Lords Sitting of 4 August 1971

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

GUN-TESTING ESTABLISHMENT: PROPOSED MOVE TO SCOTLAND
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the strong and growing local objections to the moving of the Gunproofing Establishment from Foulness to West Freugh in Wigtownshire; and to ask them whether, in view of the damage which will certainly be caused to agriculture, tourism and conditions of civilised living, they will either reconsider their decision or permit a public inquiry to be held.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of objections in some quarters locally to the proposed move of part of the Proof and Experimental Establishment from Shoeburyness to West Freugh. On the other hand, as was stated in another place on July 15, a number of local interests, including the South-West Scotland Tourist Association, are in favour, and the Wigtownshire County Council has accepted the proposal. Most of the additional land required can continue to be farmed under lease. The proposal will be considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland who will decide whether a public inquiry should be held.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, which is not quite so disappointing as I had anticipated it
1148
might be, may I ask whether he is aware of the views of the local branch of the National Farmers' Union? And is he further aware that not only does it appear that 2,000 acres of excellent dairy farming land are liable to be lost, or nearly lost, if the scheme goes forward, but also that stock farming will be extremely hazardous in the coastal area in front of the guns? Further, has my noble friend heard the sad story of the two sows who aborted during test firing last month?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that in whatever quarter of the House a noble Lord may sit he would like my right honourable friend to send our deepest sympathy to the two sows who suffered this tragic loss. If this move comes about, I do not think that my noble friend need feel that the 2,000 acres he referred to will be sterilised; they will continue to be farmed. But in any event this is something that has to be looked into by my right honourable friend.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, have alternative sites been considered—for instance, the vast stretches of uncultivatable moorland on the Lancashire/Yorkshire borders?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it is necessary to have a coastal area in which to fire these shells. We have looked at every conceivable site, I would assure the noble Baroness, and there are overwhelming objections to every one. The truth is that if we are going to have an Army and if we are going to have guns, we must test them and fire them somewhere.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that if the people in Wigtownshire would prefer to have the Third London Airport, we in Essex would be quite happy to keep the Shoeburyness Proof and Experimental Establishment where it is at present?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend would find it convenient to travel from West Freugh.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, are the Government aware that the creamery at Stranraer is one of the biggest in Europe, if not the biggest, and that it is at present short of milk? Is my noble friend aware that if the range goes to

1149
where it is proposed it will almost certainly put the local cows off their milk and there will be less milk coming into the creamery? In those circumstances, would he ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland whether proper compensation will be made through the Scottish Milk Marketing Board in this respect?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, while not accepting that any of these dreadful things are likely to occur, I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has said.
LORD HOY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that any proposal of this kind causes considerable feeling in the locality? In addition to the farming interests and many others, is the noble Lord aware that some concern has been expressed by medical opinion in that area with regard to the services that might be affected? Would it not be advisable, if we all want it to be successful, to satisfy local opinion? Would not a public inquiry prove beyond peradventure that the new siting is correct?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is a matter for my right honourable friend, but perhaps I might say that support for the proposals has come from quite a number of people: the Stranraer Town Council, the Stranraer and District Chamber of Trade, the Wigtownshire Trades Council, the Wigtownshire County Council and the Wigtownshire trade unions, who feel it should be supported since it will bring 300 additional jobs into the area. So this is not all one-way traffic, by any means.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would my noble friend enlarge on the statement that every site has been investigated and say whether Loch Eriboll, on the North coast of Scotland, has been investigated? Secondly, can he say what will be the cost of demolishing the buildings and of their replacement elsewhere if the range is taken to West Freugh?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not know where the first place is; but if it was at all likely to be suitable it has been investigated. With regard to the second question which the noble
1150
Earl asked, the cost of moving from Shoeburyness will be in the region of £20 million.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will it require another £20 million to demolish the houses at West Freugh and rebuild them elsewhere?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl, when we return next Session, will give me notice of that question.
LORD LEATHER LAND: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that although Southend has had the Foulness experimental establishment near to it for scores of years, yet its agriculture is prospering, its tourists are as numerous as ever and the standard of civilised living enjoyed by the people there is one of the highest in the country?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I will suggest to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that if he deems a public inquiry necessary the noble Lord should be asked to attend.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if the inquiry is in the North of Scotland with all expenses paid, my services are at his disposal.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, may I finally ask my noble friend whether he is aware that local opinion will be quite satisfied if a public inquiry is held? So far as I am aware, that is all that local opinion wants at present.

FOULNESS: PROPOSED DEEP-WATER PORT
2.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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 when they expect to complete their study of the concept of a deep-water port with associated industry in relation to the reclamation of Maplin Sands for the Third London Airport.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, we hope to complete this study during the autumn.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether the Cabinet Committee studying this matter will heed the Prime Minister's injunction that major investment decisions should be taken now to equip this country for entry into the Common Market in 1973? And can my noble friend assure us that the Cabinet Committee on this matter will not be deflected by the siren voices of those who suggest that the first MIDA should be on the West Coast of Britain instead of the East, when private enterprise has come forward with a suggestion for the Thames Estuary very much of the kind which the Government said they wanted?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think my noble friend will recall my Answer to him on May 20, when I reminded him that it has long been the practice not to disclose the details of the arrangements within the Government for the discussion of public business. Therefore, I cannot give him the assurance for which he asks.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, would the noble Lord please bear in mind that while the planning authority for that part of the country is in favour of an airport plus a minor seaport, it is not in favour of a major seaport which would overcrowd that particular peninsula?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords.

TRADE WITH GREECE
2.45 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: 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 bearing in mind the present heavy imbalance in Anglo-Greek trade—

(a) what, in relation to that trade, are the main opportunities, for the future, for British exporters and importers;

1152

(b) whether encouragement is being given for investment by British firms in joint ventures;

(c) what is their attitude towards long-term loans tied to the supply of major capital equipment.]

LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's Question is that the main opportunities for British exports to Greece are in the fields of machinery, both electrical and non-electrical; transport equipment: textile fibres, yarns and made-up articles. British imports of Greek goods consist primarily of fresh and dried fruit and vegetables, and also crude fertilisers and minerals. The amount and nature of British exports to Greece will be affected by a number of factors, such as United Kingdom membership of the European Economic Community, with which Greece has an association agreement.
In answer to the second part of my noble friend's Question, investment in Greece, whether or not for joint ventures, is treated for exchange control purposes like that in any other non-sterling area country. It is normally possible for any worthwhile investments to take place. In answer to the third part of my noble friend's Question, the full range of the Export Credit Guarantee Department's facilities is available for trade with Greece, and the E.C.G.D. will give cover for commercial loans used for the purchase of capital equipment from British manufacturers.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that detailed Answer. With regard to the first and second parts of my Question, would not my noble friend agree that there are ample opportunities in Greece regarding mining consultancy, and also regarding investment in hotel and tourist facilities? Would he also agree that Her Majesty's Government are lagging behind the Governments of France, Germany and Italy in giving Government loans and that this is to be regretted since, as I think my noble friend will agree, the Greek Public Power Corporation is this country's electrical industry's largest single potential client? Further, as my noble friend referred to the E.E.C., would he be more positive in this matter—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, with regard to the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question, I am certain that he is speaking with the very great knowledge that he always shows on these subjects. My noble friend asked about a Government loan from this country. So far as I know, and so far as my information goes, Her Majesty's Government have not been approached about such a loan. Should they be, I have no doubt that they will consider it, taking all the relevant factors into account. My noble friend was rather cut off on his third supplementary, but I think he was asking me to expand slightly on entry into the European Economic Community. Greece, as my noble friend will know, has an association agreement with the E.E.C., which was signed in 1961. The agreement would have to be re-negotiated with the members of the enlarged Community, including, of course, the United Kingdom if we join.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the best encouragement that we could give to Anglo-Greek trade would be if Greece returned to democratic government?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I have no doubt that there is much in what the noble Lord says, but I do not think that would he us giving encouragement.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as I was cut off previously, may I ask my noble friend whether he does not recognise that in effect Greece has now achieved stable political conditions; and as Greece is an associate member of the E.E.C., should we not now take advantage of the opportunities provided in Greece with regard to investment in that country?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that that is a wider question than the original.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why we in this Parliament must conceive it our business to determine what kind of Governments other countries should have?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think that that, again, goes wider than the original Question.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if British
1154
capital is involved we are concerned with the Governments of the other countries?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords, I do not think I would agree that.

DEFENCE LANDS COMMITTEE: SURVEY OF SITES
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: 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 progress the Defence Lands Committee, under Lord Nugent of Guildford has made so far.]
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Committee expects to have completed its first survey of all sites within its terms of reference by the autumn. It will then proceed with detailed examination of individual sites, including consideration of the many representations received from the general public and interested bodies. A preliminary review of coastal sites has been held by the Ministry of Defence and the Committee has confirmed that over 16 miles of coastline should be disposed of.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that encouraging Answer. Can he tell us when the complete report will be ready? Secondly, if a decision has been taken to release 16 miles of coastline, is it to be done at once? Lastly, will he himself go down to Lulworth before a decision is taken on that important tank range?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it really is more for my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford to say when his Committee will report than for me. It is a formidable task. A great many different sites are involved and I should doubt whether the Committee would have concluded their Report before somewhere towards the end of next year. With regard to the sites which I have announced can be given up, we shall give them up as quickly as possible, but it will take a considerable time, because there are a number of procedures to go

1155
through. I have already been to the site at Lulworth.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, while we are grateful for the Report of the noble Lord's Committee, may I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will try to see that some of these sites are reserved for camping sites for teenagers and others, because they would make excellent reserves for this purpose.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sure that that will be borne in mind, if and when any area is given up. What I am primarily concerned to see is that there are enough facilities for the Services to carry out their training and exercises. We do not want to keep any more land than we must and I hope that we shall be able to give up some in the light of my noble friend's report. What happens afterwards is not for me, but I am sure that what the noble Lord has said will be borne in mind.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the middle 'fifties the Interdepartmental Committee was under pressure from the Opposition of that time to abolish sites and this had a disastrous effect on the occupation of land by the various Services? Is there not some reason to believe that there is some form of inter-Service jealousy as to the amount of land they hold? This seems to be important. So far as gunnery is concerned, I should have thought that there was a strong case for bringing together the various branches of the Army and the Navy to see that gunnery and the amount of land they occupy was rationalised.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that that is so, but even if it were true, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford would be able to see where there was jealousy and where there was common sense.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we gave our support when this inquiry was set up under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford? Does it take a period of twelve months for an investigation into this matter to take place? Public opinion has been roused by the amount of land which is standing unused at the present time and which
1156
ought to be put immediately into commission.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord (I do not know whether he is speaking for the Opposition) and the Opposition still support the inquiry which I instituted. Those who have consented to serve on the Committee, including my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, are not doing this work full time. They are part-time members and have a lot of other things to do. There are something like half a million acres more to examine, and I think it is unreasonable to expect a part-time body of this kind inquiring into this matter—which is of great importance both to the Services and to other interests, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek has said—to do too much at once. I hope that they will get along as quickly as possible but that they do the job properly.

FUTURE BUSINESS AND THE SUMMER RECESS
2.55 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice. The question is: To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will make a statement on the future of the RB.211 engine?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 o'clock.
May I take this opportunity to inform your Lordships that to ensure that there is ample time for consideration of the Immigration Bill on the Report stage it will almost certainly be necessary for the House to return after the Recess on Monday, October 11.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for giving us notice of his intention with regard to future business. I am not sure whether the date he has given will be received with unalloyed enthusiasm. I think that some of us will regret that Her Majesty's Government have so arranged their legislative programme that so much is crammed into the end of the Session. Nevertheless, we note what the noble Earl says.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the noble Earl said"almost certainly ". May I ask when he will be able to confirm that it is definite, because it makes a lot of difference to our arrangements?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate, various consultations are going on and it will obviously depend on the outcome of these. If the consultations are entirely satisfactory to everybody concerned, then probably it will not be necessary to return on October 11. If they are not, then we must allow sufficient time for the House to discuss those problems where satisfaction has not been reached.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl will agree that I accept his threat.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, if, by leave of the House, I may intervene for a moment, I should like to take the opportunity to express my gratitude not only to your Lordships for the way in which your Lordships' have borne the heat and burden of this long summer—and it has been a hard slog for all of us—but also to all those who have helped to keep the House running day after day and night after night. I do not intend to indulge in self-congratulation so far as we are concerned. Therefore I wish to confine my brief remarks to those who have helped us in discharging our duties. I feel that we really owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to all members of the staff who have kept us going during these heavy past few months. We have placed a considerable strain on the Hansard team, the Doorkeepers and attendants, and indeed on all Officers of the House. I expect that all your Lordships will join with me in expressing our thanks to all those in the Refreshment Department who have kept us not only replenished but refuelled during our many late Sittings. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that from all points of view we have been admirably looked after. In conclusion, since I detect a slight note of end-of-term in the atmosphere, I hope that I may be excused if I wish your Lordships a pleasant respite in the holiday season.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I cannot improve on the words of the noble Earl the Leader of the House.
1158
He certainly has spoken for us all and I will not repeat anything beyond saying this. May we also especially extend thanks to some of the staff who will be leaving us and wish them luck? I have particularly in mind Mr. Kemp, who has received the British Empire Medal, which is a proper recognition of his services, and many of those who work so well for us. May I also join in wishing the Government side, the Cross-Benchers, my own noble friends and the Liberals a peaceful holiday. And may I also include the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I accept the condescension which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has been good enough to confer upon us. I should like on behalf of my colleagues and myself to endorse everything which the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has said about the staff. We have been looked after with a courtesy and a consideration, and, may I say, with a professionalism, which has made this place a much more tolerable place to work in than it might otherwise have been. We are very much indebted to them.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the staff, and to say to the House of Lords that I am pleased to have a respite from the most reactionary Government that we have had since 1926.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, if I might come down from the morning clouds to the hard facts, the Chief Whip told us that we should perhaps be returning on October 11. So that we may make arrangements, for how many days will this be? Will it be for one day or for the week?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, that will depend on the amount of time your Lordships take to discuss whatever Amendments there happen to be on the Marshalled List.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, it is important to provincial Members, who have to find accommodation in London, having already made their arrangements for the 18th. Why is it so important that the Government should seek to press this Bill by bringing Members back? Now the noble Earl says that for how long we return all depends on the number of Amendments that are placed before the

1159
House on R eport and on Third Reading. Surely we have the right to the same facilities as are afforded to Members of another place, without being brought back in advance of their return?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is fully aware that legislation sometimes starts in another place, and sometimes here. The more controversial Bills tend to start in another place, and quite often they reach us rather late. This is a complaint which has been voiced by the Opposition for many years. We certainly voiced it in Opposition; noble Lords voiced it when we were in Government before; and I have little doubt that in due course we may find ourselves voicing it in Opposition again. Meantime, noble Lords are right to voice this objection, with which I may say I have great sympathy. But this Government, like any other Government, have a programme of legislation which they are anxious to complete before the House is prorogued. We could certainly come back on October 18, but it would mean that we should have to curtail discussion on this important Bill, which is the last thing the Government would wish to do. If, with the agreement of the Opposition, the Liberal Party and others, the discussion could be kept short, then we could come back on the 18th. But it seemed to me more important to warn your Lordships that there was a good chance of having to come back on the 11th, than to tell you that we were coming back on the 18th, and then later have to announce that we were coming back on the 11th.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope that we can leave the matter there. I should be inclined to make a protest were I not conscious of the fact that we treated the Party opposite equally badly when we were in Government.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, some of us have come from another place and other Members of your Lordships' House have not been there. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition has commented on what the Government Chief Whip has said, but we do not entirely agree with his comments.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
3.5 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. DOCUMENTARY FILM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
Members of the Committee have had an opportunity to see the proposed film produced by Lord Kelburn. The Committee are of opinion that, subject to the conditions already agreed to by Lord Kelburn, consent should be given to its release and subsequent distribution as the producer wishes.
2. ACCOMMODATION
The Committee considered a recommendation from the Sub-Committee on the Library that in response to request a Silence Room and a Non-Smoking Room should be provided in the Library.
The Committee recommend:

(i) that the Truro Room should become a Silence Room;

(ii) that subject to the agreement of the Sub-Committee on the Library the first large room on the left of the main door to the Library should become a Non-Smoking Room.

3. SUB-COMMITTEES
The Committee on Works of Art was appointed as follows:—

The Marquess of Cholmondeley

Lord Amulree

Lord Henley

Lord Hood

with a recommendation that the following Lords should be co-opted to serve on the Committee:—

Lord Clark

Lord Goodman

Lord Cottesloe

Lord Robbins

with the Clerk of the Parliaments, with power to co-opt further Lords and to appoint its own Chairman.
4. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Committee authorised the employment of a temporary Executive Officer in the Parliament Office during the absence on sick leave of Miss J. P. Culverwell, the Examiner of Acts.
5. ATTENDANTS
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of a review of the duties of the House of Lords' Attendants.
The Committee authorised the employment of two additional Attendants on the staff of the Department of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
6. REVISED SCALES OF PAY
The Committee sanctioned the application of the following Establishment Circulars:—

(a) D.E.O. (71) (PAY) No. 7 dated 29th June, 1971—Pay of the Clerical Grades and Certain Related Grades;

(b) D.E.O. (71) (PAY) No. 8 dated 19th July, 1971—Pay of the Middle and Higher Grades;

(c) D.E.O. (71) (PAY) No. 10 dated 23rd July, 1971—Higher Clerical Officers Revised scale of pay;

to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
7. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following superannuation awards under the Superannuation Act, 1965:—

(a) Provisional award of Pension and Additional Allowance to Miss Rosalind Clara Evernden, an Executive Officer, who retires on grounds of ill-health on the 1st October, 1971;

(b) Pension and Additional Allowance to Mr. Henry Alfred Machal Kemp, B.E.M., Principal Doorkeeper, who retires on the 31st August, 1971.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I wish to raise one point on the recommendations of the Offices Committee. It concerns Recommendation No. 2, which, in case any of your Lordships have not got the Report perhaps I may read. It says:
" Accommodation. The Committee considered a recommendation from the Sub-Committee on the Library that in response to request a Silence Room and a Non-Smoking Room should be provided in the Library.
The Committee recommend:

(i) that the Truro Room should become a Silence Room;

(ii) that subject to the agreement of the Sub-Committee on the Library the first large room on the left of the main door to the Library should become a Non-Smoking Room."

1162
I am not aware of those who form the Library Sub-Committee, nor am I aware of the procedures which would allow noble Lords to give their views to that Sub-Committee before it comes to a conclusion. I raise this matter because I think it is one on which many noble Lords may take a view as regards the Smoking and the Non-Smoking Room. The proposal, as I understand it, is that the large room on the left as you enter the Library should be made into the Non-Smoking Room. Presumably, smoking would be allowed in the room into which we pass when we go into the Library, and that rather frigid room beyond where there used to be a telephone.
I raise this matter from two points of view. First, I think that noble Lords who use the Library would agree that the large room on the left is probably the most patronised, the most agreeable and, if I may use the expression, the most homely of the rooms. It is certainly a large room. It may be a deplorable fact, but I think the majority of your Lordships, including myself, are addicted to the habit, I trust in moderation, of smoking. Surely it is only right that the large room, the first room on the left, should be reserved for those who care to smoke, and the non-smokers, if that is the wish of the majority, should go to the room on the far side.
My second point is that if smoking is to be allowed in the main room as you enter the Library, and forbidden in the first room on the left, those who do not smoke will have their lungs polluted by the smokers in the main entrance and in the other room, and they will have to pass through this difficult nicotine screen. Surely, all those who do not smoke would prefer to enter into the unpolluted atmosphere straight away by the reservation of the first room as you go into the Library, and possibly, if necessary, the room on the right, for non-smokers, leaving to those of us with such deplorable habits that we occasionally have a cigarette, a pipe, or sometimes even a cigar, to the room where we could indulge in what I think is a very reasonable habit. Therefore I trust that the Library Committee will give an opportunity to noble Lords on all sides of the House, who may feel as I do, to express their views before any conclusion is reached.
3.9 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, as the Chairman of the Sub-Committee which is under fire at the moment, I have to explain that the Library Sub-Committee was first of all instructed by the Offices Commitee, which is a large and representative Committee of this House, to consider the possibility of recommending that certain rooms in the Library should be set aside, on the one hand, as a Silence Room, and on the other, as a Non-Smoking Room, The Library Committee carefully considered this matter, and consulted as many as they could of the Members of your Lordships' House, but always remembering the instruction that had been given to them, and then made a recommendation to the Offices Committee that the Truro Room should be a Silence Room and a Non-Smoking Room.
The Offices Committee then referred the recommendation back to the Sub-Committee, saying that they should think in terms of the Truro Room remaining the Silence Room and that the main room, now mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, should be, as it has always been supposed to be, a Non-Smoking Room. The Library Sub-Committee having had this instruction given to them, and being a very obedient Committee, then returned the matter to the Offices Committee with that recommendation. The Offices Committee, to my annoyance and to some extent to the annoyance of the Library Sub-Committee, had that recommendation turned down, and the recommendation which you now see before you is the recommendation of the Offices Committee to the Library Committee. This is the sequence of events which has produced this recommendation; and I may say that if this House does not accept this Report in this particular the whole thing will have to be gone into again in the light of the recommendation which will be made by this House to the Offices Committee and to the Library Sub-Committee. My Lords, I shall be glad to see the end of this.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: My Lords, may I say that I have been a Member of this House for 25 years.
1164
Before this debate is concluded will some noble Lord tell me where the Truro Room is?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the Truro Room is next to the Refreshment Room and the Guests' Room; and the noble Marquess will see just inside the door a bell which can be rung, or which, in the old days, could be rung, and refreshments would be brought in. This facility is no longer available.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDON: And, presumably, that is to be the Silence Room in future?
LORD CHAMPION: That is so.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, if the main room has always been considered a Non-Smoking Room, how is it that there are ash trays, matches and places in which to put cigarettes and cigars? Who did the monstrous unauthorised act of putting those things there?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, that occurred because smokers are a very undisciplined lot, and I am sure that the noble Lord is one of them.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord recollects the advice given by Lord Melbourne on one occasion:"If only they would have the goodness to leave it alone and leave us as we are!"
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, your Lordships have heard something of the family arguments that go on between the Offices Committee and its Sub-Committee on the Library. I should only like to point out to noble Lords that the question of the Non-Smoking Room on the left of the main entrance to the Library is not yet decided because it is subject to the decision of the Library Sub-Committee, and any noble Lord who wishes to express a view at a meeting of the Library Sub-Committee is entitled to attend. With that, my Lords, I beg to move that this Report be approved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (MILK) BILL
3.14 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1 [School milk for pupils in England and Wales]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out (" attains the age of seven ") and insert (" transfers to a secondary school ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the names of my noble friends and myself. In speaking to it I shall in fact be covering the other three Amendments as well. In so far as I am able, I shall try to avoid a repetition of the arguments advanced when the Bill was in Committee. If I should stray a little from that intention I hope that your Lordships' House will be indulgent, because I shall only do so in order to make essential points. The Amendment itself is different from any which was moved in Committee, being in fact rather more comprehensive. I have drafted it with a view to remedying some of the defects to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, drew attention in regard to the fifth Amendment considered by the Committee.
It seems to me that I have an obligation to give your Lordships an opportunity to look once again at what this Bill sets out to do. It cuts off the free supply of one-third of a pint of milk each day of school for children aged between seven and eleven. There are exceptions: children at special schools are exempt, as are children certified by school medical officers as being in need of milk; and it confers upon education authorities the power to sell milk to children deprived of free milk—a privilege that local education authorities, so far as I know, have never asked for. Whatever drafting defects the Amendment may have, perhaps I may say, to its credit, that its purpose is crystal clear.
I should like to explain briefly why I wish to move this Amendment: first, the first Division on Committee showed that your Lordships were fairly evenly divided; secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made a number of comments such as—quoting first from the OFFICIAL REPORT, of August 2 (c. 863):
"… my heart warms to the Amendments."
Then
" I meant it sincerely when I said to the noble Baroness I had every sympathy with these Amendments."
The noble Lord also drew attention to drafting weaknesses in the Amendment. At columns 848 and 849 he drew attention to the consequences of an Amendment I moved, which would have held the age for the supply of free milk at the age of eleven instead of reducing it to seven as the Bill does, and pointed out that it would create anomalies.
The purpose of this Amendment is to give the House the opportunity to place on record the view that all children should have free one-third of a pint of school milk each day up to the time they transfer to secondary school. In that way the poor child, the child whose parents have an inadequate income, the handicapped child, the medically unfit child—in fact all growing children—will have during this most important time of their lives a daily intake of nature's most balanced food, supplying, as it does, the essential ingredients for health: and health is absolutely necessary in order that children may take full advantage of the educational opportunities offered to them. I referred to the decision to end free milk for children of secondary school age; but at least when that was done advice had been given that it was a safe thing to do. I still think it was undesirable, but there I express an individual point of view. No one throughout the discussion of this Bill to date has claimed that similar advice has been available. If the Government were sure that their action was safe and that there was no risk involved, we should not have had a proposal for monitoring, and we should not have heard as much as we have about the part that the school medical officer can play.
That brings me to the question of cost. The estimated savings under this Bill are £5·9 million for the current year—£9 million in a full year—less the cost

1167
of monitoring, less the cost of the extra work thrown on the school medical officers and their staffs, less the cost of the medical milk—all of them unknown figures. I wonder what thought has been given to the position that will arise in the small country school of 30 or 40 pupils with an age range from five to eleven, where infants and juniors share the same building and the same playground. At the mid-morning break the children aged from five to seven will have free milk. The children who are eligible will have medical milk, and the others may or may not get milk, depending on whether mother will or can afford it, or will not or cannot afford it. What a task for the teacher to differentiate between such a small number of children! None of us would envy any such teacher her task. How could the teacher possibly leave a small number of children without milk? What would she say to the child aged between seven and eleven, who had no money but who said,"Please teacher, may I have some milk?"Under the Bill the teacher has to say,"No ", or reply, You can only have the milk if the school medical officer certifies that you have need of it."
I return to the question that I have asked before because, so far as I have been able to gather, there has been no satisfying answer. What happens in cases where the supplier considers the order too small to justify the daily call? In Committee I drew attention to the fact that this point had been raised in at least two instances. There is discontent among local education authorities that they cannot—as the non-education authorities can—use the product of a penny rate in England and Wales and a twopenny rate in Scotland as a local option to supply milk if they consider that the ratepayers they represent and serve approve of it. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was a little too subtle when he spoke on this anomalous position. He conceded the right of the non-education authorities to spend the penny or the twopenny rate. Good stuff for local autonomy and greater local freedom! He warned them, at the same time that he recognised their right, that an authority which is not an education authority would need to consider to what extent it would be necessary to ensure that the milk which the authority was
1168
financing went down the throats of the pupils within its area. He continued that when you think of children going across the boundaries of different areas of local authorities, that would not be hair-splitting but would be an important and relevant point. He warned of the possibility that such milk wrongfully going down the throats of little children—one third of a pint a day—might be ultra vires.
He then proceeded to try to put the fear—I was going to say,"the fear of the very devil himself ", into those authorities, but he did not go quite so far as that. He certainly set out to give them what I am sure they will interpret as a warning to this effect. He said that it went without saying that the district auditor would have to be satisfied that such expenditure had been lawfully incurred. The noble Lord added that all that was said, as he put it,"in a helpful spirit ". The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, throughout our consideration of this Bill has had my sympathy, because I have found it difficult to understand how he could defend it. The point I have been trying to make only goes to show what a mess this Bill, unless it is amended, can get us into. My Amendment provides an opportunity to avoid all the heart-searching, all the bother of monitoring, all the dissatisfaction on the part of the Association of Education Committees and the Association of Municipal Corporations, as well as a great many individual authorities. In fact it provides an opportunity to avoid all the risks.
I have been impressed with the fact that concern about the effects of this Bill, unless it is amended, exists in all parts of this House. It is greatly to the credit of the noble Lords on all sides that they have voiced that concern. I believe that this House is at its best when it reflects, as I believe it has on this measure, the conscience of the nation, when people of all Parties and of none join together to say to a Government,"You ought not to take this action without further thought. We will not prevent your doing it, but we want you to think again ". I have been impressed with the expressions of sympathy from the Government Front Bench on many proposals put forward from all parts of the House. I have been impressed at the number of Members of your Lordships' House who have made constructive suggestions. I am, at the

1169
same time, deeply impressed by the adamant, inflexible determination of the Government to get the Bill through this House unamended. I am impressed by the utterly unresponsive attitude of the Government to so many appeals that have been made to it, even from Members sitting on the Government side. Sympathy is not enough. If children between the ages of seven and eleven are to have a firm guarantee of a third of a pint of milk a day, then your Lordships would do well to support the Amendment that I have submitted.
My Lords, this Bill may be a small one; the amount of money involved in terms of national expenditure is not large; but as surely as it is a small Bill it is one which can have serious effects. It is a Bill which, in its present form, is not wanted. If the Government continue to be unresponsive it is the kind of Bill that helps to bring Governments down. This Amendment is submitted in the belief that it will benefit children. It might, in the long run, even benefit the Government, if they accept it. I beg to move.
3.29 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, we have had nearly two full debates on this point. As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said, this is not the time to repeat the arguments in full. I pointed out from these Benches on Second Reading that we are in this muddle through the peculiar and appalling arithmetic whereby we try to balance school milk for children against the building of primary schools. School milk for children, if it is to be weighed in the balance, should be weighed against other family provision; school buildings should be weighed against other educational provision; and if it comes to the moment when you must weigh one against the other, then you weigh the whole global sum for family provision against the whole global sum for education. But this kind of weighing of two disparate effects makes no sense logically, in accountancy, in education or in social service.
However, I want to take this opportunity to pick up an echo of the end of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, to utter a warning to this Government. The great design of their economic plans is still in the balance.
1170
Everyone in this Chamber hopes that in so far as those plans mean prosperity for this country, they are successful. But the Government should rid themselves of the belief that this success depends on charging children for entrance to museums; on dismantling the Consumer Council; on failing to finance the National Film Finance Corporation; on taking away school milk from small children. These are not genuine economies, and, what is more, I am afraid I do not think that they are meant to be. They are meant to be psychological signs that we should stiffen our shoulders, pull in our belts and put our shoulders to the wheel. They are having a psychological effect, but I think they are having a far different psychological effect from that which the Government themselves hoped, and one with which they themselves cannot be pleased.
Noble Lords opposite have at various stages shown their very real distress and concern with what is being done in this Bill. I hope that they will help us to-day to stop this unnecessary and quite tragic Bill. As for me, I shall have no hesitation whatsoever in advising my noble friends to go into the Lobby to support this Amendment.
3.32 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, this Bill is concerned with priorities. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in moving the Amendment showed no sign of recognition of this fact, although it had been repeated on several occasions during the previous stages of the Bill. It does the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, credit that he fully recognised that, although he said that these priorities belonged, as it were, to different categories and could not be matched one against the other. However, in all questions of expenditure there is a single common factor and that is the money involved. Although I respect the view he expressed, he must also respect what I have just said.
The question is whether it is better to spend £9 million a year on continuing the supply of one-third of a pint of milk free to all children in primary schools between the ages of seven and eleven or very considerably to speed up the replacement of out-of-date Victorian schools. The Government take the latter view. My noble friend Lord Belstead on

1171
the Committee stage pointed out that the effect of this Bill would be that these old, out of-date Victorian schools, instead of taking twenty years to replace as would have been the case under the programme of the former Government, will now all be replaced within six or seven years. That unquestionably is a substantial gain to primary education—a substantial gain which we should all support. I am not sure whether it was the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, or some of his noble friends who asked at earlier stages of the Bill:"Why cannot we have both?" Socialism was said, I think by Mr. Aneurin Bevan, to be a matter of priorities. It is either a matter of priorities or it is a matter of assuming that there is a bottomless purse; and I think that Lord Garnsworthy, with his local government experience, would not accept the latter view.
The fact is that if we want things we must find the money for them. The Government which the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, supported were not prepared, or felt themselves not able, to find money to replace the Victorian schools in a period of less than twenty years. This Government believe that it is urgent to replace those schools, more urgent than to continue the supply of free milk to school children. If this was going to worsen the poverty of any family I should be opposed to it. In fact, the third of a pint of milk five times a week for a child will cost, I think I am right in saying, 8½p a week. Under the present Government's legislation, all those families with low incomes will be entitled to family income supplement, which will grant them as of right up to £4 extra per week. Moreover, from September onwards those families where the breadwinner has the deep misfortune to be unemployed will all be receiving, if they have children, something like £2 a week more in unemployment benefit. So there is no possibility of the passing of this Bill worsening the poverty of any family.
The only people it could harm, so far as I can see, are those families where the parents, although they could afford to feed their children properly, are not doing so. That is a tragic situation—I repeat, a tragic situation—but I very much doubt whether that is a situation, whether in the case of food, clothing, or anything else, in which it is right for Parliament to try
1172
to remedy it by handing out free supplies to everybody. There must be a better way of doing it than that. My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has made out any better case for this Amendment than he made for the comparable Amendment on the Committee stage. I respect what he is trying to do, and we all are determined to see that children whose parents are in financial difficulties shall not suffer, but they certainly will not suffer as a result of this Bill.
3.37 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I venture to intervene for just one moment, although I spoke on the Committee stage, in support of this Amendment. With all respect, I cannot quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when he says that this is a question of priorities. I do not see why the supply of milk to children under the age of eleven in schools should be pitted against the rebuilding, reconstruction and renewal of primary schools in this country. I do not see that they have anything to do with each other. When the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, says:"Do we want both?" my answer is:"Yes, we do ", and we should make sacrifices in some other direction in order to obtain both the school rebuilding programme and the free milk in schools.
I happen to believe that the extraordinarily good health of the children of this country to-day is to a large extent based upon the milk schemes we have had. The nutritional standard is extraordinarily high. We cannot judge how much lower it is going to fall, but at least it is essential in the opinion of every well-informed doctor or medical officer in this country that children should have an adequate supply of milk in the critical period between the ages of seven and eleven. I reminded your Lordships the other day that I had the privilege of introducing in the other place, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, in the year 1940—in the summer of 1940 when we were facing invasion—the original National Milk Scheme under the direction of the late Lord Woolton. It has been the basis of the whole of our milk arrangements since then and has stood the test magnificently. That was the foundation of the scheme of milk in schools. It was originally arranged for

1173
all children and nursing mothers to get milk at the price of 2d. a pint—this was in 1940—and, where poverty could be established, free. That was the basis and we have built steadily on this basis, and I believe that the health of the children of this country to-day largely depends on the milk scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, raised a very important point when he said:"Can we depend in all cases upon the parents?"I suggest that in a very large number of cases we cannot. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said that he did not think the remedy was for the State to step in and supply the necessary milk. There I differ from him: I think it is. We can have no guarantee that a very large number of parents, even if they are better off under the new unemployment regulations or what-have-you, will give to their children the milk that they require at this critical age. It is the duty and the business of the State—and it has been proved by our experience over the last twenty years—to supply the milk.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but he has been criticising the views that I expressed. I would ask him whether he does not perceive that there is an immeasurable difference between the general health of school children to-day and the general health of school children when Lord Woolton became Minister of Food in 1940.
LORD BOOTH BY: My Lords, of course I do, and the reason lies in the measures which Lord Woolton laid down. That is the reason why there has been this enormous improvement in the health of the children. The noble Lord has given the very reason: that Lord Woolton laid down the foundations of a national milk scheme for this country upon which we have built faithfully and well, and I must confess that I do not like to see those foundations dismantled. I believe that the health of the children of this country is largely dependent upon the arrangements we made in 1940 under very different conditions, and the satisfactory results we have achieved are because of those measures. I am very sad to see those measures being encroached upon, if not dismantled. I beg the Government, before they go on with what I cannot help
1174
feeling is a paltry and a petty Bill which will not redound to their credit in the country and will not go down well anywhere, to reconsider this particular point before it is too late.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has his priorities wrong. Surely the priority is school milk and the health of children from the ages of seven to eleven; and the rebuilding of the schools does not matter. Give the children milk. I know that most likely the Government's reply will be that the school mistresses, seeing a child that they think is insufficiently fed, should give notice to the medical officer. I believe that in the Committee stage it was said that the medical officer had time to see each child only once a year. Is it right that the medical officer's work should he done by the teachers? I know the teachers are there and they see the child every day, but give the children the milk and it will not mean any extra work for the teachers. I support the Amendment wholeheartedly.

ROLLS-ROYCE RB.211 ENGINE AND TRISTAR PROJECT
3.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if, in reply to the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister for Aerospace. The Statement is as follows:
" In my Statement to the House on May 10 about the RB.211 (Hansard cols. 32–3) I reported that the U.S. Administration were seeking authority from the U.S. Congress to guarantee up to 250 million dollars of additional credits for Lockheed. The House will recall that, because of the heavy commitment which we were prepared to undertake on the engine, we wished to be satisfied that the aircraft project itself could be completed. The United States Congress has passed legislation which would permit the granting of U.S. Government guarantees on further loans to Lockheed. I am awaiting notification from the U.S. Administration that it is prepared to give

1175
guarantees for the benefit of Lockheed in an amount of up to 250 million dollars, which amount the U.S. Administration considers sufficient to carry out the TriStar project. I am also awaiting from Lockheed confirmation of the orders for the aircraft from existing airline customers.
" Provided the notification is received as expected from the U.S. Administration and from Lockheed, I am happy to say that the RB.211 programme will proceed and that some 30,000 or more workers at Rolls-Royce and in the company's supplier firms can now expect to continue work on this major engine programme. This has been a major consideration in our deliberations on the subject, and I hope this will relieve some of the anxieties of those involved whether as employees, Rolls-Royce suppliers or trade creditors.
" Many of those who have in the last few months suffered serious anxiety have at the same time had to exert very great efforts to keep alive the prospect of a solution. I wish to record my appreciation of those efforts.
" Rolls-Royce will still have work to do in developing the engines for the TriStar. But we shall all be set on a course aimed at completing the project. We hope that the aircraft will enter into service with many world airlines who will recognise its merits, and the House will, I am sure, wish the project every success."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that Statement, and I am sure that I shall be speaking for noble Lords in all parts of the House when I say that we are intensely relieved that this one element of uncertainty surrounding the remarkable engine, the RB.211, will now, as a result of Congressional action, be removed, and that the possibilities of continued employment are greatly improved. I agree, too, that we all hope that as these engines get into service in the American aircraft much of the damage which has been caused in the American market by the initial impetuous action on the part of Her Majesty's Government will be remedied. I think
1176
it is fair and proper to add that this opportunity to recover lost ground was made possible by the personal efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lastly, may I ask the noble Lord how much money has been put into the Rolls-Royce company by Her Majesty's Government since the Receiver took over, to keep the RB.211 programme going; and on what terms exactly that money was advanced?
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, from these Benches we too should like to thank the Minister for repeating this Statement and to express our relief at what has taken place. I would also echo what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said about the role played by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I should like to draw attention particularly to the final paragraph of the Statement and to ask whether the Minister would not agree that the time has come when Rolls-Royce and the Government and B.E.A. should be asked to get together to evaluate the whole project in the light of the national interest?
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, may I, on behalf of noble Lords on the Back Benches, express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the very great work he has done in bringing this project to a successful conclusion? We know how hard he has worked for it, and it is important to this country that we should have the great prestige of Rolls-Royce, who have achieved a magnificent job by introducing this wonderful engine.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception which has been given to this Statement. We all share the relief that it now seems possible to go on with this project, and I join in the good wishes for its success. I would also thank noble Lords for the appreciation they have shown of the efforts made by my noble friend the Minister of Defence. I am sure we all join in that.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked how much money had been put into the development of the RB.211 engine since the Receiver was put in on February 4. I am informed that some £30 million has been put in, in accordance with interim agreements made between the

1177
Government, and the Receiver and Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited, and in the normal way this amount would be recovered out of the proceeds from sales. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, who asked for an evaluation, I can tell him that a general review is being made. I am not quite certain what he meant by an"evaluation ". B.E.A. will be free to do this for themselves, and it is not intended in any way to fetter B.E.A.'s choice of a successor aircraft.

EDUCATION (MILK) BILL
3.50 p.m.
Debate resumed on Amendment No. 1.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I now return to what we were discussing before the Statement was made? It is difficult on an Amendment of this kind in such a Bill not to make a Second Reading speech. I shall avoid it so far as I can, and I will not speak for more than two minutes. I am really concerned about what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said with regard to priorities. This is something on which I agree with one of my noble friends: this is a real priority. If I may say so, without indulging too much in"sob stuff ", my mind goes back to my time as a constituency Member of Parliament with an industrial constituency in Lancashire. I go back to 1945, when I was first elected for that constituency. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, had done in 1940, and what had been done in 1944 by reason of the Education Act, in that constituency malnutrition was rife. I recall the kids in the poorer streets of the City of Salford; I remember their malnutrition and their rickets. I believe that the fact that they were able to have free milk in their schools has established to-day an altogether different range and breed of children; those children have benefited by the free milk that they were given in those years.
If that milk is taken away from many families to-day—and I agree some parents are not too careful about seeing that their children get the right foods—I am fearful of a deterioration in the health of the children, particularly in industrial towns like Salford. It is not my constituency any more, but I am still concerned about it. I know, for example, that it has the
1178
highest bronchitis incidence in the country to-day. With all these conditions prevailing, I want to see the children of such towns enjoying to the full what this country can give them. I believe that free milk in the schools, at least up to secondary school age, would be a tremendous asset to to-day's children.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment, to say a word or two about the question of priorities. I agree with those noble Lords who have said that you cannot really compare the building of new schools with the provision of free milk. But supposing you do: you are saying to these children who are going to be deprived of their milk,"You cannot have your milk because we are building new schools ". We are not building them for the benefit of these children; these particular children will get neither milk nor new schools. It is going to take a good many years, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, may say, before the country is provided with the new schools we need. In the meantime, generations of children will be without their free milk and also without the new schools.
On the question of priority itself, I say quite frankly that I would much rather that children are provided with milk than with new schools. They are both desirable and they are both essential, but to set one off against the other seems to me a quite irrelevant comparison. After all, the health of the children and their ability to take advantage of the education we provide is at stake. I hope the Government will think again about this Amendment.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I wonder whether I may be allowed to break in for a moment, not to impose anything I want to say on your Lordships, but because there are two or three matters of fact which I should put before your Lordships which at the moment are possibly not entirely taken by the House. It is, I think, the duty of the Government to reply to this debate on the importance of this measure, because it is quite clear from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that this Amendment and the Amendments with which it is grouped would completely change the objectives of the Bill. On October 27 last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, introducing the White Paper, New

1179
Policies for Public Spending, said that it set out to tackle ever-rising Government expenditure which for each one of us could only lead down a one way path of ever higher taxation. I think it is fair to say that the White Paper also determined to spend more on priorities which demand attention, and at the same time the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear the Government's duty to see that substantial help goes as of right to anyone who needs it. This Bill contributes £9 million to the totality of the Government savings; it forms, however, a small, but, I submit, necessary item in the planned reductions in public spending which, so far as I know, are unparalleled, at any rate since the war, and which I know were only achieved after the most careful scrutiny possible.
Many of your Lordships have said that you cannot set one item of expenditure off against another, and I listened with the closest attention to my noble friend Lord Brooke as he, if I may say so with respect, quite rightly made the point that this is part of a Government exercise to do things which I have just again tried to outline to your Lordships. But within that Government exercise there are various items. This Bill is one. If I may say so with the greatest respect, certain of your Lordships have benefited, or if I may put it this way, organisations with which your Lordships, entirely in voluntary capacities and out of the kindness of your hearts and your public duty, are associated with, have benefited from this exercise; some of your Lordships in that position have, on the Division on the first Amendment in the Committee stage, seen fit to divide against this.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I wonder whether I may—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I wish the noble Lord would explain what he is talking about.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the sort of thing I am referring to, which is part of the whole exercise, is that the Government have managed to find more money, for instance, for schools; and when £4 million was found a few months ago for primary schools my right honourable friend did her very best to devote
1180
more of that money to aided schools. I am simply asking, not only right reverend Prelates but others of your Lordships in this House, to look at this in its totality; not to accept the good parts out of the Government strategy and yet always to pick out the bad parts and divide against them.
The decision to introduce the provision of free milk for children up to the end of the summer term following their seventh birthday was also taken as part of the totality of the strategy after careful consideration, and we knew that when the previous Government had withdrawn secondary school milk the Minister at that time, Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker, on February 26, 1968, in the House of Commons (cols. 1098/9) had said this—and I only repeat this because of the words of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy:
" Now I should like to deal with the question of the nutritional value of milk in secondary schools. We sought advice about it, of course. This is not something which we just settled without thought. Advice was sought by the permanent head of my Department from my Chief Medical Officer, who consulted the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. Broadly speaking, the essence of the report was that present evidence does not allow us to say whether the abolition of free school milk would affect health. Present evidence does not allow a conclusion to be drawn."
And then the right honourable gentleman added these words:
" That advice referred to milk in all schools, but we did not rely on that alone since it referred to all schools."
Our advice one year ago was exactly the same as that advice which I have now recalled to your Lordships' attention.
LORD DAVIES or LEEK: It was damned bad advice.
LORD BELSTEAD: It is, therefore, a fact that neither the last Government nor this Government have received advice from the Medical Committee, which is there to give such advice, that the withdrawal of milk would be harmful to secondary or primary pupils. Some of your Lordships feel that the advice is misconceived. The Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy is comprised of people who are not only well known in their fields but who are independent nutritionists. I am sure that your Lordships would agree that this Committee can be relied on, because it

1181
is independent, not to hesitate to give advice when it finds the need to do so.
For their part, the Government are demonstrating their concern for the health of children by the network of checks (to which I referred in detail in Committee) in a variety of areas; with a special national food survey scrutinising nutrition in the home. We are not waiting to see the effects of these checks, as has been suggested by some of your Lordships, but already surveys are in action in Kent and Birmingham. The Committee on the Medical Aspects of Food Policy, coupled with its advice the setting up of a huge nation-wide survey (which is something entirely new), taking in various aspects of child health, and aiming to ensure that deficiencies in nutrition, for whatever reason, will be discovered while they are still mild and reversible.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has finished the point lie was making about 1968. The House will know that we pursued and dealt with this point in Committee, and the noble Lord will be well aware of the fact that the version he has given is not accepted, and it was not accepted in the other place in Committee. He will be well aware of what Mr. Edward Short had to say; he will be well aware of what Miss Joan Lestor had to say; he will be well aware of the fact that in Committee I stated what I felt about it. I am not sure that I can remember the number of the column, but I think it was something like col. 104 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I do not withdraw one word of what I have said on this matter. I want to make it quite clear that I accept fully what people said in the other place from our side, that they were satisfied that it was safe to withdraw milk from secondary schools. I regret the decision. I have said a number of times that I hope that my side has learned the lesson, and I hope that it will never make the mistake again of giving a hostage to fortune in the way it did by cutting milk to secondary school children.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think I am perfectly in order. They had advice that it would be unsafe to withdraw milk from primary schools.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, quite simply, the reply to the noble Lord is that the honourable lady, Miss Lestor, was not a Member of the Government at that time; the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, was not a Member of the Government at that time. The right honourable gentleman, Mr. Edward Short, did query this decision, and he was offered the normal courtesies of seeing the papers in the Cabinet Office. Unless the noble Lord is telling me I should be aware, I am not aware that the right honourable gentleman has availed himself of that facility.
This Amendment seeks to draw a dividing line. In essence, however, the Bill is doing the same thing, because it retains the right to free milk for pupils up to the age of twelve on medical grounds. This, I put to your Lordships, is an important provision which your Lordships have not altered in Committee, just as the new power to sell milk is a provision which remains unchanged in the Bill. There is nothing between us on the desirability of milk as a food, although your Lordships will see that advice cannot be given as to exactly when it is essential and exactly when it is not. I hope your Lordships will accept those words which I uttered before the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, spoke.
What we on this side of the House believe is that, rather than give a specific milk subsidy for all children over the age of seven and a half years old, children who can pay will go on drinking milk, and next term a wide range of parents will be in a far stronger position through substantial increases in rights to security benefits—rights which I will not itemise because my noble friend Lord Brooke did so about a quarter of an hour ago. I would ask my noble friends this question: Do you prefer an indiscriminate subsidy to those who need and to those who do not, putting entirely in jeopardy the general strategy of the Government of last October. Or a safety age limit, with a medical safeguard, a power of sale, and an ability to purchase through improved social security rights? I ask noble Lords opposite: where is the point of principle which causes the introduction of what, in fact, is a wrecking Amendment on Third Reading after this question has been exhaustively debated, not only through another place but in this

1183
House, in Committee, on a very similar Amendment? This is technically a completely defective Amendment in that it will exclude some children at nearly fourteen and others at the age of nine, for reasons which have remained totally unexplained in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, in introducing this Amendment. It is also contrary to the policy of noble Lords opposite when in Government, in reintroducing milk for secondary schools.
I ask your Lordships to please look at Hansard for February 26, 1968. At col. 1098 the then Minister referred to the withdrawal of secondary school milk as a"shift in resources ". As reported in the House of Commons Hansard for November 4, 1968, the then Minister described the withdrawal of free meals from fourth and subsequent children of all ages as,"resources which could be more wisely applied." In Hansard of November 17, 1968, the same Minister justified a rise in school meal prices by expenditure needed in other areas of the education service. If words have a meaning, those statements are identical with the Government's intention today.
If your Lordships had the opportunity to listen to local authorities, to listen to teachers and parents asking for real improvement in the old schools of this country, I assure you you would not hesitate; you would choose to implement a general national policy which includes the greatest campaign to bring our old schools up to date which this country has ever seen. It is a campaign remarkable for the four-year span of money promised, which my right honourable friend has already been able to announce. Even though part of that policy includes the restriction of a specific subsidy on milk, provided that the Government safeguards any risk to health, you would choose this, I suggest, provided that the Government make supplies available, and that the Government give real financial help where it is needed. I am asking your Lordships this afternoon to recognise the small but fundamental position that this Bill occupies in the Government plans for the future; to acknowledge the genuine safeguards which accompany it, and to agree now to the passage of the Bill.
4.8 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to ask him one question. I gathered at one point in his speech that the free supply of milk was no longer regarded as essential, either in secondary or in primary schools. Surely he cannot have meant that to apply to primary schools as well as secondary schools, otherwise why have the supply of milk up to the age of seven?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord's ears have not deceived him; but his conclusion is totally wrong.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I apologise for intervening because I know that the noble Lord is very capable and very fair, but I think the noble Lord will live to rue some of his remarks today. I am not concerned a tinker's cuss with what any other Government did. If they did what is alleged (and I was in on some of it) it was wrong. I am concerned with what we have to do to-day. No Government can justify their actions by this old fashioned method of saying, "This is what a Liberal Government did" or,"what a Labour Government did ". In the name of Heaven, what is happening to our civilisation? All we seem to be concerned with are statistics and things. I am concerned with the dignity of human beings. I have said before that if you withhold milk from children when they are young, you cannot make it up to them by stuffing them with cream when they are teenagers, or men and women. It is too late.
I am surprised at the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He has a first-class logical brain and he knows in his heart that you cannot compare these priorities of buildings and children. As somebody who has practised in every avenue of teaching, from the old-fashioned elementary school to adult extramural university classes, I know what a good teacher can do in any kind of building if he has the ability and if the children have the health to take it. That does not mean that we do not want buildings, but the Government should not say that £9 million is going to be put into bricks and mortar when the children of to-day are being neglected. I am proud of what the Conservative and Labour Governments did, and I am also

1185
proud of what Lord Boyd-Orr did in the field of nutrition. I am not concerned with the results of so-called nutritional experts, because they contradict each other from time to time, as do economists, to suit the current movements. I beg both sides of the House to-day to send this Bill back to another place, so that it can be looked at. We are supposed to be going into the Common Market and we shall be going in as one of the countries with the worst social services for its children.
What is the matter with this country? Why is it trying to save £9 million? I do not want to make a Second Reading speech, but I will tell this House where to find a hundred times more than that if the Government are worried. They gave out £100 million in tax in their last Budget. If they want to get this money hack, why not put a quarter per cent. speculation tax on the rising prices of houses and land, and put that money into school milk? Incidentally, that would also help our hill farmers to stand up to the impact of the Common Market when we enter it. I ask the Government to think of human beings, rather than of the arid figure of £9 million on a balance sheet.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, what noble Lords opposite are really doing is libelling every parent in this country. What they are saying is that no parent in this country is prepared to spend under two shillings a week—the price of eight cigarettes—to provide milk for his children between seven and eleven years of age. My noble friend Lord Belstead has pointed out that poor families are adequately safeguarded, but several noble Lords opposite have harked back to 1944. We are not in 1944. The average income of people in this country has now trebled, including that of unemployed people. This is the most nonsensical debate that I have ever heard. It is a complete storm in a teacup. It is completely emotional and it is completely impractical.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords—
4.13 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I have already risen six times. I am
1186
sorry that three of us cannot speak at the same time, because a chorus of that kind might influence the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite. But the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, should read what his noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone said a few years ago. He said that one of the main reasons for the remarkable improvement in children's health in recent years has been the access of children to reasonable supplies of fresh liquid milk. He was referring to the wholesale distribution of school milk to practically every child in the country. I listened hopefully to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, when he gave his interim reply to this debate, and I was deeply disappointed. I came to the conclusion that he really is beyond redemption. It is quite clear to me that he has never been a mother. When he spoke of medical authority, he failed to differentiate between the child of eleven, who has some good bones and muscles in his body, and the child of seven, whose bones and muscles are going through a very important growing stage.
Then the noble Lord said that the opinion of the local authorities should be taken into account. Let us take into account the opinions of two of the most important local authority organisations in the country. The first is the Association of Municipal Corporations, who have said that they want the right to give these children the milk. The second is the Association of Education Committees, and they, too, have said that they want the right to give these children the milk. The noble Lord may on occasions quote the local authorities when it suits his book to do so, and on the simple, straightforward question that is now before us of whether children of seven to eleven should have milk, he should also quote what the authorities say. I have not been at all influenced by all the quibbles that we have had from the noble Lord. They were quibbles. The straight issue is: are we going to give milk to children of seven to eleven or are we going to take it away from them?
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that this is a question of priorities, as of course it is. Let us look at a few of those priorities. Only a few weeks ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he had saved £29 million on school meals, and we

1187
now hear that the Government are saving £9 million on school milk. The total of that is £38 million, which is precisely the sum that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put into the pockets of the surtax payers by his recent Budgets. The Chancellor has been openly boasting on the wireless and in the Press that he has reduced taxation by £1,000 million. We are not asking for £1,000 million, nor for £900 million. We are asking for £9 million, which is the cost of giving these children the milk to which they are really entitled—that is, if we take an adult view of our responsibilities as citizens. Not only did the Chancellor say that he was giving away £1,000 million. A week or two ago he went even further and reduced the purchase tax on mink coats, on expensive jewellery and on other luxuries of that kind. Goodness gracious! my Lords, let us, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, get our priorities right. And if we get our priorities right, should we not say that little schoolchildren come before the ladies in Park Lane, with their mink coats and their expensive jewellery? I do not want to carry on this debate very much longer.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD LEATHERLAND: It is uncomfortable for noble Lords opposite. We have had one assurance from the noble Lord that some monitoring will take place to see whether or not the children are suffering. That is right. But have the medical evidence before you make a cut in the milk. Do not cut the milk and then see whether some of the youngsters suffer.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord will want to be fair. That is precisely contrary to what I said.
LORD LEATHERLAND: All right, my Lords. The noble Lord is setting up a monitoring system.
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords. It is being set up by an independent body.
LORD LEATHERLAND: There is another quibble, my Lords. A monitoring system is being set up to examine the children and ascertain whether or not they suffer as a result of this cut in the school milk. That is correct, I
1188
believe. The Government are going to cut off the milk, see whether the kiddies get rickets, and then consider whether the milk should be restored. Why not have the full scientific and medical evidence before you make the cuts? Then, if you get conclusive evidence to show that these children will not suffer by having the milk taken away from them, it might be reasonable to come forward with such an economy as is suggested. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, paraded this cut as part of the Government's economy measures. It may from one point of view be an economy to save £9 million while you are giving away £1,000 million to more comfortable circles, but is it really an economy to take those bright, bouncing boys and girls in the schools to-day and condemn them to the kind of life that their forebears suffered thirty and forty years ago? Because that is what is going to happen. I do plead with the Government (although, as I said, the noble Lord seems to be beyond redemption) to think twice on this matter, in which case they will earn the gratitude of millions of parents in this country.
Of course, I really ought not to be speaking like this. The electors in June last year voted for all this. They knew what they were voting for when they voted a Tory Government into office. They knew there would be all this meanness, all this increased unemployment, all these increases in food prices and these higher rates, rents and fares. They knew it but of course they voted for it, and in a democracy I suppose they ought to have known what was coming to them. But then we, in this House, have the privilege of not being Parliamentary voters, so I think that factor alone leaves us free to speak. If I had my way I would speak from now until midnight, but I understand that a number of your Lordships want to speak, so I will sit down.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I was one of those who abstained on both votes we have had on this matter so far, because I think the Bill has nothing to do with money but rather with education, and that if education is still to be free so should the milk be free. Many children do not like drinking milk. Many children above the age

1189
of 9 have wasted milk, and this is a point in favour of the Government's scheme. That I know to be true. But it is not the poor children who are going to be affected by this Bill: it is in fact the moderately well-to-do and the richer. They will spend their money on the more exotic orange and fizzy lemonades, which is no good, and they will not be subject to the discipline of free milk. That is why I regret that it is going. If noble Lords opposite had put down an Amendment raising the age to nine—in other words, making it from nine to eleven—I should have been bound to support it, but I feel that the other House having taken their decision and this House its decision, then at this stage, reluctantly and hating this as I do, I shall have to vote against the Amendment.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I have heard all this for forty years. I just want to go on record with one sentence. I would rather the parents and the people had the money than that we gave out free issues of this and free issues of that in every direction. I think this is due to our people now. They are educated, sophisticated, wise and sensible, and know how to spend their money. But those who are poor should have more, and those who are not so poor should have less. I think that is a sensible arrangement, and this is part of a good, sensible arrangement. I do not believe for one moment that children are going to go without milk because they will go in for"pop ". If they do, then their parents should teach them better; and so should the teacher.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, as a Cross-Bencher I should like to put in just a word, if I may, having observed this debate raging to some extent on what might be regarded as Party lines. I should just like to recall to your Lordships what seems to me the basic point that is at issue in this Amendment. In 1943, before the war was over but looking forward to the post-war Five-Year Plan, the then Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, said:
" There is no finer investment for any community than putting milk into babies".
That was in a broadcast address; and I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, when he says that of course a Government must have priorities.
1190
It is not for me to say what the then Prime Minister would have given as a priority, although he used that rather round phrase,"There is no finer investment for any community ". He was also speaking of babies, but I think he was really thinking of the food policy of his right honourable friend Lord Woolton, which had revolutionised the kind of diet that children had then and have had ever since, only better. I really think that now to take away something which has been proved of such value, even though it is the Government's bounden duty to fulfil their Election pledges, and although they made quite plain that they wanted to concentrate the help where it was most needed, is wrong.
I myself think that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was right when he said that there were a great many children whose parents could afford this milk but who will not in fact get it if this Bill is not amended. I am prepared to bet the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, a bottle of port to a one-third pint bottle of milk that, in the event, five years from now, if this Bill is not amended, there will be a dramatic falling off in the amount of milk drunk at schools. It was said in Committee that it would be better for the parents and that the parents would probably buy the milk and get the children to drink the milk at home, instead of sending them off to school with some money. With respect, a great many children do not particularly like milk and will not drink it at home; but they will drink it in the company of their friends at school.
I plead with the Government, even at this late hour, to consider whether they could possibly meet those of us who very nearly divided the House in favour of the previous Amendment on the Committee stage. I plead with the Government to think once more before they take this step, which will mean that children, who I am sure we all agree need this milk, will not have it. I am not speaking now of those on the edge of malnutrition and who will be revealed by the monitoring system, nor even of those who are on the margin of poverty. I am taking the realistic view that if we pass this Bill in its present form a large number of children between the ages of seven and eleven who ought to have, and

1191
who would be the better for having, one-third of a pint of milk a day will in fact not have it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I say just this? If the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite will agree to adjourn this debate in order to give consideration to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, I will do my best from this side to persuade my colleagues not to speak any further. We would be happy indeed to accept an adjournment so that the Government could give further consideration to the points which have been raised.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I make two points, and no more? The first is on Lord Belstead's statement. He has made out the Government's case as always going one better than something which the Labour Government did, something which many people in the Labour Party did not even wish or agree to. The age at which the issue of milk is stopped is very important. It is much more important to stop it at eleven, if you are going to stop it, than at seven. That is one point. The other point I wish to make arises out of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, when he said that, because of the family income supplement, this measure will not make the people on the poverty line poorer. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, reads his newspapers, but every day I read that people are not taking up the family income supplement. Therefore, they are left the poorer if their children are denied their one-third of a pint of milk a day.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I wonder if, at the end of this considerable discussion, I may be allowed to add my views as a school manager of two very old primary schools. I heartily support what my noble friend Lord Brooke said in regard to the package approach. My two very old primary schools badly need rebuilding, in my view, and, of course, there are a vast number of others, scattered all over the country, of which the same can be said. But I should like to return to the practicalities of this whole milk problem. The noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, has suggested, as indeed have many other speakers, that milk is a beneficial institution in schools. I query, first of all, the basic theme that the
1192
nutritional value of milk is indispensable. I am very interested in nutrition generally, though I am not an expert. Secondly, I should like to draw attention to what was said by my noble friend Lord Monckton in regard to wastage. All school managers who are concerned with the direct management of affairs within schools are only too well aware of the difficulties that teachers have in persuading children to swallow the milk. This is a universal problem and it occurs specially in winter terms. During the summer terms it is easier. I suggest that there are practical considerations to be looked at. I feel that the nutritional side is an open question, and therefore I would support my noble friend Lord Brooke in viewing this as a matter of priorities.
4.31 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I do not know whether there is likely to be any response from the Government to the idea of adjourning this debate so that the Government may think again. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, indicates that there will be none. May I make it quite clear that the only way to achieve any change at all is to give the Government an opportunity to think about the matter again by the House accepting this Amendment? That will then give another place an opportunity to go into the matter in considerable detail and to consider the criticisms on many points that have been raised in this House from all parts. I remember the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, and by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton—and no answer was given to Lord Milverton at any time during the Committee stage. I recall the criticisms made by his noble friend Lord Auckland, and the noble Lord opposite will recall that in Committee he had but one speaker from his side who said anything that could suggest support for the Bill.
I want to make it quite clear that I recognise that this Amendment will be defective. But if it is carried it will give the Government an opportunity to give to the many points that have been raised here the kind of attention that they failed to give in our Committee. I feel that we have been confronted throughout our debates by a determination to pass this Bill without changing a dot or a comma. No Government should assume that they can bring a measure of this kind to this

1193
House in this way without your Lordships' saying:"Stop! You are not getting away with it! We intend to check any Government who want to ' steamroller ' any Bill through this House." I say that because the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, throughout the Committee stage again and again expressed sympathy with the criticisms that were voiced. The Government could at any time themselves have come forward with Amendments to remedy the defects, not of the Amendments but of the Bill.
My Lords, I must be careful; for I thought at one stage that this discussion on the subject of milk was going to put up the temperature of the House. I was grateful when the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, came in and lowered the temperature somewhat. May I say that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was right on one point, and that was the question of priorities. It is all a matter of priorities. Is there one noble Lord who would not put the interests of his children first when considering priorities? Is there one noble Lord who would say that other things come before that? The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has made one or two contributions during the stages of this Bill. May I say that I hold him in high regard, but I do not believe that he begins to understand how a great many people live; or that he begins to understand the point made by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell and the point completely ignored by Government spokesmen, in trying to defend this Bill, when they talked about family income supplement. Let them tell us what the take-up is; because they know that at the moment it shows all the signs of being a ghastly failure. And why? Because people are proud in poverty and there will always be a great many people who will not apply for benefits of the kind that the family income supplement offers.
What is the position of the parents who will not spend money on milk? If the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, imagines that this question was asked only by those on this side of the House, I may point out that Lord Brooke referred to that situation as"tragic ". What help can we give the children in these tragic circumstances where the parents will not give the children money for milk, where they prefer to spend it on cigarettes and beer? I venture to suggest that the only way we
1194
can ensure that these children get milk is to ensure the continuance of what is being done at present. The point I think the House needs to take is this: under this Bill it does not matter how poor a family is, poverty itself does not secure free milk. For a child in the age group seven to eleven to get free milk at school, a medical officer must issue a certificate saying that there is a medical need. I think that that point has not really sunk in; but it is one that I think the House should take.
It would be easy to repeat all the arguments that were put forward at the Committee stage. In opening, I tried to avoid too much repetition; but, if I may, I will once again mention the word"priorities ". I do not think that the welfare, the security or the economic progress of this country depends upon depriving children between the ages of seven and eleven of one-third of a pint of milk a day. This country is not in such a desperate situation as that. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, knows this perfectly well when he talks about it all being part of a national strategy, and claims credit for the fact that £38 million is going to be saved by putting up the price of school meals, and by cutting free milk, in order to build new schools. I want to say that, whatever criticism there may be of a Labour Government regarding education and of what that Government did not do, they were responsible for the largest expenditure—a record expenditure—in the field of education. I think more recognition might be given to that. I do not want to take up the time of the House any further.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Some noble Lords may say"Hear, hear! "; but there will be many people outside this House who will be interested in the number of noble Lords who spoke and in the number who thought it was a subject that ought not to be discussed. I hope very much that this Amendment will be carried and that, when it has been included in the Bill, the further thought will be given to making alterations in the Bill which will make it more thoroughly acceptable and more worth while than it is at the present time.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 97.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Platt, L.

Amherst, E.

Garner, L.

Raglan, L.

Amulree, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Archibald, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Ardwick, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Royle, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Rusholme, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hankey, L.

Seear, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Serota, Bs.

Boothby, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Bourne, L.

Hoy, L.

Shannon, E.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Shepherd, L.

Bristol, Bp.

Jacques, L.

Silkin, L.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L.

Byers, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Stocks, Bs.

Camoys, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Chorley, L.

McLeavy, L.

Strang, L.

Clwyd, L.

Meston, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Moyle, L.

Walston, L.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

White, Bs.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Williamson, L.

Falkland, V.

Pargiter, L.

Willis, L.

Faringdon, L.

Peddie, L.

Wise, L.

Foot, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Essex, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Aldington, L.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Atholl, D.

Gage, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Gowrie, E.

Poole, L.

Balfour, E.

Grenfell, L.

Reading, M.

Barnby, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Belstead, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hacking, L.

St. Just, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hailes, L.

Salisbury, M.

Blackford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Saltoun, L.

Brentford, V.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Harcourt, V.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hertford, M.

Selkirk, E.

Caccia, L.

Hood, V.

Selsdon, L.

Carrington, L.

Howe, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Chelmer, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Colyton, L.

Ilford, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Conesford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strathclyde, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jessel, L.

Swinton, E.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Tenby, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Terrington, L.

Crathorne, L.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lothian, M.

Thomas, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Devonport, V.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Masserecne and Ferrard, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Dulverton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Willingdon, M.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Eccles, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Wolverton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Morrison, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.48 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Belstead.)
LORD ST. JUST: My Lords, I should like to say one word on this Motion before the Bill is passed. We have heard

1197
a great deal during the debates on the question of priorities, but we have not heard anything about something in which I was brought up to believe (my father was in another place for 15 years): that timing was one of the great things in politics. I must say that I think the Government's timing of this Bill could not have been worse. They would have had plenty of time to bring in this Bill later on. That would have given the House a chance of discussing it, when we were not tired and strained, as we have been, at the end of this especially long Session.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to say two sentences before the Bill passes, if I may. If the Bill passes, as it will, unamended, a great deal less milk is going to be drunk by a great many more children in this country; and nobody can tell me that this will be a good thing for the future generation.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I also should like to say one word, as I have not spoken during the passage of this Bill. I must confess that I do not like it. I think that it is a bad Bill, and I wish that our Government had not introduced it. But I think that a good many noble Lords who have spoken from the other side are suffering under one delusion—that is, that this Bill is depriving children of milk. It is doing nothing of the kind. It is merely saying that they shall not have it free. Admittedly this will prejudice the supply of milk for children a great deal, because people do not like having to pay for anything, even a 3p stamp. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Belstead could not consider some Amendment on these lines when the Bill goes back to another place: that milk shall be made compulsory up to the age of 11, but that parents shall be charged for it, except in cases where extreme poverty can be proved. That, I think, will solve the situation in both directions.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I have one small point to make. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has emphasised time and time again that the authorities are to be empowered under this Bill to sell milk. He also referred during the Committee stage to provisions which will enable the authorities to sell
1198
other refreshments. I hope that when, as is likely, this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament and no free milk is on general issue, the appropriate Department will take steps to direct the authorities as to the kind of refreshments and foodstuffs which they should sell, and which will be beneficial to children. I have the feeling that typical tuck shop grub will be the kind of thing that children will buy and that this will have a detrimental effect which I have endeavoured to illustrate, particularly on teeth, which will take from seven to ten years to become noticeable.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I have listened, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has, to what has been said. It is quite clear that many Members of your Lordships' House, while respecting the position the Government have taken up, have grave reservations about the wisdom of introducing this Bill. I think the Government will have to take note of what has been said. As to what they might do towards meeting the criticism, I confess that I do not know, because the Bill will soon be an Act of Parliament. Personally, I much regret that I have been involved in a controversy of this nature with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I should have preferred that we might have been able to find more points of agreement than points of disagreement. I appreciate the unfailing courtesy with which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has replied to arguments and criticisms, some of which must have been a little hard for him to take. We know him as a man, and we regret that he, due to his position, has been placed in the situation which he has. I hope that on some other occasion we shall find matters on which we can reach more agreement than we have been able to reach on this Bill. I want to make it quite clear that we are conscious of the close attention he pays to what is said. I can only hope that we do not too long have to entertain a Government who are capable of inflicting measures of this kind on little children.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Somers asked whether it would not be possible to alter the Bill at this late stage to include an Amendment on extreme poverty. This was tried in Committee in another place and it

1199
was found to be almost impossible to define"extreme poverty"from the point of view of this Bill. I know it is the point of view of certain noble Lords, who would have liked to see this rather than a health requirement in the Bill, but I would remind my noble friend that the health requirement is firmly there. We believe that it will work, and that with it will go bracketed the maintenance of people's incomes, which will also, to some extent, safeguard the sale of milk—although I know that the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, has some reservations about that.
The reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is that school meals are of a set nutritional value. If the noble Lord is thinking also of snack meats which can be served under Regulation 5(2), he can rest assured that the School Meals Service, which of course will be overseeing those sort of meals, will also he taking to heart the kind of thoughts that he has on their nutritional value. This is an important point, because the take-up of snack meals to-day is becoming higher and higher.
Last, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, I would point out to the House that the Government are taking every care that the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy have taken an unprecedented step in connection with this Bill in setting up a special committee on child nutrition, and they are starting, along with the many other checks and balances that there are on nutrition, a special and gigantic survey. I think that answers the questions which have been asked by your Lordships.
On Question, Bill passed.

PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO CODE No. 1 (CATTLE) OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK
4.56 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House approves the proposed alternations to the Code No. 1 of the Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, relating to Cattle, a copy of which was laid before the House on July 2. It would probably be for the convenience of your Lordships if at the same time we discussed the proposed
1200
alterations to the other three Codes: these are for pigs, domestic fowls and turkeys. It would also be right, while introducing these alterations, that I should declare that I have an interest, in so far as I am a farmer, and one of the enterprises in which I am involved is the growing of table poultry.
The rapid advance in techniques of all kinds which has taken place in every sphere of agriculture in the last ten years or so has inevitably had its effects on the methods under which livestock are kept. The increasing necessity for large units, which industry has found essential for its successful operation, has also been found to be equally essential in agriculture, whether the units are the size of holdings, the size of fields, the size of machines or the size of livestock enterprises. And it is as a result of this that there was, and is—and I suggest rightly so—a genuine concern, which I think is felt by everyone, by the Government, your Lordships, farmers and the public in general, that somehow the progress of technological evolution, which is inevitable and in many, ways desirable, and from which we cannot escape, should nevertheless not be allowed to be pursued in respect of animals regardless of the fact that they are living beings.
It was, therefore, in order to meet this new situation, and to try to find a way of balancing, on the one hand, the new methods and techniques which modern science and knowledge has taught us and, on the other hand, the adequate and reasonable conditions in which all fair-minded people would wish to see animals kept, that the Brambell Committee was set up in 1964. This was the first attempt—certainly in this country, and I believe in the whole world—to try to investigate the problem in depth. It was as a direct result of this that the Codes of Practice which are in operation to-day were introduced by the last Government in 1969.
These four Codes which are currently in use were debated in the House on October 14, 1969, on a Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on behalf of the previous Government. During that debate, it was clear that some noble Lords, although welcoming the Codes in principle, did not consider that they went far enough in some of their recommendations in order to provide adequate

1201
safeguards for the welfare of farm animals. It was as a result of the doubts that were expressed then, and those which were expressed in another place, that after the Codes had been approved, the Government of the day asked the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to re-examine certain Code recommendations; and at the same time, the Government arranged for a survey to be undertaken by the State Veterinary Service, which is now the veterinary arm of the Agricultural Advisory Service, to determine how the Codes were in fact being applied in practice on farms throughout the country.
As is in general the custom, the advice which was given to Ministers by the Advisory Committee and which followed their re-examination of certain Code recommendations was not published, but a report by the Committee which explained the issues and the arguments upon which their advice was given was placed in the Library of your Lordships' House in September, 1970, and it was also published. This report, which sets out very clearly on the one hand the ethical considerations and on the other hand the scientific considerations which influenced the Committee in their re-examination, includes a bibliography and, I might add, is an excellent commentary on the subject of animal welfare. The Government are most grateful to the Advisory Committee for agreeing to the publication of this very valuable material, and I commend it to anyone who wishes to make a detailed and objective study of the subject. At the same time (September, 1970) the Government also placed in the Library of the House a report by the Chief Veterinary Officer of the Ministry of Agriculture on the survey which was undertaken by the State Veterinary Service to find out how the Codes were being operated in practice. This survey involved visits by veterinary staff to more than 4,000 livestock premises throughout Great Britain during the period February to May, 1970. On most of the premises which were visited, stock were being kept under intensive husbandry systems. The survey found that the standard of stockmanship was generally satisfactory and it confirmed that the welfare Codes were based on sound principles.
1202
In general terms, the report leads to the conclusion that the Codes provide safeguards of the right kind and at the right level for the welfare of farm animals and that they are capable of being applied in practice. But the report suggested some areas in which modifications should be made to the Codes. In some cases these were to clarify the intention, and in others to take account of further minor points which arose in the course of the survey. My right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland have therefore not only had the advantages of these two reports but also the advice of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, as well as observations from the British Veterinary Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, together with its Scottish counterpart. It was in the light of all this advice that proposals for change in the Codes were prepared. These proposals were then circulated for comment to 128 interested organisations in England and 41 in Scotland. The final proposals, which are now before the House, were prepared after consideration had been given to a great deal of the comment received from the very wide range of these organisations representing filming, veterinary, scientfic and indeed welfare interests.
I do not doubt that your Lordships will have noted that the proposed alterations are of a relatively minor nature, and there may be some who feel that the substantial amount of time and effort which is represented by the reports and consultations to which I have referred has produced a rather meagre result. I suggest that it would be wrong to take this view. I am sure that it was right to re-examine certain of the recommendations in depth, and that it was right to appraise thoroughly the application of Codes in that field; and I am also sure that it was right, as the Act requires, to give ample opportunity for comment. The purpose of the proposed alterations is to remove ambiguities and difficulties of interpretation and to make small but significant improvements to the scope of the Codes. The papers before the House set out all the proposed alterations and their purpose. As they are in the main self-explanatory, I do not propose to take up time by speaking on each and every

1203
proposed change. I shall therefore restrict my remarks to just two of the proposed alterations which I feel might be regarded as being among the more important and which might serve to illustrate the kind of considerations the Government have given to these proposals and the care taken to frame them in such a manner as to achieve a positive improvement which is capable of practical application.
The two alterations I propose to deal with are those to paragraph 20 of the Code for Cattle and to paragraph 24 of the Code for Domestic Fowl. Paragraph 20 of the Code for Cattle deals with the space allowances for tethered or penned cattle and it is intended, both in its original form and as proposed to be revised, to provide—I quote from the basic requirement as set out in the Preface to the Code:
" adequate freedom of movement and ability to stretch limbs ".
The original wording of the paragraph was found by veterinary staff to pose in practice problems of interpretation, and the proposed alteration is intended to remove those difficulties without departing from the basic principle. Noble Lords will note that the current Code recommends that penned animals should have sufficient room to lie down on their sides and extend their legs in their pens—that is, within the confines of the pens. But it was found that the width of pen which an individual penned calf would need in order to enable this recommendation to be implemented varied with the way in which the animal lay and the angle at which it extended its legs. Both the published reports to which I have referred mentioned this problem. The veterinary report sets out the official interpretation based upon the original recommendation, and the Advisory Committee agree that the official interpretation meets the Committee's original intentions, which were sound and should not be changed. The proposed alteration gives effect to both these views and recommends a pen width of not less than the height of the animal at the shoulder. This will ensure that when an animal lies down with its legs at right angles to its body it will have the same width of the pen as is its height from the floor to its shoulder when it is standing.
1204
The second example relates to paragraph 24 of the Code for Domestic Fowls, which is concerned with the space allowances for poultry. The Government have not proposed any alteration in the allowances recommended, but both in order to change to terms more commonly used by poultry keepers—and they tend to think in terms of stock intensities, rather than of space allowances—and to clarify the intention, we are proposing that these areas should be related to"maximum acceptable densities"and not, as at present, to"space allowances given as a guide to those below which sound management may become the critical factor ". This phrase has been seen by some poultry keepers as synonymous with recommended densities, and this was a point which substantially disturbed the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, when the Codes were introduced. It may be recalled that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, expressed the view that it might be possible to write this paragraph rather differently in order to make it clearer. This is what has been done. In addition to this basic change, noble Lords will have noticed that the proposed alteration seeks to tidy up the paragraph in general and it now includes a tabular rather than a prose form of presentation.
The Government believe that these alterations will strengthen the recommendations and will also clarify the meaning of the Codes. I know that there may be some noble Lords who would wish to see a drastic reduction in stocking densities, particularly for caged poultry. This aspect of the Code was dealt with in some depth in the two reports made available to the House. The Government consider that neither report justifies a change in the densities recommended. The State Veterinary Service reported no evidence of pain or distress among birds stocked at the Code densities; and the Advisory Committee in their report gave, in their statement of the scientific approach, a well-documented analysis which contained no evidence that stocking density within the range practised by the industry is itself a critical welfare factor. It is worth noting that the veterinary survey found that in the majority of poultry units visited the stocking densities used were in fact below the levels recommended as maxima in the Code.

1205
I hope your Lordships will agree that these proposed alterations are an improvement to the Codes. I am very much aware that there are those who will be disappointed that the proposals do not go further than they do. I respect their point of view and their intense, and indeed sincere, concern for the welfare of animals. I hope that they, in turn, will accept that the Government are equally concerned for the welfare of animals, and that my right honourable friends have tried, as did their predecessors, to discharge carefully their responsibilities in this matter and to balance fairly and justly the advances of science and techniques, together with the modern methods and requirements of animal husbandry which these bring, with the reasonable and appropriate dignity of man in relation to the living stock over which he has control.
My Lords, this is a balance upon which nobody can claim to have achieved the right and only answer; differing shades of opinion on all sides may claim that the balance should be tilted in a different direction. Nor do the Government claim that these Codes are perfect and will remain so. Constantly changing knowledge, and the result of new research, will doubtless cause the Codes to be altered again. But I believe that the Codes, as amended, will, if properly applied, constitute an effective safeguard for the welfare of livestock on farms, and I hope that your Lordships will approve them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the proposed alterations to Code No. 1 (Cattle) of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, laid before the House on July 2, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
5.11 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am happy to say a few words about this subject. Perhaps we might go back a short period to find out how the whole matter arose. It was my privilege in another place to pilot through the other place this particular section of the 1968 Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act which gave birth to these Codes. During that process I was told not to go so far as to make it an uneconomic proposition for those who were engaged in farming. So we had to strike a balance then, of not only being fair to the farmer, but to make
1206
it possible to introduce conditions that would be humane so far as livestock were concerned. That is what we set out to do, and that we ought to remember in any criticisms of these Orders that we may care to make.
We ought to take a little pride in the fact that this is the first and still, I think, is the only country in the world where Codes of this kind exist. It is to our credit that, despite all the difficulties, we took time, and are now taking time, to deal with a subject of this kind. It is true that immediately we go into codes of practice on animal welfare we create, apparently, emotive forces. When I was at the Ministry I had to deal with hundreds of letters about the destruction of seals and their pups in Canada, as if we had the right or some power to put a stop to that. I know that as soon as this sort of subject arises all the attention is directed to the Ministry in our country on many matters over which it has no control.
When the Orders were first introduced in another place (if I may say so, it was not after they were introduced) my right honourable friend Mr. Cledwyn Hughes intimated that he would instruct the State Veterinary Service to report on how the Codes were working. He promised, even at that time, to place a copy of the report in the Libraries of the Houses of Parliament so that Members of both Houses could see what was said about the Codes and how they had worked. He also promised to ask the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to look again at the recommendations and, if they could see any improvements that were necessary, to make a report to the Ministers, whoever they might be, so that any recommendations could be taken into account, and the Codes be amended accordingly. My right honourable friend at the time did not delay in issuing instructions, and the job was put in hand immediately. It was as a result of these instructions that these reports were presented, and it falls to the present Government to adopt the recommendations suggested. That is what we are doing this afternoon.
It is always difficult when we come to deal with these Codes to measure how far we ought to go. We have never led the country, or anyone in it, to believe

1207
that we could move so quickly that overnight we could create perfection so far as these matters were concerned. We had before us at that time the Brambell recommendations. There were those who thought that as we did not implement the Brambell recommendations completely we had failed in the job we had set out to do. Your Lordships will agree that in the course of the working of these Codes, over a very short period at least, we have been able to assure ourselves that in the main they have worked reasonably well, not only for those engaged in husbandry, but for the welfare of the animals concerned.
It is not my intention to be critical of the recommendations that have been made, or to criticise them for not going so far as perhaps I should want them to go, because I know that it is always simple to criticise Codes. I see that my noble friend (and I believe I may call him that) Lord Conesford is present, and many a time I have had to listen to him in another place dealing with Codes. I remember on one famous occasion he delivered a speech of some fair length, which contained good humour and good sense, on the Highway Code, and nearly convinced me that it would not work at all. I believe we have made a good start with our codes of practice and I will do nothing to delay the passing of the Order which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has moved.
5.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers that we are going through a period of technological evolution, and what we are trying to do in this and other fields is to see that we maintain certain standards, whatever a technology may try to dictate to us. This is the approach which many people make towards this problem. I was glad that my noble friend showed that we are really concerned about the subject we are talking about to-day, as the Minister did in the other place. That is proper because it reflects the profound anxiety which is felt by many people in all parts of the country about what is happening in this branch of technology, if you like to call it that.
I hope that those in this House who are interested in farming will not to-day
1208
be too sensitive about what is being discussed. We are concerned with a small minority of the trade as it exists; anyone can see that from the extremely interesting report of the State Veterinary Officer. It is not a large number, but we want to increase it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that a Code is probably the right way to handle this, but I should like to test the Minister in this way: is it a minimum Code, or is it regarded as a norm? I hope that he will say that it is a minimum Code.
There is a big difference between this occasion and a former occasion when we discussed this matter. On the last occasion I divided the House, and a great number of Members from different parts of the House came into the Lobby with me. The Minister this time has not only shown his concern in a very real way, but has said without ambiguity that it is his responsibility that these Codes are issued. He is not trying to pass the responsibility on to an advisory board; he is accepting full responsibility. I also want to thank the Minister for the publication of the two reports which we have in front of us, of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and the State Veterinary Service.
I cannot say that the Minister has been very brave. As has been said, the results are rather meagre, but I suppose that in due course they will be incorporated in a new edition of the Codes. I must say that he made a curious statement when he said that he prefers science to ethics. This is an extraordinarily interesting subject for a philosophical essay, but it is irrelevant to the subject which we are discussing to-day. If one likes to call it a subjective judgment as compared with objective evidence, then by all means one may do so; or should a dentist next time put a hole in my teeth and not pay enough attention, would it be preferable to call him unethical? I should like to do that, but I have some doubts as to whether it would be the correct adjective to apply to him.
Science cannot measure pain and indeed scientists have not even a norm or a unit of pain. I doubt very much whether they ever will have. There are limits to scientific information on this matter, and with great respect it is highly limited. I see in the report of the Advisory Committee that Professor

1209
Hewer says that protein metabolism is almost a decisive issue as to whether there is stress or pain. If I may say so, I suspect that the protein metabolism of those in the mining industry before the Factory Acts probably altered a great deal, but whether they were considered to have been happy or satisfied I should have thought was highly doubtful. So I do not feel greatly persuaded by the use of this particular terminology.
Moreover, although the Minister chooses what he calls science instead of what I call a subjective judgment, the State Veterinary Service uses no other judgment at all except a subjective judgment. It does not pretend to submit any kind of scientific basis. I am saying, therefore, that I think the Minister's insistence on science is not very well conceived in this matter. I should not like to say it was an excuse for doing very little, but I must confess I am disappointed that more has not been done. I only hope, after hearing the noble Earl's statement, that other codes can be evolved in due course, and I very much hope that they will be.
I liked the State Veterinary Officer's report. It was frank. But I should like to know the position about enforcement. He mentions three prosecutions. I do not know whether that is the sum total, but from some of the pictures he gives I am a little surprised that there have not been more prosecutions. For instance, he said on pages 7 and 8 that in certain cases calves cannot groom themselves. It is perfectly clearly laid down in the Code that calves should be able to groom themselves. Is it not considered an infringement—really a fundamental infringement—of the whole purpose of these Codes if they cannot do so? I say this particularly in regard to Code 1, paragraph 20. Further on he refers to the number of premises in which water and food is withheld for two days—this is in respect of pigs. He says that there is no evidence of pain or distress. I should have thought that that was arguable. I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen human beings who have not drunk for twelve or twenty-four hours, but it would be very hard to say that they had not suffered a certain amount of distress. I should have thought it was quite clearly laid down in Code 2, paragraph 16, that this was contrary to the Code. I have therefore to ask this
1210
simple question: Are there enough veterinary officers looking after this position, because these seem to be pretty serious cases, although I accept readily that they are only in a minority?
The other point is the astonishing detail with which it appears necessary to go into this matter. For instance, Code No. 1, paragraph 20, says that a tether must not cause injury to the cattle. Is it really necessary to put this in? Surely this situation is fully covered by the 1911 Act. In Code 3, paragraph 5, it is said that injury such as open wounds and fractures should be treated. Is it really essential to put this in? Is it not part of the general standards which are already being observed?
I should now like to ask one or two questions—I will not keep your Lordships for long. First of all, in regard to pigs, Code 2, why are they not allowed the same proportion of space as cattle in single pens? Cattle are supposed to have a pen as high as their shoulder. May I ask the noble Earl to confirm that that is the top of the shoulder—I think his right honourable friend said that in the other place—and not some arbitrary place on the shoulder? Secondly, in regard to birds, Code No. 3, when it is said that they can stretch their wings without difficulty, does that fairly mean both wings? I understand that certain problems have arisen with regard to the phrase"without difficulty ". This indicates to me that there is some difficulty, and the question is:"How much?" Is there no chance of allowing animals out of their enclosures for one day, or part of a day, to stretch their legs outside the enclosed pens?
I should like to say one other word in general terms about the question of white veal. White veal, I should not have thought by any scientific standards, was a good diet. It is produced by anaemic animals. There is what one might call an ethical choice. I would prefer to call it a subjective choice of the consumer. But is it right that we should continue to encourage people to eat meat which is produced from animals which are not healthy? During my life-time doctors have changed their views a great deal on what is good for dietary and what is not good for dietary. Are we sure that before long doctors may not declare this meat possibly the

1211
basis of some of the diseases whose origins have not been fully traced right up to the present time?
I know that we are probably going to join the European Economic Community and that some of the farming population think that we must not put too heavy a burden on the farmers. First of all, let us be quite clear that the reports indicate that the vast majority of farmers are well above the standards, better than the standards. So it is not very likely that raising the minimum standard is going to impede the agricultural community at all. Secondly, I should like to hope that when we go into the E.E.C., if we do, we carry with us standards which are indeed worth while; that they are going to be something which we can gradually impose, or at least encourage other countries in Europe to adopt.
My Lords, in conclusion I will simply say this. Ought not the terms of the 1911 Act, which are quite strong in paragraph 1, to be brought clearly to the attention of those who engage in this particular industry? After all, no prosecution can lie under these particular Codes. A prosecution, as I understand it, will lie under the 1911 Act. Should farmers not be more aware of just what does lie under that Act? Secondly, the noble Earl has said that the new Codes should be perused. I am sure that the House will welcome them to show a steady willingness to raise the lowest standards that still exist, and not too readily to adjust standards to what is currently practised.
5.27 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, until I arrived in your Lordships' House this afternoon I was unaware that a general debate would be taking place on these proposed alterations to recommendations for the welfare of animal livestock. I imagined that probably a series of questions would be put to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and this in fact is all I wish to do. I have just a couple of queries which I should like to raise while generally welcoming the amendments proposed.
Following the Brambell Report, I wonder whether something more could be done to put the message over to the general public and to impress upon them
1212
that the vast majority of farmers are not completely inhumane and entirely without feeling. Notwithstanding the fact that an unhealthy or an unhappy animal cannot possibly thrive and consequently must be an uneconomic proposition, I am sure that both farmers and their stockmen have a certain affection for animals; they certainly have an interest in and show great concern for the health and welfare of their animals—animals upon which they depend for their livelihood, and to a certain extent animals upon which the life of every citizen depends.
I believe that the National Farmers' Union suggest that there is a tendency for the new Codes to embrace extensive systems of production. I would agree with them that this is so and it would appear to be unnecessary. Nevertheless, constant watch needs to be kept over the complex systems of modern intensive livestock keeping, and I personally thoroughly welcome the alterations and the proposed amendments to paragraph 20 (I think it is) regarding increasing the size of pens in veal production.
I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two questions. First, can he tell me how many veterinary field officers are doing animal welfare work and what portion of their time is committed solely to this purpose? Is the Minister satisfied that following the veterinary report the amount of time devoted to this work is sufficient? For these Orders to be effective, there must be an adequate veterinary complement, and I wonder what the average age of the veterinary officers mainly concerned with this work is, how many recruits have taken up employment in the field service, and what have been the losses due to resignations and retirements from the time that the Order became effective, I believe in September, 1968? Perhaps the noble Earl will be able to give some figures.
5.31 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, as the House is aware, I do not often intervene on any agricultural matter, for the very good reason that I have no direct experience as a farmer and am ignorant of the technicalities of the subject. But this question of factory farming has concerned me very much indeed, and my

1213
only previous interventions on an agricultural Bill have been on this subject. On April, 30, 1968, my noble friend Lord Selkirk introduced, and I supported, an Amendment which sought to put into the text of this Statute those famous words in paragraph 37 of the Brambell Report:
" An animal should at least have sufficient freedom of movement to be able without difficulty to turn round, groom itself, get up, lie down and stretch its limbs."
My noble friend and I, and many others, thought it desirable that that declaration of rights for animals, if I may so summarise it, should be available on the face of the Statute. That paragraph is referred to in many subsequent paragraphs of the Brambell Committee's Report, and it was their fundamental doctrine. On that occasion we were defeated by 96 votes to 23.
Then we come to the debate on the Codes themselves, on October 14, 1969, to which my noble friend the Minister has already referred. On that occasion the opposition to the Codes was deployed with brilliance and humanity in a most moving speech by Dr. Fleming, then and until lately Lord Bishop of Norwich. Perhaps I might say, in passing, that there is no one whose departure from this House I more regret than that of my friend the former Lord Bishop of Norwich. On that occasion I mentioned some of the moral considerations as I saw them. I thought I was not a sentimentalist; but if I was, I found myself in very good company: the Lord Bishop of Norwich himself, Professor Brambell, my old friend Julian Huxley, Dr. Tinbergen, F.R.S., the great authority from Oxford University, and Professor Thorpe, who has written an appendix to the Brambell Report itself. On that occasion we were defeated in a much closer Division by 67 votes to 38. This House was really concerned, as was another place, in the debate to which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has already referred, and I think that it is now quite clear that both Houses of Parliament are acutely concerned, as is the public outside.
Let me say at once, to relieve my noble friend the Minister, that of course we all welcome the improvements in the Codes that are incorporated in these Amendments which he has moved. If I may say so, I particularly welcome the Amendment to meet a rather savage
1214
criticism that I made on a previous occasion, and that was on Code No. 3, dealing with domestic fowls. On that occasion the standards laid down on what I may call"overcrowding "—although that is probably not the right technical term—which might have been right had they been real standards, were made quite absurd by the words that then appeared in the paragraph concerned. It said:
" The following allowances are given as a guide to those below which sound management may become the critical factor."
Thus even those minimum standards did not have to be observed to comply with the Codes. If a poultry farmer disregarded those standards, he could still allege that otherwise he was so good that it did not matter. Those ridiculous words have now gone, and we have words that are much more sensible; namely:
" The following figures are given as a guide to the maximum densities acceptable in most circumstances for domestic fowl husbandry in current use."
I am grateful for all the Amendments made, and in particular, perhaps, for that one, which meets a point that I made.
But, my Lords, I do not think that the Codes as they now stand, though improved, are good enough. The reason for this, I think, is that there is complete misunderstanding among Ministers about the nature of our criticisms of the Codes and the principles involved. Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I very much welcome the production of the two booklets with which the Government have furnished us. The report of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is the one to which I am going to refer a little. It refers to two different approaches, described for convenience, and for convenience only, as the"ethical"and the"scientific ". These are only the most general descriptions, and anybody interested in ethics or in science knows that as a dichotomy of the whole of knowledge it would of course be completely absurd. If my friend Julian Huxley writes, with other experts on animal behaviour, a letter to The Times criticising these Codes and saying what ought to be done, is he writing as an ethical expert, a moralist, or is he writing as a scientist? Of course he is doing both. To cover the field of human knowledge or theory, of course, it would be an impossible dichotomy.

1215
For this I do not in the least blame the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. They state on the very first page of their report that this division is only for convenience, and the two, of course, do not represent the exclusive views of two sets of members. I mention this because a very wrong use has subsequently been made of these terms. Immense harm is done to clarity of thought on the matter if it is assumed, quite wrongly, that there is less scientific support for the ethical approach than there is for the so-called scientific approach. There is not. The ethical approach is backed by a most impressive list of scientists. There is, I am glad to say, a bibliography in this report itself in which the proof of what I have said can be seen at a glance. Let me mention some of them. I have mentioned Professor Brambell, the Bishop, Julian Huxley, Professor Thorpe, and others, and there is another whom I shall mention in a moment. They all take, not the so-called scientific approach, but the ethical approach. And let that not be forgotten!
Now, my Lords, what is the so-called"scientific"approach? The scientific approach appears to involve the belief that the only evidence of stress in an animal is provided by the protein metabolism; if there is not some change in the protein metabolism then it is impossible to deduce with any certainty that it is suffering stress, or is suffering at all. That is complete and absolute nonsense. Is it really suggested that the evidence given by Julian Huxley, when he wrote one of his letters, of the difference between the stress experienced by an animal at the London Zoo and that experienced when the same animal was free to roam at Whipsnade, ought to be disregarded because he had riot investigated the effect on protein metabolism? is there a single Member of this House who has not experienced and known that some animals are happy and some animals are unhappy? in a previous debate, a farmer was quoted about the pleasure he derived from seeing his animals gambolling in the field. Although it is said that we do not know whether an animal is happy or miserable, in many cases that is absolutely untrue.
I quite agree that these Codes, when observed, are sufficient to keep the animal
1216
alive, and sometimes something a little better. But, my Lords, I find it unbelievably repulsive if the only time an animal—which, after all, has a mind—is allowed to see God's daylight is when it is going to its own execution. The conditions of the production of white veal seem to me so unspeakable that I shall say nothing more about them. But if any noble Lord wants further comment I would urge him to read the speech made last Friday, when these Codes were before another place, by a man who is, I think, the Father of the House of Commons and who has himself represented with distinction an agricultural constituency and knows about farming—I am talking about Sir Robin Turton.
I said I would read a letter, or an extract from a letter, of another expert, making this point: that nobody should be deceived into believing that the ethical approach has not got scientific backing or that the so-called scientific approach is preferred by the scientists. I have permission to read either the whole or part of a letter from Professor Ewer of the Department of Animal Husbandry in the University of Bristol. I shall not read the whole letter, but perhaps the House would allow me to read an extract. This letter, I hope, will be published by The Times. It has not yet been published, but I have permission to use it:
" The survey by the veterinarians revealed a commendably small incidence of careless husbandry and overt cruelty. The modifications suggested to the Codes are modest enough and should receive public support. What is alarming is the revelation of serious dispute in the Advisory Committee's report. Support for revision of the Codes is gathered under what is called the ' ethical ' point of view. Every claim is then countered by arguments stated to be the ' scientific ' viewpoint. The inference is that scientific opinion is united on these matters and that it alone is guardian of the truth. This is not so. To counter every suggestion of allowing more space or comfort to a severely confined animal by claiming that there is no evidence of disturbance of protein metabolism is to reveal a surprising degree of scientific naïveté. This is not a precise nor, in all probability, a suitable measure of stress situations. Protein metabolism, so much dependent upon the amount and quality given in the ration, is widely different in pigs, poultry and ruminants.
" Until much more is known about precise measures of the effect of stressful situations, our Codes should clearly seek to give all farm animals the space allowances, comfort and health safeguards set out in the Brambell Report. The public conscience should not

1217
retreat in the face of a dubious ' scientific ' view."
I cannot believe that there will be many in this House who would dispute the passage that I have just read.
I have praised the Advisory Committee for their Report, and for giving us what, for convenience, they describe as the"ethical"and the"scientific"approach. So far as I know, there is only one man in England who has hopelessly misunderstood what has been said, but he, most unfortunately, is the Minister of Agriculture himself. I propose to read lust two sentences of what he said in the House of Commons on Friday. I hope I have not been too harsh, because I am one of his admirers, but I regard these as unfortunate lapses. He said:
" We have now reached the stage where we must try to separate ethical considerations on animal welfare from scientific considerations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 30/7/71; col. 1011.]
We have not reached that point. We never will reach that point and if we did reach that point we should show ourselves absolutely incapable of rational civilised thought. The next passage shows the basis and extent of his misunderstanding:
" The point about the Brambell Committee was that it looked at the problems entirely from the ethical point of view… "—[col. 1012.]
My Lords, I do not believe that anybody could even glance at the Brambell Committee's Report and come to that conclusion. What about Appendix III by Professor W. H. Thorpe himself? The fantastic inaccuracy of that statement really baffles description.
Then we are given a little lecture on the dangers of the anthropomorphic approach. If we see that an animal, a living creature, is miserable, and if we say so (with perhaps sufficient guidance from such men as Julian Huxley, who have spent their lives in this field and have a world reputation), is that anthropomorphic? If these scientists who study animal behaviour say that this animal is miserable because all its instincts are being completely frustrated, and it is not allowed to obey any of the natural instincts implanted in it, is that really something that we should ignore? Are we being anthropomorphic if we say,"We agree with this "? Are we being anthropomorphic when we say
1218
that men should be humane in the treatment of animals?"Humane ", by its very derivation, implies a quality of man. There is nothing anthropomorphic, in any bad sense, in having sympathy with a suffering animal.
The moral principle that I believe to be involved is fairly simple. I do not believe that men are entitled to use living creatures as mere things for their imagined benefit or convenience. I do not believe that we are entitled to deny them every element of a natural existence, regardless of their own nature, instincts and desires. I hope nobody will say that I am hostile to farmers; I am not. I have had among my friends a great many farmers, including, I hope, even Members of this House. Doctor Fleming, the then Lord Bishop of Norwich, was not hostile to farmers when he opposed these Codes and persuaded a large part of this House to vote against them. I do not believe that I am being the enemy of farmers if I say that I look forward to a revision of these Codes, which will make them conform much more nearly to the Brambell requirements.
5.56 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BRISTOL: My Lords, since this subject was last debated these Benches have suffered two losses, which I to-day feel acutely, in the retirement of Dr. Gresford Jones from being Bishop of St. Albans, and the translation of Dr. Fleming from Norwich to be Dean of Windsor. I shall have great pleasure in conveying to him the kind tribute which was paid to him by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. It leaves me feeling extremely diffident about interfering in this debate, in which I have so little competence, but I feel that since the Bench of Bishops made a contribution to the first debate, and since my friend and neighbour the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells (who had hoped to speak last week) is not able to be here to-day, I should venture to make one point which I hope your Lordships will feel lies within my competence. I can make it the more briefly because I first want to endorse a point which has been so ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. I speak genuinely out of a rather ignorant but deep concern for all those aspects of the stewardship of the whole of our natural resources, of which

1219
we are happily becoming more conscious under the wide connotation now given to the word"conservation"and of which the whole topic before your Lordships' House is indeed one aspect. I speak also because I know from contact with farmers in my own diocese how greatly they care that the welfare of animals should be a combination of their ethical considerations with effective and efficient farming. It is to this supposed antithesis between the ethical and scientific considerations that I should like to return, following the lead of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford.
In the debate in this House in October, 1969, the then Lord Bishop of Norwich, said:
" Without confusing the difference of status of man and beast, it has always been recognised that, within their particular status, the animal has certain rights and that man has a duty to see that these rights are preserved. The Common Law recognises this in the many Acts concerning cruelty to animals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/10/69; col. 1341.]
I, too, rejoice that our country is giving a lead in these standards. I recognise the complexity of the issues which are raised to a non-farmer in the voluminous literature which I have looked at, but I should like to concentrate upon this ethical and scientific distinction, which seems to me so misleadingly made, and to have such disastrous consequences if it is misused, because it is surely wrong to suggest that the whole subject is to be conceived simply as a conflict and compromise between the ethical and scientific considerations.
Certainly, there are far-reaching ethical considerations lying behind the whole discussion. There is the whole issue of the nature of man's dominion over creation and the importance of knowing the difference between trusteeship and exploitation. There is the whole issue of whether man can degrade other species without in the process degrading himself. There is the whole urgent question in out time of how far that which is scientifically and technologically possible should, simply because it is possible, therefore be done. It is in the translation of such principles into practice that detailed and factual evidence must be enlisted. It is for this reason that the scientific and ethical considerations are not mutually exclusive. The ethical considerations and the scientific considerations mentioned on
1220
pages 1 to 5 of the report by the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, in the form in which they are couched, often appear to be in conflict. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said, the distinction there made was intended to be a distinction of convenience and not of radical difference. Therefore, we must not regard the ethical principles as being simply starry-eyed idealism, while the scientific principles are regarded as the realistic ones. That is indeed a false contrast.
Ethics is, in the last resort, a recognition of reality. It is an obedience to moral law, to ignore which is to court some kind of disaster. On the other hand, it needs to be recognised that science often includes much subjective opinion—for example, in defining animal welfare in terms of this protein synthesis theory—that is still speculative. As the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has said, the Brambell Committee was certainly not defective in scientists. I, too, have a copy of the letter by the Professor of Animal Husbandry at Bristol University, which I was intending to quote. But since the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has made such effective use of it, I shall repeat only the final sentence, lest in this whole discussion there should grow up a false attribution of authority to scientific considerations when they counsel caution, and a disbelief in the ethical considerations when they counsel us to go further. Professor Ewer concluded
" The public conscience should not retreat in the face of a dubious ' scientific ' view."
It is to endorse that plea that I venture to speak to-day.
6.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I have been a farmer all my life, and I have also had considerable experience of wild animals, training sheep dogs and training horses, so I can claim to have a wide experience of animals from several points of view. I have never indulged in factory farming, though I have plenty of buildings which could be converted to that purpose. It must be obvious that the reason why I have not indulged in it is that I do not approve of it. I certainly welcome the amendments to the Codes but, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, they are rather meagre or marginal. From my point of view, the Codes themselves are,

1221
on the whole, inadequate. Many of them condemn animals and birds to an artificial way of life in which their natural instincts are frustrated to an abominable degree. It is true that, if you give an animal plenty of food so that he does not have to strive for it, it is a certain comfort to the animal. But when his movement is restricted and he is denied a free range, then his natural instincts are frustrated to a serious degree.
May I point out how very meagre and marginal these changes are? If we take paragraph 5 of Code No. 3, which is concerned with poultry, the amendment recommends the segregation of ailing birds wherever possible. One would think that that was common sense, but in a big hen battery it is very difficult for one man, who may be looking after 2,000 or 3,000 birds, always to tell whether certain birds are ailing. When we come to stocking densities—in other words, space allowances—it is wholly inadequate for a bird in a laying cage to have less than half a square foot. I think that is very cruel. Under the proposed alterations the Code will refer to"stocking densities"instead of to"space allowances ", but that is going to do very little to improve matters. I should like to delve into the subject of the space allowed to poultry, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, mentioned.
On the question of stretching wings, may I read a quotation made by an honourable Member in another place? In the New Scientist and Science Journal of June 10 Professor Hewer, who is Chairman of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, took to task Professor Thorpe, who is the Professor of Animal Behaviour at Cambridge. Professor Hewer wrote:
" Surely Professor Thorpe knows that domestic fowls stretch their wings by extending them one at a time backwards and downwards, usually stretching the leg on the same side backwards simultaneously. The wing span can only have reference to flight, which in galliform birds "—
and by"galliform birds"the professor means birds such as partridges, pheasants, grouse and chicken which descend from the wild jungle fowl; in other words, birds which spend a lot of their time on the ground and nest on the ground—
" unlike passerines "—
1222
which are birds such as swallows or rooks, which spend a great deal of time in the air—
" only use their wings as a last resort in escape behaviour."
You have there a difference in scientific opinion, and it is obvious to me that Professor Hewer cannot have seen grouse flying off the moor to feed in cornfields, to feed on the stubble; he cannot have seen partridges flying to shelter or food; he cannot have seen hens on free range flapping their wings; lie cannot have seen hens dusting themselves and flapping their wings. It is really extraordinary, I think, for a professor as distinguished as Professor Hewer to say that galliform birds use their wings only in flight to escape from danger, because it is completely untrue. I can only imagine that the professor has never been out of a town, but I can hardly believe that.
My Lords, I also found some statements in this report of the State Veterinary Service rather perplexing. On the whole, I think that the reports and work of the State Veterinary Service are very good; but one report here I find rather perplexing, regarding the Cattle Code, Code 1, paragraph 5. They state—and here they are referring to the construction of floors for cattle:
" Our findings support the view that where floors whether slotted or solid are specially designed for the class of animal to be housed on them, and are properly constructed and maintained they cause no unnecessary suffering to cattle."
What do they mean by"no unnecessary suffering "? And as they say"no unnecessary suffering ", does not that therefore imply that where you house cattle in cramped conditions you must have suffering? I can only presume that it does.
The other factor about factory farming which I find highly objectionable is—actually, I find the whole of factory farming objectionable—the docking of calves' tails. A considerable time ago the docking of horses' tails was stopped by law. As to the docking of calves' tails, it is true enough that the veterinary service advise that it should be done only on the advice of a vet, and at a, very early age; but, if any flies enter the sheds where the calves are, it can be very uncomfortable for them if they have no

1223
tails with which to swish the flies away. The whole trouble with this Code is that it is not sufficiently mandatory. There appear to have been very few prosecutions. If one reads the report of the State Veterinary Service, one sees that they point out many instances where farmers have not abided by the Codes; but there appear to have been no prosecutions. There is really not much point in having a Code if you cannot implement it. Anybody who knows anything about animals knows that if you overcrowd them—rats, for instance—they indulge in various vices. I am quite sure that the chief reason for the tail-biting, the ear-chewing and all that among pigs is overcrowding, and probably boredom. That is probably one of the reasons why, in our own society, we have such a great increase in crime to-day. It is because we are overcrowded. I am quite sure that that is one of the reasons.
We must not get too emotional about these Codes. We must not attribute to the animals the same emotions as we have—the emotions that we would have to endure if we ourselves were confined under the same conditions. Nevertheless, I am extremely distrustful of the scientific evidence, because it is so much at variance. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, I think, alluded to the fact that the defence for extreme confinement in farming appeared to rest on the fact that protein metabolism is the surest indicator of the presence of distress in an animal. I quite agree with everything my noble friend said. Of course you cannot fully measure the distress in an animal by its protein metabolism. We do not know enough about that. I think a great number of scientists will agree that scientific knowledge has not advanced that far. It is definitely not proven; you cannot go by that. It certainly runs completely contrary to my experience with animals.
I do not think many scientists really give credit for the sensitivity of some animals. I am also quite convinced from my experience of training animals, having myself come across instances of it, that some animals can reason. I think hardly any scientist would allow that an animal can reason, whereas I could give your Lordships many instances (though I will not do so) where animals have, to my
1224
knowledge, reasoned. But I must not speak too long, my Lords.
A NOBLE LORD: Why not?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I could give instances, if you like, but I think it is rather irrelevant to the debate. Noble Lords will have to take my word for this. I can tell any noble Lord afterwards if he would care to hear about them. As to confining an animal, Professor Hewer does not seem to think that a hen wants to flap its wings. He says that it is quite happy just stretching its wing and its leg at the same time. I wonder whether Professor Hewer would apply the same doctrine to, perhaps, a swallow. Would he think that, if you put a swallow in a cage, it would lose its migratory instincts, that it would be quite happy to stay in this country and not fly off to Africa? Sheep and cattle on the hills are better forecasters than the Meteorological Office. If a gale is coming up from the Atlantic, the sheep, cattle and deer, 24 hours before, all run for shelter. The reason is that they feel the pressure in their ears. It is rather like going into a tunnel when on a train. We feel the pressure of an approaching train. Animals' physical senses are better developed than are ours; so if you put animals into conditions of extreme confinement, it must be cruel. As various speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the right reverend Prelate, have said, it is a question of how far we are prepared to degrade ourselves by confining animals in order to make money. It really boils down to that. I suppose that animals will have to suffer to a certain extent to feed man. I agree that the ethical point of view is not completely separate from the scientific one. As Lord Conesford said, there are many scientists who support the ethical point of view.
Before I end, I should like to say that I sincerely hope that the Government will in the near future implement the Brambell recommendations, particularly for poultry and calves. We have had these recommendations for quite a long time but we are moving only very slowly towards their implementation. There is one recommendation that I should very much like to see implemented: that animals should have proper bedding. It is

1225
very unnatural for animals, wild or domestic, to lie down to sleep on a concrete floor. No animal would do that of its own volition. I could go on with these examples: for example, keeping stock in darkness. Animals like cattle were not supposed to spend their lives in darkness; if so, they would not have been given eyes. I should like just to say that I hope the Government will do all that they can when they next produce Amendments for the final version—and I hope it will be the final version—to bring conditions up to the level of, and if possible to improve upon, the Brambell recommendations.
6.23 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, like the noble Viscount who has just spoken I find the whole business of factory farming disquieting. It seems to me to be more scientific than ethical. But I shall not labour the distinction between those two concepts. That has been adequately dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and by the right reverend Prelate. If I were to do so, I should no doubt make noble Lords so bored that, who knows, they might begin eating one another's ears. There is one thing in the report of the State Veterinary Service to which I should like to draw attention; namely, the figures on page 119, relating to the density of stocking of domestic fowls. I shall not quote all that are relevant but the statistics can be summarised by taking those for total deep litter fowls: 71·4 per cent. density of stocking is below the Code guidelines; 20·6 per cent. is at Code guidelines and 8 per cent. is above the Code guidelines. As one goes down the page one sees similar contrasts in every case. Of those below the Code guidelines the percentage is very much higher than those at the Code guidelines or above them. I find these figures very disquieting, and I only hope that the Ministry of Agriculture does, too.
6.24 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I must start by apologising to my noble friend Lord Selkirk and to all noble Lords for having risen to speak at the wrong time. I had not realised that there was a list of speakers. For approval of Motions like this very often there is not. I suppose
1226
it is true that a few rather insignificant crumbs of bread are better than no bread at all; and it is from that point of view that I welcome these Amendments. I should have liked them to have gone a great deal further. The one in the Code on cattle which is particularly welcome is the Amendment to Paragraph 20. I think that is a real improvement. Incidentally, I believe that the Minister of Agriculture himself has confirmed that the height at the shoulder is the total height and not merely the height to the withers. It might not be a bad plan to put that fact in the proposed new paragraph. That will make it quite certain that the animal has room to stretch its legs at rightangles to its body. Also I welcome the alterations to paragraph 22 in the Code on fowls. That has gone a step farther; but, quite frankly, I think we might have had a great deal more than this.
I should like to read the results of a recent opinion poll among a cross-section of farmers apropos whether or not they agree with certain provisions of the Brambell Report. First:
" Each animal or bird should he fed on a diet such as to maintain it in full health; that is, a diet in which there is no deliberate deficiency."
Ninety-four per cent. of the farmers consulted agreed with that. Secondly,
" Enough light should be available in farm buildings in order to see whether or not an animal is in good condition."
Of the farmers consulted, 95 per cent. agreed with that.
"Each animal should have access to natural light throughout the hours of daylight."
Of the farmers consulted, 72 per cent. agreed with that.
"All farm animals should be freely able to turn round in their pens except when tethered or restricted for veterinary treatment or for other temporary purposes."
Eighty-five per cent. of the farmers agreed to that. There are several others, but I will not weary your Lordships with them. But they show, as incidentally does the list of densities quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, that farmers are far more willing to provide good conditions for their animals than the Codes recommend. That to me makes absolute nonsense of the statement that for economic reasons one has to restrict the Codes to a certain level.

1227
There is no getting away from the fact that we cannot use living creatures as machines. I am not for a moment saying that they are like human beings, but they are perfectly capable of feeling pain and also frustration. The frustration of lack of movement causes great mental stress to animals, who suffer from it to a great degree. Many of your Lordships will have suffered from mental stress when you have been sitting during the past months in the same position up to midnight or perhaps two o'clock in the morning; but at least you were free to get up at intervals and go for a drink or a meal. What is more, you were doing it voluntarily and you knew what it was all about. But suppose your Lordships did not know what it was all about, that you were not doing it voluntarily and that you were tied to your Benches, albeit quite comfortable Benches, so that you could not move. Add to that the fact that the Chamber was practically in total darkness, that all your upper teeth had been removed (to correspond with de-beaking), that the lobes of your ears had been cut off (to correspond with clubbing the combs) and add to that the fact that it was not just for one day but for the whole of your lives—is that a very pleasant outlook?
I do not think that we have any right to subject living creatures to that sort of life. This may be looked upon as mere emotionalism. It is not. It is perhaps ethical conviction, and I entirely agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Conesford, that we cannot separate science and ethics. We may regard one or the other as the more important. My noble friend Lord Ferrers has said that he regards science as the more important. I differ from him; I regard ethics as the more important. But it is significant that, as my noble friend pointed out, the most distinguished scientists of the day regard any subject from both angles and chiefly from the ethical angle. Science can produce some unpleasant things as well as pleasant ones. It produced the atom bomb. The only thing that has controlled the atom bomb has been the ethical consideration.
I sincerely hope that this idea that we have to throw away all our ethical convictions, simply for the sake of making it possible for people to make more
1228
money quicker, will soon fade out from Government policy and that very soon we shall have a new and much more revised form of these Codes and, incidentally, that they will be mandatory, because as they are at present they are completely useless. It is only thanks to the wisdom of Parliament that they work at all.
6.35 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, like earlier speakers, I would add a qualified welcome to the alterations to these Codes and echo a much stronger welcome to these two pamphlets with which we have been furnished. Further, I should like to thank the Government for giving us an opportunity, albeit on almost the last day before the Recess, of discussing these revisions of the Codes of Practice. I have read, with interest, in the report of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee the statement on page 2:
" The present Codes set bare minimum standards, and it would have been far better to have allowed ethical considerations to have filled the gap left by the doubts stemming from inadequate scientific knowledge. If this had been done the Codes would have set high standards and left no doubts about their ability to ensure welfare."
In the stock-rearing and stock-marketing field, this country has a leading position and has great responsibility to the stock world, because the sheep, pigs, cattle, turkeys, and so on, find their way, as breeding stock initially or as individual animals, from this country all over the world, and our conditions of management are guidelines which show how these animals are produced. I welcome the Codes on that account. I echo very heartily what has been said by other speakers, and I would add a further view—one which we have not heard in this debate up to now: the view of the consumer.
On this we have had very little information given to us in the Codes. I have scanned them over, without finding any details of the degree to which animals are to be subjected to the use of antibiotics. I read with interest, therefore, in the same report of the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Committee the statement on page 3:
" It is tempting to think that if an animal is thriving its welfare is completely covered. But this argument has many flaws. We are dealing mainly with young animals in which the longer-term effects of permanent discomfort may not become manifest. The animals'

1229
tolerance may be masked by the routine use of antibiotics and by the reliance some systems place on near-darkness or mutilation. It is a method of approach aimed solely at finding the lowest common factors on which an animal can exist."
That statement, I feel, is a very good summary of my views on this whole question, but I should like to dwell further on certain aspects of mutilation, because I feel that the Codes do not provide us with sufficient guidelines on the subject.
For instance, turning to Code No. 1, on Cattle, we have very little information on mutilation, though we start off, as with each of these Codes, with a piety to the effect that the avoidance of mutilation is one of the basic requirements of animal welfare. However, when we get down to details, the question of castration is avoided altogether in Code No. 1. In paragraph 32, we have very little information or advice on the disbudding of calves and the handling of fractious or horned cattle and the point on docking, to which my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard has already referred, is left in the air. I suggest to Her Majesty's Government that further consideration should be given at an early date to the question of mutilation, not only of cattle but of pigs, to which the same docking details refer. There is the further point under the same Code on pigs of detusking boars. I feel that the information here is very slight, and perhaps the Code could be expanded a little.
With regard to the proposals in the other Codes on turkeys and domestic fowls, I was delighted to see that the alterations to the two Codes concerned go a long way in this direction. However, there is further progress to be made on the question both of debeaking and of toe-nail cutting. I do not wish to go into any greater detail at this stage on the question of mutilation, but I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give this matter their urgent and particular concern.
6.41 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, first I must declare an interest in this subject, because on my farm livestock are kept intensively. I want to begin by thanking my noble friend and his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for both these reports. The report of the Chief Veterinary Officer is, I think, reassuring
1230
within the general context of this system: the fact that over 4,000 farms have been visited by the Ministry's veterinary officers and only 36 of these have been found to fall below standard, and to be at a standard where pain and distress were being caused. As a result of this survey the Ministry's Chief Veterinary Officer has made the recommendations that we see in the Amendments to the Codes before us. In my opinion, they are unexceptionable, and I am glad to see that the National Farmers' Union have also accepted them, with one exception; namely, that they are against the modification recommended for the single penning of cattle. Otherwise, they accept them generally, and this, I think, is to be welcomed, because the National Farmers' Union speak for the factory farmers who keep the livestock, and we certainly want their co-operation in this general field. To me, it indicates that the standards of the original Codes were set about right in terms of the general standards of stock-keeping in this country.
I notice that in the note which they circulated the National Farmers' Union expressed anxiety about the future, especially in the light of our possible entry into the Common Market, to which my noble friend Lord Selkirk referred. If and when this happens, the British farmer, as we all know, will be in straight competition with the European farmer, and although some sections of British farming—that is, of course, cereal growers—will benefit, in the main the livestock growers will not. We should bear in mind that all livestock sections—milk, pigs and poultry—operate on very small profit margins. I would just add the point that in the past year many hundreds of poultry farmers have gone bankrupt, and many thousands have packed up altogether.
I am glad to join with other noble Lords in taking credit for the establishment of these Codes. This is unique, and it is something for which we as a country can take credit. But while this is an achievement to be proud of on humanitarian grounds, it is right to bear in mind—and I know that this is borne in mind by my noble friend and by the Minister—that the Codes inevitably carry economic implications which can have some effect on costs of production. But, with the standards as now defined in the

1231
Code, and as now established and here amended, my personal view is that there should not be anxiety on economic grounds, even when we have to meet the direct competition of European producers, who almost certainly will not be subjected to such Codes. Broadly speaking, these are the normal standards of good commercial stockmanship employed in intensive methods of stock-keeping.
This brings me to the major issue on which a number of noble Lords have spoken; that is, the principle of intensive farming methods. I feel that I should say a word or two about this before I conclude. My noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Conesford, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and others, have spoken strongly, and indeed passionately, on this matter; and certainly in some of the speeches there has been a strong indictment of the whole principle of these intensive or factory methods of stock-keeping. The right reverend Prelate made an interesting comment about the philosophical considerations of stock-keeping and man's management of animals for the commercial supply of food and livestock products. This, I think, goes to the heart of what we are talking about.
I would ask noble Lords to focus their minds for a moment on the reality of this. Take the most fundamental livestock product of all—milk. We have taken the natural cow, whose function is to produce enough milk to suckle her calf, and no more, and have bred her up to produce 4, 5, 6 or 7 gallons a day. When she calves, her calf must be taken away from her in the first three days, and her milk is then taken to be delivered to us in the towns to keep our lives going. This is the first reality of our milk supply, our livestock farming. Here we have done something completely unnatural. But if we are to have regular supplies of milk—and earlier this afternoon we were discussing the importance of milk as a nutritional aspect of our lives—we must, as a start, completely change the whole course of nature for this animal, keep her in completely unnatural conditions and oblige her to produce far more than Nature ever intended. Are we to say that this is wrong in order to get a supply of milk for our people?
1232
Turn now to pigs. The wild pig, in its natural habitat, probably produces a litter of two or three piglets, enough to keep the stock going. We have bred her to produce a litter of 12, 14 or 16 pigs. Why is this? It is because we want rashers of bacon on our breakfast table. Then take the chicken. In her natural habitat, in the jungle farms in the Far East, she produces probably three dozen eggs a year. We have bred her up, in order to give us an egg on our breakfast table every morning, to produce about 20 dozen eggs a year. Do we want these livestock products as an essential part of our lives? Because if we do we must accept that we have contrived, by intensive and highly selective breeding methods and by intensive and highly selective management, to train and breed these animls to produce the food on which our lives depend.
This then brings us directly to the question of factory farming. It is virtually impossible nowadays for a farmer to make a living out of these three principal products unless he uses intensive methods. I do not wish to bore the House with my own experiences, but I have mentioned on a previous occasion that in days gone by on my farm I had cattle roaming about the fields, and also chickens—hundreds of them. From a commercial angle, perhaps we kept that system going far too long, until indeed we were making a substantial loss. And at that point either we went out of business or we changed the whole structure of the farm so that we could make our production economic and we could make a profit—because if you cannot make a profit you cannot remain in business. It is as simple as that. So in the last ten years we have had to transform the whole of our farm, and our methods are completely intensive and no chicken to-day lives outside at all. Eighty-six per cent. of our eggs are produced in batteries. Why?—because that is the most efficient method of producing eggs. Even on my farm we have a battery. We are primarily breeders, and therefore our breeding flocks will naturally mate and live in deep litter. But all our customers have birds in batteries and we of course wish to see how our birds can perform when they reach the customers; so we have a battery and the birds produce very well there.

1233
These are the realities of factory farm production to-day and these are the realities which produce our daily food. Here I come to the point made by my noble friend Lord Conesford. He argued brilliantly, as he always does, that the report of the Advisory Committee which set out the ethical and scientific arguments completely confused the issue. In fact he argued that there was probably more scientific evidence to support the ethical arguments than the reverse. I would ask my noble friend to believe that in the farming world there are many ethical farmers who are using intensive methods to-day and there are just as many ethical men and women there as there are among those who plead this case so passionately here. If we are to take one in good faith, we should also take the other in good faith.
This report of the Advisory Committee, in my opinion, does a good service to all of us because it sets out the basic problem. Of course I should like to join the angels with my noble friend here. I like to see animals moving about the fields, I like to see chickens living in the fields—although they do not look so happy in the middle of winter, I can assure my noble friend, and they are much happier inside. I should like to do all this. But if I wish to remain in business I have no alternative, nor has any other producer, but to use intensive methods. These are the realities of the situation. The pressures to bring down the price of food and to keep it down are great and the margins within which a farmer must operate to-day if he is to remain in business are very small indeed. Therefore I reckon that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture did us all a great service in publishing this report, which was a most exceptional thing to do, and setting out the realities.
What the Government are trying to do, quite rightly, and what the previous Government were also trying to do, is to find some reconciliation between the decent humanitarian feelings which we all have about animals and the harsh realities of getting a regular supply of food at the lowest possible prices. That is the attempt here, and I think it helps us to see the two sets of argument set out. I hope that as the years go by they will come closer together, though I daresay
1234
there will always be a fair amount of gap there. However, I would ask my noble friends on both sides of the House to bear in mind, when they are delivering their strongly, passionately and rightly-held feelings about this subject, that there is another side, which is that the farmers, whose daily job it is to produce our food, are just as humanitarian.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I know quite a number of farmers who do not use factory farming methods but who still manage to make a profit. Therefore it is not true to say that you cannot make a profit unless you use factory farming methods.
6.54 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, as one who has made his living out of livestock farming for twenty years I should like wholeheartedly to endorse the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. I have to face the practicalities of these things, and I am quite certain that in many cases, as the noble Lord suggested, animals are much happier indoors than they are left free outside, especially, as he said, in the middle of winter. I have seen animals up to their knees in deep mud, thin, miserable, with their hacks to the wind and the rain, only wishing that they could have a nice straw bed indoors. However, I was stimulated to speak this afternoon by what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, and into trying to recollect certain behaviour by cattle. I am most concerned that nothing should ever get into these Codes for want of correct observance of animal behaviour. Animal behaviour is very interesting.
For instance, I do not know, if I asked your Lordships, how many would be able to say whether a cow gets up with her front legs first or her back legs first. The reason that a cow kennel works is that some kennelman observed that a cow never goes up a step backwards—she can go down backwards but not up—and this is the only reason that a cow kennel keeps clean. What the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said—at least I think I heard him say this—was that an animal ought to have enough room to stretch out its legs at right angles. I have seen horses lying with their legs at right angles but, to

1235
the best of my knowledge and belief, if ever I see a cow with her legs stretched out she is dead. A young calf will lie with legs straight, but I think I am right in saying that a cow will not.
LORD SOMERS: I am sorry to interrupt, but I was speaking of calves.
LORD RAGLAN: It applies to very young calves but not, one might say, to calves of middle age: that is to say, those of two months or so, and there are all kinds of characteristics of animal behaviour which must be taken into consideration. I hope that noble Lords who, from the most laudable motives, oppose factory farming do not let their humanitarian or, as the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, said, anthropomorphic, ideas run away with them when making comments or suggestions as to what should be put into the Codes.
6.59 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I say at the outset that I am very grateful indeed to noble Lords who have taken part this afternoon in this debate, because among other things they have highlighted the difficulty faced by any Committee that may sit, whose object and business is to advise Ministers: that is, that there are widely differing opinions, which are held on all sides with great conviction and sincerity. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said, because he really touched the nub of the question when he said that these were the realities of agricultural life. Once we start to domesticate anything we move away from the natural; and as we live in this world we continue to move away from the natural, whether it concerns animals or human beings. We drive ourselves around at great speeds in motor-cars, and we shut ourselves up in air-conditioned offices, all of which is not natural. Yet this is part of progress. In the same way, animal husbandry has also been affected by technology, and who would say that this should not be? Who would say that technology should not be allowed to advance? It must do so; it is inevitable. The real problem is where does one draw the line and say,"This is so far as we shall permit progress in the realms of animal husbandry "? This is a problem which has exercised many people.
1236
The remarks which have been made this evening have been an indication of the wide variety of feeling that is felt about this matter. My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk, have complained that in these Codes we used different bases from those which Brambell suggested. It is perfectly true that the Brambell Committee put forward certain recommendations, but all the way through the Report they stress that there was lack of scientific evidence and they were bound therefore to give their own judgments. One of the suggestions of the Brambell Committee was that an Advisory Committee should be set up. The Committee was set up and it came to different conclusions. It is perfectly justifiable for noble Lords to say that they have come to the wrong conclusions. This is bound to be a matter of opinion.
It was also suggested by my noble friends Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Somers that these Codes should be made mandatory. They are not mandatory because it is difficult to find a set of Codes which can be such that any farmer who disobeys one facet of them should therefore be liable to prosecution. I suppose it would be possible for this to be done, but we do not believe that it is the right way. The way that this has been constructed is under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, in the very first section of which is the specific statement that there should be no undue pain or distress. I am paraphrasing the words. Where there is undue pain or distress then that is a criminal act. With all the advice that has been given to the Minister, the welfare codes are suggestions as to the lines beyond which one might be running into danger.
The non-compliance with the Codes as such is not an offence, but where a person is prosecuted under the Act then the fact that he has not complied with the Codes can he taken in evidence against him. My noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard asked why there were not more prosecutions. There would be more prosecutions if it was considered that there was deliberate, purposeful negligence. We have taken the view that the right way is to try to point out where people are going wrong—and the veterinary service have done this—and try to encourage them to take the right

1237
course and the right point of view. The report of the veterinary service shows that they went to a vast number of places—over 4,000—and there were very few places where the Codes were being contravened. In those where they were being contravened, the mistakes were pointed out and in all the cases the faults were found to have been rectified. We believe that this is the right way to deal with the matter.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk referred to pigs when they were penned. Pigs have the rights specified in the Code, to be able to stand up and lie down at will. This is different from the way in which it is stated in the cattle Code, when it is suggested that the amount of width of a pen should be the same as the measurement from the top of the shoulder of the animal to the ground. The right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Conesford referred to ethical and scientific views put forward by the committees. The right reverend Prelate said that this was a distinction of convenience and not difference. I believe that that is the correct attitude to take. These are different approaches, but they are not the only ones. When there is a huge diversity of opinion it has been found helpful to try to precipitate the two types of view, as was done in this Report. My noble friend Lord Conesford delivered a monumental broadside on my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture when he said that the Minister appeared to be the only person who could not understand the fact that the ethical and scientific views should be taken together. This was not the view that my right honourable friend was putting forward. He was not saying that the ethical view takes less of a priority than the scientific one. The point that he was trying to make was that where you have to legislate—if one uses the word"legislate"to cover the production of Codes—you can only do it, within reason, on fact.
My noble friend is an eminent lawyer and he, of all people, knows that all his arguments go on fact. He would be one of the first to criticise if my right honourable friend came up with some suggestions for alterations or restrictions in a certain law without producing any evidence that it was necessary. That does not mean to say that the ethical point is of less importance than the scientific
1238
point. My right honourable friend has the view that where there is to be a change there must be reasonable evidence that this is necessary.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for dealing with this matter. I did not criticise the Advisory Committee for dealing with what they called the"ethical"and the"scientific"approach. They explained quite clearly that they did not regard these as mutually exclusive. I criticised the idea that the second approach had scientific hacking, but that the first did not. I pointed out that the so-called"ethical approach"had just as much scientific backing as the other approach. The statement which I criticised above all (and it may have been a slip) will he found at col. 1012 of the debate in another place on July 30, in which the Minister said:
" The point about the Brambell Committee was that it looked at problems entirely from an ethical point of view not a scientific point of view."
That is simply untenable.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend has said that there is just as much scientific evidence to back up the ethical point of view as the scientific. I would, with respect, have doubted that somewhat. In the very first page of the report of the Advisory Committee, in the middle paragraph, there is reference to the ethical and scientific arguments and it goes on to say:
" These are not mutually exclusive nor do they represent the exclusive views of two sets of members. Members have been guided by considerations derived from both methods of approach. Of the seven key welfare issues mentioned in paragraph 12 "—
and were my noble friend to look at paragraph 12 he would see that they are mentioned—
" the first four would be unconditionally accepted under the ' scientific ' approach ".
Then it goes on to say that the remaining key factors would obviously be open to doubt. Where one has the problems of trying to consider all these difficulties one is bound to move, I would suggest as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has suggested, slowly and on the basis of facts and evidence. That is not to underrate one iota the views which my noble friends I have mentioned.

1239
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked me one or two points about the veterinary service, and I will furnish him with the information. The field service has 400 veterinary officers in post in England and Wales and Scotland. Their average age is 49 years. Three hundred and forty-two of the officers are concerned with welfare matters in the field and at ports, and the actual visits to livestock premises are being carried out mainly by the 260 officers in the veterinary officers' grades 1 and 2. The service has 40 vacancies on its complement, all in the basic recruitment grade. During the period between the coming into operation of the 1968 Act, on September 3, 1968, and June 30, 1971, 51 officers have been recruited, and in the same period 51 officers have resigned by normal wastage, and a further seven have left in the Agricultural Development Advisory Service reorganisation. The veterinary staff are required to cover the full range of duties that the service is charged with carrying out which includes dealing with outbreaks of notifiable diseases and disease eradication schemes. The time available for each of the many duties of the service obviously varies widely from time to time and between one area and another. The service has three officers engaged full-time on welfare work at headquarters, and we estimate that some 3 to 4 per cent. of the time of the 260 officers in the field who bear the main burden of welfare visits to farms is spent on that work.
The noble Lord went on to ask:"Are the Government satisfied that there are a sufficient number of inspections?"I think the answer must obviously be:"No; the Government are not satisfied," and I do not think they ever can be. Because if there are to be adequate supervisory powers, it means that there will be vast numbers of highly skilled people going round farms checking up to make quite certain that farmers are acting in accordance with the Codes. This may be something that is desirable, but I am sure that, on balance, the noble Lord will agree that such highly skilled officers could probably be best utilised in doing work for which they are better qualified. Again, that is not to underrate the need for the work to be done.
My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord who has spoken, but before I conclude
1240
I should like to mention one other point. My noble friend Lord Sandys asked one or two specific points with regard to de-horning. De-horning is governed by the Protection of Animals (Anæsthetics) Acts of 1954 and 1964 and these expressly forbid without the use of an anæsthetic the de-horning of cattle, and, except by means of chemical cauterisation applied in the first week of life, the disbudding of calves. Anaesthetics in these cases are usually given by injecting a suitable local anæsthetic around the nerve supplying the area. The noble Lord also referred to the castration of pigs. Again, this is not covered in the Code because Section 1(3) of the Protection of Animals (Anæthetics) Act 1964 has the effect of limiting castration without anæthetic to the first two months of life and of forbidding castration by a rubber ring or similar device to restrict the flow of blood unless it is applied during the first week of life.
There are a great many points which I know noble Lords have raised which they may wish one to answer. I have tried to answer the majority—
LORD CHAMPION: Hear, hear!
EARL FERRERS: I beg the noble Lord's pardon.
LORD CHAMPION: I said,"Hear, hear! "
EARL FERRERS: I beg the noble Lord's pardon; I thought he was saying,"No, no." I would merely say to noble Lords that we are grateful for what they have said, and I hope they realise that these Codes are not the product of a cavalier Ministry of Agriculture which does not really care about these things; they are the product of a tremendous amount of work and effort, care and advice given by a tremendous number of people. We hope that the balance is reasonably right. It may well not be. We know that it will not satisfy everyone, but I hope that your Lordships will approve these Codes.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I remind him of one question which I asked? Are these to be regarded as minimum standards or are they to be regarded as norms?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am not quite certain what is meant by"minimum standards ", but these are to be recognised as standards beyond which it would be dangerous to go. Having said that, I would add that it is not an offence to go beyond those standards, provided that undue pain and suffering has not been caused. My noble friend will realise that it is perfectly possible to cause undue pain and suffering, and therefore for a farmer to be liable under the Act, although keeping well within these Codes. But these are recommended Codes beyond which it is undesirable to go.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO CODE No. 2 (PIGS) OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the second Order be approved.
Moved, That the proposed alterations to Code No. 2 (Pigs) of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, laid before the House on July 2, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO CODE No. 3 (DOMESTIC FOWLS) OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the alterations to Code No. 3 be approved.
Moved, That the proposed alterations to Code No. 3 (Domestic Fowls) of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, laid before the House on July 2, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PROPOSED ALTERATIONS TO CODE No. 4 (TURKEYS) OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE WELFARE OF LIVESTOCK
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Order.
Moved, That the proposed alterations to Code No. 4 (Turkeys) of Recom-1242
mendations for the Welfare of Livestock, laid before the House on July 2, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRAFFIC CONTROL: USE OF ADVANCED LIGHT SYSTEMS
7.18 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING LORD ORR-EWING rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give the necessary directions to ensure that full advantage is taken of the flexibility and other benefits afforded by the advanced traffic light systems in London and other large towns. The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have been discussing for some hours animals confined in stalls. I want to discuss in a few minutes human animals stalled in cars, in front of and frustrated by traffic lights. I must first apologise to the Minister in asking him to remain. As a Whip, he has probably spent more hours in this Chamber in this past very arduous Session than almost any other of your Lordships. I apologise for detaining him for even an extra few minutes, but I feel it is worth while spending a moment or two in considering whether we are making the optimum use of our roads; whether we are using traffic lights which give us the smoothest flow of traffic. There are some 12 million private cars on the roads of the United Kingdom and nearly 2 million commercial vehicles, and every person who drives a car or a commercial vehicle is interested in this subject. I would say that almost every taxpayer has an equal interest in the subject, because our road systems are very costly.
I suppose that all Members of your Lordships' House use a particular route more frequently than others, and if they are thinking about the matter they must also know of certain sets of traffic lights which leave them deeply frustrated because they appear either to be partly unserviceable or, alternatively, incorrectly adjusted. I think we can be proud of the British system of traffic lights because it is the only system which operates with a mat; and since the mat is actuated by a vehicle the light is adjusted automatically to the flow of the traffic. In the United States of America traffic lights are very carefully adjusted but they are on a fixed time cycle, which of course can

1243
vary according to the time of the day or the night.
In this country we have infinite flexibility, but I submit that we are not making the optimum use of the built-in flexibility. I get the impression that the old Ministry of Transport—now the Department of the Environment—is more interested in the engineering than in the science of traffic flow, and I have to confess that there are occasions when I feel that the police are more interested in parking offences up culs de sac than they are interested in traffic flow on our trunk roads. Road widening is extremely expensive, it is very much cheaper—and, incidentally, quicker—to make the optimum use of our existing road services. The figures I have discovered are that at the average light-controlled intersection the lights cost about £3,000. If you create a roundabout it will handle less traffic but it will cost about £30.000. If, in turn, you then come to a flyover, which may mean taking valuable buildings away, you have to multiply that figure again by ten, and you are probably in the area of £300,000 or more.
Curiously enough, although Britain had some of the earlier traffic light systems, this country now has very many fewer than most other highly developed countries. I have the figures for London, where there is one traffic light for every 7,000 inhabitants; in Hamburg, there is one traffic light for every 2,000. But I do not think this is a measurement of our efficiency. If the lights are well controlled, then the fewer traffic lights there are, the better. It is a fact that the number of controlled crossings in the whole of the United Kingdom is not as great as the number of controlled crossings in Manhattan Island alone. So there is a wide variation—although I concede, of course, that traffic in the United States is far denser than ours.
My first question, then, is: are we servicing the lights sufficiently often? I understand that service contracts are given to the two manufacturers of traffic lights in this country, and these contracts ask them to do preventive maintenance on the lights about once every three months. Of course they can be called out at police instigation when an obvious fault develops, but I still wonder whether this is the right rate of inspection. It is the
1244
rubber mat that gives the greatest trouble. The rubber mat was designed some 25 years ago, when traffic was much lighter in quantity and, of course, very much lighter in weight. In addition, we have a spillover of oil on our roads which also harms the rubber to a considerable extent. This consists of oil fumes and oil vapours.
As a result of this experience manufacturers in this country are progressively going over to an induction loop. Your Lordships will have seen some of them; they are buried in the tarmac of the road surface. But these are still suffering some teething troubles, although obviously the amount of maintenance needed should be much less. We must all have sat fuming in front of traffic lights when there has been an obvious fault; and when a fault develops the lights go over to an automatic fixed time cycle. This is why we sometimes find ourselves sitting in front of a red light with not a"sausage"in sight in any direction—cat, mouse, child, pedestrian or car. You sit there for hours while the traffic light ticks through its time cycle. I am told that the way to get this rectified is to report it to the police, and I would recommend that course to your Lordships. I should like to ask the Minister what percentage of the crossing lights have a fault of some sort or another in any one year. Secondly, how long is it before the fault is reported, and how long before it is corrected?
The second point I wish to raise is this: do local authorities spend enough—and it must be decentralised to them—in checking the systems to make sure that they have an optimum adjustment? This need not be expensive. Of course there are trained consultants who can be employed. I am not suggesting that local authorities should have a large staff to do this, but I am suggesting that people should he contracted to undertake this function. I would point out that anyhow in the school holidays there are many interesting observations which can be done, for a payment, by school children. I know of one case where a firm were doing a study and asked their apprentices to go out. It was a sunny day and the apprentices were absolutely delighted to go and check how traffic was flowing. That was part of the training of the mind, and they thoroughly enjoyed it. Students could also be employed on a holiday job in this way.
I have another question. Does the Minister think that the Road Research Laboratory are doing enough in regard to this question of traffic lights? Have the Ministry encouraged research into this question? They might found a traffic light Chair at some university. Are our technical colleges being encouraged to promote a study of traffic lights? What are we doing about tidal flow? I know that in recent years this system has been instituted on bridges over the Thames and on the whole it works admirably, but I wonder whether it could, with advantage, be extended. I have learned that the Manchester City Engineer estimated that by introducing tidal flow—that is to say, giving optimum inflow in the mornings for traffic going into the city and optimum outflow in the evening—he had saved, on a short length in Brook Street 500 yards long, £250,000 which would have had to be spent in construction. That was five years ago, and I imagine that if it were to-day the saving might well be £500,000. Here is a way of instituting tidal flow which is very largely used in the United States of America. I have seen in the United States on one occasion seven lanes in and only one lane out at certain times of the day. We do not seem to have done this in this country. Why not? It is a much better way of achieving a smooth traffic flow.
Then, we seem to be going slow on the introduction of computer control. This was tried in West London on the Cromwell Road, and from my experience in driving along the Cromwell Road it appears to work admirably. It has now been tried for some years: ought we not to extend it? It was disappoint-ting to find that the G.L.C. has given one contract to a West German firm for a set of 300 computer-controlled traffic lights. It is sad that it should have gone to West Germany, where there is a monopoly by one firm, whereas we have two competing firms in this country.
All noble Lords who are drivers know of some sets of badly adjusted traffic lights. Most of us know when we are approaching them and we find some way round. In my twenty years as Member for North Hendon I suppose I drove from Westminster to North Hendon six times a week—three times out and three times back—and as I live out in that
1246
direction I added that number of journeys as well. If I had to pick out one set of what I would call"rogue"traffic lights it would be on that road—and you must remember that it is an important road, because the road to Hendon is the main feed from M.1 and A.1 and A.41. Two of those roads are possibly the most important roads in the whole of Great Britain, so one would think that there, after vast sums of money have been spent in making it a road of three-lane traffic going North and three-lane traffic going South, with a central reserve, tremendous attention would have been given to make sure that the traffic lights were properly adjusted.
If I may mention one set of traffic lights that I would describe as a"rogue"set, it is the set at Arkwright Road on the East side, and Lymington Road on the West side. So far as I know, those lights have not been adjusted for two years, and all six lanes of traffic are brought to a halt, first while traffic filters in from Arkwright Road on the East and then while traffic is allowed in from Lymington Road on the West. Why the traffic cannot be allowed to flow across I cannot understand, but nothing seems to have been done about it. Your Lordships will know of one particularly bad bottleneck where some new traffic plan and some new lights are highly desirable; that is, at the southern exit out of Hyde Park at the Alexandra Gate. After you have crossed the Serpentine going South towards Kensington Road, there is almost invariably a pile-up of traffic which takes one up to 10 minutes, or during commuting hours up to 20 minutes, to get through. Before the War one used to be able to go in at the top of Queen's Gate, pass in front of the Albert Memorial and get through that way. Why has this route been closed? It was open for thirty years to my knowledge. Now it has been closed. Have not the traffic managers studied this way of relieving the bottleneck? There is also Kensington Palace Gardens—I know it has a number of Embassies in it. Perhaps it could be used as a one-way road—it is very wide—to relieve that tremendous bottleneck getting across the Park, which has to be done by Kensington Old Church Street, which is not a good road, narrow and twisty, or by Park Lane, right at the other end of the Park. Here again, I

1247
should have thought that some study could produce useful results.
What of the future? Ought we not to go in for computer-linked lights, as I have suggested? The average set of lights is probably between 15 and 20 years old, but the system is potentially efficient and potentially flexible. There is a small analogue computer in these traffic but have we the right programmer which will set the right programme on the computer? I suggest that we have not. What is being done to use what is called the arterial mode? This means that the main traffic road gets overriding priority and the lights are automatically green for that traffic unless a car appears at a side road. After seven seconds the lights go back to give overriding priority to the trunk road. I have seen it in one place only. Why is this system not used more universally?
I would summarise by saying that we have potentially the best and most advanced traffic light system for our big cities anywhere in the world. But I submit that we are not making the optimum use of it, partly because we are not servicing it sufficiently often, but more especially because we do not have enough people applying themselves to get optimum results. I hope that the Minister will be able to help me in this direction. In helping me he will be helping 12 million other motorists, and with less frustrated motorists there would be less accidents; they would be more content and would drive better as a result.
7.33 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend, Lord Orr-Ewing, for being kind enough to give me a little forewarning of some of the more technical questions that he was going to ask me. I assure him that I am more than happy getting the information to stay and answer his Question; it is a pleasure to do so; and in getting the information I have learned a lot myself.
The Department have aways encouraged, and where necessary instructed, local authorities to take advantage of traffic signals so as to ensure, so far as possible, that they work efficiently and reliably. The United Kingdom, as the noble Lord so rightly said, has potentially
1248
the most flexible traffic light system in the world, for as long ago as the early 1930s it was appreciated that fixed-time signals—that is to say, signals working on phases of fixed duration—were very inefficient in light traffic conditions. Development work on vehicle detector systems was encouraged, and in 1934 the Department decided that from that date all new traffic signal installations would be of the fully vehicle-actuated type. Thus for a number of years practically all the traffic signals in the United Kingdom have been fully vehicle-actuated and capable of adjusting their timings to take account of vehicle numbers.
As improvements on vehicle detection took place, so they were adopted by the Department, until in 1967 it became obvious that the surface type of vehicle detectors, which, as the noble Lord said, is known as the pneumatic mat, could no longer stand up to the acceleration and deceleration of modern traffic or to the weight and volume of present-day traffic. Development work was carried out within the Department, and a new system of detection was evolved which utilises loops of cable, buried beneath the carriageway surface, which are not subject to the wear and tear of traffic. These detectors are known as buried inductive loop detectors, and a system of vehicle detection using these detectors was developed known as"System D"detection. In 1968, the Department decided that all new traffic signal installations should use this new form of detection.
The noble Lord said there had been certain unsatisfactory teething troubles, and this is indeed the case. In the old days, when the system was first started, the slot, as it was called, was filled with black copper slag. Now we have a substance called epoxy resin which has managed to cut out this, and as a result the loop has much more stability. The loop method of vehicle detection is the only one now being used. I understand that the cost is not quite so high as the noble Lord indicated; I believe that it is about £1,800. It is used at the moment, I would guess, for about 10 per cent. of our traffic light controls in the country, which is a start. Obviously, these loops are very much more efficient than the old mat, which is now almost out of date, though we still have that with us.

1249
It must be appreciated that to keep traffic signals working efficiently, adequate maintenance must be carried out. In nearly all cases maintenance is carried out for the local authorities by the traffic signal manufacturers within the terms of a formal contract. The basis of this contract was laid down in 1934, and since that time more and more facilities—I think about half a dozen—have been added to the traffic signals, and the wear-and-tear on them has increased considerably. Although the signal manufacturers carry out maintenance to as high a standard as they can within the sum of money received for the service, recent surveys have shown that at any one time over 50 per cent. of the traffic signals in the country have faults of varying severity—not a very happy figure, I agree. It is clear that the existing maintenance arrangements are insufficient to keep traffic signals working efficiently.
There has been a general decline in the standard of maintenance, and this has been aggravated since the direct grant to local authorities was removed in 1968. To-day, the responsibility for maintenance rests entirely on the local authorities. Some are exemplary: the G.L.C. is already forming its own inspectorate to check on signals; others do not appear to be giving maintenance quite the priority it requires. Many surface detectors are not replaced as they become worn out, and vehicle-actuated signals are often changed to the less satisfactory fixed-cycle type, with the result that technology is losing all the benefits of modern design and invention. This is a very sad state to have to confess to. It is a matter of cost. The signal companies have to come along every three months to do an investigation. With the mat type of detector, used in about 90 per cent. of signals, the cost of renewing the mat completely is allowed for only once in two years. In certain cases the mat may not last more than six months, if that. When the mat goes, all flexibility is lost and you go back to a fixed time light.
Over the past two years the Department has negotiated with the manufacturers of this traffic signal equipment for a new form of traffic signal maintenance, and at the present time discussions are taking place with local authority associations about the adoption of this better and more extensive form of maintenance.
1250
As I have said, inspection at the moment takes place about every three months, but under the new proposed maintenance arrangements local authorities would make their own inspections and report faults. These would have to be repaired by the signal companies within a specified time, and if they failed they would be penalised under this system. With this new contract, the signal companies will, in addition, carry out an annual overhaul of each traffic signal controller. Although the day-to-day operation of traffic signals is the responsibility of the local authority, any problems arising with them in the United Kingdom are dealt with by traffic engineers in the divisional road engineer's offices in England, and in the chief road engineer's offices in Scotland and Wales.
The noble Lord asked about the staff. The quality of the staff is of a very high standard, but there are too few to carry out surveys on the traffic signals in their respective divisions and to ascertain whether or not they are working correctly. That is in any case the responsibility of the local authorities. There are about thirty engineers and technical officers within the Department, but in addition there are staffs employed by local authorities dealing with traffic problems throughout the country. Salaries in the Department range from about £1,600 per annum to about £3.800 per annum. The Department, as such, has not created a Chair of traffic management at any university at this moment, but there are, of course, a number of universities and technical colleges who run traffic management courses. At this moment London University is co-operating with methods of calculating settings for traffic signals with the Road Research Laboratory, and this work is going on the whole time. The Department has published a book called Traffic Signals (the road research technical paper No. 56), which is filled with valuable advice for local authorities, and if local authorities wish for advice the technical officers of the Department are only too pleased to come and advise them.
The latest development in traffic signal control—as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, said—is the use of computers to co-ordinate the traffic signals in an area to minimise delay within that area. Experiments with this form of control,

1251
known as"area traffic control ", were carried out both in West London and in Glasgow, as the noble Lord said, and the result of these experiments has shown that the benefits to traffic are considerable. He talked about tidal flow. Of course we in Britain generally have not yet got the road system which the noble Lord talked about in America, with five lane roads. They are still unheard of in Great Britain, but we have small starts in tidal flow, as can be seen over bridges over the Thames, where even now in the rush hours they flow different ways in the mornings and the evenings. The experiments that were carried out show that the evaluation of the saving in time is several times greater than the capital outlay in the first year. This is a fact. The results of these two experiments were so successful that a circular (Circular Roads 13/70) was issued to local authorities on May 27 last year, explaining the advantages of area traffic control and giving guidance as to the conditions where area traffic control would be beneficial. It offered a 75 per cent. grant towards those schemes which complied with certain criteria, and invited local authorities to make application for suitable schemes. Response so far has been very encouraging. At the present time 35 local authorities have made application for their areas to be considered.
The most advanced scheme is that for the Greater London Council Phase I, which will control 300 sets of traffic signals with a computer. Tenders have been accepted, and the Greater London Council have been informed that equipment will be delivered in the autumn of this year. It seems probable, therefore, that control of the signals will start to be exercised in the spring of next year. I nope that when the noble Lord motors about Hendon, and these other roads that he discussed, he will begin to see a marked improvement. Any particular points that he has mentioned in this debate will of course be looked at by my right honourable friend and the Department, and if they find anything of interest I will write to him with anything they may bring up. Of course, his advice is always most welcome.
The Department has been asked more than once to introduce the Continental system whereby during quiet traffic
1252
periods the traffic signals are switched out and replaced by a flashing amber light. This proposal has been resisted by the Department, because with fully vehicle actuated signals working properly there is no delay, and in the absence of opposing traffic a driver approaching a red signal should get a right of way almost immediately. Therefore, we come back to our old friend—lack of maintenance. But the signal equipment is not to blame if it is properly kept in order. This device is used on the Continent only because most Continental traffic signals work on a fixed-time cycle and this inevitably leads to delays in quiet traffic periods.
The Department is also asked from time to time to allow the use of a filtering movement into a stream of traffic which is running. This idea has been resisted because of the difficulties for pedestrians and the risk to vehicles unless they have clear visibility of the approaching traffic. Where it is considered possible to allow a filtering movement in safety, then a green arrow is shown which allows the filtering movement. We can think of several of these which have been installed recently. Alternatively, at sites where there is a heavy left turn a triangular island can be provided so that drivers can turn left in effect before they come to the red signal, and are then faced with a normal"Give way"sign. This is considered to be a better solution than permitting a filtering movement against a red signal.
At a number of junctions where a special pedestrian phase is provided, and which is called by a push button, local authorities have found an unwillingness by pedestrians to push the buttons. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, shakes her head, but in fact one of the Ministers of the Department went with some officials the other day and was given an example of this. There was a group of people waiting there, and not one of them was pressing the button. All were waiting for something to happen.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I must see these junctions where people are very busy pressing.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, in these cases they have had the traffic signal controller modified—the places where people do not seem to use

1253
them—so that the pedestrian phase comes in automatically on each cycle. This means that in quiet periods the pedestrian phase appears when there are no pedestrians requiring it. The local authorities obviously have to strike a balance between the difficulties caused by pedestrians not pushing the buttons, and the delay to traffic at light traffic periods.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, people are not reticent to push the button on their television sets, and would it not be better to encourage them to push the button on pedestrian signals rather than handicap all traffic as a result of their present reported reluctance?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the more we can get that view over the happier the Department will be. It would be far cheaper for the Department to keep traffic flowing smoothly. The time lost by people costs money, so business tells us, and cost analysis shows us this. So the more the noble Lord can get this point across to his friends, and everybody else, the better we shall be pleased. It has to be borne in mind, also, that all-red periods are sometimes included in traffic signal phases for reasons other than assisting pedestrians. They have to be used, for example, at wide junctions to permit adequate clearance periods at the change of phases. Also, where a right-turning movement is difficult an all-red period is occasionally provided to assist right-turners to clear at the end of the phase.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing for giving me this opportunity to talk about some of the facilities available with traffic signals, and about some of the problems that are encountered in their use. I hope that what I have said will have shown that the traffic signal equipment used in the country to-day is capable of handling traffic safely and with the minimum of delay. I have talked about the importance of the maintenance factor and, I cannot emphasise too strongly that the savings in delay to traffic by having traffic signals working correctly are very large; therefore good maintenance is essential.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.