Lords Sitting of 22 May 1969

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.
The Lord Camoys—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

SHIPPING AND USE OF CAPE ROUTE
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: 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 Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador in South Africa, or any of the Foreign Office staff, have reported how many ships called at, or passed by, the Cape of Good Hope on their way to or from the United Kingdom, which would otherwise have gone through the Suez Canal, during a recent convenient period; and, if so, whether they will state the number.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, the information which the noble Lord seeks has not been the subject of reporting by Her Majesty's Ambassador, but the Shipping Intelligence Branch of the Board of Trade made a study in 1967 of the number of United Kingdom registered ships using the Cape route on random dates before and after the closure of the Suez Canal. To this have been added regularly details of United Kingdom-registered ships continuing to use South African ports. Not surprisingly, these figures show a marked increase. It is not, however, possible to be precise about the number of ships whose use of the Cape route is solely attributable to the closure of the Canal. But if it will be helpful to the noble Lord, I will send him such statistics and information as we have.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Is he aware that some estimates, which seem to me to have credibility, suggest that some 10,000 vessels which would otherwise have gone through Suez have passed both ways round the Cape. In those circumstances, is it the case that we enrich the South African economy, we enrich, and even perhaps support ourselves, yet some moral issue prevents us from helping to defend the said ports?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot, of course, accept the philosophical basis upon which the noble Lord's supplementary question is based. The question of how many vessels have passed around the Cape that would otherwise have gone through the Canal is very difficult to determine. There are certain statistics but it is quite impossible to say how many of those ships would in other circumstances, have passed through the Suez Canal. But, as I say, without necessarily agreeing with the assumptions upon which the noble Lord's question is based, I will let him have the statistics that are available to us.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. But whatever the number, is there a moral issue involved?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I do not think that it would be appropriate at this moment to go into the moral or political issues concerned with the closure of the Suez Canal. The fact is that while the Canal is closed ships have to use other routes.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, could my noble friend at the same time elicit information about the number of ships drawing too large a draught to permit them to use the Suez Canal, even if the Canal were reopened?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, this is piling hypothesis upon hypotheses. I think that we are going very wide of the original Question. But if the noble Lord cares to put down another Question I will of course answer it.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, when supplying the information which he has promised to my noble friend, would the noble Lord be able to give some indication of the relationship between civil

463
ships and warships; whether they were refitted in South African ports; and also whether they include the ships presently employed on the Beira patrol?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, again I think that we are going wide of the original Question. But I recognise the relevance and importance of what the noble Lord has said and I will bear it in mind when providing this information.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord has undertaken to make certain information available to my noble friend. Can the noble Lord make that information available to the House as a whole?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I will certainly bear that request in mind, and will discuss it with the usual channels and with my colleagues. If we can make the information available to the House we will of course do so.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question asked for certain figures. The Minister says that he has certain figures, but in the course of his original Answer, and his replies to supplementary questions he has carefully avoided mentioning a single one. Can he not give the House some idea of the increase in the number of ships going round the Cape?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the figures that we have are a mass of statistics of various kinds from which people can extract what information particularly interests them. The figures that I can give now, which I think may be of interest to the House, are that during the three months, March, April and May, 1967, prior to the closure of the Suez Canal, the number of United Kingdom registered ships which called at South African ports was 219. Over the same period in 1968, after the closure of the Suez Canal, the number was 669. But I make the point that these are only United Kingdom registered ships and we have no organised information regarding ships other than those registered in the United Kingdom.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is absolutely impossible for any Government to take a count of the ships that pass round the
464
Cape? They may be 12 miles away from the Cape, and it is impossible to count them. Is he further aware that a great many of our troubles with the Suez, apart from the Israeli war, have arisen from the Tory Government's attack on the Suez Canal in 1950?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his intervention which was, as always, extremely helpful. Of course, as he says, it would be quite impossible for anyobdy to count the number of ships passing round the Cape, as a number of them, as he very wisely says, pass at a distance at which it would be impossible even to seen them, much less to count them. But there are some figures and I will make them available.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, would it help the noble Lord if the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, put down a Question for Written Answer?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, that would be helpful, and if the noble Lord will do so, I will see that this Question is answered fully.

POLICE ARMS FOR BOTSWANA AND SWAZILAND
3.13 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they provide or sell police arms to Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland; and, if so, what what was the value thereof during a convenient recent period, and by what route were these supplies delivered.]
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have sold small quantities of arms, for the use of their police forces, to the Governments of Botswana and Swaziland since these countries became independent in 1966 and 1968 respectively. As it is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to disclose particulars of arms sales, I regret that I am unable to give the further information sought by the noble Lord.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am grateful to know that these territories at least have some police arms?

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES: TEST DISCOUNT RATE
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lord, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the test rate of discount used to appraise investment in the nationalised industries.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Government's policy on the use of a test discount rate is set out in the 1967 White Paper on the Nationalised Industries. A review of the case for the present rate of 8 per cent, is now in progress.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he can tell me why there is this delay, when in the Select Committee it was implied by Sir Alec Cairncross that the rate would have to be raised, especially in view of the fact that it has been rising sharply in the private sector?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords. I understand that the Government's reply to the Report of the Select Committee may already be in draft and the problem is one of distribution, which is being held up by Stationery Office difficulties. As to the difference between the rate here—8 per cent.—and the current interest, the noble Earl will understand that this rate of 8 per cent. in real terms is probably equivalent to something of the order of an 11 per cent. return on investment.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord assure us that he will press the Stationery Office to bring this information out as soon as possible, because there is some dismay at the delay in this matter?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. I hope the noble Earl will not misunderstand me; it is a delay in the publication of the reply of the Government to the Report of the Select Committee. That
466
does not necessarily hold up the action on any review. A review is now taking place and I am sure that the noble Earl will understand that this is a matter which ought to be considered very carefully before any change in the 8 per cent. rate is agreed.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me when he expects the results of this review to be made known?
LORD BESWICK: It is hoped that the results will he known by the autumn.

UNIVERSITIES GOVERNANCE
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will urgently request the University Grants Committee to inquire into the governance of universities in which ultimate power resides with a majority of non-academic members, a pattern of organisation which has outlived its usefulness, and is patently unable to secure the harmony required by teaching and learning research.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, any proposals on the governance of universities are for individual universities, not for Her Majesty's Government.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the noble Lady realise that the expression "self-government" in the case of these universities is somewhat of a misnomer? And is self-appointed minority rule more acceptable in this country than in Africa or Ulster?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, in response to that question, may I quote the words of my honourable friend the Minister of State for Education and Science when she was speaking about this matter? She said that so far as universities are concerned there is no centre of absolute power, in the Chancellors or in the Vice-Chancellors or even in the Senates, and that in this pluralist system decisions are made thoroughly and slowly. Perhaps the noble Lord would accept that.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I cannot accept that, because—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? The noble Lord will really lose the sympathy of the House if he starts to ask a supplementary question in that way. If he could direct his remarks in the form of a supplementary question, it would help the House.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lady. May I ask what "plurality" means, when the ultimate of the governing body is the council, on which the members of the university staff are in most cases not in a majority?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I think that I shall have to accept the noble Lord's definition of this. I merely suggest to him that my right honourable friend has a different interpretation and says that there is no centre of absolute power. Perhaps if the noble Lord were to initiate a debate on this subject we might follow it through.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that it is quite inappropriate for the University Grants Committee to be invited to interfere with the method of governing any university?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords, and I apologise to the House for making the suggestion of initiating a debate. I should have said that perhaps the noble Lord would like to pursue this matter in another way.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the custom of raiding the Diplomatic Service has resulted in the appointment of some very distinguished vice-chancellors of universities, from which the universities have greatly benefited.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the enlightened Kingdom of Northumbria the two universities of Durham and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, since the Acts of 1937 and 1963, have both had governing bodies with equal representation of academic and lay members, and that both universities are well satisfied with this situation?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his intervention. I would agree with him that that is a very enlightened county, because I have some antecedents from that part of the world.

THE WHITSUN RECESS
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 o'clock my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on Northern Ireland, and later my noble friend Lord Stonham will be making a Statement on the case of Dr. A. E. Laurence.
May I take this opportunity of informing the House that it has now been possible to arrange business so that we shall return from the Whitsun Recess on Tuesday, June 10, instead of on Monday, June 9. I hope that this will meet the general convenience of your Lordships and, in particular, the anxiety voiced last week by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn.

JUDICIAL SITTINGS
3.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a Statement about certain alterations in the arrangements to be followed at Sittings for Judicial Business. As your Lordships know, the practice for many years has been that at Sittings for Judicial Business in the House itself the Lord Chancellor, if he is present, presides on the Woolsack. If he is not present, then any ex-Lord Chancellor who is present presides. In the absence of the Lord Chancellor and any ex-Lord Chancellor, the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary presides and takes precedence over any other Law Lord who may be present. This practice was recognised by the Commission issued by Queen Victoria in February, 1900, which authorised the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary for the time being to sit Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and any former Lord Chancellor.
The same practice has been followed at Sittings of the Appellate Committee which was set up shortly after the last war. What was then intended to be a

469
temporary expedient has become the general rule, and ever since 1948, as your Lordships know, the hearing of appeals takes place upstairs except during the Parliamentary Recesses, though judgments are delivered in the House itself.
Now, as your Lordships are probably aware, there have since the war been considerable changes in the position of the Lord Chancellor. There has been an immense increase in the pressure of business falling on him as a member of the Cabinet as well as in the administrative duties of his own Office. This, coupled with the fact that the House nowadays meets for Parliamentary Business at half-past two instead of half-past three or four, makes it virtually impossible for any Lord Chancellor to sit judicially except during Recesses. This means that he can really only make himself available to sit during the first week or two in October, the first ten days or so in January and perhaps a week at Whit-sun.
This is exactly the situation which was foreseen and regretted by Lord Simon. In the debate on May 11, 1948, on the Motion for the setting up of the Appellate Committee, he stressed the importance of the judicial work of the House and emphasised the desirability of the Lord Chancellor's continuing to play his full part as president of the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom. This is, indeed, a matter of the importance of which every Lord Chancellor must be conscious, but the situation to-day is entirely different from what it was in the days when Lord Haldane, Lord Birkenhead or Lord Simon presided regularly over the Judicial Sittings. The change first came about at the time of Lord Jowitt, and I know that no one regretted it more than he did. Since his time the pressure of Government business has got even worse, and I am afraid that we have to recognise the impossibility of putting the clock back.
This means, my Lords, that to-day when a Lord Chancellor gives up the Woolsack he may, and indeed almost certainly will, have had very little experience of sitting judicially unless he happens previously to have held judicial office. This, of course, is comparatively rare and the only case in which it has happened since the war is that of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord
470
Simonds. In these circumstances, it has for long seemed to me wrong that when a man has ceased to be Lord Chancellor he should nevertheless be compelled to preside over your Lordships when sitting judicially, even though he may have far less experience of judicial work than his colleagues who are sitting with him. For this reason, I myself decided some time ago that, when the time comes for me to give up the Woolsack, if I were to be invited to sit judicially I would do so only on the understanding that I could be released from the obligation to preside.
I have discussed this matter with the two former occupants of the Woolsack, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, both of whom have presided over Judicial Sittings with distinction since they ceased to hold the office of Lord Chancellor. I have also consulted the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls, as well as the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and Lord MacDermott, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, who is himself a former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. They all agree with me that the time has now come for a change in our arrangements, and that in future, while the Lord Chancellor ought undoubtedly, by virtue of his office to preside at Judicial Sittings whenever he can manage to be present, in his absence the chair should be taken by the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary for the time being, reckoning seniority from the date of first appointment to that office without regard to rank in the Peerage.
My Lords, I should like, if I may, to add a word about the position in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There precedence depends on seniority in the Peerage, and in the absence of the Lord Chancellor the chair is taken by the senior Lord present. My right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council has authorised me to say that he agrees that the time has come for a corresponding change in the Judicial Committee, and that he considers that it, too, should adopt similar arrangements to those I have described.
So far as Sittings in the House itself are concerned, it will be necessary to replace Queen Victoria's Commission of February, 1900, by another Commission

471
authorising the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary for the time being to sit Speaker in the absence of the Lord Chancellor without any reference to persons who have previously held the office of Lord Chancellor. I am glad to be able to acquaint your Lordships that Her Majesty has graciously agreed to the issue of such a Commission.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.25 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion in my name standing on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Cranbrook to advance the Second Reading of the Conservation of Seals Bill from Thursday the 12th to Tuesday the 10th of June.—(Lord Shackleton.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, before the Motion is passed, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House if he will kindly give us some reason for this change? This interesting Bill was put down previously for June 12, and if the alteration takes place it may be somewhat inconvenient for some noble Lords who have already arranged their programme.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we always seem to get into trouble over seals. I am sorry about this. I know that some Scottish Peers are concerned. I assumed (I do not claim to speak with any great knowledge) that this change was proposed generally for the convenience of 'the House. It is always difficult to consult people, but I will have a word with the noble Lord. There is a little time to consider this matter further.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, is this for the convenience of the seals?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LAW OF PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a: an Amendment (privilege) made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. Before parting with this Bill may I just say that it is not a Bill which is likely to cause any great excitement
472
among laymen. It is, I think, a Bill which makes a number of useful reforms in the law of property: first, in reducing by half the statutory period of title to simplify conveyancing; secondly, in making some useful changes with regard to that rather recondite part of our law known as land charges; thirdly, in making it easier to get rid of restrictive covenants which interfere with the proper development of land; fourthly, by enabling us to get rid of the peculiar forms of registration of title deeds which exist only in Yorkshire; and, lastly, by making a number of improvements in, and removing anomalies from, our law of business tenancies. When one considers the total number of small shops, with or without living accommodation over them, in the country, this is obviously a branch of our law in which where we find anomalies we should remove them.
I understand that, not being in any way contentious, the Bill will obviously go to a Second Reading Committee in another place. Before we part with it, I should like to express my appreciation to those of your Lordships who have been good enough to take an interest in the Bill, and particularly to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for a number of improvements which he was good enough to suggest and which we have been able to incorporate in the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

FERTILISERS (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1969
3.30 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK moved, That the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1969 laid before the House on April 29 last be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved. The Scheme, which applies to fertilisers delivered between June 1, 1969, and May 31, 1970, is similar to the previous ones approved by the House regularly since 1952, but the rates of subsidy are changed to implement the decision at this year's Annual Review to reduce the subsidy by £3 million. The effect of this reduction will be to increase the overall net cost of fertilisers by just over 2½ per cent. or about 12s. per ton. Subsidy will continue to be paid upon the phosphoric acid and nitrogen content of chemical fertilisers.
Although there were substantial price increases on fertilisers between March, 1967, and January, 1968, I am glad to say that since then prices have remained fairly constant. In fact, nitrogen, which is the most widely used nutrient, is cheaper now than it was five years ago, and I do not expect that the small price increase resulting from the reduction in subsidy will check the expansion in consumption. It is estimated that in the past year consumption of plant nutrients will have reached 1,750,00 tons compared with 1,665,000 tons in 1967–68.
Expenditure on this subsidy during the coming Scheme year is expected to be £32½ million which, because of the increase in consumption, is about the same as the average for the past three years. The rates of subsidy in the Scheme cover some 22 per cent. of the gross cost of subsidised fertilisers.
It does not need me to emphasise that the proper use of fertiliser is essential if the British farmer is to continue to improve productivity and expand output. In making their price determinations following the Annual Review, the Government made allowance for the reduction in the fertiliser subsidy. I believe that there has been general acceptance of the merits of concentrating support, as we did, on end prices this year. The broad outlines of this Scheme will be familiar to those who are knowledgeable about farming, and I do not think more words are required from me, and I do not think there will be anyone who will wish to oppose this Scheme in its application to the current year. I therefore ask the House to approve the Scheme.
Moved, That the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1969 laid before the House on April 29 last be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for moving this Order, and also for telling us what it is about. May I assure him that we are not going to oppose it from this side of the House. His confidence in that respect is well placed. He may not be altogether surprised if we express a note of criticism on some aspects of it. The effect of this Order, as the noble Lord has told us, is that it is going to increase the price of fertilisers by 2½ per cent., or 12s. per ton, and it is going to cut the total
474
value of the fertiliser subsidy by £3 million over the year.
The noble Lord anticipates that the total usage of fertiliser will, nevertheless, keep up the tonnage to a level at which the total value of the subsidy will be £32½ million. I hope he is right, but I rather wonder. Everybody who is in touch with the countryside knows that, following the difficulties and hardships of the past year, most farmers are extremely short of cash at the present time. I also wonder whether the increase in the cost of fertiliser at this time will not have an influence of deterrence, a marginal deterrent, on the optimum use of fertilisers. This must be seen against the background of the Government's option of an agricultural expansion programme. While it is true that we have some reason to doubt the validity of this programme, it is still the Government's programme. This was the programme advised by the agricultural "Little Neddy", and adopted by the Minister. That programme indicated that there would be an estimated increase of fertiliser over the current five years of an extra 40 per cent. in total. That is something over 5 per cent. per annum compound interest in the current five years.
Last year, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will know—because he has all the figures at his fingertips—there was a falling trend in the application of fertilisers. The question I want to ask the noble Lord is this: does he really think that this price increase, small though it is, will have the effect of arresting the falling trend that we encountered last year? What prospect is there of getting this sharp increase in the usage of fertilisers which the "Little Neddy" Report indicated, and which we should all like to see? Will the noble Lord tell us what reports he gets through his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture from the National Agricultural Advisory Service about the usage, the take-up, of fertilisers at the present time for this year's harvest?
It is common knowledge that autumn sowings were inevitably very much reduced by the appalling weather, and spring sowings have been late and lower than we should like because of the wet spring. One needs to have all the more liberal an application of fertiliser to give

475
us any chance at all of getting the kind of harvest yields which the Government have forecast and which all of us wish to see. That is the main point I am putting to the noble Lord. Does he really believe that this determination will give us the increase in the harvest this year that we are all hoping for and, indeed, the Minister of Agriculture has predicted?
Secondly, I wish to raise a minor technical point with regard to potash. As noble Lords will know, these fertiliser subsidies are applied only to nitrogen and phosphates. There is difficulty in the supply position. There is, relatively speaking, a monopoly control, although not a complete monopoly, of potash supply which has always deterred the Ministry of Agriculture (even in the days when I had the good fortune to serve there) from giving a subsidy on potash.
The noble Lord and his right honourable friend wish to see areas of the country which are pretty low in potash, and are in need of extra applications, ploughed up, and crops grown there. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would ask the Ministry of Agriculture if they would look again at this question of a subsidy for potash. In these areas additional applications are very badly needed. We shall not get the kind of crops and the yields we wish to get, and the profitable crops that the farmers must get, unless additional applications of potash are given. With these comments—the first one rather critical—I am very happy to support this Motion. I only hope that the noble Lord's own forecasts are correct.

NORTHERN IRELAND: PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING
3.38 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but with permission I should like to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in reply to Questions about his meeting with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the noble Lord the Minister of State at the Home Office"—
476
that is, of course, my noble friend Lord Stonham—
"and I had a useful exchange of views with Major Chichester-Clark and his colleagues on matters of common concern, including the momentum of social reform in Northern Ireland, security and public order, and the prospects and plans for the Northern Ireland economy.
"On social reform, we were glad to hear from Major Chichester-Clark that the Northern Ireland Government intend to introduce, at the earliest possible moment, legislation to provide that the next local government elections shall be held on the basis of universal adult suffrage and without any element of multiple voting. The Northern Ireland Government are proposing to defer the local government elections which would otherwise be due in May, 1970, until October, 1971, by which time a reorganised pattern of local government for Northern Ireland will have been established. The Northern Ireland Government aim to publish this autumn a White Paper making detailed proposals for the perimeter boundaries, functions and finance of the substantially reduced number of new local authorities. The Northern Ireland Ministers affirmed their intention to ensure that the important task of designating electoral areas within these new authorities will be carried out in a way which will be clearly seen to be fair and impartial.
"We were also told that the Northern Ireland Government hope to issue to their local authorities during the summer a model points scheme for allocation of houses. While it would he impracticable to oblige local authorities to adopt a particular scheme, all authorities will be expected to submit for approval a scheme of demonstrable fairness which can be published and made available to potential applicants.
"On procedures for remedying grievances, as the House already knows Sir Edmund Compton will be taking up his duties as Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for Northern Ireland as soon as the relevant Bill receives the Royal Assent. Northern Ireland Ministers also propose

477
to introduce in the present Session of their Parliament a Bill to establish machinery to consider citizens' grievances against public authorities other than central Government Departments, including local authorities.
"We discussed the Special Powers Acts and the particular question of the derogation to the European Human Rights Convention which has to be entered because of certain regulations made under those Acts. Northern Ireland Ministers appreciate our desire that this source of embarrassment should be removed as soon as possible, but clearly this will require first a period of calm.
"I expressed to Northern Ireland Ministers our desire that the commitment of troops for guard duties at vital installations in Northern Ireland should be discontinued as soon as possible but accepted that they must remain for the time being. The Northern Ireland Ministers outlined to us their plans for increasing recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary which we all agreed was desirable.
"I had a lengthy discussion about employment prospects and industrial developments in Northern Ireland."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.43 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I think that noble Lords in all parts of the House will wish to express gratitude to the noble Lord for repeating this interesting Statement, and will also agree that it was evidently a useful discussion that took place. I noted that economic development was mentioned last in the Statement. Is he aware that there are many people who think that the social and political changes may not suffice to achieve the overall purpose unless they are accompanied by a reduction in unemployment and a speeding up of economic development in Northern Ireland? Finally, can the noble Lord inform us whether the British Government at Westminster intend to follow the example of the Northern Ireland Government in promoting legislation:
"to establish machinery to consider citizens' grievances against public authorities other than central Government Departments, including local authorities"?
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. May I ask him two questions? I note that the local government elections are to be deferred until October, 1971. Is that by agreement with all the Parties in the Northern Ireland Government, which I think would be proper in such a case, or is it a decision of the Government, notwithstanding the views of Opposition Parties?
Secondly, Her Majesty's Government have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights, which presumably covers Northern Ireland. I gather it is admitted that Northern Ireland is in certain respects in breach of the Convention, and apparently it is suggested that Northern Ireland should remain in breach during a period of calm. Surely it would he more likely to maintain a period of calm if the Northern Ireland Government were not in breach of the Convention.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, first of all I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who understands the Northern Ireland situation well. I think that at this moment I should mention that my noble friend Lord Stonham understands it very well indeed, and I should like to pay a tribute to him because I know that, among many other things he has done which we read about in The Times to-day, he has been actively and very constructively involved. I am quite sure that this Statement is very much to be welcomed by all people of good will who are interested in peace and development in Northern Ireland.
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, about the extension of rights to citizens who feel aggrieved; the same question occurred to me. I can only say that I have noted what he has said. He knows that he will not get an answer. He referred also to the economic situation. I fully accept that there is an interaction here; both the economic and the political do interact. But, of course, unemployment is a further factor that has to be taken into account as a disturbing element to the community.
On the points which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, made, I would say, first of all, that of course everybody in Northern

479
Ireland who is concerned has been informed. But a proposal which is so obviously designed to meet the criticisms of those who have been critical of the arrangements for local elections in Northern Ireland is one which, it seems to me, they can scarcely do other than welcome, and of course the postponement of the date of election is to make that possible. On the other point, it is of course correct that this particular question, as I made clear in my Statement, is a derogation and it has been necessary to enter this point. It is undoubtedly the wish of everybody that the Special Power Act should be swept away, but the fact remains, as the Government have made clear, that some calm has to come first. I understand that the Northern Ireland Government are considering a repeal of parts of the Public Order Act—or, rather, they were doing so; and the following day, of course, there were these explosions. I think we should hope that there will now be an amelioration, and that this promising development will lead to the results for which we all hope.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, surely it is inconsistent to accuse Northern Ireland of being in breach of the Convention of Human Rights. Because, after all, if we take for instance the country of Switzerland, we know that there the women do not even have the vote. Why is Northern Ireland singled out in this rather insulting way?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I did not say that Northern Ireland was singled out; I said that Britain was singled out as a result of this. This is a matter of fact. I am not making any particular comments. This is in relation to the drafting of the European Human Rights Convention. This is simply a factual matter.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I express appreciation of the Statement which has been made, and congratulate all those concerned on the progress that it illustrates? May I ask just two questions? I listened carefully—perhaps I did not hear. Did the Prime Minister make a reference to the Special Powers Bill which is causing a great deal of anxiety in Northern Ireland? Secondly, while one welcomes the comparative
480
calmness which now exists in Northern Ireland, I would ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the depth of feeling about religious discrimination and civil rights is very great; and whether we will use our influence upon the Government of Northern Ireland to see that these progressive measures are put into operation very speedily.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that if those remarks had been made by the noble Lord some weeks ago there might have been greater reason for them than there is following recent events and the Statement I have just made. If I may say to my noble friend (and I acknowledge his interest) this is what the Statement is about; and we hope very much that it will go a long way—indeed, it seems to go a long way—to deal with these very real grievances. My noble friend admitted that he might not have heard what I said; so I would repeat that the Prime Minister said that he discussed the Special Powers Act. I would also repeat that Northern Ireland Ministers appreciated our desire that this source of embarrassment should be removed as soon as possible, but made the point that there ought first to be a period of calm. So there was a discussion on this point.

FERTILISERS (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1969
3.51 p.m.
Debate continued.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, may I bring your Lordships back to the subject of agriculture and fertilisers? I think the farmers' note of criticism is perhaps partly psychological. They were not happy about the Price Review, not so much because in itself it was a bad Price Review—because it was not—but because they though they had been led to expect something better. So far as this reduction in subsidy is concerned, they have a psychological feeling that they have been badly done by, and it is probable that psychologically the Government are wrong to have made this very small cut. But, having said that, I think in fact it was a sensible cut to make. It is not so much a cut as a redistribution of the money. We are still

481
going to have something like £30 million, and it is true to say that the rate of use of fertilisers will not go down as a result of this change. I am not afraid of that. I think we are a long way from the day when people had to be encouraged and taught that fertilisers would work. They know that now, so I consider that the Government have not done anything which is not sensible.
Having said that, I have a feeling that this is one of the subsidies we ought to phase out. We ought to get on to achieving this aim by means of the end price. The Government have done this to some extent, and I welcome it. Also I think it might well be phased out because it costs something to administer. I do not think it is expensive to administer; I believe the cost is only about a quarter of a million pounds. It is value for money. Nevertheless, it is a quarter of a million pounds, and this subsidy might well be done away with. Similarly, it is one of those subsidies about which one is never quite sure that it goes into the right pocket. So, for this and other reasons. I feel that this is the sort of subsidy which should not be estimated upwards but should be gradually phased downwards.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for their general welcome to this Scheme. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for virtually answering on my behalf the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that this is a form of assistance which can well be gradually phased out, but "gradually" is the operative word. As he will know, it has been the general policy under successive Governments over the years to reduce the rates at which the fertiliser subsidy has been paid, in order to contain the cost to the Exchequer. Therefore really this Scheme is no different from previous Schemes.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, about the effect, and also on what we based the estimate that this slight cut will not mean a reduction in the uptake of this essential part of farming work. We base it on experience. I do not wish to say that we reduced it less than the Conservative Government re
482
duced it, because that sort of thing does not help very much, but it is true to say that over the years between 1960–61 and 1968 there was a reduction in the rates of subsidy, while the uptake figures went up each year; and one would hope and expect that this would continue. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, appeared to be saying (although I was not quite certain whether I had heard him correctly) that there was a reduction last year. There must be some misunderstanding here, or possibly he is referring to an incomplete year. In the year 1967–68 there was in fact an increase of 4 per cent. in the volume of the uptake. The noble Lord may conceivably have got hold of a shorter period. From June to the end of December in 1968 there was a drop, but that is accounted for by special factors. One was that in the comparable period in the previous year farmers were anticipating a rise in price and therefore bought heavily at that time of the year. Secondly, in that part of 1968 there was bad weather and the farmers bought rather less than average. So if one takes that part of the year and makes comparisons it is true that there was a drop, but if one takes the whole year there was an increase; and the fact that there was an increase in that year, despite the increase in the price of fertilisers, leads us to think that we are right and that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is right in thinking that this further reduction will not lead to a reduction in the uptake.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about the psychological effect. It is difficult to put all these things over in such a way that they gain the general applause of the farming community. Indeed, it is not easy to dress up any of the facts to get the applause of the entire farming community. Although there was £37 million extra on the end price subsidy" the amount which was extracted from the Treasury was £34 million. In order to get that concentration on the commodities it was necessary to make an economy elsewhere, and it was made as to £3 million on these subsidies. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, asked me about potash. He was quite right, of course, as he almost always is—excepting when he is criticising the Government. There was a special situation before. We were almost entirely reliant on Central Europe for our supplies of potash. It is expected that, certainly by 1971. there

483
will be three companies producing potash in Yorkshire, and this will create a diferent situation. The point made by the noble Lord will have to be considered in the light of the changed situation in this country, and I give him the assurance that this consideration will be given. With that, my Lords, I hope that we can approve this Scheme.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PLOUGHING GRANTS SCHEME 1969
3.58 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK rose to move, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme 1969 laid before the House on April 29 last be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think we can deal with this Order together with the Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1969. As noble Lords will know, this grant is available for ploughing up grassland which is at least 12 years old and abnormally costly to bring into cultivation. It is designed to encourage farmers to reclaim land which would otherwise be unproductive. About 40,000 acres are reclaimed each year with the assistance of this grant, and I am sure we all get some satisfaction from the fact that this helps to offset the amount of good agricultural land which is taken over for—as one would say—less attractive purposes, such as urban development, roads and reservoirs.
The provisions of the Scheme are virtually unchanged from those of previous years, apart from one alteration in connection with the administration of the Scheme. First, however, I would deal briefly with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, during the debate on last year's Schemes. He then asked if we would look at the rate of grant to see whether it was sufficient to encourage farmers to undertake the work concerned. I think that the fact that the land ploughed annually remains at around 40,000 acres shows that farmers do still find the Scheme worth while. In addition, figures available for the 1968 Schemes to date show that 76 per cent. of the approved acreage will attract grant in excess of half the estimated cost of operations. This is well above the rate for most other agricultural improvement schemes. The administrative change re
484
lates to the operation of the Scheme in Wales, for reasons of which I think most noble Lords will be aware. In other respects, apart from such necessary change as the revision of dates, the Schemes are as for previous years, and I trust that your Lordships will agree that they continue to serve a useful purpose in our agricultural economy and will agree to their approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants Scheme 1969 laid before the House on April 29 last be approved. —(Lord Beswick.)
4.2 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for moving these two Orders and explaining their purpose to us. And may perhaps slightly out of order, congratulate him on his dialectical skill in dealing so effectively with the previous Order—somewhat helped by the bell from Northern Ireland. The noble Lord has explained to us the purpose of this Scheme, which is to encourage farmers to plough up old pasture, and has told us that as a result an annual acreage of 40,000 to 50,000 acres is being ploughed up, which is admirable and entirely to be welcomed and of course we are going to approve the Scheme. But the noble. Lord really has to answer a further question on this matter, because he and his right honourable friend the Minister have committed themselves to a major expansion programme for agriculture. They have adopted the target of the "Little Neddy" report which postulated an increase in the cereal tonnage of 3½ million tons per annum over five years, which would involve ploughing up an extra 1·7 million acres. That would be necessary in order to get this very major increase in the total yield of cereals in this country.
If we compare this modest annual increase, which, as the noble Lord says, is exactly the same as we have had in previous years, with that huge target at which the Government are now aiming over the current five years, we get a considerable contrast. If an extra 1·7 million acres are to be ploughed up over a five-year period, it means, if my arithmetic is correct, approximately an increase of 350,000 acres per annum. Most of this would be from old grassland. That is indeed what the "Little Neddy" report told us: that the extra acreage would

485
have to come from the Midlands and the West, outside the traditional arable areas—areas, I may say, which were ploughed up during the war years and could be ploughed up again if the incentives were there. These areas could be growing cereal crops and could be more productive than they are now; and therefore normally most of them would qualify for a 12-year ploughing subsidy.
What this point amounts to is that this modest target which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has so persuasively offered us, of 40,000 to 50,000 acres per annum, has to be compared with the target the Minister has adopted of 350,000 acres per annum; in other words, it is about one-eighth of the target which the Minister has adopted. It is lamentably short of what the Government have adopted and what we had all hoped they were going to do. This is not the moment to repeat what we said last month in the debate we had on agricultural affairs and the Price Review, but I really feel that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has to answer that question. How on earth does he square this extremely modest target, which has been rolling on year by year and has been satisfactory within its limits, with the great expansion programme which he and his right honourable friend the Minister have adopted? Before we approve this Order I feel he has an obligation to answer that question for us.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I do not think this Order ought to be seen in relation to the Government's whole agricultural policy; therefore, for that reason I do not want to enter into a discussion on the Government's policy which we have previously debated. This Scheme can be seen only in isolation. I think it will be useful, as it has been useful; but again it is one of those subsidies which might well be phased out, partly because it is wrong to subsidise an actual action rather than the end price, and partly because we are. I have a sneaking feeling, perhaps ploughing too much and need not encourage people to go on ploughing. Where ploughing is suitable, farmers are already encouraged to plough, because of the increase in the price of cereals and so on. I do not feel that it is a very valuable operation to encourage people to plough out old grass. I firmly hold to the view that there is
486
a great deal of land which should not be ploughed, and I think that this grant does encourage people a little to plough. We ought to look at this matter much more in terms of subsidising the drainage of land and the rehabilitation of old grass. Be that as it may, so far as it goes I welcome this subsidy. Nevertheless, I should like to see this also phased out.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should like to follow my noble friend Lord Nugent in this matter much more than the noble Lord, Lord Henley. It seems to me that there are two ways in which you can support agriculture: either by high end product price, or by subsidy and deficiency payment. What I think is doubtful is that you can support an agricultural expansion programme by constantly cheese-paring and saving candle ends on the subsidies without altering the system and giving a larger end price. The fertiliser subsidy has now passed. There was an intervention about Northern Ireland; otherwise I mould have spoken on that Order.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, made the same point—that he is not quite sure whether this is the right subsidy to give. That is rather immaterial. The point is that at the moment we are running on a system whereby agriculture has the end products low and the subsidies and the deficiency payments are made up by the Government. It is penny wise, pound foolish, to cut ploughing subsidies which make for good husbandry, and fertiliser subsidies which make for modern agriculture, unless you alter the system and give a larger end price. Therefore the Conservative Party is going to alter this system and give a larger end price. The present Government are not going to do that, and so I should have thought were precluded by their own philosophy from cutting the subsidies, as they so frequently want to do. I think this point should be taken into consideration.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I take it that this ploughing-up grant deals mostly with marginal land. What I should like to emphasise is that although to get more cereal production from this country we must plough up about ten times what is being achieved by this grant, to get the end product not next year but in five years' time we have also to put land back to grass. I

487
cannot emphasise this point too much. I do not mind good grassland being ploughed up, but I should like to encourage the better use of the remaining grassland. This year I put my sheep population on 25 acres. I have gone from 200 to 300 sheep, plus nine cattle, per acre on those 25 acres. That is purely by putting fertilisers on the grass. Therefore, it does not matter: we can plough up on our grass, but we must farm the remaining grass better.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question about the reasoning behind these two Orders. To a greater or less extent they must, I think, be associated with the expansion programme, which I feel is not going to make much progress so long as interest rates are as high as they are; because there will be no inducement in £12 or £14 for ploughing out old grass. I gather that it need not be all marginal land. The test is when it was originally sown down to grass, good or bad. Having done so, the farmer, on checking over, discovers that he would be a fool to borrow money at the present rates of interest, and that if he were such a fool and went to his bank manager, the bank manager would tell him that he was not allowed in fact to lend it to him.
The point I want particularly to make is this. Under this Order the noble Lord is apparently satisfied with a stable annual turnover of acres ploughed out and the subsidy remains the same as the previous year. Under the previous Order, in fact, the need is for an increased use of fertiliser, which the noble Lord appears to think he is going to achieve by reducing the grant.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, after the rather tricky contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I am afraid that I rather need another sort of break crop in the form of another Statement, but I will do my best to answer the points that have been made. Again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for to some extent replying to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. I am rather surprised at the noble Lord suggesting that this scheme is a major part of the expansion scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that to a greater or less extent it has to be related
488
to the expansion programme. I should have said to a lesser extent.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Well, I gave you that.
LORD BESWICK: Yes; it does not purport to be a major element in the expansion scheme. When I said that the amount of the land which was ploughed up remains fairly stable it was really answering a point which has been made by others, not in this House but in another place, that the grant was not sufficient to encourage ploughing at present costs. The fact is that the 45,000 acres or so remains fairly constant, which rather indicates that it is an inducement to plough up, not marginal land but derelict land, and land which has not been put under the plough for at least 12 years. We are here dealing with a marginal part of the farming scene, although it is not marginal land. I hope that is not too subtle for the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, said—and I must agree with him—that if we are going to get—
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord before he leave; that point? I was not on the point of lack of incentive to farmers to meet the expansion programme; I was on the point of the matter of physical fact, that the noble Lord would not be able to reach his expansion programme of an estimated 350,000 acres per annum without ploughing up large areas of old pasture, and that his own estimate allows for only an extra 45,000 acres.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was about to come to that point. I was not suggesting that the noble Lord himself would say that there was an inadequate incentive here for this subsidy to help the purpose for which it was intended. I am saying that it is adequate for that particular purpose. But I was also saying to the noble Lord that it is not intended to be a major weapon in the expansion programme. I was about to go on to say that I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, was on a better point when he spoke, not entirely with relevance to this Order, about the work that was necessary in ploughing up other land. He rightly called attention to that. It was necessary

489
to do so much more: it was necessary to have better husbandry, it was necessary to put under plough good land. I would agree with him. But that is part of the farming job, and the farmer is helped in carrying out that kind of work by the increase in the awards under the Annual Review. I was about to make that point.
Do not judge the expansion programme by this Scheme. This is a Scheme which is intended to carry on a certain needed job but it is a comparatively minor job and it would he a mistake to suggest otherwise. There are, of course, other schemes, such as the Hill Land Improvement Scheme and the Farm Improvement Scheme; but mainly one is dependent upon the price which the farmer gets for his end product. Certainly we made some economy on the fertiliser so that we could concentrate assistance on the end product support price. Most people seem to think that that is the best way to go about it. That indeed was what the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, was saying in his intervention, that the end product price is important. But he appeared to be under some misapprehension because, as I understood him, he said that it is no good cutting ploughing subsidies unless you have a higher end price. But there has been no cutting of the ploughing subsidies and there has been a higher end price. This is what we were discussing a little time ago.
LORD HAWKE: May I ask the noble Lord a question on that point? It is not clear to the lay mind. Suppose the farmers do plough up 350,000 acres instead of 40,000. Will any of the 260,000 acres be eligible for this subsidy or will the noble Lord have to come for a supplementary Vote for it?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure which 350,000 acres the noble Lord is referring to.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I was referring to the 350,000 acres that my noble friend says will have to be ploughed up in order to fulfil the Government's target.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am saying that I do not know to which 350,000 acres of marginal land the noble Lord is referring. Here we have tight restrictions; the qualifications are quite narrowly drawn—
LORD HAWKE: That is the answer.
LORD BESWICK: —and it is not thought that land of the amount suggested would qualify.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I say this to elucidate a point? The" Little Neddy" report explained that the 1.7 million acres of new land which would have to be brought under the plough would have to be found outside the traditional farming areas; that is to say, mostly from permanent pasture, and therefore it would qualify for the 12 year qualification in this grant. That is what I was talking about.
LORD BESWICK: Yes, I see. That is not my understanding of the position. I should not have thought that that acreage was eligible as derelict land.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: This is not intended.
LORD BESWICK: No, it is not; but it is very likely to be if it qualifies for this particular grant.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Twelve years.
LORD BESWICK: And it has to be derelict or similar grassland. But I will look at the point which the noble Lord has made. will check my own wider standing of the Scheme. If he is proven to be right, then he can find ways and means later of showing to the House that he was right and I was wrong. In the meantime, I rather think that, small as it is, he would like this Scheme to go forward, and I hope that we can now approve it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE CASE OF DR. ALFRED LAURENCE
4.20 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a Statement, in accordance with the reply to Questions which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has given in another place, about Dr. A. E. Laurence. I will use his own words:
"In April information was received from a K.G.B. agent who had detected

491
to the West that Dr. Laurence had been recruited in 1963 to work for the K.G.B. A number of interviews have taken place with Dr. Laurence, and the assessment of the case is now complete. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General has come to the conclusion that on the available information there are no grounds for taking proceedings against Dr. Laurence under the Official Secrets
Acts."
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement, but why could not that brief Statement have been made yesterday, in reply to the Question of which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark had given Notice, instead of being delayed for 24 hours until a time when clearly the right reverend Prelate was not able to be in his place? On the facts of the matter, of course, the security service is right to follow up any information given by a defector which may lead to the arrest of a spy. But on future occasions would it be possible for the police to question a suspected spy and search his property in a somewhat less conspicuous manner than was chosen on this occasion? As things turned out, the attention of the Press of the world was attracted to what has apparently turned out to be a mistake by somebody or other.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's question about why this Statement was not made yesterday, the simple and correct answer is that the Home Secretary was not then in a position to make the Statement which he has made to-day. Otherwise, of course, the Statement would have been made yesterday. With regard to the fact that the right reverend Prelate is not here today, he did not mention to me yesterday that it would not be possible for him to be here, and I regret that he is not here.
I am glad to have the agreement of the noble Lord that the security services were right to take the action they did, and of course such action must be taken when information like this is given. Clearly, the security of the State demands that it should be properly investigated. So far as the source of the information was concerned, this particular informant has given information in quite a number of
492
cases, and in a number of cases his information has resulted in arrests. Therefore considerable weight had to be given to it on this occasion. With regard to future occasions, when a prospective spy—I am using the noble Lord's own words—
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: Suspected.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sorry; I have written down "prospective". When a suspected spy has to be questioned, certainly the police do not seek any publicity. And they did not on this occasion; but of course it was impossible to conceal the fact that the house had been kept under surveillance for, necessarily, some days until Dr. Laurence returned to this country. I advised the noble Lord that the accounts that have been given in some of the newspapers about the number of officers that carried out the search were greatly exaggerated, as indeed were many of the other accounts that appeared in the Press. It would have been the noble Lord's misfortune on previous occasions to be the victim of similar exaggerated accounts. Dr. Laurence was interviewed in his own home and under proper conditions, after a search warrant had properly been taken out; and his cupboards were investigated with his consent and opened with keys which he supplied. The whole matter, indeed, was quite properly conducted.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I do not believe in discussing security matters on the Floor of the House, but may I ask the noble Lord whether, considering that yesterday he was entirely vague as to when this Statement would be made, any steps were taken to inform the right reverend Prelate that the Statement would be made at half past three, or later, this afternoon?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, unfortunately I was not in a position to take those steps. Even to-day at 12.30 p.m., when I left my office, I was not aware that, in the sense that this House understands a Statement of this kind, such a Statement would be made, and therefore I was not in a position to take the steps that I should otherwise have taken.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many citizens, such as myself, have been

493
seriously disturbed at the Press reports of this particular case, and Press reports as to the conduct of the Executive, the police, and their treatment of Dr. Laurence? Can the Minister give us an assurance that, after investigation, he is satisfied that in no instance did the police behave either discourteously or improperly, or exceed their duties?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I can give that assurance categorically. The noble Lord referred to newspaper statements; I do not recall any newspaper statement which said that.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: It was the Sunday Times.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, some inaccurate things were said in the Sunday Times; but, so far as I am aware, they were not allegations that Dr. Laurence was treated improperly. For example the Sunday Times said that the police had apologised to Dr. Laurence, and told him that there was no case against him. This is quite untrue. The police have at no time made any such statement to Dr. Laurence, and the results of the assessment of the case were not made known until this Statement which I have just made and which my right honourable friend has made in another place. However, I give categorically the assurance for which the noble Lord asks. I have examined the matter very carefully, and there has been no misconduct or even discourtesy of any kind.

PLOUGHING GRANTS (SCOTLAND) SCHEME 1969
4.28 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Scheme be approved. As I said earlier, it is virtually the same as the previous Scheme, and I mentioned it in what I had to say on the other Scheme. I had hoped to answer at this point a query raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, but as he is not here I will leave it until later. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Ploughing Grants (Scotland) Scheme 1969 laid before the House on April 29 last be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC HEALTH (RECURRING NUISANCES) BILL
House in Committee: Clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of May 13):
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.(Lord Auckland.)
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, before the Third Reading passes formally and the Bill goes away from us, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, on having piloted an extremely useful, though small, measure with great efficacy and expedition through this House.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. In doing so, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in particular, for the help which the Government have given to this very useful Bill, both here and in another place.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Auckland.)
On Question, Bill passed.

PONIES BILL
4.31 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill has a previous record in this House, and I should like to remind your Lordships of the early history of a Bill similar in terms to the present one. On February 13 last year I moved the Second Reading of a Ponies Bill. It was subsequently passed through all its stages without substantial amendment, and received its Third Reading in June. The Government were not entirely friendly to the Bill and made a number of objections to it, but in fact they did

495
not object either to the Second Reading or to the Third Reading.
At that stage, in June of last year, it seemed to me that the chances of the Bill going through another place were rather remote, so I decided to leave it to see whether it could be reintroduced as a fresh Bill in another place in the new Session. I was fortunate enough to contact Sir Robert Cary, a Member of another place, and he undertook with great enthusiasm to see this Bill through; so much so that I am afraid it rather played on his health, and after the Committee stage he had to withdraw altogether and leave it to somebody else.
The Bill received a Second Reading in another place without opposition, and it had a rather extensive Committee stage and Report stage where it was substantially amended in form, and in one respect in substance; that is, provision was made for Shetland ponies to be exported at a lower value than the normal pony. I will come to that in a moment. Subject to that, the Bill had its Third Reading and was passed without any opposition, and it now comes to us here as a rather better edition of the Bill which was originally introduced in February, 1968.
I may say—and I am very glad to say it—that although the Government were not enthusiastic about the Bill in another place, they nevertheless gave considerable assistance in its drafting. But whatever one may say about it, whether the Government are to-day going to like it any more, the fact remains that in their opinion it is a workable Bill. In fact, on Third Reading in another place the Government spokesman said that if this Bill was passed they would be able to work it. The Bill has the support of every single organisation dealing with ponies—the pony breeders, the protection societies, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and everyone else concerned. I am not sure about the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—he looks very sinister in his place. I think he was not quite enthusiastic, but I hope that the Amendment which was made in another place, dealing with Shetland ponies, will appease him to some extent.
496
In my Second Reading speech last year, I spoke at some length about the reasons for introducing the Bill. I even mentioned my own qualifications for introducing a Bill of this kind. I explained what was intended to be achieved by it, and I think that this House gave it general support since there were very few voices raised in criticism of any of the provisions of the Bill. So I do not propose to speak at any length to-day about the necessity for the Bill. If that is questioned, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say something in reply.
Briefly, this Bill has two purposes. The first is to ensure that if ponies are exported it is done under the most satisfactory possible conditions, without hardship. Many of them have to travel long distances, and the intention is that they should have a rest period before being shipped or placed on an aeroplane; that they should be allowed to rest in clean conditions, with adequate food and water, and, generally, that the whole treatment of ponies that are exported should be as humane as we can possibly make it. The second reason is to prohibit the export of ponies other than ponies which are to be used for breeding, riding or exhibitions.
In the last few years, there has been an increasing trade in the export of ponies. Much of this we welcome, because it is to the credit of this country that we are able to export ponies which are used for these very desirable purposes which I have mentioned. Unfortunately, accompanying this trade is another trade which is less desirable and of which we cannot feel really proud; that is, the export of scrub ponies, cheap ponies, ponies that arc untrained, and ponies that are fairly obviously not going to be used abroad for the purposes which we have in mind. I said in February, 1968, that I could not prove to the satisfaction of a court of law that most of these ponies went for human consumption. But I think it is a very reasonable inference that ponies sold at some of the prices at which they are sold in this country cannot be of much value for the purposes for which we really want to export ponies. Unfortunately, this trade is increasing, and therefore the second purpose of this Bill is to try to prevent the export of such ponies abroad. These objects are achieved by Clauses 2 and 3 of this Bill.

497
The first relevant clause is the one which provides for a control over the export of ponies by value. A minimum value of £100 is attached to ponies of 14 hands in height, and a minimum value of £80 is laid down for ponies of a lesser height. Then we come to the Shetland ponies, which are the smallest of all and in respect of which an Amendment was forced through and carried in another place on Report stage. The minimum value of these ponies for the purposes of the Bill is to be £40. I think that this control by value should be sufficient to ensure that ponies of the class that I have just described will not be eligible for export. It will be for the Minister to make regulations on this subject, and there is a provision in the Bill enabling the Minister to vary these figures if he considers it necessary.
My Lords, I do not think any of us is entirely happy about these minimum prices. Some think they are too high. I myself think that certainly the minimum price relating to Shetland ponies is too low. But I think the promoters of this Bill, and I in particular, would accept this if it were acceptable all round. It is probably a reasonable compromise; and in view of the shortness of time available, if there were no Amendments moved I should not myself be prepared to move an Amendment to increase the minimum price for Shetland ponies. In any case, they do not represent a large proportion of these exports. The number of Shetland ponies exported would run into a few hundred as compared with a good many thousand ponies of the other types that are being exported.
The other clause relates to the conditions under which ponies are to be exported. It provides, as I have said, for a rest period and for bedding, and for the Minister to make provision for feeding and watering, and all the rest of the things which are set out in this clause of the Bill. Here again, the change that was made in the other place was to the effect that the Minister should make regulations dealing with these matters. I may say that the Minister is by no means new to this. This Bill will be an extension of, and will be read in conjunction with, the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, which in Sections 37 to 41 deals with the protection of horses.
498
It has been said (I do not know whether my noble friend is going to say it again, but I have the answer for him if he does) that this Bill is unnecessary because all these provisions can be made by regulation under the Diseases of Animals Act. Be that as it may—and I do not agree that the Bill is unnecessary—the fact is that regulations have been made in re3pect of horses. For instance, when it comes to the export of horses of certain types the Minister can make regulations dealing with minimum prices, and some of these are actually laid down in the Act itself. I believe that the prices laid down in that Act have subsequently been changed by Statutory Instrument. Likewise, the Act provides for protection in the case of horses which are exported— not quite the protection that we want in the case of ponies, but a certain amount of protection. Therefore, I would say that there is nothing novel about the provisions in this Bill. There is nothing in the Bill I am now moving which is different from the kind of provision which the Minister is required to make under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950.
Finally, Clause 3 of the Bill restricts the export of registered ponies. These ponies are registered by the different pony societies (they are all mentioned in the Bill), and this clause provides that before one of these ponies is exported the society shall, after examination of the pony, provide a certificate that the pony is in fact registered with that society. Apart from that, I think there is nothing in the Bill which calls for comment. The Bill is to be read with the 1950 Act, and is to form part of it. I am quite sure, from the correspondence I had when I first introduced the Bill in this House, and from the correspondence I have had recently, that the Bill will be welcomed by a very large number of people throughout the country, more particularly lovers of horses and ponies. It will be regarded as a humane measure, somewhat belated. It is rather odd that the word "pony" is not mentioned or defined in the 1950 Act, but that is because at that time there was no trade in the export of ponies. But this measure has since become necessary, and I am sure that it will be regarded as one which is necessary to preserve the good name of this country and to avoid unnecessary cruelty to large numbers of ponies which at present suffer as a result

499
of their being exported. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Silkin.)
4.48 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of the Bill, which is designed to improve the conditions under which ponies are exported. I am glad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, describes it as a workable Bill; and I hope it will not be amended. Strictly speaking, I have no interest to declare, but I am an interested party in one sense, for earlier this month I was riding a horse in Wales, relishing the sight of Welsh ponies enjoying their freedom on the mountains and in the valleys. I contrast the freedom of some 25 ponies that I saw being rounded up from a Welsh hillside a fortnight ago with reports I have received of the conditions under which some of them arc exported.
I expect other noble Lords will have received accounts from eye witnesses of what sometimes happens when these ponies go abroad. May I give your Lordships one brief quotation? It is from a report dated October 18, 1968, given by an eye witness:
"Twenty-three Welsh ponies, completely 'wild', could not be unloaded for a veterinary inspection at Dover, prior to shipment to Belgium, as there were no facilities; the animals had to be 'inspected' inside the crowded livestock transport, thus contravening Article 4(1) of the Exported Horses Protection Order 1966. They were consigned to Zeebrugge Docks. After landing, they were transferred to Continental transports."
I read of recent investigations on the Continent and at our own docks which have shown, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, that our cheaper exported ponies and foals are in special need of protection. The problem is not so much what happens when they are killed and whether they arc eaten as the question of how they are treated beforehand.
I believe that this Bill is urgently needed, because I am told that during the coming 18 months or so about 1,500 pit ponies will become redundant. In the debate on the Second Reading in another place it was said that there was unanimity
500
on two things: that no one wanted to disturb the legitimate export trade in ponies; and, secondly, that no one wanted to see ponies exported alive for slaughter. I share this opinion. There seems to be strong circumstantial evidence that in the last few years the traffic in scrub ponies and yearlings and old ponies not fit for riding has increased; and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has already mentioned this. I read in Hansard of December 13, 1968:
"…the International League for the Protection of Horses has, until recently, stood back and said,' The stories about this trade tend to be exaggerated; they are based on a little too much hysteria and sensationalism.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 791.]
But now this League has come out whole-heartedly in favour of the Bill; it recognises that this traffic exists. It may not have existed two years ago, but the League now says that it does and that it exists because of the glut upon the market of this country of third-rate ponies which has no outlet other than the slaughterhouses on the Continent.
I support the conclusions of friends of mine who know far more about this business than I do. They say that only our best bred ponies should be exported, and their price would protect them. Our nondescript ponies should be killed in the country where they are bred, in abattoirs that are humane and clean. I think that this Bill serve those ends well. Some years ago Pat Smythe wrote about her life and called her book Jump for Joy. Colonel Ansell, as he then was, wrote a foreword from which I quote:
"Pat has always loved her horses, and I well remember her sadness at the selling of Finality, not because she had said goodbye to a successful animal, but because she had said goodbye to a companion."
My Lords, I shall want to vote for this Bill, not first on grounds of sentiment nor because I value so highly the companionship of a good horse or pony, but because Christians have a plain duty to treat animals with respect and compassion, with humility and understanding. I apologise to the House that I shall not be able to stay to the end of this debate. I have a long-standing engagement this evening at St. Albans and I must leave shortly. I regret an action that might seem discourteous to the House and to subsequent speakers. I strongly support this Bill.
4.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill most strongly. As the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, he moved another Bill in this House which is to all intents and purposes the same as this one. As I spoke at considerable length on the noble Lord's Bill, which, I may say, lie so ably presented, it is not necessary for me now to speak for more than four or five minutes. I should like warmly to support the words of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans and I hope we shall not have any Amendments carried in this House on this Bill; because, as your Lordships know, if that happens the likelihood that this Bill will get on the Statute Book is almost nil. For it is virtually certain that another place will not find time to debate cur Amendments.
I should like to support the right reverend Prelate also in the remarks he made regarding pit ponies. I understand that there are 1,500 to 2,000 pit ponies which will probably become redundant in 1970. I have heard rumours that there may be efforts, by Amendment, either to put up the height of the 12-hands ponies to 12½ hands or to reduce the minimum export price of £70. If that is done these pit ponies will surely all go for slaughter on the Continent. When we are talking about the slaughter of horses, we must remember that provided the slaughter is done in this country under our laws, and done humanely, then, leaving emotion out of it, one cannot logically object. I myself have had horses slaughtered on my premises; but they were old horses who had lost their teeth. If they had been kept alive it would have been extremely disagreeable for them.
I have an idea—although I have no reason for supposing it; it is just intuition—that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn is going to object to the figure of £40 as the minimum price for Shetland ponies. I think he would prefer it to be lower. It is true that in the Shetlands, in the markets in the crofting communities, a lot of Shetland ponies are sold for between £20 and £30. There is no doubt that this Bill will to some extent affect the crofting communities in that area. But, irrespective of that, it is utterly immoral to make money out of cruelty. Although I do not object to the
502
slaughter of horses in this country from a logical point of view, I object to the slaughter of young horses and ponies from an emotional point of view. I object to that most ardently. One cannot object logically provided it is done humanely.
What we object to, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said—and although there is no strictly legal evidence of it, it doubtless exists—is that a great number of the ponies that are exported on the hoof to the Continent are sold for butchery. With due respect to our Continental friends—and I do not want to be too rude about them, since we may, one day (though I rather doubt it) be joining the Common Market—they do not have the same standards and the same principles regarding the treatment of animals as we have in this country. Therefore, I hope that none of my noble friends on these Benches will seek to reduce the minimum price for the export of ponies as laid down in this Bill.
Having said that, I should like to take up the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. It is extraordinary that ponies were not included in the 1950 Act. I understand that 30,000 to 40,000 horses are exported to the Continent in carcase form, and that the export of horses on the hoof for slaughter has ceased owing to the minimum values contained in the 1950 Act. The obvious answer to the problem of Shetland ponies in the crofting communities would be to have an abattoir at Aberdeen, where scrub Shetland ponies could be slaughtered under our regulations before being exported to the Continent in carcase form. I would ask the Government to consider that. There is a Government Order regarding the responsibility for the lairage of ponies.
I hope that at some future date, although not, of course, in connection with this Bill, the age of foals for export may be raised, perhaps to six months or even older. Here again there may be objections from the crofting communities, because a lot of foals are born in June, and as the markets are held in October a considerable number of four-month old foals are exported. These are far too young. I agree that there is no legal evidence that on the Continent ponies are butchered for human consumption, but in fact a great number are. I have been

503
told by acquaintances on the Continent that there is nothing juicier than a nice steak from a young Shetland pony. I understand that the price is 15s. a lb. I agree that this does not constitute legal evidence, but it goes to show that a great number of ponies are butchered. Before slaughter they may not be very kindly treated; they may be kicked, and shoved into lorries and probably ill-fed. In fact, they may not have a very happy time. My Lords, I have spoken for far longer than I intended. I give this Bill a hearty welcome and sincerely hope that it will have an uninterrupted passage in your Lordships' House.
5.4 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to support the Second Reading of this Bill and extend to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, my greatest congratulations, not only on his initiative in introducing the first Ponies Bill in your Lordships' House but also, when that Bill came to a standstill, taking the trouble to go to another place and finding someone who would introduce it there. It is due to his hard work that we have this Bill before us to-day.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, or any of your Lordships, will be very satisfied about the minimum prices. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said that he felt that the value of £40 was too low, and I heartily agree with him. On the other hand, I agree also with my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard that we should not interrupt the progress of this Bill by tabling any Amendments, and I have no intention of doing so.
Another point one has to consider is that any Bill of this sort, desirable though it may be, is effective only to a certain extent; because once an animal leaves our shores it is no longer under our control. If it is on board a British ship it is in the control of the owners of the ship, but when it is landed on the other side of the Channel for all we know it may have to travel a long distance. We have no control over the conditions in which it travels, nor over the method by which it may be slaughtered. Unfortunately, most European countries are far behind us regarding methods of slaughter. In most of them the poleaxe method is used and that is very far from being humane.
504
Therefore, while this Bill may do a great deal to stop the unnecessary export of animals, it will not prevent some that are exported from meeting a very cruel end. But it will do a great deal of good, and I give it my wholehearted support.
5.7 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships for very long because, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I think that most of the things which it is necessary to say about this Bill were said during the Second Reading debate on the previous measure last year. I should at the outset declare an interest of a sort as I am a member of the Council of the Welsh Pony and Cob Society and I have bred Welsh mountain ponies. This Bill is a considerable improvement on the Bill which came before your Lordships early last year. In its present form it is about as good as we can get it without knowing in advance exactly what the result will be or how the provisions will work out. I think that it will serve a very useful purpose.
The question of price is a difficult one, because if the limits are set too low the desired purpose will not be achieved; and if they are set too high overseas buyers will be discouraged from coming to some sales. In any case, they will not buy scrub ponies. The breeders may find these ponies left on their hands, and it may be a serious embarrassment to breeders to have to keep less valuable animals through the following winter. That is a danger I see.
Prices depend a lot upon taste and fashion, as between different breeds. There are periods when one breed is in vogue and periods when another breed is in vogue. I know nothing about the level of prices for Shetland ponies, so I cannot judge whether the price limit of £40 is a fair one or not, but I think that in the light of experience, when the system has been working for a while, it may be necessary to differentiate further between ponies of different breeds and to fix different price minima for different breeds besides the general wide classes of Shetlands and others we have in the Bill at present.
I, too, wish the Bill an easy passage. I do not wish to see it delayed, but there are one or two points which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, or the noble

505
Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, who is to speak for the Government, may be able to clear up at this stage so that it will be unnecessary for Amendments to be put down later. One arises in Clause 1, where it mentions "the Minister or, in Scotland, the Secretary of State". I understand that in Wales various functions of the Minister of Agriculture have been taken over by the Secretary of State for Wales, and I wonder if we could be told whether it is desirable to include in this clause a reference to the Secretary of State for Wales.
The other point on which I should like some clarification is this. In the previous Bill we made one or two Amendments to include the transporting of ponies by air as well as by sea. Those references do not seem to be incorporated in the present Bill. I think that there is only one reference to aircraft, in Clause 2(1)(a). In Clause 3 there are references to vessels and ports, but not to aircraft. I do not know whether it can be assumed that a buyer of ponies who wants to buy scrub ponies on the cheap would want to transport them as cheaply as possible and send them by sea rather than by air. It seems a slightly dangerous assumption, and I wonder whether we could have some clarification of that. In the subsection (3) of Clause 4 there is a reference to
"the adaptation to air transport of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950"
by the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1954, so it is possible that this point may be covered already. But perhaps we can have some reassurance on that, too.
With regard to the premises at which ponies are to be rested before being exported, are the Government satisfied that the premises at various ports are adequate? I heard a rumour the other day that the lairages either at Great Yarmouth or at Lowestoft (I am not sure which) are to be closed. I should be glad to know whether this is so, because it would seriously affect conditions under which ponies are kept before they are loaded. It is essential that these premises should be adequate.
It is also essential that veterinary inspection should be adequate. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, will be able to say that he is satisfied
506
that the provisions for veterinary inspection are adequate, because often when large batches of ponies are being exported a vet does not take a great deal of trouble; he runs his eye round them and does not examine every one closely, as he is supposed to do. Perhaps many of us in his place would do the same. Vets are busy men and may have hundreds of ponies to inspect, and it is only natural if sometimes the inspection is a little perfunctory. But adequate inspection is one of the pillars on which this Bill will sand or fall in practice, and I very much hope that the inspection will be satisfactory. That is all I have to say. I have no wish to hinder the passage of the Bill and if we may have some clarification of the points I have raised we may save ourselves from spending unnecessary time on the Bill at a future stage.
5.17 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, I am delighted at the remarks of my noble friend Lord Swansea, for he is a great authority on the Welsh pony. I can assure him that anybody who buys a registered Shetland pony at £100 for the purposes of riding or showing these days is a very wise man. But, as my noble friend says, fashion changes. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, who has always been most helpful to me on any pony matters, will give my noble friend the right answer on the questions of the transporting of ponies by air, and lairage. I can assure him that lairage is always available at any port, provided you employ a shipper of quality.
The object of this Bill is to make as sure as possible that ponies of good quality, properly registered and of sound and suitable age are the only ponies sent for export for the purposes of riding, breeding and showing. Therefore, it is not my intention to speak much further on this Bill. I would only say that in my opinion the prices are wrong. They are too low. But I am a firm believer in a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. Therefore, let me conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, most sincerely for one of the many good deeds he has done in his lifetime. I hope that the Bill will stand as it is and will not have to be amended or altered. I am sure that if all these wretched scrub ponies, who did not ask

507
to be born and ought not to have been conceived, could speak for themselves, they would express their grateful thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. Perhaps they will give him a friendly eye when next the noble Lord attends one of those horrible sales that have been mentioned in the House to-day.
5.20 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to support the Second Reading of this Bill and, like other noble Lords, I hope that it will have a swift passage into law. But I find some difficulty in responding at once to the appeal which was made by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, backed by my noble friend Lord Somers, that we should not make any Amendments. It is a balance of considerations. On the one hand, if we have a Committee stage we risk losing the great good that this Bill will do. On the other hand, it is the duty of Parliament to see that any measures that Parliament passes are exact, accurate and capable of proper, reasonable interpretation.
There is one point that worries me very much. It arises on Clause 1, which states that the appropriate Minister must be satisfied that the pony is intended for one of three purposes; namely, for breeding, riding or exhibition. That leaves out any utilisation of a pony in harness. I have certain friends abroad who import ponies for use between the shafts. They are not used "for breeding, riding or exhibition". As my noble friend Lord Somers said, once a pony has left these shores it is difficult to trace what use it is put to abroad. I find some difficulty in seeing how the appropriate Minister is going to obtain satisfaction on that point. In the case of my friends abroad, who are scrupulously honest in declaring the intended use of the pony as being for use between the shafts for a light governess cart or trap, so far as I can see the export of such a pony would, under this Bill, be forbidden.
If the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, who is to speak for the Government, or the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, can satisfy me that use between the shafts can come under the umbrella of "breeding, riding or exhibition" then I
508
shall be satisfied. Otherwise I feel that we must be sure of what we are doing when we pass this Bill. I hope that there will not be a Committee stage, but I want to be satisfied on that point before I agree that the Bill does not need amendment.
5.22 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I should be most unpopular if I detained your Lordships for more than a moment or two, but without wishing to enter into a battle of semantics with the noble Lord I would ask: would not a pony harnessed in the shafts, walking along the road or running round a race track, be on exhibition?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Not if it was being used privately to take children to school.
LORD LEATHERLAND: It would be an exhibit which I should notice as it went along the road. However, that is a matter for legal interpretation. So far as I read the Bill, the word "exhibition" is not given a capital "E", so that anything which is an exhibit is on exhibition. My admiration for lawyers is such that I am sure they would be able to put up an argument along those lines. However, there is some substance in the point made by the noble Lord.
I rise only to say that when my noble friend Lord Silkin introduced his earlier Bill I supported it. He has now introduced this Bill to-day. and I support this Bill. I say that lest some of the societies should think that I have withdrawn from the stand which I took on the previous occasion. None of us has been able to ask the ponies what they think; but we have been able to ask the various pony societies, and they seem to be wholeheartedly in favour of the Bill, as also do the other animal protection associations. They would like this Bill to go through unamended, not necessarily because they think that every word and detail is perfect, and not because they think that some of the prices are perhaps not open to question, but on purely tactical grounds; namely, that if your Lordships insert Amendments, and the Bill goes back to the other place, they might start arguing all over again, or alternatively, might put forward the plea that they have not time to deal with it.

509
Therefore, I would say that, even if we do not manage to reach perfection in the Bill, we should get this Bill on the Statute Book. We can give it a trial for a year or two, and if as a result of experience we find that there should be some amendment, let us deal with it then. I should not like to delay this Bill, which is now running along the last lap to the Statute Book, on some technical ground.
The only other thing that I want to say (because I have my eye on the clock, and have in mind the journeys your Lordships have to make), is that this Bill is slightly better than the Bill that my noble friend introduced last year. At that time there could have been some reason to doubt the wisdom of the figure which had been fixed for Shetland ponies. I have looked into this matter again, and I think the changed price which has been put down for Shetland ponies makes this a much more workable and equitable Bill than the one my noble friend introduced previously. I sincerely hope that the Bill will receive a Second Reading this afternoon and a swift, uninterrupted, unobstructed passage on to the Statute Book.
5.27 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I were the sinister creature that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, seemed to suspect, I should certainly have been subjected to a great deal of pressure by the course of this debate, because not one noble Lord on either side has opposed the Bill: indeed, all of your Lordships who have spoken have been largely in sympathy with it. I should like to join with my noble friend who said that if we have a Committee stage we are in a dilemma, because we may either lose the Bill, or we may not be producing as good a Bill as we should. I do not think that the mere fact of having a Committee stage would necessarily lose the Bill, but if we were to make any Amendments we should certainly he in danger of losing it.
I am not quite certain what the attitude of the Government will be to this Bill. They have substantially amended it in another place, and reading the proceedings in another place I rather got the impression that they would like to amend it still further. Indeed, I would go further and say that they were almost inviting your Lordships to do what on every other occasion they would strongly
510
condemn us for doing; that is, to turn down the Bill altogether. However, we must wait and see what the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, has to say, and whether he is able to take a more welcoming attitude to the Bill than his honourable friend did in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has told us what he considers to be the purpose of the Bill. I liked the definition of my noble friend, Lord Willingdon, of the purpose of the Bill, when he said that it was "to ensure that only ponies of good quality and" (I think he said) "sound health and properly registered, should be exported". The Government have had nearly a year since the last Bill passed through the House, and one would hope and expect that in the meantime they had accumulated more facts to set before your Lordships. I have been struck, for example, by one fact that was mentioned to-day by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, when he said that some 30,000 carcases of horses are exported a year; and I think this was also said in another place. I should imagine that that also includes pony meat, because I do not think there is any separate classification for a pony. I take it that a certain number of ponies are already exported in carcase form.
It is argued that horses which are due for human consumption should be exported only in carcase form. My noble friend, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, suggested that for that purpose we should have a slaughterhouse in Aberdeen to deal with Shetland scrub ponies. I wonder whether he would reconsider this. Who would send a pony to Aberdeen merely to be slaughtered unless it could be also exported in carcase form and unless there was a demand for such export? I hope the noble Lord who will reply will be able to give us some information of the extent to which ponies are exported in carcase form, and as to the extent to which it will he possible to encourage the export of ponies in this way rather than on the hoof.
There is another question which the noble Lord may have had time to look into: that is, the whole question of the evidence that ponies sent abroad on the hoof are inevitably destined for slaughter for human consumption if they are less than a certain value. We know that the prices paid for horse meat on the Continent are high. There are many

511
places from which wild ponies are culled in this country, and no doubt they are broken in, and put to very useful purpose in this country, whether it is for riding, for breeding, for exhibition, or even for work between the shafts. If that is so—and I presume it must be so—and only the less good or less trainable ponies are sent abroad, are we sure that the ponies sent abroad are not being similarly trained for use? There seems to be no evidence about this. We have had a year in which to get the evidence collected and sent to us. When we are considering this matter I should have thought we could not just rely on the same circumstantial evidence that we were considering at this time last year. I have misgivings about this. I hope the noble Lord will be able to remove them.
On the question of values, I do not think my noble friend, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, was right in forecasting that I would suggest that the value for the Shetland breed should be reduced below £40. I understand that the value of ponies bred in Shetland and auctioned there is of the order of between £20 and £30. Of course, by the time they come South and are exported the value would undoubtedly be considerably more. So this was in itself a compromise figure which was suggested in another place. I should not feel justified in urging the Government to alter it, even though those who earn a substantial proportion of their meagre livelihood in the Shetlands by breeding ponies would perhaps like to see a lower figure.
I would ask the noble Lord more about this question of value. Who is to determine the value of the pony? Is it to be a declared value? How is the declared value to be verified and established? Unless there is some well-established method of determining this, I doubt how the Bill can be described as a workable one. Of course, the noble Lord may be able to tell us what is done in the case of heavy horses, vanners and the like. There also a value, a minimum value, is introduced. He may be able to tell us how that value is established. I realise that connected with the establishment of the value is Clause 3, where under this Bill a pony can be legally exported only if it is a registered pony, and if it is accompanied by "a certificate
512
hereinafter called an export certificate". I am told that part of the purpose of putting in this provision is that it would not then be possible—as I believe sometimes happens—for a dealer exporting a batch of ponies, some of which arc of very low value, to put in two or three ponies of high value and then rely on a single price for the whole batch. I am told that this section is designed, in part at any rate, to defeat that kind of operation. I should like to know from the noble Lord whether he thinks that will be the effect of the clause.
I have some reservations about the drafting of this particular clause. I do not quite see why a certificate need be applied for at the time of export. Indeed, that is not what the clause says. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will answer this point himself when he comes to reply. I am sure he does not intend that the export of a breed pony should be contingent and conditional upon the issue of a certificate from the breed society. I ask this because I think that was his previous intention. I believe it was in the previous Bill and it is not now in the present Bill. In other words, all that the breed society is being asked to do is to certify that the pony is on the register—nothing more than that. That could be done at any time. As soon as the pony is placed on the register the owner of the pony could, as I see it, as the Bill is drafted, immediately apply for a certificate. Provided the pony was on the register, I presume—and I hope this is so because I think it would be wrong to place other power in the hands of the breed society—the breed society would have to issue that certificate. It is simply a certificate that the pony is on the register, and that registration could be done at any time, not merely in anticipation of export.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord has read Clause 3(2), which provides that the export certificate in respect of a registered pony shall be delivered at the time of the shipment to the master of the vessel. Does that not answer the noble Lord?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with respect—and I bow to the noble Lord's greater legal knowledge of interpretation—I should have thought that all the subsection requires is that the certificate be delivered to the master. It does

513
not say by whom or when the certificate has to be delivered. It does not say that the breed society has to issue a certificate which is then directly delivered to the master of the vessel; it does not say that, nor would that be practicable. I do not want to pursue this.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not want to pursue it either.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is a matter which will certainly arise on Committee. I thought that the noble Lord might be able to satisfy me at this stage, and so avoid the necessity for my raising it on Committee. Also by raising it now I may give the noble Lord who is going to reply an opportunity of dealing with this point.
My Lords, as has been said, we are all in agreement with the purposes of this Bill. Clause 2 is unusual in form because it directly instructs the Minister to make regulations; that is a somewhat unusual provision, I think. And it instructs the Minister to make regulations which in general terms he has power to do already. I should like to ask the noble Lord what additional powers this clause gives the Minister which he does not already possess. I might also ask the noble Lord, in view of the opinions that were expressed at the time we debated the previous Ponies Bill last year, why the Minister has not exercised the powers which he has. I think he might very well have exercised those powers and given us in the meantime some information of the experience of alleviating the hardships of ponies as a result of providing them with a rest period before they went abroad. My Lords, that is all I have to say. I am afraid I have asked rather a lot of questions. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer some of them, and so avoid my having to ask them again.
5.41 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I shall be very brief. Many questions have been asked and I shall not attempt to answer them all. In fact, communications between the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and myself seem to have broken down because he gave me what I thought was a promise that he would give me previous notice of the questions he was going to raise, and somehow this has been overlooked until now. So he
514
will understand if I cannot at this stage give him replies to all his questions. However, I will certainly write to him about the questions to which I do not now have the answers; and this applies also to the questions of other noble Lords.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me on that point? I do not want to leave him under any misunderstanding. Unfortunately, I had to export myself yesterday; I am back again but I had not time to give the noble Lord notice of my questions.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I quite understand the noble Lord's difficulties; he also will understand that I cannot now give him all the information for which he has asked.
On the Second Reading of this Bill's predecessor last year I was able to congratulate my noble friend Lord Silkin on the lucid and persuasive explanation he gave of that Bill. It is again my pleasure to congratulate him to-day on his masterly presentation of the present measure which, although drafted very differently, has essentially the same objectives. I am grateful to my noble friend for acknowledging the help given in another place to improve the Bill. I know from what he said this afternoon that he will agree with me that the Bill is now better than it was before. I am particularly pleased to note all the support that he has received today for his Ponies Bill. He had a lot of support last year, but he has surpassed that to-day and he ought to feel very proud of himself to-night. Every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate has given him support, I think, except the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I am not sure whether he said that he supported the Bill, but he indicated that he did.
I am probably going to be the odd man out. While I shall not oppose the Bill in any way, I am not going to give it the overwhelming support that many of your Lordships have given it in your speeches. The House may recall that I explained in detail why the Government felt unable to support the earlier Bill. It would, I think, not help your Lordships if I were to go over all that ground again. All I would say now is this. Despite the improvements which have been incorporated in the present Bill, it remains a measure which, in our view, in part is based on

515
misconceptions and in part duplicates provisions under the existing law. For these reasons we are still unable to support it.
I feel that it is necessary to restate our views in case it should be thought that the changes which have been made in another place make the Bill more acceptable in principle to us. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the aims of the Bill command a good deal of sympathy in Parliament and outside. Because of this, we have been, and remain, content to leave Parliament to decide on the principles contained in the Bill. As my noble friend has admitted, we have helped the sponsors to improve the Bill. This was necessary because if it was to become law it had to be workable; and I am bound to remind the House that the earlier version was not workable, for a number of technical and procedural reasons. As a result of what has now been done to the Bill, I can assure the House that in its present form it presents a practicable basis on which to implement its intentions.
I will try to deal with one or two of the the points made earlier in the debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans, and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, were bothered about the allegation that soon quite a lot of pit ponies will be on the market. There is a good deal of truth in this, but we ought not to be too bothered about what will happen to the pit ponies, because if this Bill becomes law it will apply to all ponies. It will provide required safeguards against the export for slaughter of pit ponies as of other ponies. All of us know that the National Coal Board seem to have a very great affection for their pit ponies and will take all steps to ensure that redundant pit ponies are found satisfactory homes. So I do not think we need worry unduly about what will happen to pit ponies when there is no further use for them in the pits.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the only reason why I was worried was that I was frightened that somebody might try to reduce the minimum value from £70—in which case the pit ponies would presumably go for slaughter abroad—or that the maximum height might be raised from 12 to 12½ hands.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, as I told the House a moment ago, this Bill, if passed, will apply to pit ponies as to all other ponies.
The noble Lord, Lord Swansea, raised a number of questions. He was sad because a reference to the Secretary of State for Wales did not appear anywhere in this Bill. He asked whether we could in any way bring him in. The answer to that is, reluctantly, no. The noble Lord asked also about air transport and whether this is covered in the Bill. The answer is, yes; it is covered.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, raised quite a few questions. I warned him earlier that I could not possibly reply to all of them. He wanted to know about valuations of ponies. We propose that professional valuers should, at exporters' expense, value every pony intended for export, so that there cannot be evasion by exporting in batches. I hope that he will be satisfied with that small crumb of comfort.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it would be helpful if at a later time the noble Lord could let us know what the cost per pony of that valuation would be. I should imagine it might be quite considerable.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I will let the noble Lord have information on that point by letter later.
My Lords, I indicated at the beginning of my reply that I would not attempt to answer all the questions that had been raised. I will read the debate very carefully, and I promise that I will send a reply to noble Lords who have not received an answer from me to-night.
5.50 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords. I should like to reply briefly to some of the points which have been made, and I will be brief. First, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have spoken, including those who have been somewhat critical or doubtful about some of the provisions in the Bill. It is all helpful. Then I should like particularly to thank my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton for the manner in which he has dealt with the Bill, which I am sure is one of which his Department is not particularly enamoured. He has been most helpful in what he has said and he has dealt

517
with a good many of the queries which have been raised.
We have had a rather interesting, though very short, talk about the position of a Bill which is due to be discussed in Committee—of course it will have a Committee stage—and to which it might be desirable to have Amendments. But if we pass those Amendments, we lose the Bill. It is, of course, a question of balance. Supposing the noble Lord is right in saying that the word "harness" ought to be included and that if we had ample time we would put it in the Bill, does he think it worth while running the grave risk of losing the Bill in order to try to get that word in? I should have thought not, but in any case I should have thought that the term "harness" is covered by one of the terms "riding", "breeding" or "exhibition". I do not know which. Further, I would say that this Bill is to be read in conjunction with the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. That Act, in Section 37, does not refer to harness at all. It refers to "breeding" and "exhibition", and we have tried to follow this in the present Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked who was to value these ponies. Section 37(3) of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 deals with that particular point. It says that the inspector has to be satisfied. In the case of the present Bill the Minister will be making regulations, and no doubt he will make regulations which will provide for the inspector to decide what is the value. If an inspector is capable of valuing a heavy draft horse or a vanner, mule or jennet, or an ass, it should not be beyond his comprehension to value a pony.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord may be quite right, but I understood his noble friend to say that this would be done by expert valuers and not by the inspector. The provision in the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 simply says:
"in the opinion of the inspector the horse is not more than …"
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I put one point to the noble Lord. I think he is being hardly fair to us, because he is putting us in an exceedingly difficult position. On the one hand we want the objectives of the Bill, but on the other hand he is saying to us
518
that we must agree that Parliament should pass an inadequately or badly drafted Bill. Personally, I would prefer Parliament to pass good legislation, even at the risk of losing something which we hope there would be a further opportunity of getting at some future date, rather than to let Parliament pass sloppy Bills which are incomplete and inadequate in their drafting.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord does not say that I have been unfair to him. I have not. I have faced up to the issues as fairly as I possibly can.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I withdraw the word "unfair".
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, in my view the points which have been raised are frivolous or trivial. I really do think they are trivial and therefore I am throwing that into the balance. But it will be for the House, when in Committee, to decide this for itself. Noble Lords will be free to put down Amendments to the Bill; the Committee will be free to discuss those Amendments, and I am only uttering a warning that in all the circumstances I feel that I would resist any Amendment that has been foreshadowed so far. There may be an Amendment which is so shattering and which goes right to the root of the Bill that one would not dream of passing the Bill without making such an Amendment. But so far, from the points which have been raised in the discussion this afternoon, I cannot see that there is likely to be any Amendment which would justify holding up this Bill in order that it might be passed in some indefinite future Session.
I do not know that there is anything else I need to say. I am glad that my noble friend is not asking your Lordships to reject this Bill. It would have been an interesting constitutional point to ask your Lordships to reject a Bill which has had an unopposed acceptance in another place.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HIGHWAY CODE AND DRIVERS' HAND SIGNALS
5.57 p.m.
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether they

519
would consider reintroducing the "Stop" sign for motorists, which was discarded not long ago. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must apologise for asking this Question just before your Lordships rise for the Recess, but I can promise that I will not keep you long. I should like to start by removing what I think may be a slight misunderstanding, due to my wording of the Question. I am not referring to the road sign, the "Halt" sign; I am referring to the driver's sign which, your Lordships will remember, was a hand held upright, indicating "I am about to stop". For some reason or other that has been discarded. As your Lordships will see on page 34 of the new Highway Code, the flashing of the deft trafficator takes its place as meaning, "I intend to move into the left, turn left or stop on the left". That is a good deal for one signal to mean, and I can show why it can cause danger.
I was told by my friend, the Director of Tests at the Institute of Advanced Motorists, of an experience he had only a few days ago. He was driving down the Chiswick High Road towards the headquarters of the Institute. It was during the rush hour, when traffic was fairly thick, and a car gave this signal—the flashing of the left-hand trafficator—just before approaching a left-hand turn. It was not unnatural for my friend to think that the driver of the car intended to turn down that turning. Not a bit of it. The car pulled up; the door opened and a man got out. The whole of that stream of traffic was held absolutely solid for some way back—because, of course, the traffic was too thick for vehicles to move out into the other stream which was already full. So there he remained for some considerable time, he, of course, being too conscientious a driver to try to force his way out into the second stream. But unfortunately that is not the case with everybody, and they might attempt to do so, with very serious consequences. I therefore hold that there should be some "Stop" sign quite distinct from the turning left or the moving left sign. I do not know why the old hand signal was discarded—whether it was because it bore an unfortunate resemblance to the Nazi salute; but at any rate it was.
My noble friend Lord Teynham, when I was discussing this subject with him to-day (I am sorry he is not here to bear this out), said that hand signals are never used now; that no driver wants to open his window, particularly in cold weather. That, I admit, is so. On the other hand, I should have thought that with this stop signal he would not mind so much, because in any case he is going to open the door and get out into the cold himself. Therefore, I should have thought it would not be such a great sacrifice for a driver to lower his window and give a stop sign.
Incidentally, although my friend the Director of Tests of the Institute of Advanced Motorists does not agree with this, I have often felt that it might be possible to devise some form of mechanical or electrical signal which would mean stop. I have sometimes thought that three red lights in a vertical row could be used to give that same signal. One could think of many ways of doing it. But I still think that the old sign, of just holding one's hand up out of the window, was a far more effective one than anything one might devise. I should like to ask why it has been discarded and whether the Ministry of Transport would possibly consider its reintroduction.
6.3 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Somers, has apologised for a certain lack of clarity in his Question. I must say that I misunderstood it, and I came down fully briefed to answer quite a different problem. For this reason perhaps he will forgive me if my Answer to-day is little more than a promise to convey his views to my right honourable friend and to get his reply to the point that the noble Lord has made.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I should have let him know.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord need not apologise. I tried to get in touch with him, but for some reason we missed each other. I must stay that I personally have substantial sympathy with the noble Lord's point. One does not know whether the driver in front of one is turning left or

521
is proposing to stop. Having been brought up in the old-fashioned way, I personally still give a hand sign. It seems to me that the point the noble Lord has made is valid, and I think that it should be considered. I have understood exactly the point he is trying to make, and I undertake to bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, and to write to the noble Lord in reply. I am afraid that, having guessed wrong as to the Question he was asking, this spendid brief I was given is entirely irrelevant; but, as I have said, I will provide the noble Lord with a written reply.

FARMER AND COMPANY LIMITED (TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION)BILL HARDY BROTHERS LIMITED (TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION)BILL
Reported, without amendment.
BEDFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
DUDLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.] WARLEY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.