Lords Sitting of 12 February 1970

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

WOLVERHAMPTON HOUSING POLICY AND RACE RELATIONS ACT
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take arising from the decision of the Housing Committee of the Wolverhampton Town Council to maintain discrimination in its allocation of houses despite the ruling of the Race Relations Board.]
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, the Race Relations Board are discussing with Wolverhampton County Borough Council aspects of the Council's housing policies. The House will know that the Council have certain statutory responsibilities and discretions under the Housing Acts. The Race Relations Board are charged with securing compliance with the Race Relations Act 1968. The matter under discussion is whether the Council's policies are consistent with that Act, which is of course for the Board to pursue. I very much regret that the situation has not yet been resolved.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask her this question? Is it not the case that the Race Relations Board decided that the decision of the Council was discriminatory? Is she aware that following that decision the Chairman of the Housing Committee, Alderman Peter Farmer, said:
"We have no intention of reversing the rule."
Is my noble friend further aware that the proposal now is that people shall be excluded from housing priority unless
1014
they have been in this country for 10 years; and would not that also be in effect discriminatory against immigrants?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, what my noble friend has said is broadly true, to my knowledge, but I should like to point out that this still comes under the conciliatory actions which the Race Relations Board have to take. The next question, of course, is whether this matter goes to the courts, and that is entirely between the Council and the Race Relations Board.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in those circumstances I will postpone further comment until a decision has been reached.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she can confirm that when coloured people have some legitimate grievance or difficulty there are facilities available to them to represent their case and get it properly presented by properly constituted bodies?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, it is quite true that there are facilities for representations to be made by anybody who wishes to do so.

MALAYSIA MASSACRE CHARGE AND PUBLIC COMMENT
LORD GRIDLEY: 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, in view of the inquiries by the Secretary of State for Defence into the alleged massacre by British security forces in Malaysia in 1948, whether there is no restraint on the publication in the public Press and on television of prejudicial interviews with alleged witnesses.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, there is no legal restraint on public discussion of this matter. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said in another place that he is calling for documents relating to the original investigation and other relevant material, and that he will consider whether to refer the

1015
matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the possibility of criminal proceedings cannot be ruled out at this stage, it is clearly desirable that any public comment should be circumspect.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that Answer, may I put three brief questions to him? With regard to the incident of December, 1948, do not the present accusations published by the People newspaper amount to a trial by the Press of the lawfully constituted authorities of Malaysia at that time? Secondly, is it not a fact that the officer administering the Government of Malaysia during that period carried out a personal investigation and found that no criminal proceedings were at that time justified? Finally, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether the Government are aware that there is a feeling that these Press accusations amount to a smear on former colonial administrators of that territory, which not only is causing pain but is deeply resented by them?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, about trial by the Press, there can be no contempt of court unless criminal proceedings are in being or are imminent. The objections to trial by newspaper, which have often been voiced, of course remain the same. As to his second supplementary question, may I say that to the best of my knowledge the answer is, Yes. As to the third, I think that that question is rather going into the merits of the matter, which I would rather not do.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not a fact that when we ask for possible cases of miscarriage of justice to be reopened after a number of years we are always told that the recollection of witnesses is likely to be unreliable? Why is it that this is not relevant also in the case of the Army?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that may be so.

MIDDLE EAST TENSION AND RUSSIAN NOTE
3.12 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what reply has been given to Mr. Kosygin's Note on the increasing tensions in the Middle East.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, on Monday, February 2, the Soviet Ambassador gave my right honourable friend the Prime Minister a message from Mr. Kosygin which drew attention to the dangers of the present situation in the Middle East and urged the need for progress towards a peaceful solution.
My right honourable friend's reply to Mr. Kosygin was delivered on February 6. In it he emphasised our deep concern about the deterioration of the Middle East situation; the need to re-establish an effective cease-fire; our support of the Security Council resolution of November, 1967, and especially the twin principles of withdrawal and commitment to peace; and our willingness to work for a general agreement on arms limitation even in advance of a political settlement, for which we shall continue to strive.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am deeply grateful for that Answer? May I ask him whether, in view of the reported complementary proposals made by the British Government, the American Government and the French Government in this matter, which have included not only the proposal for a cease-fire but a limitation of arms to bring about a balance of arms, and a guarantee of the independence of Israel and the Arab States, the security of their frontiers and a peace-keeping force—in view of this wide area of agreement, it is possible for the three Powers, together with Russia, to urge that the United Nations' representative should press this both with the Arab States and with Israel?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend has said, and so far as his suggestion is concerned we are of course continuing to play a very full part in the Four Power talks which are going on. Obviously, they must remain confidential at the moment. But we are trying to devise some fresh guidance for Dr. Jarring, the United Nations' representative, and certainly my noble friend's ideas will be borne very much in mind.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that, whatever our own view may be on the clash in the Middle East between the two super-Powers, we are likely to have singularly little influence on either of them, and indeed on the whole progress of events, unless we and the French can somehow hammer out a joint policy, for instance, in the future, or indeed the present, European political community?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think it would be a mistake to regard what is going on in the Middle East quite simply as a clash between the super-Powers. There is a great deal more at stake in the Middle East than that, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree. I am equally reluctant to agree that a purely European approach to this problem is likely to solve it. In my view, we must get the agreement of the four Permanent Members of the Security Council, and work on the basis of the existing Security Council resolution. This, I think, is the road that points to the most likely solution.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I am sorry to persist, but if we and the French reached some agreement on arms policy surely that would help?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that the question of an agreement on arms policy in the Middle East is one for a completely multilateral agreement. We should like to see such an agreement, and would play our full part in it. But, again, I think it would be a question that affects more countries than ourselves and the French.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the difficult situation existing at the moment in all parts of the Middle East, would not the greatest contribution that the Government could make towards the
1018
easing of tension be to concentrate all their energies in promoting a cease-fire?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, of course a cease-fire is one of the things that we want to see achieved in the Middle East. But I am convinced that the best way to approach this matter is the way that we have been approaching it up to now; namely, to play a full part in the discussion among the four Permanent Members of the Security Council, with a view to getting some guidance for the United Nations representative there. I think we should let that have a further run before making other proposals.

POST OFFICE PAY OFFER AND PRODUCTIVITY
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conditions with a bearing on productivity are included in the new Post Office pay offer and what is the average percentage increased offered.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the Post Office is currently negotiating the settlement of pay in all these matters covering the majority of the non-engineering staff. I understand that it is common ground between the parties in this case that any agreement should include recognition of the need to achieve greater productivity. Noble Lords will not expect me to forecast the outcome of the discussions.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while not finding that Answer very forthcoming, and while not wishing to be other than circumspect, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in relation to a previous Question, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he does not agree that this negotiation is quite different from an ordinary industrial negotiation, since all the people of this country are closely concerned? And can he not give Parliament some more information than was contained in his original reply?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, practically every major issue in a big industrial negotiation is likely to affect a large number of people in this country,

1019
and I do not think it would be at all appropriate for us to get mixed up in the negotiations, particularly those relating to a Corporation which has only just been set up—and deliberately so that it should have a greater degree of independence.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in view of the statements which have appeared in the Press in recent days, I wonder whether the Leader of the House can add slightly to what he has already told us. Does the Post Office intend, and will it be allowed, to meet the cost of these new proposals by raising the cost of a letter from 5d. to 7d.?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord should take the advice of his noble friend behind him who advised circumspection in this matter.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that it is quite inappropriate that the details of pay negotiations by an independent Corporation should be discussed on the Floor of this House?
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, was it not the possibility of achieving greater productivity which it was suggested should be discussed on the Floor of the House?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, other questions have been asked than the question of greater productivity, but this is all part of an agreement which we hope is being negotiated.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I ask this question? Has the Post Office the same freedom on its own to raise the cost of a letter as it has in conducting these negotiations regarding pay?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry; I did not quite hear the noble Lord, although he spoke loudly. Perhaps the noble Lord would repeat his question.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, has the Post Office the same freedom, without reference to the Government, to increase the price of a letter from 5d. to 7d. as it has in conducting these pay negotiations?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is mixing up a number of
1020
different matters. There is no point in the Question itself on the subject of Post Office charges. I really cannot embark now on a whole discussion of prices and incomes policy and the role of the Government in this matter. Obviously, charges are a matter of concern to us all, but at this moment I cannot start laying down specifically where borderlines arise in particular matters.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while congratulating the noble Lord the Leader of the House on finding so many ways of saying nothing, I would ask him this further question. Would he not agree that the question of postal charges directly follows from the savings which the increased productivity may achieve, and that that is something that everybody in this country who ever writes a letter is most interested to know?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am very glad to accept the congratulations of the noble Lord.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Leader of the House at any rate inform us whether the Post Office has power, without reference to this House or to Parliament, to raise charges if it thinks fit?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I have already said that the operation of prices and incomes policy is a much more complex area than, and a different area from, the one on which I have been asked a Question. The noble Lord referred to "reference to this House". Clearly the Government have certain responsibilities and certain powers, but I do not think I can speculate on the outcome of a matter which is not before the House. It may in due course come before the House, but I think it would be very unwise for me to speculate, and I appeal to the noble Earl not to press me further.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, with great respect, that is not the question I put to the noble Lord. I do not want him to say what the outcome of negotiations is going to be. What I put to him was a simple question: is it within the powers of the Post Office to raise postal rates without coming to Parliament for authority to do so?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say to the noble Earl that that really is another question.

DONCASTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
EAST SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
GRIMSBY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (on Re-Commitment): Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

INSOLVENCY SERVICES (ACCOUNTING AND INVESTMENT) BILL
Read 3a with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GAME BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

RIDING ESTABLISHMENTS BILL [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Provisional licences for riding establishments]:
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Amendment No. 1 is really a drafting Amendment. It brings the wording in the Bill into line with the wording used in the principal Act. I do not really need to say anything more than that except that it is in better English. We do not want too many "fors". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 6, leave out second ("for") and insert ("to keep").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 2.
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("Provided that they shall not authorise a person to keep a riding establishment by virtue of a provisional licence for more than six months in any period of one year.")
The noble Viscount said: This is a rather more important Amendment. Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading I pointed out that one of the chief purposes of this Bill was to allow the local authorities, the licensing authorities, to issue provisional licences. I need not go into the reasons why, but perhaps I may say that we have had a good deal of correspondence from local authorities on the subject of provisional licences, and perhaps I may quote from a letter written by the clerk to the Berkshire County Council. The point of having a provisional licence is this. Where an applicant gets a yearly licence, under the original Act the local authority have no authority to terminate his licence, and

1023
that is unsatisfactory. I should like to point out here that the Berkshire County Council, among other county councils, have had experience of a few instances of the unsatisfactory working of the principal Act.
The letter from the clerk to the council refers to a certain establishment to which the council gave an annual licence under the original Act. The letter states:
"The veterinary inspector did suggest that the proprietor be given a last chance, and this, in fact, was done as an indication of the improvements that would be required before a further licence was issued."
The point is that the licence holder was unsatisfactory and the council wanted to terminate his licence, but under the original Act they were unable to do so until after a year had elapsed. The clerk went on to say that owing to the difficulty under current legislation of ensuring the cancellation of a licence once issued, it had been considered advisable to take the matter to a magistrates' court; but of course that takes a long time. If a council are not sure about an applicant, these provisional licences will give them power to give the applicant a trial run.
We made a mistake in the original drafting of the Bill. As the Bill is drafted, if an applicant has a provisional licence for three months there is nothing to stop him getting another provisional licence and so on ad infinitum, provided that the local authority agree. The object of this Amendment is to stop a provisional licence holder applying again in the current year after he has had two provisional licences. In other words, the licensing authority can issue two provisional licences up to six months, but they cannot issue any more after that. If the licence holder has not pulled his socks up at the end of six months, he will have to close his establishment. I am afraid I have been rather long-winded in moving this Amendment, but what it does is restricts the issue of provisional licences to six months in any one year. I beg to move.
LORD SOMERS: I am of course entirely in support of this Amendment, but there is one point which I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice. The Amendment uses the words "in any period of
1024
one year", and that might be translated as a calendar year. Therefore, one could have six months from July to December, 1970, and then one would be perfectly free to have a further six months from from January, 1971, onwards. I wonder whether that is the case.
LORD BESWICK: My understanding is that this Amendment would be both useful and effective, although I have no doubt that the noble Viscount will look at the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. But I would recommend that the Amendment be accepted.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, very much for saying that he recommends that the Amendment should be accepted. I really think that the fears of my noble friend Lord Somers are groundless, but if he is really adamant I can look at his point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("Subject to the provisions of the next following subsection")
The noble Viscount said: With the agreement of your lordships, I should like to discuss Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 together, because Amendment No. 3 is consequential on No. 7. Subsection (4), which Amendment No. 7 seeks to delete, states that the fee for a provisional licence shall be one-quarter of the amount payable for an annual licence. But local authority associations have represented that such a fee would not cover the cost falling on a local authority, since it will probably be just as expensive to issue a provisional licence as to issue an annual one. After all, there still has to be an inspection by the veterinary surgeon and he cannot be expected to charge any lesser fee for inspecting for the purpose of a provisional licence than for inspecting for an annual licence. These two Amendments mean that if we leave out subsection (4) the same fee will be payable for a provisional licence as for an annual licence. This may seem rather hard on the applicant, but I have a later Amendment down to allow a local authority discretion to charge a lesser fee, and this provision will not seem unfair once an applicant gets his annual licence. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, which is a drafting Amendment. I do not think there is anything I need say on it.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, after ("Act") insert ("as amended by this Act").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 22, after ("(4A)") insert (",(8)").
The noble Viscount said: In order to save the time of the Committee, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. The effect of these two Amendments is that the provisions of the principal Act shall have effect as if they included references to provisional licences instead of to annual licences. I am hoping that, if this Bill becomes law, the principal Act will then refer to provisional licences as it does to annual licences at the moment. But there is one point here about which there may be some doubt. Where the licence holder dies during the currency of a licence, the principal Act allows the personal representative—his heir, or whoever it may be—to continue the licence for one year from the date of death of the licence holder. It is perfectly reasonable, of course, that the personal representative of the deceased holder of a provisional licence should also be allowed to take over the licence in the same way as, under the principal Act, the holder of an annual licence can. I do not think there is anything I need add on this point. I am trying to be as quick as possible. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
("Provided that in the application as aforesaid of subsection (8) of section 1 of the principal Act the said subsection shall be read and have effect as if in place of the words ' one year' there were substituted 'three months'.").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
LORD BELSTEAD: I am sorry to hold up the Committee for a moment, but I am not quite so happy about Amendment No. 6 as is the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. Under Section 1(8) of the principal Act, the Act of 1964. when a licensee dies his personal representative may carry on the riding establishment for one year, with possible extensions of this period, if necessary, to allow the winding up of the deceased's estate. This was clearly told us by the noble Viscount at the Second Reading stage. Amendment No. 6 reduces this period of one year to three months. In the light of evidence put to the House by the noble Viscount on Second Reading, it is obviously desirable to tighten up these riding establishment rules, but there are just two points which I must say I find worrying and on which I should like advice.
The case of Rutherford v. Maurer in 1962, it would seem, established that where a riding establishment is tenanted this can constitute an agricultural holding. If the licensee of such a tenanted establishment dies, the landlord can recover the land only by serving notice, under the usual legislation, within three months on the personal representatives of the deceased, and that notice may not take effect until a full tenancy year has expired. Thus, it is possible that, if this Amendment were accepted, this Bill could force a riding establishment to be wound up three months after the death of the licensee, whereas the premises and pastures might have to be carried on by the deceased's representatives for a full tenancy year, certainly if the landlord so wished. In simple terms, the unfortunate personal representatives of the deceased licensee might therefore be called upon, three months after the death, to change the method of farming of the holding.
The other point is that, under Clause 98 of the Agriculture Bill which is now in Committee in another place, an occupier of an agricultural tied cottage may remain in his house for at least six months after his job has ended; and very possibly this will find complete approval when it comes to this House. If a riding establishment has an employee in a tied cottage on the premises (and under the 1947 Act "agriculture" is interpreted as meaning "livestock breeding and keeping"), if the licensee dies and the business has to be wound up within three months, I do not see that this will quite

1027
correspond with Clause 98 of the Agriculture Bill. I suggest to your Lordships that it could cause complete confusion for all concerned. I quite understand the reasons for the noble Viscount's Amendment, but I wonder whether it ties in with other legislation on these two points. If the noble Viscount or the Government (to whom I must apologise for not having given notice of these two points) could set my mind at rest on these two matters, then of course I shall most certainly support this Amendment.
LORD BESWICK: I am certainly not able to set the noble Lord's mind at rest straightaway. What appeared to be a point of the utmost simplicity has been made very complicated by the reference which the noble Lord has made to the other legislation. All I can say is that we will have a look at it. So far as I can see, the situation would not be changed as a result of accepting this Amendment. Previously there was no provisional licence for a person to pass on to his legatee: now there is to be a provisional licence, and that can be passed on in the same way as a full year's licence. But certainly we will have a look at what the noble Lord says and see whether there is any difficulty with regard to the other legislation.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I am rather ignorant about this new Agriculture Bill. I have not read it; so I am afraid that I cannot help my noble friend over the point that he has raised. But as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said, we shall be happy to look at that point.
LORD BELSTEAD: I was hoping that possibly we might be able to look at this again at the next stage. I shall oppose this Amendment if it is put to a vote.
LORD BESWICK: May I suggest to the noble Lord, since this Amendment is interlocked with other Amendments which we have passed, that it would be easier to pass this one now? For my part, I have given an assurance that if there is a difficulty we will deal with it at the next stage.
LORD BELSTEAD: Of course.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I have already spoken on Amendment No. 7. It is consequential on Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, leave out subsection (4). —(Viscount Masscreene and Ferrard.)
LORD BESWICK: I should just like to say that I thank the noble Viscount for his co-operation on these Amendments. The point that arises is one that I made on Second Reading. A provisional licence is as expensive to service—and probably may be more expensive from the local authority's point of view—as a full licence. Accordingly, Clause 1, together with Amendment 8, which gives some degree of latitude to the local authority, ought, I think, to be acceptable to your Lordships. Perhaps I may take the opportunity, too, to set at rest the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who asked about the applicability of the provisional licence within the twelve months period. I ant assured that when it is stated, "any period of one year", it means any period of twelve months and not simply a calendar year.
LORD SOMERS: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HAWKE: On the Second Reading of this Bill I asked the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether he could tell me the number of horses and ponies there were in the country. He could not do so at the time, but he was kind enough to write to me, and I think the figure should go on the Record. Apparently a sample census was taken in 1965 in regard to agricultural holdings, and that produced a figure of 147,000 horses and ponies. But that did not include horses on stud farms, at riding schools and the like; nor, of course, would it include the horses and ponies on the numerous little paddocks attached to gardens, which also-do not count as agricultural holdings. This figure was arrived at nearly five years ago, and there will be a fresh census towards the end of next year. So my surmise that the Government have not the slightest idea of how many horses; and ponies there are in the country is more or less correct. It is rather significant that they apparently do not know

1029
how many horses and ponies there are in riding schools—to which this Bill before us applies.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Amendment of section 1(4) of principal Act]:
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 4, after ("if") insert—
("(i) in place of the words 'on payment of a fee of' in subsection (2) thereof there were substituted the words 'on payment of a fee not exceeding', and
(ii)")
The noble Viscount said: As I have already pointed out, under the principal Act the local authority has no discretion regarding the fee charged for licences to keep a riding establishment. Under the original Act the fee was 10s. It is now £10. The local authority is therefore obliged to charge £10 irrespective of the circumstances. On an earlier Amendment the Committee agreed to leave out the subsection in Clause 1 which specified the fee chargeable for a provisional licence as one-quarter of that required for the annual licence. The point of this Amendment is to give the local authority discretion to charge a lower fee for any licence if they wish to do so; or they can charge the maximum fee sufficient to cover their costs.
If an applicant has a provisional licence and pays his £10, and he is then found to be satisfactory and gets an annual licence, it is a bit hard, having just paid £10 for three months, to have to pay another £10 at the expiration of that period. The object of this Amendment is to give discretion to the local authorities to vary the fee under the maximum of £10. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("proven")
The noble Viscount said: I tried to persuade my noble friend to move this Amendment but he said that he would rather support my Motion. In this Amendment we are really going back to the principal Act and suggesting the omission of the word "proven". It is a difficult matter to prove experience
1030
and I think that the word "proven" is an unnecessary one and one which would lead to complications and probably to bad feeling. I have tabled an Amendment later on which would require any applicant for a licence to have an approved certificate, so I think that we can dispense with the word "proven" in this clause. It would only make difficulties. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 15, after ("certificate") insert ("or by employing in the management of the riding establishment a person so qualified").
The noble Viscount said: Under a later Amendment to Clause 4 an applicant for a licence is required to have an approved certificate, and as we go on with the Bill we find that the Secretary of State will be able by order to approve the required certificate if he so wishes. The local authority has to discover whether the applicant has a certain standard of competence and his possession of an approved certificate will enable them to do so. The point of this Amendment is that if the applicant does not possess an approved certificate he then must undertake to employ an individual who does have an approved certificate. If he ceases to employ such an individual he will then be unable to run his riding establishment. I beg to move.
LORD SILKIN: There is an Amendment on the Marshalled List later on to require that a person holding a certificate should be 18 or over. If that Amendment were accepted by the Committee, then I think it would follow that any person managing a riding establishment should also be of that age. To ensure that may involve an Amendment at a later stage if the Amendment to which I have just referred is accepted. As the wording of this Amendment stands at the moment it could be a person over 16. It will need looking at. I mention it so that we can have another look at it in the event of the later Amendment being accepted.
LORD BELSTEAD: This was a portion of the Bill in which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, had a considerable part when in 1964 the principal Act went through. Perhaps I may remind the Committee for

1031
a moment that it was as a result of the efforts of the noble Lord and other noble Lords that the principal Act was amended to require the licensing authority to have regard to whether an applicant was— and I am quoting from the principal Act—
"suitable and qualified, either by experience in the management of horses or otherwise: …"
This discretion which the words "or otherwise" left to the licensing authority was left, I believe, mainly for a reason explained in Committee by the noble Viscount on July 2, 1964, when he explained that there was no machinery whereby a civilian could become qualified to run a riding establishment.
This Bill is going to rely on the approved certificates for which provision is made under part of Clause 4(a) and (b). I believe that approved certificates existed in 1964. However, I freely accept that the noble Viscount has made an unanswerable case for tightening up the rules which have existed since 1964, and doubtless these approved certificates will meet the case. But the re-wording of the new paragraph (a), to which this Amendment relates, caused some anxiety, and I feel that it was the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who put the matter in a nutshell on Second Reading when he asked:
"… what would be the position of a relatively inexperienced person who proposed to run an establishment with the assistance of a highly qualified manager?".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29/1/70; cols. 493–4.]
This Amendment meets that contingency precisely. I feel that I owe this explanation to the Committee because my own Amendments, Nos. 9 and 10, taken together, sought to return to the wording of the principal Act simply because I suspected this new wording, which this Amendment now, I believe, most successfully puts right.
LORD BESWICK: I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said. I must say that had he moved his Amendments I had intended to support him, because I think there is a case for giving a degree of discretion to local authorities. They are responsible organisations and they would have made responsible decisions. But the noble Lord has withdrawn his Amendments and I think that the degree of concession which the noble Viscount is now prepared to
1032
accept goes some way to meet the fears, or reservations, which I expressed. I think that this Amendment should be accepted.
As for the point put by my noble friend Lord Silkin, I think we ought to look at it. Anything he puts before us ought to be looked at. Nevertheless, I should have thought it a little strange if a responsible local authority which was not able to give a licence to a person under 16 or 18 (whichever age we eventually agree upon) should consider a manager as being experienced and suitable if he or she were under the agreed age. But that is something which should be looked at. Meanwhile, I would recommend the acceptance of the Amendment now before the Committee.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I thank the noble Lord for his great help. We are going to discuss the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, soon and I will take up his point then.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This Amendment is drafting. We are going back to the wording of the principal Act by accepting this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("of a suitable type and size") and insert ("suitable").— (Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I beg to move Amendment No. 13. This Amendment is also drafting. I do not think there is anything I need to say upon it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 34, leave out ("as well") and insert ("not only").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I beg to move Amendment No. 14. This Amendment is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("as") and insert ("but also").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I beg to move Amendment No. 15. This is a drafting Amendment, too.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, leave out ("maintained, provided and kept") and insert ("provided and maintained").—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I beg to move Amendment No. 16. This is a drafting Amendment to correct a printing mistake.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 28, leave out ("(vii)") and insert ("(viii)")—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 40, leave out ("over 16 years of age ") and insert ("of the age of 16 years or over ").
The noble Viscount said: The object of Amendment No. 17 is to make it possible for a person of exactly 16 years of age to be in charge of a riding estalishment. I will not speak at great length on this point because the noble Lords, Lord Somers and Lord Silkin, have down an Amendment in which they suggest the age of 18. Perhaps I may first hear what the noble Lords are going to say and then I can answer their suggestions. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 40, leave out ("16") and insert ("18").
The noble Lord said: I should like to start by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having added his name to these two Amendments. With your Lordships' permission, I will speak to Nos. 18 and 19 at the same time, because they both deal with the same point. There is not much that I need say after what I said on Second Reading. It is a fact that maturity does not as a rule occur so early as the age of 16 and it is essential that a riding establishment should be in charge of a mature and capable person. I do not think that anybody under the age of 18 is likely to be such a person. There may be excep-
1034
tions, of course, but I think on the whole it is unlikely, since maturity does not mean only factual knowledge or physical development; it means experience and the ability to see things from the point of view of others. A great many people I know never develop that power to the end of their lives, and one cannot get away from the fact that one is unlikely to do so at the age of 16. The minds of most young people are very much turned in on themselves. Therefore, I consider that 18 is the suitable minimum age.
The reason why Amendment No. 19 is slightly more extended is merely because of a point which was brought forward by my noble friend Lord Belstead on Second Reading. He pointed out that as the subsection stood at the moment, there is no need for anybody at all to be in charge. Therefore I re-worded it as it stands in Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: It is true that in the principal Act there is no minimum age limit. Young girls of 12 can take people out riding on the main road, give instruction or be in charge of the establishment, but under this Bill nobody under the age of 16 may do this. It may be that some people are more responsible than others at the age of 16. But the real problem is how riding schools are to get people of 18. The average person of 18 is probably starting on a career other than in connection with horses; or he or she may be about to go to university. If this Amendment were accepted, it would probably be difficult for these riding establishments to get employees, and therefore I do not feel I can accept the Amendment. Many of these boys and girls have just finished their education at the age of 16. I think that girls of 16 are probably more responsible than boys of 16. Girls, particularly, are keen on riding stables and take an interest in ponies and horses, and I understand that riding establishments get most of their employees from this age group. Therefore, it would be difficult for them if the age were raised to 18. Reluctantly, I am unable to accept the Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: We are not talking about people who are employed in the

1035
riding establishment; we are talking about people who are to be in charge. It seems to me quite anomalous that we should in one part of this Bill make it a qualification for a licence that a person should have, as we originally said, proven experience—at any rate, experience—in the management of horses, and then to say that such experience can be obtained by a person just leaving school at the age of 16. It seems to me that we are asking the local authority in considering a licence to accept the impossible.
A girl just leaving school at the age of 16 cannot possibly have experience in the management of horses. But such a girl could well go into a riding establishment. I know quite a number of riding establishments in my area which employ girls of 16 and upwards. They gradually acquire the necessary training and experience, and by the time they are 18 they may well be fit to take charge of the establishment. But it cannot be right to say that at the age of 16 a girl is fit to be in charge of an establishment, which involves not only the administration but also taking out young girls or boys for rides on main roads. One sees perhaps a dozen children riding horses on the road, and to put them in charge of a girl of 16 is really asking for trouble.
I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene, will reconsider his refusal to accept this Amendment and agree that 18 is a suitable age. After all, we have just established by legislation that people are responsible at 18, but not earlier. We have given them full privileges at 18—the right to vote and other things— and by law they are mature. I think that in a case of a person running a riding establishment that person should be equally mature. I feel that this is an important Amendment, and that the Committee ought to accept it.
LORD AUCKLAND: I think the Committee are in a difficulty here. I used to ride as a child, and my three children ride now. So I have had some experience of visiting riding establishments and seeing how they are run. I do not think that in this case the accent should be on maturity. Riding is a country pastime, and where girls or boys of 16 have been riding (as many in the country do) since early childhood, the odds are that they are youngsters of reasonable ex-
1036
perience. I do not think that a girl or boy is any more or less experienced in this particular pastime at age 18 than two years earlier, at age 16. What is clearly needed, in view of the accident rate in some riding establishments, is a measure making compulsory the wearing of riding hats, and perhaps some kind of test, similar to a driving test, before these youngsters take children out on a main road.
I do not think that the Amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Somers and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will accomplish what surely is our main requirement from this Bill; namely, that it tidies up the law relating to riding establishments and makes them into safe and responsible places. I do not think that age should be the criterion. The accent should be on experience, and the onus should be on the proprietor of the establishment to make quite certain that those youngsters who take out children are themselves reasonably experienced.
LORD SOMERS: I quite agree with my noble friend that there are young people in the country who have been riding ever since early childhood and who probably have a great deal of experience. But one must realise that this Bill cannot discriminate between those who have experience and those who have not. If a figure of any kind is to be put into the Bill, it will have to be such a figure as will preclude the employment of those who have not had the experience.
LORD SILKIN: Perhaps I might say one more thing. If we leave the age at 16 are we not rather encouraging the running of a business by people who have no financial responsibility? They cannot be sued if anything happens and they get into difficulties: they just plead the minority. Ought we not, when we are considering the minimum age at which a business may be run—and a riding school is a business—to ensure that the person who runs it is of a mature age and legally responsible for any liabilities that may arise?
LORD BELSTEAD: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, whether it is not possible in such a case for the licensee to be sued and to be held responsible? With reference to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, are we not going to considerable trouble in

1037
this Bill to set up a system of properly licensed owners or managers who will be responsible for seeing that the 16-year old or 18-year old, according to how your Lordships decide, is really the right type of person to be accompanying riders, or to be left temporarily in charge?
I suggest that we have one difficulty here, in that I am not entirely sure that these two paragraphs go together. Paragraph (b) refers to people who accompany riders, and paragraph (c) refers to somebody who is temporarily left in charge of the business. If I may address my remarks to paragraph (b), I should like to support strongly the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who made the point that if you remove the young person of 16 to 18 from the powers which would be allowed if this Bill goes through unamended, then you are removing a tremendous source of supply, particularly of 16- and 17-year old girls, who so often help in the riding establishments. Normally I find myself, if I may respectfully say so, in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. To this end, I armed myself with the Latey Report. I could not really find a great deal in it to support or demolish the case which we are debating now. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, referred to legislation. Surely, if a 16-year old is allowed to decide on whether he or she is to have a medical operation, should not the 16-year old be allowed to accompany somebody on a road if, of course, the licensed owner or manager thinks fit?
May I put this question to the movers of these two Amendments? Have there been cases of danger in these matters? Is this something which we are trying to put right or is it something which is springing from our own minds and imaginations? That is not to say that I feel that these arguments apply to paragraph (c), which I think is slightly different. However, as it would be complicated to change the ages between these two paragraphs, I suppose they must be taken together. On the grounds that I have submitted to your Lordships, I must say that I feel it would be very hard to support the noble Lords on these Amendments.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: May I just ask for some information? I
1038
think there is a little difficulty here with regard to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised. I may be asking something which I should know about, because I have only picked up what I know by listening to this debate. Under the Bill is it possible for a licence to be granted to a person of 16 years of age to own and run an establishment? If that is so, I think there is great point in what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said. It is a different point from whether a 16-year old should be responsible enough to take children out riding on a road. Some 16-year olds might be responsible enough, and some might not. It seems to me that there is a point of considerable importance in the matter which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised. I should like to hear further about that.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: In answer to my noble friend behind me, it would be virtually impossible for a 16-year old to get a licence from a local authority to run a riding establishment. To start with, I doubt very much whether a 16-year old could get the necessary qualifications from the point of view of certificates and financial backing, and also from the point of view of the general background of experience.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made great play of the fact that the age of majority had been reduced from 21 to 18, which of course is correct. We have to remember that we could have under the principal Act individuals under 16 taking people out riding, and being temporarily in charge of the riding establishment—
LORD SILKIN: Or permanently in charge, and owning a riding establishment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Under the original Act no licensing authority would have given a licence to a child of 12 to run a riding establishment; it would have been completely impossible from a practical point of view. As the age of majority has been lowered from 21 to 18, it means that at 18 years of age people can vote and are responsible for their debts; that is, three years younger than before. I realise that there is three years' difference. Therefore, I submit that a 16-year

1039
old to-day is really equivalent to an 18-year old of perhaps five, six or ten years ago. We have lowered the age of majority regarding the responsibility for debts, and I think it would be a retrograde step if we said that from the point of view of looking after riding establishments people of 16 were not responsible. As I pointed out, a licensing authority would not and could not grant a licence to a person of 16 to run a riding establishment. It is quite a different matter when you consider a person of 16 being temporarily in charge for an afternoon, or a relatively short time.
LORD BESWICK: If I may intervene at this point, this seems to be a momentous matter which will have to be decided by other means. Her Majesty's Government do not hold a strong opinion on this. I would offer the following observations. There seems to be a misunderstanding; we are not talking about the licensee. These two paragraphs do not refer to the age of the licensee at all. The principal Act lays down that the licensee should be over 18 years of age. That, to some extent, meets some of the fears which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, voiced. The question here is whether, if you are going to have an age, it shall be 18 or 16 so far as a person in charge of a string of horses out on the road is concerned, or a person who is left temporarily by the licence holder in charge of the stable while others take the horses out.
In this case we are improving the Bill by laying down this minimum age of 16; there was no minimum age before and we are therefore making an advance. To that extent the Committee has already accepted the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount. It seems to me that if on experience the age of 16 is proven to be too low, we could have an Amendment, and no damage would be done. If we were to accept an Amendment making the age 18, some damage could be done in the meantime, because I should have thought that it was quite true that certain riding establishments would find it difficult to recruit the necessary labour. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who said that here we are not talking about factual knowledge or physical development. We are not. We
1040
are talking about persons who are capable of taking horses out on the road.
Personally, I would rather trust some 16-year olds than myself. I would hold claim to be considered capable of handling maybe even still an aeroplane, but not of handling a string of horses. There are boys and girls who have grown up with horses whom I would trust. If a licence holder puts children in charge who are not trustworthy, I should have thought that would become known and the local authority would have to consider that when they came to renew the licence of the licence holder. Therefore, although Her Majesty's Government do not lay down any hard and fast policy in this regard, if the matter came to an issue personally I would vote in favour of 16.
LORD DERWENT: May I add just one word on a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did not refer? Paragraph (c) refers to leaving a 16-year-old in charge. This is perfectly sensible. The licensee is still responsible. It may be, as does happen, that there are no horses out on a particular day in the middle of the week, and perhaps he wants to go off and buy forage and he leaves his 16-year-old daughter in charge of the stables. Why should he not? She has probably been brought up with horses, and if anyone calls she can see him. To say that one must be 18 before one may be left in charge temporarily of a stable of that kind seems to me to be—I will not say stupid, because I must not say that, but not quite right.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I think two points need bringing to your Lordships' attention. First, I quite agree that a licence holder in charge of a stable should be 18. But Clause 2(4)(a) refers to "an approved certificate", and surely children taken out for rides should be in the charge of someone holding a certificate. It does not matter whether he is 16 or 60; so long as he has a certificate he should be capable of looking after them.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.32 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: I have understood the arguments against Amendment No. 18, but I think that No. 19 is even more important, and therefore I beg to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 44, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) a riding establishment shall at all times be in charge of a person who shall be over 18 years of age;").—(Lord Somers.)
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I was going to speak about this Amendment when dealing with the following Amendment, which is one of mine and which refers to a provision that "the carrying on of the business of" a riding stable shall not be left in the charge of a person under 16. But I think it is quite absurd that a riding establishment should not be in charge of a person under 18 for specific duties. For instance, there may be some days when the horses are not going to be hired out at all to customers; therefore they have just got to be fed and watered and exercised. In those circumstances it would seem to be unreasonable that a person of 18 or over has to be in charge all the time. After all, take a family farm. There are plenty of instances where the animals are fed and watered by people under 18. I do not think that this Amendment is practicable. I can enlarge on the matter when I come to my Amendment, but I am extremely loath to accept this proposal; in fact, I do not think I can.
EARL FORTESCUE: I am all in favour of the young, but it strikes me that the definition of "left in charge" requires tightening up. Take a case like this. A competent young man is running a quite small establishment which is rather slack in the middle of the week. He has two girls under him as strappers and occasional instructors. Because business is slack he wants to go off to the local race meeting, or he falls sick. One of these presumably fairly competent girls is left in charge. What is "left in charge"? Somebody must be left in charge when the boss goes out. It strikes me as a bit hard that there should be no distinction between the licensee I have described and the absentee licensee who leaves somebody to run the business. The question of what we mean by "left in charge", as I say, needs tightening up.
LORD SOMERS: I wonder whether what may happen when one is left alone in charge has ever occurred to my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. A
1042
fire may break out; one of the horses may suddenly go wild and start creating a lot of trouble; a bunch of thugs may break in and try to create a great deal of damage. All sorts of things may happen. I cannot think that any establishment should be left in the charge of a person under 18 years of age.
LORD BESWICK: I wonder whether it might be possible to move on. I think we ought to be reasonable about it. If all the awful contingencies which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is thinking up are going to arise, then I think a boy or girl of 18 is going to be in difficulties. Even a girl of 19 or 20 is going to find it difficult to cope with a bunch of thugs if they suddenly descend upon her. I had more sympathy with the earlier Amendment which affected the boy of 16 or 17 years of age out in the road. The case was stronger there. But if the horses are safely stabled and the licensee has left for lunch, surely a boy or girl of 16 could properly be left in charge.
Moreover, as was said earlier, up to now there has been no limit at all and these places have been left. No one has brought any awful case, even when a 12 or 13-year-old has been left in charge. We are making an improvement. I suggest that we accept the improvement which the noble Viscount has already put before us, and reject this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Somers.
LORD SILKIN: I think there is considerable force in the Amendment, as there always is in any views put forward in this House. It is nearly always a balance of advantage which decides the line to be taken. I personally should be prepared to advise the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, to consider the case that has been put almost unanimously by members of the Committee, and to come back at a later stage if he thinks it right to do so. I see the force of the argument that a person under 18 might be left in charge when the owner goes out to lunch. The licensee, under the principal Act, must be 18 years of age or over—there is no question about that. But, of course, there are other circumstances. Being left in charge may not be limited to merely a period when the owner goes out to lunch. The owner may be going on holiday for a month or for three months. Then if an immature

1043
person is left in charge it is a very different proposition.
However, as I say, if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his Amendment I shall be glad to have another chat with him to see whether we can draw up something which would meet the difficulty which we feel, and which I am sure other members of the Committee feel as well.
LORD SOMERS: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, with his much greater experience, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 44, at beginning insert ("the carrying on of the business of").
The noble Viscount said: I hope that this Amendment may to some extent quell the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Somers. The point is that under this Amendment the person left in charge of a riding establishment may be under 16, but only if the riding establishment is closed to customers. If one is under 16 one cannot hire out a horse or take anybody out riding but can only feed and water the horses and ensure that there is no danger of fire or some such occurrence. The point is one cannot deal with customers. The principal Act was remiss, in that somebody under 16 years of age could be left in sole charge and a customer might come along; and the person under 16 might be incapable of deciding whether the customer was sufficiently experienced to take a horse out on his own, or, if he was not experienced, what sort of pony or horse he should have. This Amendment tightens up that provision, and for that reason I commend it to your Lordships.
We have had a long argument about the age of 18 and I think it has been decided that it would be difficult for riding establishments if the age was fixed at 18. Of course I cannot point out too often that it is the licensee who will be responsible if any legal action is involved. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 1, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
("(d) the licence holder shall hold a current insurance policy which insures him against liability for any injury sustained by those who hire a horse from him for riding and those who use a horse in the course of receiving from him, in return for payment, instruction in riding and arising out of the here or use of a horse as aforesaid and which also insures such persons in respect of any liability which may be incurred by them in respect of injury to any person caused by, or arising out of, the hire or use of a horse as aforesaid;")
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to tighten up the whole principle of insurance policies held by the licensees of riding establishments. If the owner of a riding establishment has a pupil out on a horse, and the horse bolts into a bus queue or a crowd, or into somebody's property, the owner is not bound, under the principal Act, to be covered by insurance for injuries suffered by members of the public as a result of the horse's bolting. Under this Amendment the owner would be so bound. It is surprising that the principal Act did not tighten up the provision with regard to the insurance policy to be held, and in my opinion the wording in that Act was defective in that regard. It is highly desirable that a licence holder should be made to insure against injury and damage to the general public arising from one of his pupils being out of control on a horse. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of section 4 of principal Act
". Subsection (1) of section 4 (Penalties and disqualifications) of the principal Act shall be read and have effect as if the maximum fine which may be imposed on summary conviction of an offence under that Act as amended by this Act were a fine not exceeding £50:
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the amount of the fine which may be imposed on conviction of an offence committed before the commencement of this Act."
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is designed to bring the maximum

1045
fine for offences into line with the present depreciation in the purchasing power of the pound—I will not go into that aspect at any greater length. It will be seen that the Amendment makes the maximum fine £50, thus doubling the original penalty, which under the former Act was a fine not exceeding £25. I rather think it was the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who suggested this Amendment, so I will not trouble your Lordships any longer in explaining it. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to say a word about it. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: All I should like to do is to thank the noble Viscount for not launching upon his speech No. 3, I think it is—his anti-Labour Government inflation speech. I think the figure of £50 is reasonable, in view of the fact that the licence fee itself has gone up, and I hope that the Amendment will be acceptable to the Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Amendment of section 6 of principal Act]:
4.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, leave out line 33 and insert ("by order by the Secretary of State").
The noble Viscount said: For the convenience of the Committee I think I should take this Amendment together with the following Amendment, No. 24. These Amendments deal with the term "approved certificate". The Bill lists a number of approved certificates which are approved for the purposes of the Act, and provides for others to be prescribed by the Secretary of State by means of statutory instrument. These are drafting Amendments which make clear the manner in which the Secretary of State shall make orders prescribing additional approved certificates. They also give the Secretary of State power to vary or revoke any order made by him by virtue of this power. I beg to move No. 23.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I beg to move Amendment No. 24.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause
Orders
". The principal Act shall be read and have effect as if after section 6 thereof there were inserted the following section—
'6A. Any order made under this Act shall be made by statutory instrument and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order made in the like manner.'."—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Short Title, Citation and Commencement]:
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: It will be seen that this Amendment ensures that the Bill shall not extend to Northern Ireland. How this was omitted from the original Bill, I do not know. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 40, at end insert—
("() This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland.")—(Viscount Massereene and Ferrard.)
LORD KILBRACKEN: IS the noble Viscount saying that the principal Act does not apply to Northern Ireland?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: No; the principal Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. The drafting of this Bill in the first place was mistaken on this point—I will not say whose mistake it was.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

CORAL EROSION IN SOUTH PACIFIC
4.50 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what assistance they plan to give the international effort to combat the erosion of coral in the South Pacific by the crown of thorns starfish and the consequent destruction of the fisheries. The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may remember that some little time ago I put down a Starred Question on this particular subject. It seemed to me, if I may say so with great respect, that the problem, which is of considerable importance, was dealt with a trifle lightly

1047
by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. However, I soon saw that I had misjudged him. No sooner had I determined to pursue this further, by putting it down in the form of an Unstarred Question, than the noble Lord proceeded to the South Pacific—no doubt to provide the answers to my Question. I am extremely grateful to him for the amount of trouble he has taken, and I hope he is grateful to me for giving him the opportunity to solve the little constitutional difficulty in Fiji and to deal with one or two other minor matters on the way. But since he has gone to all this trouble, I do not intend to detain your Lordships very long.
It is, I think, a very simple situation, although a very frightening one, that has arisen in the South Pacific. The crown of thorns starfish (or acanthesta piancki, to give it its proper name) which until a few years ago was very much a rarity, suddenly, in different parts of the South Pacific Ocean, started multiplying at a tremendous rate—something in the neighbourhood of several thousand times its previous rate of expansion; a real population explosion. One of the features about this particular starfish is that it destroys the coral on reefs; it destroys it at a tremendous rate, eating very fast and leaving behind just coral skeletons which are very quickly disintegrated by wind and water. In the course of the last few years, I am told, a quarter of the Great Barrier Reef of Northern Australia has been eaten away; and in various other parts of the South Pacific coral is disintegrating at an enormous rate.
The result of this destruction of coral is, first of all, that there is an immense increase in the amount of erosion on those coasts, and particularly on those small islands which have in the past been protected by the coral from the erosion of wind and water. But I think much more important, or certainly as important, is that with the coral go the shallow water fisheries on which so many of the natives of Oceana depend for their whole protein intake, as well as for their livelihood. The Fiji and the Solomon Islands, we are told, are already threatened by this. I look forward to hearing the latest news from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. There are possible future threats (to name just the territories in which Great Britain has
1048
interests) to the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, to Pitcairn Island and to the New Hebrides. That is the general situation as it is at the moment.
Why all this is happening, how this great population explosion with the crown of thorns starfish has occurred, appears still to be completely baffling. With a great many scientists working on it, a great many theories have been put forward; but none of these appears to be totally convincing to the scientists concerned, or even, I may say, to the laymen reading about them. The most popular theory, which some of your Lordships will have heard or read about, is that this population explosion is caused by the disappearance, largely through shell collectors, of the great triton, which feeds on the crown of thorns starfish. This does not appear to be a very convincing explanation. It is true that if you put down a very large number of great tritons you might be able to bring down the population a little. But the great triton, I am told, is a lazy eater; it does not eat nearly fast enough to cope with the problem; it tends to give up halfway through a starfish, and the starfish has the capacity to grow again even when eaten through. So this does not seem a very helpful theory.
The fact remains that this represents a real threat to the livelihood of a great number of people. No one seems to know the answer, in spite of the fact that a great many scientists are working on the research, and it is quite obvious that we must all have an interest in seeing that enough money and resources are put into research to stop this complete upsetting of the balance of Nature in this part of the world. There should be an internationally co-ordinated effort to try to find the causes, and the cures. So far as I can discover—again I stand open to correction by the noble Lord—there is not very much international effort at the moment. To a certain extent the terms of my Question may be a little misleading, when I ask Her Majesty's Government:
"what assistance they plan to give the international effort to combat the erosion of coral in the South Pacific …"
I believe that there is a very great need for international effort. And since we have great interests in that part of the world (not perhaps great by our global standards, but, at any rate, interests and

1049
responsibilities; we have dependencies out there); and since we have in this country a great deal of scientific know-how, surely this is exactly the kind of international effort, rather than, say, military effort East of Suez, that we as a country should be encouraging. I feel that Her Majesty's Government should be taking some initiative towards helping an international effort, first of all for the discovery of the reasons for this plague; secondly, to try to find out the cure for it, and, thirdly, possibly, to do something to alleviate the effects for the islanders—for instance, financing capital investment in deep-sea fisheries, as opposed to shallow-sea fisheries. My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
4.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sure we should be grateful to the noble Lord for having put this Question down on the Order Paper. He is certainly a star fish himself, swimming in the bowl of your Lordships' House this afternoon, although he is not actually wearing a crown of thorns; and I can assure him that we on these Benches are not going to crucify him this afternoon.
Some noble Lords may think this a somewhat esoteric matter. I must admit that until I made inquiries recently I was not aware of the dangers inherent in the increase in the population of the crown of thorns starfish in the Pacific. I do not know whether it may have been my hereditary Whig blood which inclined me to support the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches on this matter, but I think it is an appropriate subject to debate in your Lordships' House, a subject which another place might not find the time to discuss. But although I consider that we should express our concern about the problem and discover what research is in hand, I do not think we need to send the Army to Fiji, which in any case is in the process of attaining Dominion status, and I do not think that we should literally go overboard for these fish. We should not exaggerate the problem. In my view, however, the noble Lord was quite right to draw attention to it. Although I am afraid we on this side of the House are only too liable to blame the Government for many things which happen or do not happen in the
1050
world, I do not think this is a case in which I can criticise the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, or the Government for having been complacent.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the starfish are quite right to attack the red coral?
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: That is a very interesting observation, my Lords. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be able to tell us whether he agrees with it or not. But certainly, generally speaking, I think the noble Lord and I usually see eye to eye on all questions of overseas aid.
I do not know what the noble Lord is going to say in his reply, but I should like to ask him a few questions. Am I right in thinking that, in so far as our interests are concerned, it is mainly Fiji which is relatively badly affected? Do we know what Australia is doing about this problem? Is she playing her full part already, either in an existing international effort or in a potential international effort? I have heard this afternoon that a new marine institute is to be established at Townsville. I wonder whether we should not devote our efforts to supporting that new institute, the formation of which was, I understand, recently announced by Mr. Gorton, the Australian Prime Minister. I imagine, too, that the Americans must also be involved. It would be interesting to hear from the noble Lord to what extent they are so involved; and whether they too may be helping the Australians, or whether this is separate effort.
Then there is the South Pacific Commission. I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell me whether they are in a position to take action themselves. Also, can he say exactly what the role of the United Nations is in this matter? I think they have taken an interest in the subject. Or does action depend on individual Governments? It seems to me that it may be necessary either to control human activity in the area by limiting blasting, drilling and dredging, or to try to protect the giant triton which the noble Lord has already mentioned and which is the starfish's greatest enemy. Perhaps we should do both. But, above all, has anyone devised a method of killing these insatiable starfish that do not even finish their meal? Has

1051
anyone devised a method of killing them 'without in fact damaging the coral? Incidentally, has any overall value been placed on the damage so far done?
I am sorry to ask the noble Lord so many questions, but he is probably in a position to answer most of them. We are bound to give technical assistance to our dependent territories when the need arises, but let us first decide exactly what we can do. In our debate on water pollution last week I stressed, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has done, the dangers of man upsetting the balance of Nature. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, considers that in this case man has upset the balance. At all events I hope that the Government will watch the situation most carefully and perhaps give consideration to my suggestion that we should help the Australians to set up their new institute.
5.4 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, last week the Church Assembly had a debate on man and his environment. We heard many speeches from the prophets of doom who said exactly what was going to happen if man went on upsetting the balance of Nature. I wonder whether this starfish explosion is caused through man upsetting the balance of Nature, or whether it is because Nature itself is performing the task. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, may be able to answer such a question. I personally have always read that it is the Barrier Reef which is mainly at risk at the moment. But if this erosion goes on, the prospects are much more serious than the noble Lord makes out. The coral islands form a chain connecting the Old World with the New. For defence purposes, we have airfields on coral islands in the Indian Ocean. We have anchorages in the Indian Ocean. We have coral islands in the Pacific, and anchorages at atolls, and so on. If this plague is to persist and all this coral is eaten away, those airfields and anchorages will disappear. They are only just above the sea, anyway.
Goodness knows what sort of remedy the scientists may suggest. I always believe-in private enterprise, and I consider that the most efficacious thing would be to persuade the Chinese race that this starfish is a delicacy. I think it would then disappear very quickly. But, failing that,
1052
I personally would employ the Young Liberals. Instead of stopping me from watching the finest cricket eleven in the world, they would be much better employed in the Pacific.
5.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, this is a much more serious matter, humorous though it may seem, because a quite astonishing number of the smaller territories in our Colonies and Commonwealth of Nations are built on coral and once the live coral goes the dead coral is comparatively soft and washes away with remarkable ease. There seem to be two possible remedies for this difficulty. The first, I am sure, is being chased with the utmost despatch. When you find something eating something else over-vigorously you want to find another creature which will eat the eater. No doubt that is what the biology boys are doing.
However, there is a further predator who must be taken into account in this world, and it is the greatest predator of all—man. Man is capable of consuming almost anything, given the chance and the wish; and the idea of setting the Chinese to do it is a remarkably good one. I would not mind betting that there is something valuable about the crown of thorns starfish. I do not know what it is; but if our industrialists and research boys are set to find out what it is, there may well be an answer. If. there is something valuable in this crown of thorns starfish, the best way of getting rid of it is to set man to chase it, because I am sure he will do the job very efficiently.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, referred to the desirability of getting private enterprise to work. I can offer a most useful function for the crown of thorns starfish. Off the coast of Florida there are millions of dollars' worth of 17th century gold and silver artifacts which have become buried in coral because a fleet of Spanish galleons was sunk there. An American company is spending tens of thousands of pounds in trying to remove the coral in order to raise the gold and diamonds. This they are in fact doing. I am sure that if they knew that they could accomplish their task by going to the Pacific and bringing large numbers of starfish over to Florida, they would hasten to do so.
5.8 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I greatly appreciate Lord Beaumont of Whitley's interest in this matter, in respect of which this is the third time he has put down a Question. If I appeared to be frivolous and lighthearted on the occasion of the original Questions it was not because the subject was not important, but really to disguise the fact that I was completely ignorant of the problem to which the noble Lord was directing my attention. While in Fiji I had an opportunity to discuss the problem with the Director of Fisheries, and I will endeavour, as briefly as possible, to acquaint your Lordships with some of the facts which I found on my visit, and also such information as we have been able to obtain from other sources.
I think we should bear in mind the three important factors which surround this problem: first, the starfish itself, It is usually known as the "crown of thorns". It is a prickly creature which grows up to about two feet in diameter, and it lives on the coral reef at shallow depths. In normal circumstances a fairly rare member of the coral reef fauna, one would expect a careful search to reveal no more than about two or three per thousand square metres of reef. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has said, present circumstances are not normal.
Second is the coral reef itself. The starfish lives from eating the polyps or living organisms in the reef, leaving a dead structure which can later be broken down by natural conditions. The benefits of coral reefs are many. Probably most important is the protection the reefs give to the coast, particularly the coasts of atolls or other small islands. Without the protection of reefs, the very existence of these islands can be in danger when large storms appear. Erosion of this sort is very slow, however, and fears for the safety of island populations must surely be unfounded. Indeed there are many islands composed of nothing but dead coral, and I think it is true to say that there is much more dead coral in the world than living.
Another most important factor is that the death of living coral means a decrease in fisheries production—at least tem-
1054
porarily, and this is important—for nearby societies who depend heavily upon marine sources of protein. But the dead coral quickly becomes covered by an algal growth which is the basis of a different community which might be even more productive than the coral reef itself. This is not, my Lords, an optimistic conjecture; the scientific team which surveyed Ant Island—an island which I shall mention later—where the infestation of starfish was particularly heavy, and where the coral reef was almost entirely dead, reported that fish were abundant.
From this point of view, therefore, the picture is not as black as some have depicted it. Living coral reefs, however, are also an economic asset for the tourist trade, which perhaps offers more for the future economic development of the Pacific islands than any other single prospect. Coral reefs and clear water can attract substantial revenue. This, I think, is possibly the most serious effect of the infestation. The scarce evidence suggests, unfortunately, that it will take a long time for the coral to grow again. Recovery after a major tropical storm can take 20 to 25 years and a figure of 100 to 200 years has been suggested as necessary to eradicate the depredation of this starfish.
The third factor I should mention is the giant triton—both noble Lords have referred to it—which is the only confirmed natural predator of the starfish. The causes of the sinister population explosion of this creature are not at all clear. Many possibilities have been put forward, but all are still a matter of conjecture. One possibility is that changes in the environment have improved the survival of the starfish. Another possibility is that biological changes have taken place and that these changes have made the starfish less attractive to its traditional enemies. We have much to learn about ecological changes of this kind. Others maintain—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, himself suggested—that collectors and tourists who prize the shells of the giant triton are to blame, since this is the only confirmed predator of the starfish.
Many of the islands of the South Pacific have their own population explosion of shell collectors who use modern diving equipment and avidly collect the triton shells—I gather that even badly eroded specimens are collected. The

1055
incentive to hunt the triton is strong: a single triton can bring its finder a greater profit that any other natural product of the reef. They are therefore heavily fished, and have been for some time. But, in general, islanders consider it a rare animal and capture only a few each year. This may be partly because of its nocturnal habits but, because of its relative rarity, investigators are not convinced that the possible depreciation of giant triton stocks is the only cause of the outbreak. The main support for this theory is the situation on the Great Barrier Reef where infestation outbreaks seem to be positively correlated with tourist sites, but in other places where the demand for tritons is high the starfish populations seem to be quite normal. None the less, this theory is credible. Lowering of triton stocks in particular areas frequented by divers might be sufficient to raise population levels of the starfish beyond a critical level. Such a disturbance could have happened in the heavily infested areas.
Another credible theory which has been put forward is that man's increased activity in the area since World War II has somewhere upset the balance of nature. A change of environment resulting from submarine blasting operations or dredging activities may have enabled unusually large numbers of starfish larvae to settle on clean, newly exposed surfaces. The coral itself is an enemy of the starfish larvae, but coral newly killed forms a good settling ground for starfish larvae so that once an infestation gets well under way it can build up.
I would not dispute these possibilities, but arguments against them contend that destruction of sections of coral reefs by man has been common since before the war, and that numerous explosions occurred on reefs during the war without resultant population increase—unless, of course, some of the outbreaks date back to the war. This has also been considered by some researchers. Also, storm damage produces such fresh coral surfaces, and storms have been with us since the days of Noah. While it is true that any major damage might favour the settlement of a large population of the starfish, the surfaces would probably remain suitable for settlement only for a few days at the most.
1056
Catastrophic events like World War II bombings or storms would be much less likely to provide a suitable surface than regular but methodical efforts to obtain fish or open a passage or harbour using explosives. However, since World War II, blasting and dredging have increased steadily, and some of these activities might have induced the rise of seed populations which in normal circum-stances would have later died out. Some might have initiated large scale infestations, as have been reported in several places.
Perhaps the gradual increase of specimens has only now reached a critical point where the larval population is increasing. What is clear is that this is not a sudden population explosion, and precipitate action is unwarranted. The sporadic nature of the population explosion suggests no single ocean-wide physical factor, nor has it been possible to define any single cause which would explain all the confirmed infestations. It seems probable that a combination of factors is involved. What this combination is and what the factors are can only be guessed at for the present. But since almost all outbreaks have begun near human population, it seems a reasonable assumption to believe that the infestations, in one way or another, correlate to human activities. Of the preceding theories that I have mentioned—and there are several others that have been suggested and discredited—the decrease in triton numbers and the blasting effects seem to offer the greatest credibility. Both explanations still face certain objections, however, which would have to be settled before either could be accepted as conclusive.
An interesting fact which emerges from a recent American report on the matter concerns an island bearing the unlikely name of Ant. Ant is a privately-owned atoll and its owner is a strict conservationist. He does not allow fishing within the lagoon. Tritons have not been collected and explosives are not used. The period of conservation has been in effect for several years and may have been established prior to the war. When the United States team visited the island, fish were abundant and unafraid of divers. Yet this atoll, with its strictly controlled conditions, has been infested for some time (probably three or four years) and

1057
much of the coral has been killed. With the exception of a single patch of reef on the southern portion of the atoll, the areas examined by the American team contained primarily dead coral.
Exactly what bearing this situation may have on the solution to this problem is difficult to see, but it seems to indicate that tourists, shell collectors and the lack of giant triton are not the only factors to be taken into consideration. Methods of combating the menace are at present very limited. The only effective method being used is for divers systematically to inject with formalin individual starfish. Although I gather divers can destroy up to 600 or 700 starfish a day using formalin guns, and six divers can clear up to about one mile a day, the vastness of the area to be covered makes this a very long job.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, I should like to mention a momentous discovery made by two local boys who were on a picnic in Fiji. During swimming they discovered three of these starfish and hauled them out on to the beach for closer examination. Boys will be boys, and when their initial interest waned the two youngsters showed their contempt for the creatures by urinating on one of them. What really surprised them, however, was that an hour or so later, when they wandered over to have a final look at the creatures, the "christened" one had expired, while the two others were still full of life. How this discovery can be put to use will entail long and careful consideration. We shall also, of course, have the problem of finding the boys.
I should like to mention the consider-able effort that the Australians have put into scientific research on this matter. Professor Endean of the University of Queensland has made a two-year study of the distribution of starfish on the Great Barrier Reef and certain aspects of its biology. His researches, which have not yet been published, have provided a good deal of information and identified both the urgency and the seriousness of the infestation on the Great Barrier Reef. He found that massive destruction of living coral has occurred on most of the Great Barrier Reef along a 200 kilometre section bounded by Cooktown and Townsville and that on infested reefs
1058
over 90 per cent. of the coral has been killed, and coral destruction is expanding at an alarming rate. In several places it was found that the infestation had apparently begun between the years 1959 and 1965. Professor Endean recommended a programme of containment by killing starfish by hand, the establishment of a research programme to study both starfish and tritons, the importing of live triton and the banning of the collection of triton shells.
May I mention that the Americans are carrying out a large research programme. They have given more than 200,000 dollars for research and the Westinghouse Electric Corporation have made a detailed report to the Department of the Interior. The Americans are now digesting the latter before deciding what next should be done. I think it is fair to say that almost all the work done to date is of a survey nature.
As for the other areas that have been attacked by the starfish, information is sometimes confusing, nearly always sparse and, except where special teams have made detailed surveys (for instance, around the United States Territory of Guam) evidence depends mainly on reports from the local population. We have had some reports of infestation in Borneo, on the islands off the East Coast of Malaysia, off the South-West Coast of Thailand and even in the Red Sea. The only British territory in which there is a significant problem is Fiji, but even here the extent of the damage and the size of the starfish population is not known. I have some other details about some of our other responsibilities in this area. Pitcairn and Tonga do not at the moment seem to be infested; the New Hebrides has a problem, and there are also unconfirmed reports of an increase in the British Solomon Islands Protectorate.
This information, of course, is often extremely circumstantial. In some areas where investigations have taken place the reports from the local inhabitants were knowledgeable; but in other places, particularly where the animal was well known, reports on its increase or decrease were not reliable. We are now in regular contact with our dependent territories about this problem. Of these, only Fiji has reported any large increase

1059
in numbers and resultant damage to coral reefs.
A preliminary survey on Fiji designed to evaluate the degree of infestation indicates that, although large numbers are present and considerable destruction of the coral has taken place, its population has not reached plague proportions. Certain areas appear to be more heavily infested than others, however. A further survey now under way is expected to be completed soon. The information collected from this second survey, together with that collected from the first, will give a fuller picture of the extent and degree of the problem and the destruction caused so far. I should like to stress again that, in my view, precipitate action is unwarranted, particularly in our dependent territories. I should also like to mention that my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development said in another place on December 18, that such technical assistance as may be needed will be provided to individual territories whenever the need arises. Our posts are aware of this.
May I add that the South Pacific Commission Conference held from October 8 to 18 last year passed a resolution drawing attention to this problem. We are in touch with the South Pacific Commission and representatives of the United Nations Development Programme. The latter are studying the Australian and American reports and, assuming such action is warranted, will consider dealing with the question as a United Nations Development Programme regional project.
Finally, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that Her Majesty's Government do not subscribe to the view that this problem is a natural phenomenon and that Nature should be allowed to take its course. Few proponents of this argument, I believe, would agree that other similar menaces, such as locusts, should be left to their own devices. We are keeping a close watch on the situation in all our territories and are regularly receiving reports from them. Apart from the damage to coral around Fiji, there have been no reports of damage to other British territories.
1060
Certain precautionary measures have now been taken. For example, in the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, all the district commissioners have been asked to keep a special look-out in regard to this matter. We are also doing a good deal of work in the field of publicity, not only with the district commissioners but also with the heads of touring departments, those involved in fishing and in the mercantile marine. We have even sent guidance papers to schoolchildren in certain areas, asking them to keep us informed and to pass on specimens to the local authority. In addition to this, the Solomon Islands Diving Club has agreed not only to keep its collective eye open but also to undertake research.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the remedies, may I ask him whether he will send some specimens to Canton, or to one of these places? Because once the Chinese can be persuaded to adopt this as a strengthening medicine or as a food, the thing will probably vanish.
LORD SHEPHERD: I had hoped to have a starfish in your Lordships' House. But, frankly, the thing stank to high heaven, and I had to destroy it. I cannot myself believe that we could persuade the Chinese to eat this particular animal, but perhaps we might bear the noble Lord's suggestion in mind if we can find a way of canning this particular starfish.
My Lords, I have spoken at rather longer length than I had intended, but I thought I would do so in the hope of satisfying the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, so that he will not in future feel it necessary to raise this particular subject as a Starred Question.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder if he could tell me whether the Government are giving consideration to the suggestion which I made: that we should help the Australians to establish the institute which Mr. Gorton announced very recently.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will certainly look at that point, but I indicated in the latter part of my speech that we are going to study the Australian and American reports, and, assuming

1061
that such action is warranted, we will consider dealing with the question as a United Nations Development Programme regional project. I think this would perhaps meet the noble Earl's point.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider trying to distil out of this very prolific animal something which could be regarded as a strengthening medicine in the East? Because it seems to have every mark of the necessary properties.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is so persistent that I intend to find a way to bring a starfish home, and I shall deliver it to his house at Christmas.