy for which he and his Church have been working so hard and so inflexibly in these last few years. I have mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Fisher, but certainly the most reverend Primate has given a magnificent lead in this direction during the period he has presided over the Church of England.
My Lords, I am glad to think that this is not a limited partnership, that it is not just a question of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, but that we have spokesmen to-day from the other great branches of the Christian Church in this country and in Scotland. If Northern Ireland is not represented as strongly as it might be, perhaps that is a little safer than if we cast the net too wide. Of course, I say that without any sort of provocative intention. At any rate, my Lords, here is a solid Christian front which I am sure can bring nothing but pleasure even to those who are not pro-Christian, who are even very critical of Christians. I should think, therefore, that from every point of view this Bill would be welcomed.

1305
I am not myself as strong on the existence of a personal Devil as perhaps an official religious spokesman ought to be, but supposing for the sake of argument the Devil exists in a personal or some other sense, I would say emphatically that this is a bad afternoon for the Devil and that it is a very good afternoon for all the forces of righteousness. My Lords, I repeat that on behalf of the Roman Catholics of this country I strongly support this Bill.
4.36 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, arising from the opposite pole of the Christian religion from that of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I join with him in thanking the most reverend Primate for inaugurating this Bill. I recognise that it applies only to England and Wales, but we in the Scottish Churches are always interested in ecclesiastical developments in England. In the past we were, I suppose, mainly interested in the turbulences of the Churches in England, though these seldom if ever reached the degree of barbarity which for so many years were almost commonplace in Scotland. Those unhappy days are now far off, and we remember them only for the heroism they evoked. It is true that there are, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has indicated, some disturbances at the present time, but these are very much on the fringe. Some of them belong to a Presbyterian sect—very much a vestigial relic of the olden days, passed by in the steady evolution of that distinctively Scottish religion.
The ridiculous action of these lunatic religious fringes, which provides news for the masses, does have a certain beneficial "fall-out". It makes those people who are little concerned with religion aware that something is moving among the Churches of Great Britain. But for the activities of these protesting groups, such persons—and there are, alas!, many of them—would go on saying that the Church lives in the past. Now that is no longer possible. The Churches of Britain are very much on the move. Doubtless they could move faster, and I welcome this Bill because it makes it possible for the Churches to move faster.
In speaking to-day as a member of the Established Church of Scotland, I must make it clear that I cannot speak on behalf of that Church. No individual can do so: only our General Assembly
1306
can pronounce. But so far as I can ascertain, the General Assembly, if it were sitting and were to pronounce, would give unequivocal welcome to this Bill. It could not well do otherwise, for there is no law, civil or ecclesiastical, against the sharing of churches in Scotland. Nor has the General Assembly ever sought to regulate this matter.
For the most part, we are content to work this out on a local basis. It may be of interest to your Lordships to hear how this is presently working out. The most reverend Primate, and also the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, have mentioned the work in the New Towns. May I give an example? When the first proposals were made for the construction of the New Town of Livingston, just to the West of Edinburgh, a committee representing most of the Churches in Scotland agreed unanimously that the churches should be ecumenical. Various suggestions were made, including one for a joint building held by specially appointed trustees. However, the actual arrangement made is that the first church erected belongs to the Church of Scotland. The next one, in the next "precinct" of the New Town, will belong to the Episcopal Church. Both churches are to be shared equally. The present method is that the services and congregations are completely integrated for all purposes. There is really only one congregation and this integration includes inter-communion. I would assure the most reverend Primate that once his Bill becomes law things may move a little faster than perhaps he seems to think at the present moment. It is good ground that is being prepared for the seed to fall upon.
My Lords, another inter-Church development in Scotland which has met with notable success has been the establishment some eight years ago of the Scottish Churches' House at Dunblane. This belongs to seven Churches; they hold it jointly and it is built in the precincts of the ancient cathedral of Dunblane.
It would appear that there is no English Presbyterian Peer speaking in this debate. I have even less right to speak for that distinctive Church than I have for the Church of Scotland. However, having made inquiry of my co-religionists South of the Border, I feel that I am safe in saying that they, no

1307
less than any of the other Churches, give the warmest possible welcome to this Bill. Indeed, an origin for the Bill is in some measure due to the outstretched hand of the Church of England for the sharing of their church at Woolwich with the Presbyterians. The most reverend Primate referred to this in his speech, and it is a point that I know that the Presbyterian Church of England greatly appreciates. The most reverend Primate knows much better about it than I; but I would say that all Presbyterians are fully appreciative of this initial gesture which one might say sparked off the Bill before the House to-day.
Penultimately I should like to mention, as the right reverend Primate has already mentioned, the part played by the British Council of Churches. By bringing together the members of the Churches of Britain, both clerical and lay, the British Council of Churches has, in its 25 years of existence, done a tremendous amount towards our mutual understanding of each other's point of view. The public hear about the British Council of Churches only when it records its opinion on questions of the day. But it does far more than that. Probably the most important practical result is the bringing of the Churches together towards a common fellowship and the fruits we see to-day. The right reverend Primate is the President of the British Council of Churches. Already the work of the former most reverend Primate, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, in fostering this when he was President, has been recorded, and I, as a Scot from the Church of Scotland, should like to place on record our very deep appreciation of the way in which both Primates have guided the deliberations.
My Lords, all barriers between the Churches have not yet been broken down, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, indicated, it may take a long time before they are; but to the existing opportunities of sharing of worship, of sharing of experience, of sharing of discussion, of sharing of social work and of sharing of things spiritual is now added the opportunity of sharing the fabric, the buildings. I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I conclude with a quotation from Robert Burns, for last Saturday was his birthday. Perhaps it may be taken as a message from the one Established
1308
Church to the other. Before I do so I should like to explain that the word "bield" is a Scottish word for building. The quotation is as follows:
"Thy bield should be my bosom
To share it a', to share it a'".
4.45 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, it is my joy to bring the enthusiastic support of the so-called Free Churches to the measure which is before the House for Second Reading to-day. There is a liturgical injunction which goes: "Let the people say, Amen'"—and either in principle or in more particular context that has been said by the Churches which will be endeavouring to participate in this new adventure. I think it would be convenient to draw the distinction between the "economical" and the "ecumenical" aspects of this Bill. Primarily, it is in order that the Churches, as they now are, can do their own jobs better that this sharing of premises is envisaged. I heartily agree that such a process may well conduce to ecumenicity and will bring us closer together; but in the first instance this is a sharing of premises in order that we may continue more effectively to do our own work. I welcome it on those grounds because there is paramount need for this kind of adventure now, and in two particular areas to which reference has already been made.
It is clear that in the new conurbations, in the new building estates, in the new housing areas on the fringes of the great towns, there is a profound need for a sense of community; and therefore, as the most reverend Primate has so succinctly put it, if we can by the sharing of premises give that sense of community even in a structural, geographical, sense, we are doing something which will immensely increase the prestige, or something which can immensely increase the prestige and effectiveness of the individual Churches. It will not only be a great saving in money; it will be an occasion in which we can at least present the appearance of community—and that not in the specifically spiritual sense but in the civic sense which is as important and which is not unrelated to the spiritual sense of community.
It is also completely true, and has not been mentioned to-day, that if we look at the premises of the various Churches it would seem as a general proposition

1309
that the Church of England is rich in premises where worship is suggested but perhaps the Methodists and others are fairly wealthy in the provision of premises where the work of the Church can be more effectively carried out. I am not attempting to draw a distinction between work and worship; but I know of circumstances, of places, of areas, within the great cities where we could share, as this Bill will make it possible, one place in which to worship where the whole environment suggests and encourages worship and where, at the same time, we could do the work, the more effective social work, of the church in premises which, under the Nonconformist tradition, have been in many cases more attuned to that—and no one is going to say that there is conspicious merit in the architectural splendour—shall we say?—of the Methodist churches of the 19th century. We are better now; but it would not be a calamitous loss to the buildings of England if, as has been suggested, a number of our old buildings were demolished or were turned into those areas which can better supply the everyday, the weekday needs of practical churchmanship. It is for reasons like that that certain experiments have been already undertaken; it is to facilitate those experiments and to override the particular legal difficulties which have arisen, that there is sufficient cause, I think, to support this Bill—even if it went no further than that; even if no further arguments could be presented in its support.
But I wonder how many Churches will now be encouraged to set about adventures of this kind if they feel that there is both the legal possibility of their carrying them through and the sense of some kind of permanence in the experiment which they make. It is to do that that this Bill is primarily concerned. It is true that the Church of England have difficulties at present in the various laws and provisions which prevent a sharing of churches and the incorporation of other rights in the particular churches of the Church of England. That is also true of Methodism. Many of the Methodist churches are built upon what is called the "model deed", which among other things for many years prevented dancing although it permitted rhythmic exercises. And it is astonishing what could
1310
be generally contained under the denomination of "rhythmic exercises". In fact—I do not adduce this as evidence—I was trained and well disciplined in the "Lambeth Walk" long before there was any idea of Methodist-Anglican consultations. There is, I believe, a real need to recognise that within the area of the Methodist Church, as well as within the area of other Free Churches, there have been inhibitions and difficulties which now may be overcome by this Bill. For these reasons it seems to me sensible, economical, eminently common sense, that such a Bill should appear upon the Statute Book.
My Lords, may I turn for a moment to the more ecumenical side of it, in which I rejoice as much for the promise as for the performance? There seems in this regard to be a welcome opportunity for a grass-roots coming together. There may be some of your Lordships who feel that hitherto such efforts as have been made to bring the Churches together have perhaps been too sophisticated at the theological level to be agreeable to a great many of the simple people within those Churches. I have wrestled long with the episcopal theories de jure and de facto and I am not very much enriched by the process of thinking about them, but I am sure that there are many Christian people who would rejoice in the opportunity of coming together and getting to know one another better at the level of shared churches, where ocasionally, and perhaps unconsciously, they may stray into one another's services and that will not do them any harm.
It seems to me that here is an opportunity for a coming together which is natural and real. I have the somewhat naïve belief that it would be better if Christians of various denominations were to get to know one another better because on the whole they are better on second acquaintance. In any case, it is a process whereby the ordinary folk of the Christian Church may find themselves on the same premises, and if they are not worshipping in the same way I think there is one inevitable consequence of this Bill if it goes through, as I very much hope that it will: it is that in the provision for the sharing of the churches for worship according to the rights and ceremonies of the particular participants there will be added pressure on those who

1311
are doing the day-to-day work among young people in the various hostels and social enterprises in the church to recognise that they will be very much better doing these things together on the same premises and seeking to alternate their particular activities from time to time.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, asked a question about Methodism which I think I can satisfactorily answer. In the provisions of Clause 1(3)(b) in the first Part of the Bill he will find that as respects the other Churches, the authorised people who will be required to take part in the sharing agreement and to be responsible for it are
"… such persons as may be determined by the appropriate authority of that Church."
It is not the authority of the Church but it is those who will be appropriately selected by that authority, which in the case of Methodism is the Annual Conference which is omnicompetent. In the same subsection it is indicated that this body of people who will be operating on behalf of the appropriate authority in the Church will have to include the trustees of the local church. That probably meets that particular point. In any case, there would be the most careful sending down of any legislation from the Methodist Conference, for, being new legislation, it has to be sent down to the quarterly meetings and the local authorities of the Church in order to find the authority to carry it through.
I very much hope that this particular venture, modest as it is, will accelerate the process not only of coming together which will be necessitated by this provision but of going on together until at last—and may it not be too far distant!—we shall find ourselves a united body of Christ.
4.56 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, in responding to the invitation expressed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in the opening words of his speech, I fully support the Second Reading of this Bill; and, my Lords, I rejoice with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and all the other Peers who are similarly minded. So far as the Church of Scotland is concerned I have few words to add to what has already been said by my
1312
noble friend Lord Balerno. My researches, such as they are, absolutely confirm what he has indicated about the attitude of the Administration of the Church of Scotland to this Bill, and I am certain that they would take the General Assembly with them.
My noble friend Lord Balerno, mentioned, when referring to Scotland, the absence of any law. He mentioned the laws of Church or State. I think he will agree with me that it is only the law of the Church which would have a bearing on this matter North of the Border. Indeed, I know that I am right in saying that if the State had tried to legislate on any such matter it would have been rebuked by the Church of Scotland in no uncertain terms. However, the Church of Scotland is concerned in a small way with this Bill, and I refer to Clause 11(3) to which the most reverend Primate referred.
Our Church, my Lords, has few congregations in England but it is well within the bounds of possibility that use may be made of this provision in time to come. Much has been said of the problems in the new towns, and I am thinking in this instance, particularly, of a place like Corby, where there is a substantial and growing concentration of Scots. There are two Scottish Church congregations, and who knows but that in such a situation some measure of sharing of church premises in future may be not only convenient but desirable. I use the word "desirable" deliberately, not specifically in connection with Corby, but in general terms. For I am one—and my noble friend Lord Balerno will confirm that this is typical of the great majority of members of the Church of Scotland (whose Communion Table has always been open to communicant members of any Christian Church)—who is in favour of any reasonable measure that will contribute to the growing together of Christian denominations.
This proposal, so far as people like myself are concerned, may be only a trickle flowing into the main and distant stream. But despite the rocks that lie ahead—and, my Lords, they are formidable, and they abound—despite the eddies of intolerance and the turbulence of bigotry, of rowdyism and even violence; despite all these I believe that some day—and pray that that day may

1313
not be so distant as it would sometimes appear—the tumbling stream will become a mighty confluence to the Glory of God. To this end, my Lords, I support the most reverend Primate's Bill.
4.58 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, the denomination to which the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, belongs is outside the scope of this Bill as much as the denomination to which I belong; though indeed our remoteness from the Bill is for rather different reasons, because no doubt he is much more orthodox and traditionalist than I am. I stand in a rather heretical position; more heretical than the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and far more heretical than the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury who, from the standpoint of yesterday, would be considered heretical and also from the standpoint of one very formidable world Church. Therefore, as an outsider in a sense, I want to express on behalf not only of myself but of all those in this House and outside who do not belong to any of the Churches named specifically in the Bill my very warm appreciation of the Bill itself and the spirit behind it. It is an indication of the spread of the ecumenical spirit which I trust will find even more gracious expression in the days to come.
I wish to assure the House, and the most reverend Primate, that I do not intend to speak for very long. I know that the most reverend Primate has an engagement to-night which, once more, is evidence of the spread of a more generous and liberal spirit than obtained yesterday; for he is to conduct a service in St. Paul's Cathedral in honour of a non-Christian but a very great man, Mahatma Ghandi; and I shall be there, too. So if I continue for very long, he will not be able to keep his appointment and I shall not be able to go there either. But I would say that this is certainly an indication of how far we have moved away from the vicious days of 1662. I suppose that, in a sense, the Established Church is now welcoming back those whom its predecessors helped, if not to eject, then to persuade that they should retire from their livings in the 17th century. All this is to the good.
There have been many other encouraging signs of this spirit of generosity and Christian charity. The proposal in the
1314
Bill that there should be a sharing of premises has one strange anachronism. I believe that already in the town of Arundel, in Sussex, there is a building in which both Roman Catholics, at one end, and members of the Church of England, at the other, join in worship, divided by a wall in between.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, may I inform your Lordships that the wall is going down.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I am very glad. That is symbolical of other walls going down, walls that should not be a partition between people.
Not only have we had in existence for some years the Council of Churches but we have also had an interchanging of ministers. Priests of the Church of England have preached in Free Churches (the modern synonym for non-conforming and dissenting Churches), and we have even had Roman Catholic and Church of England exchanges. This is all to the good. Strangest of all, the Salvation Army, one of the most (if you like) emphatic of the Nonconformist or Free Church bodies, has played its music in Westminster Cathedral. This advances us still further along the road of bringing the Christian Churches together in the spirit of Christian charity.
It is particularly encouraging to feel that human social services may now be undertaken by members of all the Christian denominations in buildings no longer divided, and I can see no reason why there should be on that level any separations of human service. After all, the Good Samaritan did not have compassion only for one of his own religious community. He simply expressed a compassion of the heart for the poor wretch in the ditch. In the same way, surely members of all Christian denominations—and, also, if you like, non-Christian denominations—should have the opportunity to share together premises devoted to these social purposes.
I am glad to see that provision has been made for a liberalisation of the ceremony of Christian marriage but—and this is the point on which I should like the most reverend Primate to say a word—why should this not also extend to Christian burial places? I see in Clause

1315
12 that land used for the purpose of interment is excluded. There may be some explanation of this, but I should have thought that if we could go so far with regard to matrimony and social service and human service, it should be possible also to make some provision for burial places to be open to people of all denominations. I cannot understand, perhaps, because of my heretical views why a body deposited in consecrated ground should have some supernatural advantage over those not so deposited, particularly with the increase in the number of people who are cremated. I do not know whether or not their ashes are consecrated. But I would ask the most reverend Primate to give me some enlightenment on this matter.
I heartily and sincerely welcome this extension of what I call Christian charity. It should not really have been necessary. What is now proposed should have been operating long before this. But better late than never. I am sure that all Members of the House, no matter to which denomination they belong, or if they belong to none at all, will give the Bill every support.
5.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I intervene for the briefest moment only because, as the noble Lord Earl, Lord Longford, said, I had the honour of introducing a Motion on Christian unity in your Lordships' House some seven or eight years ago—the only occasion, I think, on which this matter has been discussed in any Parliamentary assembly. No doubt there have been many discussions on Christian disunity in the past but that is a different matter.
The most reverend Primate has said that this is not a dramatic ecumenical breakthrough. That may well be so, but I would point out that such a Bill would not have been possible twenty or even ten years ago, so far have we advanced through the agency of the noble Lord, Lord Fisher of Lambeth, and of the blessed Pope John, so great has been the change in outlook. I heartily support the Bill and I would add, from a personal point of view, that it is a grand and a marvellous thing for a Christian to live in these times.
5.7 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I agree heartily with the words of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor and also with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, on this subject. Anything that makes it possible for a streamlining of the churches in our big cities is obviously desirable. From a practical point of view, I think it is fair to say that of the churches in our big cities, the most beautiful would be those of the Church of England. Therefore, the churches which are likely to be chiefly in surplus are those belonging to the Free Churches. Many of these are standing on very valuable sites, and their sale will bring considerable sums of money, presumably, to the denominations that own them. I presume that the sharing agreement can provide in some way for a sharing of the income from the capital sum received in return for these sites.
The first result, obviously, is that we shall get one church in an area, and instead of it being as cold as charity the whole of the week and lukewarm on Sunday, we shall get a church to which people can go for private prayer and meditation throughout the week. This is very important. Another result of this pooling of revenues under the scheme is that I presume that a combined church will be able to support projects like industrial chaplains and missioners in fields outside the parish. For that reason I think that this streamlining is most highly desirable from an economical as well as from an ecumenical point of view.
5.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I hesitate, as another member of the Church of Scotland, to say a word. My noble friend Lord Balerno has already explained that it is not necessary to change the law in Scotland, but I think that it would be wrong not to mention the wider effects which this Bill may have. In my wanderings round the world, I have been tremendously impressed by the way in which so many Churches generally calling themselves Anglican follow what happens in Canterbury, and I have little doubt that this Bill will have an immense effect indirectly in a great many different places. We in this country have become accustomed to diversity; and we may well regret it. I rather suspect that we shall

1317
always have a measure of diversity, however much we may come and work together. But when you go to a community in which Christians are in a great minority, where they represent possibly only a fraction of the population, and you find perhaps 25 different Churches there—which, indeed, was the case in Singapore—one realises that it is extremely difficult to explain what on earth this diversity is all about. And many diversities, of course, are based on situations and assumptions far distant.
I am sure that this movement will have a far-reaching effect in many different parts of the world. I agree very much with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Soper; namely, that a sharing of buildings has a great effect. If I may take an example in the Commonwealth, in Scottish history we have had disruption and we have had shift; and when a community divides, the first thing it does is to build a separate building. Once you get back to a common building there is a great chance of other things being worked together in common. For that reason, I think that this Bill is of far-reaching importance.
5.12 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords. I am grateful for this debate, and I should like to express my warm gratitude to every noble Lord who has taken part in it. To each one of them I feel a deep sense of thankfulness. My expectation was that this debate would issue in a big manfestation of good will. That indeed has happened, and I do not believe that it could have happened to a greater extent than it has done.
It is not surprising that many of the speakers this afternoon have not been able to restrain themselves within the precise provisions of the Bill, and have found themselves speaking about the bigger cause of Christian unity, of which this Bill is a small part; and it is, indeed, right, good and moving that this has been so. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for instance, spoke about the great desirability of flexibility in the ministers of one Church sharing in the administrations of another Church, quite apart from the sharing of buildings; and I agree wholeheartedly with him. That is certainly something which in
1318
other contexts is on the way, but naturally a Bill concerning the sharing of buildings cannot provide for it.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, spoke of the spread of Christianity in this country and of the wrongness of thinking so much in terms of buildings at all; and again I entirely agree with him. I think that we are witnessing now, particularly among the younger generation of Christians, a building up of Christian fellowship and Christian worship that is quite apart from traditional church buildings— the working out of Christian communities in the homes of the people and in the factories where people work. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that in the Christianity of the future we may see a good deal more of what existed in New Testament times; namely, a Christian religious fellowship that was not so much bothered about the formal buildings.
Again, when the noble Lords, Lord Balerno and Lord Soper, said that the passing of this Bill would be likely to issue in developments going far beyond those that can at present be popularly predicted, I agree with them. And I agree, too, with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that once people are together under one roof those things begin to happen which do not happen when they are separate and not in touch with one another.
Let me refer now to just a few critical comments of the Bill which have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked me what would be the effect of this Bill upon the practices in the Crypt Chapel of the House of Commons. I feel sure that if an authoritative statement is wanted about the exact standing of the Crypt Chapel the question should be asked and answered in another place; and I should certainly tremble at attempting to give an authoritative answer to that question. However, I can confidently assure the noble Lord that I am advised that there is nothing whatever in this Bill which will make impossible the ecumenical practices that already take place in the Crypt Chapel of the House of Commons.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, made three points. Let me say that I sympathise, broadly, with every one of his points, and I appreciate no less warmly

1319
the friendly spirit in which he made them. But I am advised that the terms of the Bill, as it stands, in fact meet and provide for the points about which he is concerned. For instance, on his point about a denominational building becoming redundant and being sold (this was a point made, also, I believe, by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke), I am advised that it will be possible to use the proceeds for a new church. I am advised that Clause 3(1) does allow this.
I am advised, also, that the noble Lord's point about a trial period is sufficiently met by Clause 9(1) and (2). I think his point about the Methodist Conference may have been adequately met by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and I need add nothing to that. If it is necessary to amend the Bill in either of these particulars—and I promise the noble Lord that I will confer with him again to make absolutely certain about the matter—then let the Bill be amended. But I doubt whether admendment will make the Bill any more effective on any of these points than it is already.
The noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, asked why the provisions of the Bill do not extend to burial places. Let me assure the noble Lord that the present law allows that in an Anglican graveyard the burial service of any of the denominations may be conducted in the usual manner by the minister of any one of the denominations. As that provision already exists, it might not add very much to have a sharing of ownership.
LORD SORENSEN: Does that mean that the incumbent himself can decide whether a person who does not belong to the Established Church may be buried in the burial ground?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I understand that there is a right to be buried, and there is no legal restriction upon it at all: that is to say, supposing the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen, and the noble Lord, Lord Soper, desire to be buried in the Anglican graveyard, they will be entirely free so to choose without being burdened with the undertaking of joint ownership of the ground in which they are buried.
1320
The fact that the points of detail requiring comment from me in winding up the debate are so few is, I think, a tribute to the skill with which the legal advisers, not only of the Church of England but of all the Churches concerned, have put into the preparation and drafting of this Bill. This has been a most encouraging afternoon for all of us who care for Christian unity and for the wise, sensible and fraternal advancement of the cause of Christianity in this country. It is with great happiness that I commend this Bill for Second Reading.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the most reverend Primate sits down, may I refer to one point that he did not answer? It is this. It is quite clear that any of these schemes may provide that what we now call "Free Church money" may be used for the upkeep of another church. But this Bill could be an absolute goldmine to the Free Churches who own valuable sites in the big cities. Is there any method by which those moneys can be diverted for joint purposes of spreading the mission of the Church at home and abroad? It is not clear in the Bill.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, it is not clear in the Bill, but, speaking on the spur of the moment, I assume the answer to be that that depends upon the internal legislation of the Churches themselves as to how they use their money.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ROYAL ASSENT
5.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Electricity (Scotland) Act,

Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act,

St. Mary, Hornsey Act.

EXPORT OF ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH BILL [H.L.]
5.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a very humane Bill and I venture to suggest a very logical Bill. It has the support of all animal welfare societies, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The Bill —and I emphasise this—is not a vivisectionists' measure. The emphasis in this Bill must be on the word "export". The Bill has a simple purpose. It is, to put it shortly, to prohibit the export of animals for vivisectional research to countries where no protection is available as provided by Section 3 of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. Section 3, the relevant section, states that no experiment calculated to give pain shall be performed on a vertibrate animal without complete anæsthesia of the animal during the whole of the experiment or without the animal being killed before recovery after the anæsthetic if it is in pain or seriously injured.
Of course, if other countries had a similar law to that there would be no need for this Bill. But, unfortunately, no other countries—with the exception of Sweden and perhaps Denmark, but Denmark is rather a bad second—have any legislation to compare with that Act. One or two countries have Departmental Committees discussing the subject, but they have made no legislation to ensure that an anæsthetic is used during an experiment on an animal. The extraordinary thing is that we find that America has no federal legislation of this kind at all, which is quite astounding. It is true that certain States have supervision to ensure that animals are well cared for before an experiment, in order that they will be strong and healthy, but there is no legislation to ensure that the animals suffer no pain during the experiment. We therefore see that the vast majority of countries in the world have no legislation to prevent—and I use strong language quite rightly—the most heinous and foul acts of cruelty to animals that we export from this country for research purposes.
It is often asked how extensive this trade is. It is difficult to obtain reliable figures because Her Majesty's Customs
1322
and Excise do not differentiate between animals being exported for pedigree purposes or breeding purposes and animals being exported for research. The only figures I have available are for 1966. In 1966, not counting agricultural animals and horses—of course this figure includes pedigree dogs, but not horses, cows, pigs, sheep and so on—the number of animals exported was 50,850. That figure covers dogs, cats, rabbits, rats and mice. The number of dogs exported was about 8,000 in that year. But the trade is growing and we now have several companies in this country that specialise in this trade of breeding animals for laboratory experiments. About the largest such company in the world for breeding laboratory animals is called Carworth Incorporated. This Company trades in England under the name of Nutritional Research Units. The business name is Carworth, Europe. This Company has a certificate of registration which states:
"breeding of laboratory animals for research organisations mainly for Europe".
The document I have in my hand mentions other companies. We have Tuck and Sons of Rayleigh, Essex. They are exporters to all parts of the world. We have Goodchild Brothers, near Crawley, Sussex. Export orders are a speciality.
There is also a very unsavoury line in this trade. Perhaps some of your Lordships read the papers on Tuesday—well, I presume that all your Lordships read the papers—and saw that a dealer was stopped at Euston Station for sending animals to Glasgow University, presumably for experiment by students. This Bill has nothing to do with vivisection in this country, but I thought I should just mention that. The point is than we have these dealers who buy dogs and other animals from members of the public; they assure the public that these animals are going to good homes, but they export them abroad to laboratories. The most favoured dog for export (perhaps I should not call it a dog, but a hound) for vivisectional purposes is the beagle. Your Lordships may well ask why. The beagle is a sweet-natured and docile animal. Dogs such as fox terriers and alsatians are rather inclined to bite their tormentors, but the beagle is a long-suffering animal and therefore eminently suitable for these experiments.

1323
I am trying to be as quick as I can, my Lords, because I know that time is short; but there are some points that I wish to emphasise. I have here a series of photographs that I should hesitate to show to any of your Lordships. The English language is rich in adjectives, but I know of no adjectives that would adequately describe the loathsome photographs in this file. Many of these photographs show British breeds of dogs which have obviously not been given an anæthetic, and the most horrible experiments have been performed on them. How people can so torture animals is beyond my comprehension. The tragic thing is that a great number of these experiments —indeed, I am told the majority—are done by students. They serve no useful purpose but are done merely to gratify the curiosity and the vanity of students and biologists.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Viscount name the countries to which he is referring, where students carry out these experiments, and the countries of origin of the photographs he has in his possession where these British breeds of dogs have been so abominably treated?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the majority of the photographs here are of Japan and Russia; but I also have some of Germany (although not all of dogs) and also I have some photographs which originated in one or two other countries.
It is a fact that the transplanting of organs from one animal to another, which is so popular with biologists and students, is usually carried out on a dog. Some horrible experiments are carried out. For instance, the head of one dog is transplanted into the side or the back of another dog, so that the animal has two heads. Of course the dog soon dies. But the experiment serves no useful purpose at all. We also have to remember that a great number of animals are used not for biological experiments but for experiments in connection with cosmetics. I am afraid that they are also used in an increasing number to-day in experiments connected with biological warfare—a subject which I understand we are to debate in this House next week.
1324
The trouble is, my Lords, that biologists, both here and abroad, like to confirm one another's results, and it appears that in doing this they seek to get far more experience of carrying out these experiments than they really need. In my younger days I did some elementary biology, but it has always appeared to me that biologists are generally unbelieving people. They will not accept the results of experiments carried out by their colleagues, but always have to conduct the same experiments themselves in order to obtain confirmation of the results. That seems to be unnecessary and it causes a great deal of suffering to the animals concerned.
Obviously, I am not at all averse to medical research if it is done correctly and is entirely bona fide. However, when scientists are confirming results the chief spheres in which they are seeking confirmation are in cancer and genetics, and in general toxicology. These results are really confirmed, as no doubt we shall hear this afternoon, by experiments on pure strains of rats and mice. It is impossible to have pure strains in dogs and cats because, of course, in domestic dogs and cats the various breeds have been made by man and there are no pure strains. There are pedigree strains, but that is quite a different thing.
If this Bill is given a Second Reading —and I have every hope that it will be—if any biologist wishes to put down an Amendment in connection with the exporting to reputable institutions of pure strains of animals, chiefly rats and mice, for the purposes of confirming one an-other's experiments, that might perhaps be viewed sympathetically, although I am not making any promises. I believe it is a fact that no move to cure cruelty has ever come from the body of scientists themselves, and in my view that is a black mark against them. The moves have always come from outside.
It will not be necessary for me to go through the Bill clause by clause—indeed, there are only six clauses in the Bill. It is a simple Bill, and in a few minor respects it will have to be redrafted. If it receives a Second Reading I shall also have to add an Amendment to ensure that it applies to Northern Ireland and to the Isle of Man.
It may well be said by some of your Lordships that the provisions of the Bill

1325
can easily be evaded. Of course it is possible to evade any law until one is caught. It may be said that exporters will only have to export animals as pets or for breeding purposes and the Bill can thus be evaded. But it would look highly suspicious if exporters started sending out of the country large numbers of mongrel dogs for breeding, or if a thousand beagles were sent out for breeding.
My Lords, we in this country have always led the world in social reform and in the humane treatment of animals. We pride ourselves on our exports of pedigree horses, cattle, sheep, pigs, dogs —in fact every form of animal. Are we now to nullify this fine record if, as will probably happen if no legislation is introduced to try to prevent this export, we become the world's largest exporter of laboratory animals? It will also be highly illogical, because, after all, we provide protection for these animals in this country. It is surely quite illogical to breed a species of animals in this country and then to export them to countries where they have no protection at all.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the Littlewood Report, which came out in 1965. Perhaps I may quote one or two words from that Report. It said that the role of animal legislation is to prohibit objectionable activities. Surely the export of animals for research where no protection against cruelty exists is objectionable. While on the subject of the Littlewood Report, I would ask the Minister whether he will attempt to do something to get Her Majesty's Government to implement the recommendations of that Report. If we could get that it would be something. It is now four years since we have had this Report, and still nothing has been done.
Before I end, I should like to emphasise that the increase in experiments on animals is absolutely staggering. In this country alone (though I realise that the Bill does not refer to this country), in 1910 there were 95,000 experiments. Today there are almost 5 million. The world demand must run into tens of millions. My Lords, I commend this Bill to the House in an attempt to stop this most degrading export traffic that Britain has ever indulged in from these shores.
1326
It is cruelty; you cannot call it anything else. Of course I am not speaking personally to the noble Lords in this House who are scientists and, who, I know, are kindness itself. But it is a fact that scientists, like Communists, are prepared to justify any means to obtain their objectives. They forget the question of morality. History teaches us that the ends rarely justify the means. Vie consider the human race the highest form of life. Let us behave as such. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
5.45 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, every one of us abhors cruelty to animals. Every one of us would be willing to act together to prevent it. There are no longer any children in my household, and certainly the animal members in my house find that their interests are dominant and come in front of the interests of the adult human members of the household. I am not saying this is right; I am only mentioning it as a fact. I give place to none in my love of animals and my abhorrence of acts of cruelty to them. I am quite sure that this is a feeling that we all have. But we are not asked to-night to express a view on that. What we have to consider is our responsibility as Members of Parliament and the duty we have before we legislate, first, to be sure that the animals are being cruelly treated; secondly, if we are satisfied that they are being cruelly treated, that this Bill will prevent it, that the Bill is viable and workable; and, thirdly, that the Bill will not destroy something of great value to the health and wellbeing of the whole human race. I think that is a reasonable proposition, and I think it is on that proposition that your Lordships' decision about this Bill should be taken.
Your Lordships heard me interrupt the noble Viscount and ask him about the photographs that he had, and he said that most of them were from Japan. My understanding of the situation in Japan is that there is such a vast surplus of unwanted dogs that they have to pay a high bonus to get them gathered up and slaughtered. I cannot imagine, therefore, the Japanese ever paying the very high price they would have to pay to

1327
import a British dog for laboratory or experimental purposes. I do not mention this because I want to lessen the effect of anything the noble Viscount said or in any way impugn his motives, with which I am in full agreement, but please do not let us use this kind of argument which we find will not stand up.
The noble Viscount bases his case for this Bill on the assumption that the laboratory practice overseas is so inhumane as to make the export of British-bred laboratory animals a serious abuse, and he said that no country except Sweden and perhaps Denmark—he was not quite sure about Denmark—has legislation comparable to our 1876 Act. So what he is virtually saying is that we should not export animals or allow the export of animals to any country in the world, except possibly those two. This is making a very serious and very important condemnation of countries which we regard as civilised, and I do not think that any country is wholly civilised unless it looks after animals properly.
In the Government's view, this assumption is not well-founded. I will enlarge on this point in a few minutes, but first perhaps your Lordships may find it helpful if I sketch in the background and give an account of the general problem as we see it, and explain the Government's attitude to the noble Viscount's Bill. Again I am quite sure the noble Viscount did not wish to mislead, but in referring to Clause 1 of his Bill, which mentions Section 3 of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876—and which is important because it says that animals should not be exported to countries unless they have legislation comparable to that Act —he purported to say what Section 3 of the 1876 Act provided. With respect, and no doubt with the very laudable object of not making his speech overlong, he made Section 3 appear very simple. It is extremely complicated—so complicated that it would be difficult to say that other countries have comparable legislation. Section 3 reads as follows:
"The following restrictions are imposed by this Act with respect to the performance on any living animal of an experiment calculated to give pain; that is to say,

(1) The experiment must be performed with a view to the advancement by new discovery of physiological knowledge or of knowledge which will be useful for saving
1328
or prolonging life or alleviating suffering; and

(2) The experiment must be performed by a person holding such license from one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State …".

(3) The animal must during the whole of the experiment be under the influence of some anæsthetic of sufficient power to prevent the animal feeling pain; and

(4) The animal must, if the pain is likely to continue after the effect of the anæsthetic has ceased, or if any serious injury has been inflicted on the animal, be killed before it recovers from the influence of the anæsthetic which has been administered; and

(5) The experiment shall not be performed as an illustration of lectures in medical schools, hospitals, colleges, or elsewhere; and

(6) The experiment shall not be performed for the purpose of attaining manual skill."

There is a lot more in Section 3, but I think that is enough to show that it is far more complicated than the noble Viscount led us to believe.
The supply of animals for export for use in experiments is quite outside the scope of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876, from which I have just read, under which these experiments are controlled in this country, and there is, at present, no restriction on the export of the species of animal commonly used in the laboratory. These are chiefly rats, mice, guinea-pigs and rabbits. The Littlewood Committee, to which the noble Viscount referred, which was set up to review the working of the present control over experiments on living animals, recommended that the supply of animals to British laboratories should be brought under control, but they did not express any views on whether or not breeders of animals in this country should be free to send the animals they produce overseas. I should, therefore, like to make it quite clear that the noble Viscount's Bill does not arise from, or have any bearing on, the recommendations made by the Littlewood Committee.
The noble Viscount said that they reported in 1965 and we have not had any legislation based on their recommendations. This is perfectly true, and in due course the Government will introduce legislation to implement those of the recommendations which have not already been implemented by administrative action. But the Littlewood Committee did not say that this matter was urgent; they did say that the 1876 Act

1329
was working well. Therefore, with respect, the other matters which he brought in on this point were not relevant to what we are discussing now.
It is true that specialist breeding of experimental animals is a post-war development largely pioneered by the Laboratory Animals Centre, which was set up by the Medical Research Council in 1947. The argument in favour of specialist breeding is that it produces better quality animals which give more reliable data under experiment and so reduces the numbers required. Increasingly in recent years animals have been bred for the purpose by laboratories themselves or by specialist breeders. Until recently, no one seems to have been particularly worried about the possibility that animals produced in this country might be sent to overseas laboratories. In 1966, however, following reports that a large commercial breeding establishment had been set up with the object of producing a million animals a year for sale to laboratories in the United Kingdom and possibly for export, a campaign was launched by the anti-vivisection societies for the total prohibition of the export of animals for research purposes. The noble Viscount said that his Bill is not a vivisectionist measure. I accept that. There is a very small amount of vivisection, as such, in this field, anyway. But his Bill does refer in its operative clause, Clause 1, to vivisection research, and it gives that impression.
The Government recognised that a problem might exist and we undertook to look into the matter and consult interested bodies about the possibility of introducing safeguards for animals exported for use in experiments overseas. A number of organisations, including animal welfare and anti-vivisection societies, medical, veterinary and scientific bodies, were asked for evidence of inhumane treatment of animals in overseas laboratories and for their views on possible safeguards. Little factual information was given about the treatment of animals in overseas laboratories, but most of the bodies consulted expressed views on safeguards. Several, including the principal antivivisection societies, are opposed to all exports of animals for research. The veterinary organisations favour licensing of exports to those countries where there is satisfactory evidence that conditions are
1330
humane—very much what the noble Viscount wants.
On the other hand, the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare think that, in the absence of any international agreement regarding the treatment of laboratory animals, legislative restrictions on the export of British bred animals would only retard progress towards higher standards in those countries where the need is greatest. While the Federation are of the opinion that it is too early to be thinking of an international agreement on laboratory standards as a practical possibility, this, in their view, would be the best long-term solution. They consider that the wider cause of animal welfare would not be advanced by denying developing countries, and those where laboratory techniques are not so advanced as in this country, access to supplies of specially bred animals, and facilities for importing specialised breeding stock to set up their own breeding colonies.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office have also made inquiries through scientific attachés in a number of foreign countries about law and practice abroad. Contrary to what the noble Viscount thinks, the information received suggests that while a number of European countires exercise some control over experiments on animals, it would be impossible to set up a standard of comparability with the restrictions imposed by and under the Act of 1876, or to define "assurances" in terms of laboratory practice—I am using the words of the noble Viscount's Bill. It is also clear that the imposition of controls on the export of experimental animals would be resented by many foreign Governments. They are the arguments against.
I now turn to the arguments that have been advanced in favour of the kind of legislation the noble Viscount wants—legislation to control exports of laboratory animals. Basically these seem to rest on the assumption that in all, or most, overseas laboratories animals are liable to be subjected to experiments which cause excessive pain, and to be treated with callous indifference to suffering. There is no evidence in support of this assumption and the noble Viscount has not given any, and by our understanding it is not well founded. Strict control over pain and attention to the animal's general well-being is essential

1331
for most animal experimentation to be successful, whether or not this is required by national law. Specialist breeding is expensive, and the cost of importing animals will add appreciably to their price. It is therefore unlikely that overseas laboratories would import animals from the United Kingdom in preference to relying on their own resources unless the particular strain of animal was necessary for the proposed experiment and suitable supplies were not available locally.
No separate statistics are maintained about laboratory animals exported from the United Kingdom as distinct from animals generally. Laboratory animals going abroad would be included under the Customs classification:
"Live animals (including zoo animals and dogs and cats) but excluding those of a kind mainly used for human food."
I think the noble Viscount said it did not include horses. In any case, this covers a fairly wide variety of animals and purposes, but the total number of animals exported annually within this classification is relatively small. The noble Viscount mentioned millions and millions of experiments. In 1965 the total exports of all kinds of quadrupeds amounted to 40,520, valued at about £340,000, but in 1968 this had risen to double the number, 81,224 animals worth almost £590,000, I have already mentioned that the species of animals most commonly used in the laboratory are rodents and rabbits, and bearing this in mind the inference from these figures would seem to be that laboratory animals comprised only a very small proportion of the totals, because the total number is not large considering it is all the live animals which are exported from this country.
My Lords, the Government are always conscious of the need to afford animals proper protection against ill-treatment and misuse, but it does not appear to us that the export of a small number of specially bred laboratory animals presents a serious problem demanding a remedy of the sort proposed by the noble Viscount. First, on scientific grounds it is essential to adopt strict standards of care and attention of laboratory animals if the results of the experiments are to be reliable. Second, animals imported
1332
from Great Britain would be considerably more expensive than locally reared animals, and on economic grounds would not be used except in serious research projects. Third, the volume of these exports is very small and shows no signs of increasing significantly.
Apart from these considerations, which cast serious doubt on the need for imposing controls, the Government are convinced that restrictions such as are proposed in the Bill would do a considerable disservice, both to the progress of medical science and to the world-wide cause of animal welfare, Scientific interests, including the Medical Research Council, a very responsible body, though not fanatics, are opposed to the proposals in the Bill.
Some of your Lordships may remember a correspondence in The Times on this subject early in 1967, when a similar Bill to this was proposed in another place. May I quote extracts from two letters published in The Times in 1967. First, there was one from Mr. John Bleby Director, Medical Research Council, Laboratory Animals Centre, in which he says:
"However, it is far more important to realise that the Bill will seriously impede biological research because it will stop the export of breeding nuclei of specialised strains of animals vital to research in cancer, genetics toxicology and, equally important, the diseases of animals themselves. Furthermore the Bill would not prevent the export of laboratory animals under the guise of pets.
While not condoning at any time the inhumane treatment of any animal, it is perhaps worth mentioning that we benefit from discoveries made abroad. Insulin, which keeps diabetics alive, was discovered by two Canadian workers, and the thalidomide tragedy would not have occurred had the drug been tested on more animal species."
The second extract I want to quote comes from Professor Sir Alexander Haddow, Director, Chester Beatty Research Institute, who said:
"I do not for a moment doubt or question the good intention of such efforts, but I write to explain how such a measure would have disastrous effects on the course of cancer research.
Cancer is a phenomenon which manifests itself throughout the whole of the animal kingdom, and much knowledge, obtainable in no other way, has been derived from observation of the disease in species other than man—predominantly in the mouse and rat. For such

1333
purposes as studies of cancer causation or experimental forms of treatment, it is frequently necessary to furnish universities and institutes in other countries with special animals' strains. In this way our own country has been able to assist cancer research all over the world.
In the other direction we have of course ourselves gained much through the gift of valuable strains (as for example of mice highly susceptible or highly resistant to cancer and leukaemia) from other centres abroad—very notably and simply to quote one example, from many laboratories in the United States. Similar considerations apply to other branches of medicine, and it is difficult to over-estimate the benefits to medical science generally and also, may I stress, to veterinary science itself, from such international exchange. This country's contribution to these benefits could, by the measure proposed, be brought to an end."
Progress in medical and biological research is coming increasingly to depend on international collaboration and the continuing exchange between research workers in different countries of special strains of animal. For example, animals carrying lines of tumours play a vital part in cancer research, while inbred strains carrying particular inheritable characteristics are required for genetic studies and for the investigation of certain conditions, such as deafness. This is a two-way traffic and our research workers could not expect to continue to receive new strains from their colleagues abroad if they were denied the facility for reciprocating by sending them specimens of particular species developed in this country.
Of equal significance is the fact that controls of the type envisaged in the Bill would discriminate against the less advanced countries where the need for progress towards higher standards is the greatest. To deny them the facility of obtaining healthy purpose-bred laboratory animals can only result in greater numbers of animals being used and more overall suffering. My Lords, we should not approach the subject of animal welfare on a parochial basis; our aim should be to do what we can to eliminate unnecessary suffering wherever it occurs and whatever the animal's country of origin. This Bill would do absolutely nothing to that end. As with many matters affecting the welfare of animals, the issues here are complex. As I have tried to show, the Government have given much thought to this matter and I can assure your Lordships that we will continue to watch the position carefully. But, against the background of uncertainty
1334
about the ultimate effects of imposing restrictions on the free interchange of laboratory animals, I must make it plain that the Government are opposed to the principle behind the Bill.
I will not detain the House by rehearsing all the Government's objections to the detailed provisions, the technicalities, and the reasons why we consider it unworkable and not viable, but I will say that in our view the provisions would be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, to enforce and would leave many loopholes for evasion. In particular, the "comparability" formula in Clause 1 would lead to great difficulty. In the event of a prosecution, evidence would have to be given by an expert in the law of the foreign country concerned as to what the relevant law was, so that the court could decide whether that law provided "comparable" protection. In practice, the provisions of Clause 1 would probably result in a demand for a system of Government licensing based on a Government assessment of the standards of overseas legislation. Such an assessment would be resented by the foreign Governments, and it is difficult to imagine the Secretary of State accepting the responsibility of criticising a foreign Government. The absence of any definition in the Bill of "vivisectional research" leaves doubt about what exports would be prohibited. By implication "vivisectional" involves cutting or surgery, but almost 90 per cent. of the experimental work on animals in Great Britain is non-surgical, and this is probably the case elsewhere. Also, would the movement of animals to set up breeding colonies as well as for immediate experiments come within the control?
The truth is that, short of unacceptable measures of control of all animal exports, there can be no real assurance of securing the objective of the restriction which the Bill seeks to impose, for once an animal has left this country it is impossible to exercise any control over its ultimate destination. The noble Vicount wants a shipmaster to have a certificate and be responsible, on pain of three months' imprisonment and a fine, for seeing that no animal goes abroad for laboratory research to most of the countries of the world. Supposing a shipmaster has a consignment of 100 guinea-pigs and the bill of lading says that they

1335
are for a pet shop. What kind of control is that? None at all. It cannot stop the animals being used for research. These things just would not work. Anyone minded to evade the control imposed by this Bill could do so with no difficulty at all, but at the same time it would make the exchange of laboratory animals between genuine research workers extremely difficult. The Government take the view that export controls should be resorted to only when they are likely to be effective to remedy serious abuse. I submit that the noble Viscount did not make out his case. Therefore, although I fully respect and support his motives and objectives, I have to invite the House to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I said in my speech that if this Bill were to get a Second Reading we might consider in Committee the fact that pure strains could be interchanged between scientists in reputable institutions. I cannot understand why institutes abroad will not use anæsthetics. It is just the expense which governs the matter, and it is quite incredible that this should be so.
6.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend Lord Massereene, but I fear that on this matter I am in considerable sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Like him, I fear that this Bill is unworkable, since we have no control over what is done abroad and we cannot legislate for other countries.
I am sure that my noble friend's motives in introducing this Bill are impeccable, and I should be the first to appreciate his endeavours to put a stop to all forms of cruelty to animals. As my noble friend said, this country leads the world in its efforts to protect animals, and although there may be more to be done here in this country, I would agree that in some countries the same standards are not applied. When I say that more could he done even here to keep our own house in order, I mean that the Government might perhaps look again, as my noble friend suggested, at the Report of the Littlewood Committee, which was appointed by my noble friend Lord Brooke, and consider trying to implement
1336
some of its recommendations with a view to improved supervision of conditions in which animals are housed in this country and a possible tightening up of the present rules.
If the Government were to introduce legislation to implement this Report, I would certainly give it my support in principle. I am interested to see that my noble friend Lord Fortescue has a Question on this subject next week. We have never had a debate on the Littlewood Report and I think that we should certainly have one. I think that the most important thing is to keep our own house in order first. As a member of the Council of the London Zoo and a staunch supporter of the World Wildlife Fund, I yield to none in a determination to do everything possible for the welfare of animals all over the globe. It is only after very careful thought, therefore, that I feel unable to support my noble friend in so far as this particular Bill is concerned.
My own view—and this coincides very much with the view of the scientific attaches who were mentioned—is that most foreign research establishments which are the recipients of these animals are just as responsible and humane as are our own in this country. I have visited a certain number, both here and abroad. I have seen goats which have been exposed to varying degrees of radioactivity in atomic piles. I have seen rats, mice and even beagles, all living under hygienic conditions. I cannot believe that their lot is worse than that of many human beings in the world to-day—in Vietnam or in Biafra, for example. Because of their value and because research workers abroad are, by and large, not inhuman monsters, I am certain that these animals are not wantonly abused or tortured.
It is true that I have not visited such establishments in Japan, but whatever the conditions are there. I do not see how we can alter them by legislation in this country. We can talk about them and we can protest, but we cannot legislate and do not see what is to stop animals from being exported to another country and then re-exported to Japan. At the same time, dogs could be exported direct to stockists in Japan. In either case, we have no control over their ultimate destination—"fate" perhaps is too emotive a

1337
word. But with the tens of thousands of wild dogs roaming Japan—I believe that 80,000 are destroyed annually—I cannot believe that, with so many dogs available, the Japanese would consider importing them at considerable cost. I do not believe that we export any considerable number of dogs there. The cost of these animals—shall we call it "the price of mice" or "the price of dogs"—is what importers and research workers are bound to consider.
Perhaps the odd animal, which has been subject to some natural or induced tumour, may occasionally he sent to some well-known research establishment, but I would say that this was done under very carefully controlled conditions, under responsible and humane scientists in both countries. I am convinced that animals in such places live much more happily than starving cattle on the plains of India, or indeed than many caged or circus animals or some domestic pets owned by people in this country who, despite all our laws, mismanage, abandon, confine or ill-treat them. If this Bill were to become law, I think it would impose upon international science a limitation which would be to its detriment—and science must be international or all humanity will suffer. We must keep a sense of proportion both in the amount of research involving animals and in the emotion which we apply to sacrificing some for the benefit of many.
What is really involved is the degree of suffering. Personally, I find it abhorrent to think of monkeys being shipped to this country in crates so small that many die en route, whether their destinations be laboratories, zoos or even street vendors in Oxford Street. It is also distressing to think of ageing horses being shipped to Continental slaughterhouses under conditions parallel to those existing in slave ships only 200 years ago. Then there is the tragedy of the pets abandoned to roam the streets, scavenging for their existence. And what of conditions under which animals are bred for human consumption—battery hens and force-fed geese, to say nothing of the slaughter of calves for veal? And yet, unless we are to become a nation of vegetarians, as perhaps the late Bernard Shaw would have advised us to be, we have to accept that the animal
1338
kingdom may have to suffer as man does, too.
The horror some of us feel in rationalising this question seems to gravitate around this curious word "vivisection". On this subject I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, from the Cross Benches will be able to enlighten us. I believe the word to mean surgery and, if I am correct in this, then it is only thanks to such surgery that many human beings, and indeed many animals, are alive to-day. If even human beings are willing to expose their bodies to experimental surgery without a full anæsthetic, as I myself did during the last war, I cannot believe it wrong to use animals for this purpose, too.
Had this Bill the object of leafing with the maltreatment of animals of all species at home, or even during transportation from one country to another —and particularly where we can exercise some control—I should have no hesitation in giving it full support. But as it concerns solely the export of animals for research, and since I consider that the degree of cruelty involved here and abroad is less than in many other circumstances involving animals, I am reluctant to advise noble friends on this side of the House to give the Bill a second Reading. But as it is a Private Member's Bill, if it comes to a vote we are, of course, completely free to go into whichever Lobby we wish.
The Bill has been raised twice under the 10-minute Rule in another place but time has never been given to it for a Second Reading, and I honestly do not think that we ought to take up the time of your Lordships' House in Committee, or the time of another place by sending it back to them. As I say, I think it is unworkable and I support the Government in this. But I do at the same time hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stcnham, will give an assurance that the Government will look again at the implementation of the Littlewood Report. At all events, subject to anything being said later in this debate which might bring me to change my views, I would not vote for this Bill to be given a Second Reading.
6.21 p.m.
LORD STAMP: My Lords, I feel that I should take part in this debate since, as an experimental pathologist, I have

1339
held a Home Office licence for many years—in fact, for 38 years. In so doing I should like to emphasise, and possibly to amplify, some of the points that have already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough.
The outstanding advance in my own field of bacteriology has of course been in the development of antibiotics. The use of animals to test the thousands of antibiotic substances that have been turned out by biochemists, in order to eliminate those most likely to be toxic for man and to select those with the greatest protective effect against various bacterial infections, has been essential in this, the greatest advance in medicine of our age. In general, the results obtained in this field have proved to be remarkably applicable to man. But this is not a debate on the ethics and value of animal experimentation as such. We are concerned only with the prohibition of the export of animals for experimental purposes to laboratories in countries which do not have legislation comparable to our own controlling experiments on animals.
In considering the Bill before us we start off, as has already been stressed, with a difficulty. What is meant by "comparable"? It is a word over which the lawyers could argue for years. But without attempting to define such a woolly phrase I would say that, according to my information, there are possibly four countries that might come into this category: Denmark, France, Sweden and Western Germany—and even these might not prove acceptable. In practice, therefore, the Bill before us is aimed at a virtual ban on all export of animals for experimental purposes. In any case, as has already been pointed out, the purposes of the sponsors of this Bill, misconceived as I believe they are, could be circumvented by the unscrupulous. Dogs and cats could be exported as pets, and rabbits as "live food". So that only the conscientious would be penalised.
In this connection, I feel that the number of dogs and cats exported has been grossly exaggerated. As has already been said, no experimenter will use a large animal if a small one will meet the purpose, if only on the ground of cost
1340
alone. According to my information, it has been estimated that about 100 cats and about 1,200 dogs are exported each year for research.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the total number of dogs exported is about 8,000, as the noble Viscount said. But, overwhelmingly, they are pedigree dogs and have nothing whatever to do with research.
LORD STAMP: I fully realise that, my Lords. I tried to get some information as to the number being used for research. This is the figure which I have been given, though I am not sure how much reliance to place on it. Many of these cats and dogs are required for research into diseases affecting the same animal species. For example, almost the only satisfactory vaccine against enteritis affecting cats has been developed abroad from breeding stock imported from Britain. The effects of the promotion of the Bill, therefore, are partly directed against animal health itself.
This brings me to a point that cannot be stressed too strongly; namely, the importance of animal welfare as a factor in animal experimentation. Every experimenter knows the importance of looking after his animals well, and keeping them in as good a condition as possible, if reliable results are to be obtained. Quite apart from the humane aspect, months of patient investigation can be thrown away if he does not do so. I have known the heartbreak when, as sometimes happens, even in a laboratory maintaining the highest possible standards, infection breaks out in the animal quarters necessitating the scrapping not only of one's own experiments but of those of many of one's colleagues, and starting them all over again. This results in the very thing that the experimenter is most anxious to avoid—the unnecessary use of animals. Fortunately, with the development of the so-called "pathogen-free" stocks of animals in this country that we are in a position to export, this is not nearly so likely to happen. I should have thought that even those who are against experiments on animals in principle would prefer, if animals have to be used in research, that they should be as healthy as possible; and British-bred animals are recognised to be the best in the world.

1341
Workers in medical laboratories in the developing countries—with which I personally am particularly concerned—with their less well-organised services, must be encouraged to play their part in the world-wide effort to conquer disease, and they come to realise the importance of animal welfare when they receive stocks of well-produced animals. Nothing is more likely to encourage them to improve their own standards than this, and nothing will be more conducive to their continuing with poor standards if they are prevented from doing so.
But it is laboratories already practising the highest standards, even though these are not controlled by law, that would be the most seriously affected if this Bill were passed. What would, in fact, be the effects of this? One must assume that it is not possible to differentiate between animals to be used for breeding purposes, whose progeny will be used for experimentation, and those which would themselves be used. It would, of course, be impossible to be sure that they would be used only for breeding, even if it were logical to lay this down as a condition for export. If this is so the result of this Bill, if passed, must be to prohibit the export of breeding stocks of strains of animals—be they mice, rats, guinea pigs or rabbits (and these are by far the most commonly used)—including some with certain genetic characteristics that make them invaluable in many fields of medical research.
It must be remembered also that the traffic is two-way; and not only should we deprive workers in other countries of an invaluable means of developing their research, but the prohibition of export would hardly encourage them to help us in the same way. Advances in medical research would be slowed down all round if this country no longer contributed in this way. But in giving a few examples as to the benefits that have been derived from the international exchange of experimental animals, I want to emphasise some of the contributions which this country has been able to make through the present policy, though this represents only a small part of the total benefit. I do so although it is apparently only the export of animals from this country that the Bill is intended to prohibit.
1342
My Lords, some months ago we had some anxious debates on the subjest of foot-and-mouth disease, when we had that disastrous outbreak. One of the points at issue was the merit of a slaughter policy versus a policy of vaccination. Whatever may be the correct policy for this country, there is no doubt that vaccination provides the only possible means of combating this scourge in many countries where it has obtained a permanent foothold. In this connection, workers at Pirbright developed a strain of mouse, the P. strain, which is very sensitive to the virus and provides a very uniform test animal which has been exported to many countries for the standardisation of foot-and-mouth virus vaccines. Presumably the supporters of this Bill would prefer that other countries had not been given this invaluable help in fighting a major scourge, with its disastrous effect on world food supplies.
I turn now to a major scourge of mankind—cancer. In considering the effect in this field of passing the present Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has already quoted the letter to The Times from Sir Alexander Haddow, Director of the Chester Beatty Institute for Cancer Research. Not only may it be necessary to export strains of animals susceptible to cancer, as was emphasised in this letter, but it may also be necessary to export animals—mice, for example—bearing transplants of a cancer, as this may be the only way that a cancer may be transported, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, pointed out. For these purposes, during last year alone the Chester Beatty Cancer Research Institute sent rats or mice to 13 different countries, nearly all in Europe, only three of which would have been exempted from the provisions of this present Bill under the most liberal interpretations. My Lords, the cures that we all long to see for the various forms of cancer will come in time, but such proposals as are contained in this Bill can only delay that day.
In no field is the use of well-produced animals—in particular, guinea pigs—more necessary than for diagnosis and research in tuberculosis, which is a major scourge in many developing countries. Certain strains of mice are also particularly valuable for this research. It is inconceivable that we should put ourselves into a position where we are no longer

1343
able to supply these animals, if and when required, to laboratories for which, in some of these countries, we have a special responsibility, Again, as has been pointed out scientists working for pharmaceutical firms may have occasion to send animals to laboratories in other countries in order to clear up any discrepancies that may arise in the testing of drugs. In testing for the toxicity of drugs it is essential to use as sensitive a strain as possible. Certain strains of rabbits, for example, are particularly sensitive to the effects of thalidomide on the fœtus. The prohibition of the free interchange of different animal strains might even contribute indirectly to another such disaster in the future.
My Lords, I hope I have said enough for your Lordships to realise what would be some of the consequences of the Bill if it were ever to become law. It is a Bill to which the British Veterinary Association—that body whose prime concern is animal welfare—are utterly opposed. They believe that it is completely unworkable, would achieve nothing at all to improve animal welfare, and is most undesirable in that it would restrict development in scientific and medical research. I personally fully understand the feelings of compassion that motivate the sponsors of this Bill and all who are opposed to research involving experiments on animals. After many years as an animal experimenter I have not lost one whit of such feelings myself. But in relation to the greater good, and knowing at closer hand than most the benefits that human and, indeed, animal health have derived from such work, I cannot but feel that in the context of the present Bill they are utterly misguided, and I sincerely hope that your Lordships will reject the Bill on Second Reading.
6.33 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, in only a couple of sentences, your Lordships will be pleased to hear, I should like warmly to support my noble friend and the Bill he has laid before the House. Here I should like to apologise to the Minister and to my noble friend for the fact that I shall be unable to remain until the end of the debate. To me, the whole business of vivisection and animal experimentation is so utterly bestial and
1344
abominable that the very least we can do is to carry out the purport of my noble friend's Bill—I think it probably requires a little redrafting—and in that way to safeguard our own animals from being sent abroad to heaven knows what horrors they find there. I have often wondered whether the human race is really worthy of the suffering and sacrifice which millions of wretched animals have to undergo in order to prolong the lives of the human species. I for one, my Lords, long for the day when popular opinion will at last revolt aginst these obscenities and call for an end to such utter barbarism. Meanwhile, I strongly support the Second Reading of this Bill.
6.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, like others who have spoken I must pay a tribute to the good heart of the noble Viscount in putting forward this measure for consideration. But a Legislature must be more than goodhearted: it must be strongheaded as well—and that is why I cannot support this Bill. My interest in this stems from being President of the Reseach Defence Society, a rather typical British body which, like the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee, maintains an emotionally neutral dialogue between the scientist and the Legislature in order to ensure that Parliament and the Government have access to accurate sources of scientific fact.
From this, the legislative point of view, I must say that I consider the Bill unwise. In the first place, it recites the Act of 1876, to which it makes cross-reference both in the Short Title and in its first clause. Into this recitation it imports a term which is not used in the Act of 1876, the word "vivisection", which is generally speaking undefined but has a very strong emotional context. Its use is criticised adversely in the Littlewood Report, whose recommendations I hope we shall debate later on. They write on page 2:
"At an early stage we concluded that 'vivisection' was no longer an accurate description of animal experiments as a whole and we have tried to avoid the use of it in this report".
My Lords, with that recommendation in the Littlewood Report it seems to me a great pity that the word "vivisection", which violates their recommendation, was imported into the Title and the main

1345
operative clause of this Bill, especially as it creates confusion in the construction of the Act of 1876, which has in fact never been before the courts.
Vivisection, if it means anything, means "cutting up alive", irrespective of context. I could be vivisected; the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, tells us he has been vivisected; any one of your Lordships who has had his appendix out has been vivisected—irrespective of context. But context is what matters. In the case of an animal, is it anæsthetised, either locally or totally, during the course of the operation? Is it allowed to recover consciousness after the effects of the operation have worn off, or is its life terminated while still under the influence of the anæsthetic? The word "vivsection" by itself avoids all reference to these matters, which are the all-important ones, and further confuses the issue by presupposing that the knife is a unique source of pain. My Lords, is there none of your Lordships who has suffered at some time or another from toothache, earache, headache, stomachache, backache, cramp and so on? These can be agonising, but they are not caused by an incision in the skin. They are of chemical origin; and one can inflict the utmost torture on an animal by the appropriate chemical treatment without being guilty of vivisection at all, although one is conducting a cruel experiment on an animal—and this is what the Act of 1876 deals with.
In this context, I cannot understand the noble Viscount's attribution of reluctance to foreign institutes with regard to the use of an anæsthetic. Ether, the commonly used substance for anæsthetising mice and rats, is not expensive; and I have never seen in foreign laboratories an experiment conducted on a rat or a mouse without a pad of cotton wool and a dropping bottle of ether over the mask of the mouse. And does anybody imagine that, on a large animal like a dog, a cruel experiment, involving struggling and twitching on the part of the dog, even if it is only involuntary twitching, could be conducted—a delicate experiment—without the animal being anæsthetised? It would be completely "botched" under these conditions.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: May I interrupt the noble Earl? Of course there are drugs with
1346
which you can immobilise animals so that they cannot struggle or move, but they are still conscious.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: If the noble Viscount would consult a catalogue and look at the price of ether and the price of the curaromimetic drugs or muscle-paralysants, he will very rapidly learn that economic interests will bias the individual away from curare-like drugs in favour of simple drugs like ether.
I commend to your Lordships the structure of the 1876 Act. It is a good Act; it is well-drafted. The fact that after 92 years it has never been necessary to take it to court to find out what it means is a point in its favour. It is based upon a simple and total prohibition in Clause 2 of any experiment on a living animal calculated to cause pain to the animal. The effect of this simple provision, "except as provided by the Act", is that everything which is not expressly allowed is generally prohibited. So Section 2 of the Act creates a general situation. And then we come to Section 3 which is resited in the noble Viscount's Bill. Section 3 is in two parts. In the first part six conditions are laid down under which relief may be given from the general prohibition of Section 2 by licence from the Home Office. The second part of Section 3 grants relief from the first part by certificates which may be supplied by presidents of learned societies, and so on. And then there are one or two special sections. Section 4 declares that curare is not an anæsthetic. Section 5 gives special status to dogs, cats, horses, asses, goats and mules—no; not goats. Why "Mary's little lamb" was not added I do not know, but it stops at that point. I should like to see other animals added, such as cetaceans who can develop a special relationship to man. Section 6 prohibits experiments in public. The rest of the Act is entirely concerned with its administration by the Home Office and its enforcement by the Judicature.
I think that it is a good Act. It lays down principles and leaves the Home Secretary to interpret them. Those of us who operate under it can in any case of doubt consult with the Home Office and learn exactly where we stand. The noble Viscount's Bill regrettably departs entirely from that wise philosophy. We

1347
are "reasonably to know" where protection in other countries is "comparable" to that in this country. I am not a lawyer. I do not know how far through his operative clause the words "reasonably to know" extend; whether they extend only as far as an act of vivisection is concerned or whether they extend to the word "comparable" with regard to other people's legislation, but I must assume that "reasonably to know" extends throughout the clause. We have had this point dealt with in such detail by the noble Lord. Lord Stonham, for the Government and the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, for the Opposition that I do not intend to go into it further. We ought to note, however, that the whole Act would be inoperative but for implementation by the Home Office.
But, my Lords, what about countries where the counterpart of the Home Office does not need an enabling Act because it already possesses, through the constitution of its country, sufficiently authoritarian powers to act on its own? How is the animal exporter in this country "reasonably to know" what the constitutional position now is in Czechoslovakia, one of the countries to which the Chester Beatty Institute has recently exported rats and mice? If one were to do anything on these lines, if one were to contemplate it, then it ought to be for the Home Secretary to schedule to which countries one might export animals and to which one might not. But I am sure that every Home Secretary would want to duck that responsibility and would get into trouble with his colleague at the Foreign Office if he accepted it.
If we leave aside the question of vivisection and concentrate on the husbandry and protection of experimental animals of all kinds under all conditions of experiment we shall begin to talk sense about this subject and we shall avoid the kind of anomaly, the absurdity, that occurred last year, when the general secretary of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection found himself in court pleading guilty to nine offences in relation to dogs, due to lack of exercise space, bedding material and food hygiene. I do not wish to pursue the argumentum ad hominem in a case of this kind; I merely bring it forward as a case of absurdity. If you over-concentrate on one
1348
aspect of this subject you neglect other aspects. You may even find yourself in court as a defendant, although you would be protesting your love of animals to the last. Compassion unguided by knowledge is just as much a danger to animals as a thirst for knowledge untempered by compassion. We must treat this subject as a whole.
I think a good approach to it derives from an element of self interest which entails the animal experimenter looking after his animals properly. The noble Lord, Lord Stamp, has given us the experimenter's reasons. Consider the economic reasons. Animal experiments, as he has told us, are expensive. A small, short-lived animal like a mouse is cheap for two reasons. First of all, its body weight is low so that it does not consume very much food at a time; secondly, it reaches maturity in a matter of a few weeks so that you do not have to keep it for very long before it is mature. For precisely cognate reasons, a dog costs £25 where a mouse costs two shillings. Who in his senses—and scientists are not bulging with money—is going to do an experiment on a £25 dog if a two shilling mouse would serve? That is why the overwhelming proportion of the millions of experiments done are carried out on rodents, mice, rats, hampsters and rabbits—roughly in that order, from two shillings for the mouse to £2 for the rabbit. And, again, no one would use a rabbit if he could use a mouse. That is why we work on rodents: because they breed fast and they are cheap.
What happens in the case of economics of export? Japan has been much mentioned. I very much regret that Japan was ever brought into this; but since it has been brought into it let us look at the details. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said and as the noble Earl has said, in Japan there is a large number of scavenging dogs. The figure of 80,000 quoted by the noble Earl I believe to be correct, but it applies only to the city of Tokyo; to the best of my knowledge and belief it is not the figure for the whole of Japan.
Now just how to do this most humanely, how to dispose of these 80,000 dogs, is a problem for the Japan Animal Welfare Society—and there is such a

1349
society. The traditional way of disposing of them, giving them injections of strychnine, is certainly the worst; but it is also certain and quick. It probably involves the most agonising death to the dogs that one could imagine; but that is going on with dogs.
But who in Japan is going to pay £25 f.o.b. for a British dog (which is going to cost £50 by the time it is in Japan) when a dog can be had for the asking? That is why, basically, the Experimental Animal Breeders Association decided to ban the export of dogs to Japan—because, in fact, no dogs were going to Japan except very rarely for special purposes; and those purposes would not involve experimental surgery. There are long-term nutritional experiments which must be done. Long before one supposes one needs the dog one has already convinced oneself that a certain food additive is, in fact, harmless; but it must be confirmed on the dog—in America, by law, on two different animal species one of which must be a dog. This means maintaining the dog during the greater part of its life cycle on a diet which one has good reason to suppose is harmless and then, towards the end of its life cycle, killing it and making a postmortem on all its organs to make sure that the drug or food stuff, or whatever it was, was harmless.
British beagles may be required for these purposes. But, again, I must submit to the noble Viscount that the docility of the beagle does not make it popular because it does not bite the experimenter; it is popular because it does not bite other dogs. Beagles are pack animals accustomed to living in packs. They can be kennelled in packs and exercised in packs to keep them in good health relatively cheaply. And British beagles are popular because they are rabies-free. The reason these special dogs are exported is not to cut them up for surgery purposes but to do these long-term experiments on nutrition, on carcinogenicity and so on. But what can the British exporter know about all this?
At the Institute of Cancer Research, of which I am Chairman, which is a post-graduate school of London University, we raise a little short of 100,000 rodents annually. The figure is usually
1350
between 80,000 and 90,000 a year. Let us look at our exports last year. In 1968 we dispatched to other countries 46 rats, 24 mice and 5 litters of young mice. We did not, in fact, last year export any pregnant females. The greater part of these exports was to provide breeding nuclei and some were to provide samples of transplantable tumours. These went to Denmark, Belfast, Rome, Brno, Heidelberg, Budapest, University College Galway, France, Australia, New York, Iran, Warsaw, Milan, Copenhagen, University College Dublin, and places in Czechoslovakia, on a simple professor-to-professor exchange of help, a simple professor-to-professor exchange pf experimental animals. To the best of my knowledge and belief these animals and their progeny will have been put to the same purposes by Sloan-Kettering in America as they would be put to in the Chester Beatty Institute in London. But, again, how can the exporter know this reasonably? What does "reasonably" mean there?
Imagine the labour for scientists of verifying all this when a friend rings up on the telephone and says, "My leukæmic mice have mutated; can you send me a breeding nucleus to re-raise the strain?" or something of that kind. It is done like that over the telephone. Even if exceptions were written into the noble Viscount's Bill on Committee stage—which I hope we shall not have—all the nuisance of having to do all this paper work would undoubtedly have an inhibiting effect on the exchange.
My Lords, I am not arguing that the economics of the process biases us away from animals that do matter to animals that do not because they are small and cheap. All animals matter. We have an equal moral responsibility to avoid pain in any of them so far as we can. What it does do is to show that the process biases itself away from animals with whom we are emotionally involved—dogs and cats—to animals with which we are not emotionally involved—rodents, which are the ones that matter. Therefore the shape of our legislation should be determined by our more rational feelings towards rodents and not by our more irrational feelings towards cats and dogs.
My Lords, I will not go on any longer. The time is late, and I have said what I

1351
wanted to say. I am sorry that I cannot support the noble Viscount's Bill. Like him, I am an animal lover. The problem of good and evil is beyond me, and I am not going to try to solve it in your Lordships' House this evening.
6.52 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, I am in some difficulty. I should like to support the noble Viscount's Bill; but, like him, owing to the lateness of the hour I shall have to apologise in advance to the noble Viscount and to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, if I am unable to remain until the end of the debate. I am also in some difficulty in taking your Lordships' time in the circumstances, but I feel that I have certain qualifications in this connection in that, like everybody else, I am a dog lover; that I spent much of my boyhood in the care of an eminent professor of physiology and throughout that time was on the fringe of laboratory experiments. We children in the country had to observe, feed and record the regimen of puppies who were in the course of use in the experimentation over rickets. This was before the days of vitamins, and the professor was able to establish a connection between sunshine and rickets. From his findings the Corporation of Glasgow, in their slum clearance operations, built a number of buildings with flat roofs so that children could play in the sunshine. The victory over rickets was in sight.
My Lords, I have spent some years, later, not so very long ago, as chairman of a pharmaceutical company with a biological laboratory in which, by the very virtue of the two facts which I have disclosed to your Lordships, I took a close personal interest. This leads me to make one or two remarks on what has taken place in this debate so far. One is that it is clear—and even the Little-wood Report makes it clear—that what the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, said, is the case; that the Act of 1876 has worked well; and the Littlewood Report does not suggest any major alteration in it. I think it is the greatest possible pity that this Report has not been debated in your Lordships' House or implemented by legislation before now. But, at the same time, my experience leads me to endorse what was said by the noble Lord,
1352
Lord Stamp, about the absolute necessity of ensuring that animals for experimentation are in proper health and maintained in the best possible conditions. I feel it right to pay a tribute to the manner in which the provisions of that Act of 1876 are administered by the Home Office, and the excellence of the expertise and the efficiency with which the inspectors ensure that work is properly carried out, compassionately and humanely.
The other point I should like to make is that I was sorry that the noble Viscount talked, I thought, rather disparagingly of the increase in the number of experiments on animals since, say, 1910. Of course the number has increased, for two reasons: not only, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, because of advances in medical science which have taken place, even in the last ten or twenty years, but also because of the fact that every time a rabbit is put on a diet, every time its ear is pricked and a drop of blood taken for an analysis, that is an experiment and is classified as such. And these figures go to swell the millions which are pointed to with some derision by the vivisection lobby.
Nevertheless, my Lords, I would say, with all due respect, that I was not greatly impressed by what the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said when he described the iniquities and cruelties carried out in this country in allowing animals to run loose in the streets and turning out cats and so on. That is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the exportation of animals to places where we do not know whether they are going to be properly treated. If we take the Bill within those four corners —and they are not very far apart—I am deeply impressed by what has been said in the debate hitherto. If nothing else comes from the debate, at least it has given an airing to the subject. If the Bill is unworkable, at least we have had these matters exposed and debated. If the Bill is capable of amendment, so that scientists such as those mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, can get their leukæmic mice by telephone without too much delay; or, similarly, if there were any simple way of ensuring that these animals required for scientific experimentation—and nothing I say is intended

1353
to suggest that any brake should be put on the use of animals for experimentation in the pursuit of curative medicine, not only as the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, pointed out for men but for animals themselves—if that could be absolutely assured, and the economic side could be simply and effectively controlled, I believe that the Bill would have something in it. If it cannot, it has not.
I feel that it would be wrong not to emphasise the disappointment which I certainly feel that the Littlewood Report has not been implemented by legislation, and also to make clear beyond a peradventure our feelings, as a nation of animal lovers—and I admit to being one myself. I am passionately fond of dogs, and indeed of any animals. Convinced as I am that experimentation is part of our life; convinced as I am that those involved in it here are eminently compassionate and ordinarily tender beyond belief, I feel that it is fair, not only because they are so inclined, that we should see to it that our animals, of which we are so proud, if they are exported are exported under proper conditions and are not liable to be subjected to the callousness with which some of our neighbours (I do not worry about Japan for reasons which have already been stated) are quite capable of treating animals. I look forward to seeing the result of this debate and only apologise again for the fact that I may not be able to stay for the end of it.
7.0 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I do not suppose that there is a single noble Lord in this House or anywhere else who would not like to see experiments on animals completely abolished. Obviously we cannot do that, but we have to keep them within bounds, if we can. I have learned a lot this evening about reciprocity and about the necessity for swapping animals of certain strains with other countries, and clearly that practice must go on.
There is one point, however, which I should like to bring out. Is there no possibility of having a more minute check on exports of animals? When anyone applies for an export licence, more particularly of cats and clogs and again more particularly if they come from one of these breeding establishments, cannot we find out for what purpose they are going to
1354
be used at the other end? I do not believe for a moment that foreigners are worse animal masters than we are. We have nothing to be proud of in this connection, and we have very little to be proud of in not having implemented a good deal of the Littlewood Report already.
I have wholehearted sympathy with the spirit of the Bill. When I first read it, I saw that it was very vulnerable. In particular, I should like to see the word "vivisection" altered to "animal experiment" throughout the Bill. I should like to see something done about this problem, and clearly it cannot be done by a prohibition but only by a greater scrutiny of applications for licences for export or import.
7.2 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, for the way in which he has introduced this Bill in your Lordships' House, for the laudable object of the Bill is both to regulate and promote humane standards of animal experimentation and to end a practice which is both cruel and shameful.
I should like to put the record straight so far as the views of the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare is concerned. I must apologise to your Lordships for reading a Press release—there are only three paragraphs—but I think it is necessary because the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, gave a rather different interpretation of their view. This Press release was issued on Monday, November 14, 1966, when this Bill was first introduced in another place. It said:
"The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, which has striven for over forty years to ameliorate the conditions of laboratory animals, is pressing for the registration and Home Office inspection of breeding units in this country and the control of exports by a system of licensing. Export licences could be withheld in respect of any country where there was evidence of unsatisfactory treatment.
"A spokesman said today, There is no prospect at present of stopping animal experimentation here or elsewhere. All that can be done is to regulate it and put an end to inhuman standards.' If supplies of healthy animals for breeding purposes are denied to overseas countries, stray and unfit animals will doubtless be used and kept under the deplorable conditions of neglect which were once widespread here. It is true that in some countries anæsthesia is more associated with

1355
the convenience of the scientist rather than the comfort of the animal. Nevertheless, there are scientists in most countries, who, by example and influence, are improving the laboratory animal welfare. A complete ban on exports would discourage these enlightened workers who seek to improve techniques and reduce the total number of animals used."
A complete ban is not what is intended. What is intended is a system of licensing and control, and I most strongly maintain that this is a laudable and practical object and it is essentially the spirit of the Bill now before your Lordships' House. It is a spirit which ought to diffuse from this country to other countries concerned in animal experimentation, and if we give a lead in this direction I am sure that scientists all over the world who are anxious about animal welfare, of whom we have heard amply from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, will follow suit.
The second object of my intervention in this debate is to give some indication of conditions in Japan, and I make no apology for indicating these. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has already referred to the Japan Animal Welfare Society, and although he said that there is what amounts to a ban at the present moment. it is some indication of the conditions in developing countries and we should be careful where we send these animals.
The authorities in Tokyo have to catch and dispose of a large number of stray dogs every year. The figure of approximately 80,000 has been given. My information is approximately the same, and this is reflected in all the major towns and cities in Japan. Without any legal protection, vast numbers of stray dogs naturally form a ready source of supply for vivisection, particularly in Japan's State universities where the living conditions of animals are probably among the worst in the world.
The Japan Animal Welfare Society carried out a survey in 26 universities during 1966/67, which indicated a complete lack of interest on the part of the Japanese Government in maintaining those laboratories which were under their direct control in a condition conducive to useful medical research. All noble Lords who have spoken have tried to assure us that conditions in laboratories where experiments are being undertaken are satisfactory, and I have little doubt that this
1356
is so in a large number of cases. The whole object of the Bill is to strike off the list those others where conditions are unsatisfactory. The fact that only one university in Japan, that of Kobe, could be considered to attain even the lowest minimum international standard, if such exists, for animal husbandry, indicates that other State universities within the same budgetary system could improve their conditions if they wished to do so. A grand total of some 20,935 dogs were used for experiments during 1966/67, the largest single user being Tokyo University Hospital, where no fewer than 4,753 dogs were used in this manner.
We want to consider the reports of the approximate numbers in this country, and we see in the admirable Littlewood Report that the total number of dogs used for experiments in the whole of this country amount to approximately 10,000, almost half that for the 26 university laboratories in Japan. It would appear, from my limited knowledge, that there is a vast proportion of wastage in senseless and cruel experiments carried out in Japan and certainly from all the information available both to the noble Viscount who has promoted this Bill and to societies in this country, the photographic information is without question.
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, two specific questions. First, do the Home Office intend to implement the recommendations of the Littlewood Committee; and, secondly, has any progress been made towards producing a code of practice for licensees, as suggested in paragraph 350 of their Report?
7.10 p.m.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, so much has been said already that I can say little without repetition. But I should like to state my opinion on this Bill from the point of view of one who has a responsibility in the matter of supply and use of animals for research purposes, and whose approach is essentially sympathetic. On reading the Bill for the first time, and on a superficial consideration, it seems desirable, in that it seeks to prevent the exploitation of animals for research. Indeed, your Lordships will agree that no person with proper feeling towards animals could disagree with a measure that seeks to protect them. I must comment,

1357
however that much of the debate has been on the whole matter of animal experimentation, which is largely irrelevant to this Bill. When one examines the full implications of the Bill, and considers in what way it would protect exported animals, the situation is revealed to be quite different from that given on first impression. Indeed, the Bill is in great part meaningless and unenforceable. The primary postulate that attracts our sympathy is unattainable by it, and several disagreeable results could follow it.
The idea seems to exist that domestic animals, especially cats and dogs, are exported to be sold for laboratory research, and are cruelly treated, especially in certain countries that have a bad reputation for the way they treat animals. It would in most cases be ridiculous to export these animals to be sold for research purposes, because they would be much more expensive than the local product. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, specifically mentioned Japan. I find it almost ludicrous to suggest that it is economic to transport cats or dogs half way round the world to Japan to be used for research: and this point was emphasised by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. If they were obtained in this way for genuine scientific research their intrinsic value would ensure that proper care was taken of them. A carefully conducted scientific investigation involving the use of animals, especially larger animals, can be very expensive, as has been emphasised by several speakers, and no one would be so foolish as to misuse or abuse the essential animals. This is, in fact, a built-in control. I am very familiar with the practice in many foreign laboratories, and I know the standard of care and treatment that they give. Surgeons treat the animals as they would humans; and they would be stupid if they did anything else if they want to get satisfactory results from their work.
Moreover, attempts to control the exploitation of animals for research could be insulting and offensive to many countries. It could be very offensive to accept that foreign scientists are possessed of a more cruel nature and are less considerate or sensible than British researchers.
My Lords, in addition to the weakness in the primary postulate, it is desirable to avoid interference with proper scientific
1358
activity. Certain animals and special strains of animals are exported and imported, as has been already pointed out by several noble Lords, for special reasons. If we were to limit, or stop, the export of animals for thoroughly commendable and legitimate research as this Bill seeks to do, other countries would introduce similar restrictive legislation, and our scientists could be the losers by being barried from receiving this special material.
Your Lordships should know that there are many facets to the Bill which make its efficient application in practice almost impossible, and certainly very difficult. It is not for me to embark on a detailed consideration of these defects; that is a matter for the lawyers. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has shown the ways in which it is really a meaningless and unenforceable piece of legislation. Those of us who are worried about the care of animals sent overseas should consider whether legislation within the United Kingdom is the bestremedy. The better way to check and control any abuse would be by international agreements. This Bill would stop all the export for sale of highly and specially bred animals of all types for any purpose. This would not only be unnecessary and unwise, but could also stop the import to this country of many animals, such as primates, which are unobtainable here and are virtually indispensable. It is for these reasons, my Lords, that I think this Bill, at first sight so simple and so commendable, is, when looked at closely and critically, misleading, ineffective and even troublesome, and one that should not be supported.
7.15 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I sympathise deeply with the motive behind this Bill, and I should like to be able to feel that I could support it. But I am afraid that I cannot do so. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in his speech cast a shadow on the question of its viability and practicability, and I entirely agree with him. I do not think it would be enforceable. The point that one has to consider on the export of animals is that once they are beyond our shores they are beyond our control. It is no use saying that we must not send them for the purposes of research, because they may well be imported nominally as pets and then

1359
be used for research. Who can be there to control the position?
If the animals are sent to one country, such as Japan (Japan has been mentioned, and I shall have something to say about that in a few moments), then, clearly, if that country cannot get them direct from us it may well get them through France, Germany or some other country. It is absolutely impossible for us to say what is going to happen to animals once they have left our shores. That is one reason why I have often wanted to see it possible to ban the export of food animals—because slaughter systems on the Continent are very primitive in comparison with ours, and a carcase trade, I should have thought, would be every bit as economic. However, I will not go into that now, because it has nothing to do with the Bill we are considering.
I agree, of course, that vivisection must be much more fully controlled, though I have never been a wholehearted anti-vivisectionist. I dislike the suffering of animals, but I dislike the sufferings of human beings even more. If experiments on animals will make it possible to reduce human suffering, then I cannot feel that they are unjustified. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bessborough when he says that there is to much waste, and I think that often there are something like 400 experiments where perhaps half a dozen would be sufficient. That sort of thing could be tightened up; and the inspection and enforcement of anæsthetics and similar protective methods could be more strictly carried out. To look at the Bill, Clause 2 says:
"Where any person ships any animal abroad, by sea or by air, he shall at the time of shipment deliver a certificate in writing affirming that the animal is not being shipped for any purpose which includes the use of the animal for vivisectional research …".
My Lords, how is he to know? He knows only what the person who has ordered the animal has said it is for. He does not know what the purpose is in fact; it is quite impossible for him to do so.
Certain things were said about Japan and certain doubts were cast on whether there really was a very large export of animals to Japan. I should like to read a letter that was sent to the Secretary
1360
of the Captive Animals' Protection Society from the manager of the R.S.P.C.A. Airport Hostel for Animals at London Airport. He says:
"Thank you for your letter in which you show your concern for the puppies being exported from this country to Japan. I am only able to give you the number of puppies which we handled at the hostel. Last month 496 were deposited with us prior to their collection by the Air company for export to Tokyo. Since last July "—
this letter is dated January 8—
"we have been averaging 300 a month. Large numbers are sent from Manchester Airport to Tokyo every week but they do not tranship at this Airport. The puppies sent to Tokyo are all bitches and are initially sold to Japanese families as pets".
That is rather interesting, my Lords. Here is another example. They are sold nominally as pets. An observer who has been in Japan has said that very few Japanese, very few indeed, keep dogs as pets. A pet dog is quite a rare sight. These dogs, therefore, are all going there for some other purpose; and I do not think there can be any doubt that that purpose is animal experiment. Therefore, the traffic is not so small as has been made out by one or two noble Lords to-night. But, again, I do not think that we can do anything about that. We cannot just single out one country or another and say that we do not like their methods.
What I should like to see is a total ban on exports of animals for any purpose whatsoever. But, on the other hand, I quite realise that that is entirely unworkable. It would not be in our economic interests, and for the moment we are not likely to see it. I believe, however, that the introduction of a Bill that is not enforceable is a great mistake because it tends more and more to bring our law into contempt. Therefore, while I sympathise very deeply with the motive of my noble friend in introducing this Bill, I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not give it a Second Reading.
7.24 p.m.
LADY SEMPILL: My Lords, women are perhaps suspect as being overemotional where animals are concerned. However, I promise your Lordships that I will do my best to be brief and factual on the subject. My main point in joining in this debate is to support my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard on

1361
his appeal for immediate Government action to redress and control some of the terrible loopholes which exist in the 1876 Act.
Does it not strike your Lordships as illogical that, although the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 states that no animal may be used for experiments without first being anæsthetised, yet there are people in this country who are breeding and exporting animals for vivisectional purposes to countries where no such law exists? Surely, for a country which prides itself on being humane, this poses an unrealistic situation. According to the R.S.P.C.A., in 1876, the year this Act were passed, there were 300 experiments on animals a year, supervised by two inspectors. To-day there are nearly 4 million experiments, and only six inspectors. Let us be realistic and move with the times.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I say that the noble Lady is not correct. We have increased the number of inspectors to substantially more than six.
LADY SEMPILL: I referred to R.S.P.C.A. inspectors.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I refer to inspectors implementing the provisions of the 1876 Act.
7.26 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, in view of what has already been said, I hope that I can be fairly brief. I have some qualifications to speak on this subject because I am on the Advisory Committee of the Home Office, which was set up in 1913 to supervise the working of the 1876 Act. Although the Littlewood Report, quite rightly in my view, suggested setting up an Advisory Committee of a rather different kind to whom references would be made more often than they are to the present Committee, nevertheless we learn something about this matter by being members of the existing Committee. I have also been on the Medical Research Council, and I have myself held an animal licence for many years and know what absolutely first-class work these inspectors do. They really are splendid. I should like to assure the noble Lady, Lady Sempill, about this.
If one holds a licence and people in one's own department are conducting
1362
animal experiments, an inspector will come round quite unexpectedly. He will never announce his intention to be present. One can sometimes get to know about it because he called on your neighbour the day before yesterday; but it does not affect our practice in any way if we know that he is coming. He is always a nice person and can be extremely helpful to us in suggesting ways in which our care of animals can be improved and this kind of thing. These inspectors are really doing splendid work.
I should also like to come back to the question of the enormous increase in the number of experiments. As one of the speakers in this debate (I cannot at the moment remember who it was) has said, a very large number of these experiments are not what any one of us would call an experiment at all. They involve the pricking of an animal to get some blood, or the injection of, very often, quite innocuous substances in order to test the strength or the potency of remedies, vaccines and such things. An enormous number of such experiments are now demanded by the safeguards which have, quite properly, been put on the use of vaccines and drugs and remedies of all kinds. So these experiments have to be done, and of course they swell the numbers immensely. In addition, as other speakers have said, medical science has progressed a great deal and there has of course been much more real animal experimentation in recent years than there was, certainly, at the time the 1876 Act was passed.
I have myself always disliked animal experiments, but I have always recognised that they are absolutely essential for the progress of medicine, and I have always rejoiced that this country leads the world in its regulation for the care of experimental animals. Nevertheless, I have visited a number of countries abroad and seen scientists carrying out their animal work, and—perhaps because I have chosen to visit the best institutions—I have never seen any of the cruelties which people seem to think exist. Maybe they do exist, but I have not personally come into contact with them, and I think the high standards of British workers and the enormous interchange of information and practice about the world nowadays has improved conditions abroad. Long may that continue!

1363
All I can say now on the main subject of this Bill is how strongly I support the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and the noble Lords, Lord Stonham, Lord Stamp, Lord Ferrier and Lord Brock, who have put the case so well against the Second Reading of the Bill. Were it not for their excellent statements of the case I should now be making the same points myself, but it is no longer necessary for me to do so. In a few words, I believe the Bill to be unwise and unworkable and, I hope, largely unnecessary, for the very kind of foreign scientist who will go to the trouble to buy from this country specially-bred animals on which to carry out his work is just the kind of scientist who will use those animals properly, in a properly equipped laboratory. Therefore I hope Your Lordships will not vote in favour of a Second Reading of this Bill.
7.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate and I have made a few notes of matters that I should like to deal with, but as I know your Lordships are anxious to go to dinner I will not detain you for more than four or five minutes. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, rather took me to task for quoting part of Section 3 of the Cruelty to Animals Act in the first clause of this Bill, saying that if countries abroad want to have animals for research purposes they should have comparable legislation. If this Bill received a Second Reading I should seek to have a great deal of it redrafted, and I should have that part redrafted to accord with the meaning of the part of the section of the Cruelty to Animals Act that I read. I quite agree that the whole section would probably not be practicable, but it would be perfectly easy for the Home Secretary to ascertain which countries used anæsthetics when carrying out experiments and also killed the animal if it would otherwise live on in great pain or if it were injured.
One or two noble Lords are rather condemned out of their own mouths. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Stamp, said "Ah, yes, but this country produces the best animals in the world for laboratory experiments and there does not appear to be any danger of any cruelty to them when they are sent abroad". However
1364
he admitted that we do produce the best animals for laboratory experiments, and if that is the case it is obvious that our export trade in these animals will grow.
I should like to revert for a moment to the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. He led us to believe that this country does not export any dogs to Japan. My noble friend Lord Somers has just told us that to his knowledge we export 3,600 dogs a year. He has no direct evidence that they go for experimental purposes, but as anyone who has been in Japan will tell you, hardly any Japanese has a dog as a pet. They prefer to eat their dogs, as do the Chinese.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but in fact I wanted to take up this point with the noble Lord, Lord Somers; and as the noble Viscount is making use of it I will do so now. I believe people who have been to Japan say also that English pedigree dogs are becoming fashionable as pets among the Japanese.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, that is probably true in the case of extremely expensive pedigree dogs, but if we are exporting 300 dogs a month they cannot all be of a high pedigree. That is just not practicable.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Sandys, who raised a good point. He said it was true enough that if this Bill became law it could be evaded; but, as I said when I moved the Second Reading, it is possible to evade almost any law if one is prepared to do so. At any rate it would put this country "in the clear" from the prestige point of view if we had a law to prevent the export of animals for laboratory purposes, apart from pure strains of rats and mice for experiments in connection with cancer, genetics and toxicology.
One noble Lord (I am afraid I cannot remember who it was) horrified me when he said that he would stop the export of all animals. Of course, that would be quite absurd because it would stop the export of all our pedigree bulls and sheep and thoroughbred horses. I have frequently exported animals—not for laboratory experiments (God forbid!) but for higher purposes than that. The noble Lord, Lord Brock, made a remark

1365
which I was unable to understand. He said that if this Bill became law it would prevent the import of certain animals, and he referred particularly to apes. I cannot understand how he worked that out, because the Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with imports.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, may I intervene to explain that what I said was that it would provoke legislation in other countries, because if we were to forbid the export of certain animals from this country they would take countermeasures.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I very much doubt that, because other countries are not concerned with animal welfare to the same extent as we are, and provided we paid enough for the animals I can assure the noble Lord that we should get plenty of them.
I do not want to prolong this debate. I am sure we have all learned a lot, but it has become obvious that the scientists have tremendous influence and a powerful lobby. As they have this strong influence I would ask them to use it with their colleagues abroad to put pressure
1366
on their respective Governments to bring in legislation as soon as they can in order to give animals some protection during experiments. A number of noble Lords have said that the animals are well cared for. Of course they are: people do not want to experiment on a diseased and starving animal. But the point that is worrying me is the care of the animals during the experiments, and that has not been sufficiently considered.
I often wonder what are the aims of the scientists. The population of the world is doubling itself every 25 years, and they are trying to increase it, but I am quite sure that in the end nature will have the last laugh. But I will not continue the discussion as the majority of the House appears to be against me. We have had an interesting debate, and I also hope that as a result of it the Government may take steps to implement the recommendations of the Littlewood Report.
On Question, Motion for Second Reading negatived.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eight o'clock.