Lords Sitting of 25 November 1971

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
The Marquess of Donegall—Took the Oath.

LORD CHANCELLOR AND JUDICIAL BUSINESS
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I think it proper to acquaint the House with the fact that your Lordships' Judicial Business will require my attendance to preside over the Appellate Committee next week, and perhaps the week following. If your Lordships should therefore notice my absence from the Woolsack at 2.30 p.m. I hope that you will acquit me of any discourtesy and also of any reluctance to pray. But it is absolutely essential that I preside over the Appellate Committee. I shall, however, be available for service on the Woolsack from about 4 o'clock.

HOOKER HOUSE, HALESWORTH
3.6 p.m.
LORD BURNTWOOD: 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 Hooker House, Halesworth, Suffolk is included in the lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest; and if so, on what date this item was included; and whether plans are now being considered by the Department of the Environment to demolish part of this house and to acquire part of the garden in order to build a new road; and whether an estimate can be given of the percentage additional cost if the best alternative route was used.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): Yes, my Lords, Hooker House was listed in 1949. The Suffolk County Council have now notified my right honourable friend that they propose to allow partial demolition of this house. He is now considering whether to call-in the application for his own decision or to leave it for determination by the County Council.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, it will be known to your Lordships that this house was the dwellingplace of Sir William Jackson Hooker, the founder of Kew Gardens as we now know them. It is perhaps an unpretentious but nevertheless a solid and rather charming house, with a potential for a garden. Is this not a matter which should receive the most careful consideration, since I understand it was the subject of a much more recent inquiry, when it was confirmed that the house should remain scheduled?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am aware of these points.

INDIA/PAKISTAN DISPUTE
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 exchanges have taken place with the Governments of India and Pakistan regarding the danger of war arising from events in East Bengal.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has throughout been in continuing and close touch with the President of Pakistan and the Prime Minister of India in this dangerous situation, and these contacts are continuing. We are also in close touch with the United States and other Governments.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, can we assume that Her Majesty's Government will give wholehearted support to the Government of India and keep in mind that in East Bengal a military

1145
junta is seeking to replace a democratically elected Government?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that is slightly far removed from the original Question. The primary interest of Her Majesty's Government at the moment is to do what we can in the cause of peace and to stop the fighting which is going on in that part of the world.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating the action which has been reported, and given the fact that yesterday it was admitted for the first time on both sides that fighting had actually occurred, is it not now necessary for more urgent action, even on a world scale, to be taken to prevent war? May I also ask whether, in view of Answers given in this House and yesterday in another place, that India and Pakistan have not asked that this matter should be brought before the Security Council, it is possible, in view of the danger of war, for another Member State to bring before the Security Council the need for action in such matters?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord has asked me this question on many occasions, and I can assure him, as I did on Tuesday, that it is very active in the minds of Her Majesty's Government at the present time. Of course it is a matter of judgment as to when or if to refer such a matter to the Security Council. The situation on the ground is still somewhat uncertain, but I assure the noble Lord that the point he has raised is certainly very much in the minds of the Government.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that to place too much reliance and hope on the Security Council's judgment is really way out, since China helps Pakistan, Russia helps India, the United States helps both of them and we, to some extent, also help both countries? Therefore to place this reliance on the judgment of the Security Council seems to me to be a faint hope.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, this is indeed one of the considera-
1146
tions in the minds of the Government in this matter.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that in this tragic situation it is most important that the Government of the United Kingdom should do everything in their power not to take sides, because there are probably two sides to the question?
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, may I beg the Government to take sides? We all devoutedly want peace, but surely we do not want peace at any price. We remember Munich; we know that it is all too easy to surrender to military dictators. But we have on one side the Government of India, and on the other side we have to accept the fact that the elected Government of East Bengal—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
TIE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not really think the House will expect me to comment on that statement by the noble Baroness, except to say that of course our interest is to do everything we can to stop the fighting and to encourage both sides in this unhappy incident to arrive at a political solution.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it would he possible for Her Majesty's Government to urge upon the Security Council of the United Nations (and, whatever its weakness, is not the Security Council the only international organisation to act?) two things: first, that there should be a United Nations presence to prevent a conflict between the two sides; secondly, that there should be a political solution in East Bengal, which would be in accordance with the United Nations Charter, by which democratic decision should be restored to that territory.
TIIE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that we are rather transferring the question from India and Pakistan to the United Nations. I certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said, and I am sure that the House will echo his hope that a political solution will be obtained.

E. E. C. AND FOOD ADDITIVES
3.13 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: y Lords, I beg leave ask the Question which stands in my Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are proposing to ask the members of E. E. C. to modify their more stringent rules on the use of colours and other food additives and to relax their rules on food labelling in order to facilitate the export of British food products.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the differences between our national legislation and the European Economic Community's legislation on food additives reflect different consumer tastes and technological needs rather than more stringent rules. We have agreed with the Community that there should be a joint examination of the additives which we have asked to be included in the E. E. C. 's permitted lists, against the criteria of safety in use and need. Those which satisfy these criteria will be added to the lists. Where this examination has not been completed by the date of our accession to the Community, the provisions of national legislation will continue to apply until either agreement has been reached or, if agreement cannot be reached, until the end of a transitional period of five years. The European Economic Community has, as yet, no general rules on food labelling.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is the noble Earl not aware that, for example, in Germany the addition of many colouring and flavouring matters and other food additives is prohibited? Where it is permitted, distinct and clear labelling is enforced, unlike the rules in this country. Is it desirable that those more stringent standards in the interests of the consumer should be swept away?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there are no common laws in the Economic Community for food labelling; there are national laws which each country carries out according to its own system.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that according to fresh
1148
reports in all reputable Press organs this morning, a section of the Commission made some concession yesterday on food additives, but at the same time they endeavoured to introduce various regulations which are regarded by the United Kingdom Government as objectionable?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the directives which are enforced cover only the colours, preservatives and antioxidants, and of those it is only the colouring matters on which there may be disagreement between ourselves and the Community. There are, for instance, ten colours which are common to both the Community and ourselves; there are nine colours which the Community have that we do not have, and there are fourteen colours which we have and the Community do not have, of which we have asked for only seven to be included.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, am I to understand from what the noble Earl has said that the people in the other countries in the Community who have hitherto been protected from food adulterated by colouring matter or other additives are now to be exposed to the risk of consuming these foods?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the tests on additives used in the Common Market are the same as those used in this country. They come under two headings: whether they are safe, and whether they are necessary. Both these points have to be borne in mind before the additives are permitted.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is it not a fact that Germany has rules which are much more stringent than ours and which give far greater protection to their people than we receive in this country?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the protection which people receive in this country comes, as the noble Baroness will know, under the Food and Drugs Act. There are two Committees which have been set up by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: the Food Standards Committee and the Food Additives and Contaminants Committee. There is another Committee which has been set up on medical aspects of food policy which, in turn, has a sub-committee, the Pharmacology Sub-Committee, both of

1149
which advise the first two Committees on
food standards.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, if it is true, as the noble Earl has said, that the standards on the Continent were established for preventing deleterious things from being included in the food, why should we want to depart from that and persuade the E. E. C. not to adhere to those standards?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the requirements of people in the Community are different from the requirements of people in this country. I will give one instance: kippers require a certain kind of colouring in this country which is not used in foreign countries. That is the reason why there is this great difference.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, are human beings different in Germany from people here? Are they less susceptible or more susceptible to poisons?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, with respect, I suggest that these are not poisons, because the standards which are used in the Common Market countries are the same as are used in this country. As I said earlier, this is with regard to need and safety in use.
LORD CONESFORD: Lords, since the Minister has the tremendous advantage of knowing what the word "additive" means, I wonder whether he could arrange that it should appear in some reputable dictionary.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, can the noble Earl give this House an absolute assurance that the position of the kipper in our national dietary will be safeguarded?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that I can easily give that assurance.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, could the noble Earl explain the meaning of the term "requires" when he says that the kipper requires a certain colouring?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord had better consult my noble friend's dictionary.

BROADCASTING: COMMERCIAL RADIO AND LOCAL STATIONS
3.20 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: 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 it is intended that there shall be B. B. C. local radio stations and commercial radio stations operating in exactly the same areas.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, there is no requirement that every place served by a B. B. C. local radio station must be served also by a commercial station. However, the White Paper, An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting, envisages up to 60 commercial stations in the United Kingdom as compared with the B. B. C. 's 20 in England; and the expectation is therefore that many of the places served by the 20 will in fact also be served by commercial stations.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether it does not seem to be a waste of total resources to duplicate local radio? Also, if the local commercial radio stations are going to be truly local, and not just local "pop" stations, will even big cities be able to support two local stations, especially with local news and comment?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord's second question first, yes, it is envisaged that some big cities will be able to support two local stations. It is envisaged that in some cases a place which is covered by one B. B. C. local radio station will be covered by two commercial local radio stations. The noble Lord asked whether it was going to be a waste of resources. Of course, there is the advantage of competition in those areas where there are two stations. Furthermore, as the stations are going to be commercial stations it will be somewhat natural that the densely populated areas will be more easy to provide with such stations.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a good many years ago in the streets of

1151
San Francisco there were two competing companies running two complete sets of tramway lines in each direction? Does he not think that this type of competition partakes of the same qualities as that in San Francisco?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords; I was not aware of that fact and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the information. But neither do I know, unfortunately, how efficient those tramways were. I assure the noble Baroness that it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that an element of competition in local radio will be a good thing for the consumer.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the consumer may be taken for a ride.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the setting up of these commercial radio stations might well make a contribution, even if only a small contribution, to the unemployment problem—is not that one of the objects of the Government?— as well as ensuring competition to ensure fuller employment for those who perhaps otherwise would be unemployed?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I would not go as far as my noble friend, but there is the point that those who work in broadcasting will have an alternative form of employment, which will be very much fairer for the employee.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, since the noble Lord has raised the question of competition, may I press him to say whether he will allow the B. B. C. to go beyond their 20 agreed stations, up to the 60 which are allowed for commercial radio? Furthermore, could he give the go-ahead for the B. B. C. to make use of the medium wave, which they were promised and which they are quite ready to do as soon as they are allowed to do so?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, in answer to the first question of the noble Baroness, I am afraid that I cannot give her the assurance she asked for.
A NOBLE LORD: Why?
LORD DENHAM: Because, my Lords, it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government. In answer to her second question, the B. B. C. local radio will have medium-wave back-up at the same time as the first phase of the I. B. A. stations.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, is that really reasonable from the point of view of consumers, since the B. B. C. are ready to do that at any moment now?
LORD DENHAM: Yes, my Lords; but it is a question of planning the medium wavelength allocation.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will the Government give us an assurance that in drawing up these plans for commercial radio they will ensure that the local newspapers, which fulfil a very valuable role in our communities, are not endangered?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, this was one of the points that came up, and a great many of your Lordships were very concerned about this, when we debated the White Paper. I think the noble Lord will remember the safeguards that were quoted in the White Paper and also mentioned in that debate.

RHODESIA
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the permission of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on Rhodesia at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.

COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order No.65, a Select Committee for Privileges be appointed, and that the following. Lords, together with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:

1153

Privy Seal(E. Jellicoe)

M. Salisbury,

E. Dundee,

E. Longford,

E. St. Aldwyn,

E. Swinton,

L. Amulree,

L. Beswick,

L. Byers,

L. Champion,

L. Conesford,

L. Rea,

L. Shackleton,

L. Silkin,

L. Strang:

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time. — (The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE (PRIVATE BILLS)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed, and that the Lords following with the Lord Chancellor and the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

M. Salisbury,

M. Willingdon,

L. Airedale,

L. Cawley,

L. Crook,

L. Derwent,

L. Douglas of Barloch,

L. Faringdon,

L. Terrington,

L. Tweedsmuir

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time. — (The Eark of listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SIERRA LEONE REPUBLIC BILL [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Bills of a similar nature have been introduced from time to time when other Commonwealth countries have made a similar constitu-
1154
tional change. This Bill, like the others, is short and uncontroversial. It is however a necessary piece of legislation. Sierra Leone became a republic within the Commonwealth on April 19,1971, immediately after the required legislation had been passed by the Sierra Leone Parliament. The purpose of the Bill is to make adjustments in our own law which such a constitutional change necessitates. It follows the earlier precedents and provides that the law of the United Kingdom and the law of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man in so far as it relates to Sierra Leone will not be affected by the fact that Sierra Leone is now a republic. The Bill will only affect the law of Dependent Territories of the United Kingdom so far as it affects Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament extending to them and Orders in Council applying such Acts.
The Bill also makes the necessary provision to enable the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to continue to exercise jurisdiction to hear any appeals that were pending immediately before Sierra Leone became a republic. It excludes all appeals from decisions given by a court or judge in Sierra Leone after that date.
Sierra Leone has now joined the growing number of Commonwealth countries which have become republics. These countries are now in the majority in the Commonwealth but this change does not reduce the respect which the Governments of these countries have for the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth. Indeed, the President of Sierra Leone has emphasised that his Government gladly acknowledges the Queen's unique position in the Commonwealth. He also paid a special tribute to the United Kingdom with which, he said, Sierra Leone had had links for more than a century. Dr. Siaka Stevens, the former Prime Minister, is now President and I am sure all noble Lords will join me in extending our very best wishes to him, and to the Government and people of Sierra Leone. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Marquess of Lothain.)
3.28 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES or OF HASTOE: My Lords, this is indeed an

1155
uncontroversial Bill, as the noble Marquess has said, and we on this side have great pleasure in giving it a welcome. As the adjustments are purely legal and technical there need be no comment from this side. But, as the noble Marquess has said we have had links with Sierra Leone for a very long time. Indeed, Sierra Leone was one of the first milestones in the long march and battle against slavery waged by this country. Many noble Lords in this House will have friends in Sierra Leone, and many of her people have been in this country, often for further education of one kind and another; indeed, the present President, Dr. Stevens, was educated at Ruskin College, which gives us a rather special feeling for him. We are very glad indeed that Sierra Leone has decided to remain within the Commonwealth and we all look forward to the contribution she will make through the Commonwealth and through the other international organisations to world peace.
My Lords, as with all developing counties, it has not been an easy time for Sierra Leone—most of all, perhaps, economically—but she is a resilient and vital country, and I know that all parts of the House will want to send our warmest wishes to the new republic.
3.30 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I wonder whether I may add my good wishes to the peoples of Sierra Leone and to its Prime Minister. It has had one of the most romantic and dramatic histories of the countries which are now in the British Commonwealth. As my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies said, it began with a benevolent effort by Granville Sharpe, even before slavery was officially abolished in this country, to establish a settlement for slaves. Unlike any other country, except Liberia, its beginning was benevolent in that way. Its history has also been dramatic. Like other African countries which have gained their independence, there has been a series of military coups, and when the present Prime Minister, Siaka Stevens, was elected with a majority in 1967 he was overthrown by a military coup. I think it is the only case where there have been four military coups in quick succession: first by the Generals, overthrown
1156
by the Colonels; then by the Colonels, overthrown by the non-commissioned officers; then by the non-commissioned officers overthrown by the privates; and the privates were the supporters of Siaka Stevens, who was able to resume his position as Prime Minister. It is worth remembering that Siaka Stevens is probably the only proletarian Prime Minister in the whole of Africa. He began in the railwaymen's union, in which he was an organiser. He then became active in the miners' union in Sierra Leone, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, has said, he was educated at Ruskin College. Therefore on this side of the House we have a sense of unity with him, closer perhaps than with many other African Prime Ministers.
My Lords, there is one respect in which he has justified criticism, and that is for the practice adopted by other African leaders of imprisoning political opponents without trial. As President of the Movement for Colonial Freedom, I wrote to him in this matter and I am now able to say that a number of detainees are to be released on the conclusion of Ramadan, the Islamic period of daylight fasting, and the celebration of Christmas. Those released will include prominent leaders of the attempted military coup three years ago, among them military officers. In addition there is to be a review of the policy of detention, and it is expected that many others will be released. In our passing this Bill to-day I hope it will lead to the liberation of all those who have been detained for political offences.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My
Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for their welcome to this Bill, and to endorse what they have said. May I add how interested I was to hear the remarks made by the noble Lord on the history of the four coups in Sierra Leone. I am sure we are all delighted to hear what he has said about the review of the policy of detention, and I can confirm that what he has said is quite true. My Lords, I do not wish to take up any more of your Lordships' time.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

RHODESIA: SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships I should like to repeat a Statement now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. This is the text of my right honourable friend's Statement:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a Statement about my recent visit to Rhodesia.
"Following my Statement on the 9th of November I have been in Salisbury and have held talks with Mr. Smith. I had the opportunity also to meet many Rhodesians of all races and opinions, including a number of detainees and ex-detainees. As the House will be aware, Mr. Smith and I have signed a document setting out certain proposals for a settlement which are fully within the five principles to which the Government have constantly adhered. These proposals will now be put before the people of Rhodesia as a whole in a test of acceptability, according to principle five. For this result I am greatly indebted to the Lord Goodman and to the team of negotiators, who have worked so hard for it.
"The proposals have the following main features. First, amendments will be introduced into the present Constitution of Rhodesia to remove the provision which precludes any possibility of progress beyond parity of representation in the House of Assembly between Europeans and Africans. This will be replaced by arrangements providing for unimpeded progress to majority rule. The present number of lower African roll voters will be increased by a reduction of the franchise qualifications. Secondly, in order to proceed to this end, changes in the present franchise conditions will be made and the present income tax regulator abolished. The present number of directly and indirectly elected Africans in Parliament will continue but there will be created a new higher African roll with the same qualifications as the European roll. New
1158
African seats will be added as the proportion of voters on the higher African roll increases in relation to the numbers of voters on the European roll. On the present estimates it seems likely that four new African seats will be due to be created when the procedures for registration are completed and in that case they will be filled by by-elections in advance of a general election. These new seats will be filled, the first two, by direct election by the higher African roll, and the next two by indirect election on the same lines as the present indirectly elected members, until parity is achieved. At parity ten new seats will be created and filled through election on a common roll consisting of the European and higher African rolls. At that stage the numbers on each roll would be approximately equal. Throughout this period up to parity the blocking mechanism for the specially entrenched clauses of the Constitution will be two-thirds of the Assembly and the Senate, voting separately, plus majorities of the European and African members of the lower House, again voting separately.
"At the parity stage, when there are 50 African members of the House of Assembly a referendum will be held amongst voters on both African rolls to determine whether all the African members should in future be directly elected.
"Following that referendum and any consequential elections, the ten common roll seats will be filled, unless the Assembly determines, on the recommendation of a commission to be set up at that stage, that some more acceptable alternative arrangements should be made. Any such decision, however, would be subject to the blocking mechanism I have described. Thereafter the blocking mechanism will revert to a simple two-thirds majority. This would mean that at least 17 African members of the Lower House would have to approve any change to the specially entrenched clauses, and at that stage the Africans would be represented by directly elected members if that had been their choice. So much for the constitutional arrangements.

1159
"The proposals also involve other important changes designed to reduce discrimination and to promote racial harmony. There will be a Declaration of Rights that will be justiciable in the courts. This is a major advance on the present Constitution. In particular, on discrimination the Declaration will re-enact the safeguard relating to discrimination contained in Section 67(4) of the 1961 Constitution. Secondly, there will be a three-man Commission, whose membership, to be agreed with us, will include an African, the task of which will be to review the question of racial discrimination throughout the whole field, but with particular regard to the Land Tenure Act and to certain of its effects. Mr. Smith has put it clearly on record in the proposals that it is his Administration's intention to reduce racial discrimination and that he will commend to his Parliament legislation to give effect to the Commission's recommendations, except where there are considerations which any Government would regard as overriding. Thirdly, there will be no further evictions of established communities from Epworth or other areas, until the recommendations of the Commission have been considered. Fourthly, further land is now available for African settlement and as the need arises, more will be allocated. Fifthly, when sanctions have been lifted, the State of Emergency will be revoked, unless unforeseen circumstances intervene.
"Fifty-four detainees out of 116 have been or will shortly be released. For the remainder there will be a special review, at which a British observer will be present. Rhodesians living abroad will be free to return save only where criminal charges lie against them. The Rhodesian Government have undertaken to encourage African recruitment to the public service. As a further important part of the settlement the British Government will provide £ 50 million in aid over ten years for economic and educational development in African areas, such aid to be matched appropriately by the Rhodesians with money additional to their present planned expenditure.
"Finally, the whole complex of these proposals is to be submitted to the
1160
Rhodesian people for approval. This test will be conducted by a Commission appointed by Her Majesty's Government, of which Lord Pearce, a former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, has agreed to be Chairman, and will report to Her Majesty's Government. The Rhodesian authorities have agreed to allow a full and fair test, and to permit normal political activity to the Commission's satisfaction. Thereafter, if the proposals are acceptable the Rhodesian Parliament will be asked to enact the necessary legislation to give effect to them; and the Government will ask this House, once it is satisfied on that score, to enact the amended constitution and to give independence to Rhodesia. This will clear the way for the lifting of sanctions.
"Honourable Members will wish to study these proposals in detail. I am publishing the text in a White Paper which I hope will be available tomorrow. Meanwhile I am arranging to make available in the Vote Office to-day, in advance of the White Paper, the text of the Proposals for a Settlement which Mr. Smith and I signed yesterday. This—with the addition of its most important Annexure III containing the full text of the revised Declaration of Rights—will of course form part of the full White Paper. We shall also want to debate the issue: for their part the Government will be ready to make time available. I will therefore confine myself to saying that I believe these proposals are fair and honourable; and that they provide an opportunity to set a new course in Rhodesia, which can lead to the greater harmony of all races there and to the partnership and prosperity of all Rhodesians.
"This is a complicated matter and I have kept the House already too long. Honourable Members will wish to study the documents and to make up their minds. I would ask them to do so fairly, considering past history and the present realities of power. Whatever honourable Members may feel about the proposals now put forward I believe that they will agree that the Rhodesian people should certainly be given the chance to judge for themselves. And let us be in no doubt that the price that

1161
will be paid if we fail in this attempt, will be paid not by us but by others."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement.
3.44 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the House is very grateful to the noble Earl for reading this long and complicated Statement. Clearly, we shall all wish to study it very carefully, and we shall particularly wish to look at some of the small print in it; but I am bound to say that some important concessions have been made, which is a tribute both to the Foreign Secretary and to the effectiveness of the sanctions which have been imposed. Since, as I understand it, the usual channels have been at work and we are to debate this matter next week, we shall have an opportunity then to go into it more fully. None the less, to help those of us who wish, as we are enjoined by the concluding remarks, to make up our minds fairly with regard to this matter, there are some questions that I should like to ask the noble Earl.
First, one of the great anxieties with regard to a settlement in Rhodesia has been the willingness of the British people to trust the Rhodesian Government, and Mr. Smith in particular, under heavy pressures as he must be, not to proceed later on to some form of retrospective violation. I note, incidentally, that the proposal of which the Government were at one time in favour, a treaty, has not been pursued, and I make no complaint of that. There is one very important omission. May I ask the noble Earl (he may not be able to answer at the moment) why the Government abandoned any attempt at having an external safeguard? Noble Lords will recall that a quite fundamental part of the negotiating position of the previous Government was that there should be some external safeguard in the matter; and I stress "external" safeguard.
This again may be a matter of argument as to whether these proposals are within the Five Principles, but would the noble Earl attempt to elaborate on that very difficult phrase, "unimpeded progress to majority rule"? Then may I ask how long do the Government calculate will elapse before parity is achieved, and how long to majority rule? There have been a number of statements from Rhodesia which suggest that the
1162
period is a great deal longer than anything that is likely to be of interest to us personally, but for which, none the less, we shall be responsible. I do not know whether the Government have considered any further safeguard after the lifting of sanctions. It is important that we should be certain on this point. May I also ask here (and this is a question of fundamental importance): will the blocking mechanism in the initial stages consist of elected or payroll African members—in other words, the chiefs? That is fundamental to the test that we must apply. Previously, I would remind the noble Earl, we were not even satisfied with the equality of the elected members.
Then I ask: must the changes which may take place with regard to racial discrimination depend on a purely Rhodesian Commission, even though we have to approve it? I particularly ask —and this is, to my mind, the weakest part of the proposals—why there is no immediate action to deal with racial discrimination with regard to land. Admittedly, an important Commission is to be set up, but why was it not possible to achieve something on this question? Then, how soon will the Government be enabled to announce the membership of the special Commission on acceptability? We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pearce, for taking on what is an extraordinarily difficult responsibility; but it is rather important, however much we may be content with his appointment, that we should know who the other members will be. Finally, may I ask whether any effort was made to persuade the Rhodesian Government to dismantle the apparatus of the Police State which has been developed there?
3.50 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl for making this important Statement. I will not repeat the questions that have already been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, but clearly we should all like to know when it is anticipated that parity will be reached. Obviously, we shall require time to study the White Paper. If I may say so, I think there has been some rather premature rejoicing. On the other hand, it would be wrong to condemn this White Paper out of hand before we have read it.

1163
May I ask one or two questions? First, how soon will the political detainees be released—those that have not already been released? Secondly, what protection will there be for those Rhodesian Africans in the future who have the courage to say "No"? In regard to the Commission, is there not something to be said for including persons with political experience as well as great judicial experience? May I make one, I hope, constructive suggestion before the situation hardens? Knowing the resistance on the part of Mr. Smith and his followers to the political and the educational advance of Africans, does the noble Earl really think that the proposed financial grant will be adequate to meet the situation? I fear not. For that reason, I ask whether Her Majesty's Government would provide generous facilities for advanced education in this country for Rhodesian Africans, of course with a guarantee that they will be allowed to return. Whether majority rule comes peacefully or not, obviously trained personnel will be required, and their training will be required. I doubt whether it will be carried out adequately in Rhodesia, and I would rather see it done in Britain than in China or Russia.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful for the tone of the remarks of both the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Wade. I do not wish to stonewall, but in my replies I may not be as informative as I normally hope to be. These are delicate matters, and it would be a mistake to get too far down the road of debate and dialogue until your Lordships have had the chance of studying these proposals, which are not only comprehensive but also very detailed in certain respects. That study will be possible as soon as the White Paper is available, which, as I have said, should be tomorrow. That said, I should like straight away to say that it will be our intention to make time available for a full debate in your Lordships' House as soon as may be. I understand that the usual channels are, as usual, flowing freely, and that my noble friend the Chief Whip hopes to make a Statement later on this afternoon after those discussions have been completed.
That said, may I deal, I hope not summarily but fairly quickly, with some
1164
of the points which have been put to me? So far as an external safeguard—which is the first point which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, put—I would merely remind noble Lords that an external safeguard existed in appeal to the Privy Council, but when it existed it did not prevent the slide toward the present situation. I do not believe that, short of a military occupation, there can be any absolute and permanent guarantee against retrogression. I think this has always been a fact in the situation which I think all of us have recognised.
I have been asked about unimpeded progress towards majority rule and the time scale. All I would say is that my right honourable friend, like the Leader of the Opposition in another place, has constantly and consistently emphasised that there could not be a specified time scale towards majority rule. There may be those who can produce precise forecasts in this matter, but there are so many variables here that I shall certainly not be tempted at this stage to produce a precise forecast. There is the variable of the degree to which Africans register; there is the variable, above all, of the economic and industrial expansion which will, hopefully, follow a settlement. But I believe the crucial point here is that the way is now open—or can be open if this settlement is consummated—to steady and unimpeded progress towards majority rule. Under the status quo progress was imperceptible, or, rather, the reverse.
Thirdly, I have been asked about the blocking mechanism. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, when he studies the Statement which I have repeated, will see that from the outset the specially entrenched provisions will require the votes of nine Africans in the House of Assembly. That means that at every stage one directly elected African will have to vote for change together with all the indirectly elected Africans. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that the existing indirectly elected Africans have, in fact, voted against the Government in every division in the Rhodesian Parliament so far.
I was also asked about the land question. This, again, is complicated. It will be fully covered in the White Paper. All I should like to point out is that land will fall specifically within the justiciable Declaration of Rights. I was

1165
asked by both the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, about the further membership of the Commission. It will consist of a Chairman, deputy chairman, and a number of commissioners. I am afraid I cannot say how many that number will be, but I can say that besides the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, my noble friend Lord Harlech and Sir Maurice Dorman, the former Governor General of Malta and Sierra Leone, have agreed to take part in the Commission; but that is all the information I can vouchsafe on that score at this stage. I should like to take careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has said about aid. I think that at this stage I should reserve my comments on it as being perhaps a matter which we shall more fully debate when we discuss these large issues, presumably next week.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, as one who had the privilege of being on the "Fearless" when the negotiations took place, may I first of all say that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who negotiated for the Labour Government when it was in power, has taken part also in these negotiations. Therefore I think it would be unwise of me to be pontifical about the Statement we have now had until I have had a chance to study the White Paper in depth. I say that, after having been on some of these difficult negotiations. However, I should like to pay a tribute—and I hope I never regret having said this—to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has done here. I am saying that rather blindly, in view of the statement from the Front Bench, but it is a measure of my faith in that noble Lord.
May I ask two simple questions, as one who is interested in the educational side and who saw the difficulties even in India in their progress towards majority rule. It is now the fact, is it not, that we have abolished NIBMAR—no independence before majority African rule? Secondly—and let us take the simple questions; the others are too complicated without reading the White Paper in depth—regarding the money that the British taxpayer will be giving, shall we have some control over its expenditure in the educational field? Because it is fundamentally education that is going to emancipate the black African.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, for what he has said about "not pontificating". I hope noble Lords will reserve judgment until they have had the chance of fully digesting the White Paper. I would echo the very well deserved tribute which the noble Lord has paid to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. Whatever views we may ultimately form about this settlement, none of us will be sparing in our praise for the devoted labours of the noble Lord in helping to pave the way for it. I think I must take notice of the second question. So far as the first question of the noble Lord is concerned, I think he has read the position correctly.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl what steps are being taken, or have been taken, to acquaint neighbouring African Governments not only with the results of these discussions, but with all the arguments that have taken place during them which have persuaded Her Majesty's Government of the fact that these are the best? May I also ask what their reactions are so far to the arguments that have been put to them?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I cannot say what the reactions are so far. All I can say is that I remember very well the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, when I repeated a Statement on November 9, and very full steps have been taken to acquaint neighbouring Governments not only with the proposals for settlement, but also with the arguments in this respect.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I join others in thanking the noble Earl not only for making the Statement, but for the frank way in which he has been replying to questions which have been put? May I ask whether the noble Earl is aware that those of us who take the view that there should not be independence before there is actual majority rule will not therefore be able to support these proposals? But is he also aware that we recognise—and I do so by personal contact—the integrity of the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, consider that he will almost have performed a miracle if he has actually brought back proposals which are within the Five Principles? We shall have to begin calling

1167
him not "Sir Alec" but "Saint Alec", if he has achieved that.
Reserving argument for the debate, may I ask the noble Earl two questions? First, when he says that there will be no further evictions until the review by the three-man Commission, does that not only include the residents in the Catholic and Anglican lands who have not yet been affected, but also apply retrospectively to the Africans on tribal lands who have already been driven out of their homelands to the hills? The second question which I should particularly like to put to the noble Earl is this, because it is so important if a better atmosphere is to be secured. Can he yet give us any indication when the African leaders, who have been detained without charge for seven years only on political grounds, are to be released? Until that is done it will be impossible to create a better atmosphere among the African population of Rhodesia.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to say straight away that I deeply appreciate the remarks which the noble Lord has made about the integrity—of which I think none of us needs any proof —of my right honourable and saintly friend in another place. On the two points which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has put to me, I think I should be guarded in my reply as I am not certain that I am fully conversant with the facts. I should like to confine myself merely to repeating what is set out rather more fully in the document Proposals for a Settlement, which is now in the Printed Paper Office. The relevant paragraph refers to the eviction of Africans from land in the European area at Epworth and Chishawasha Missions, and reads as follows:
"The Rhodesian Government have given an assurance that they will not take steps to evict African tenants or other occupants from these two areas or from other areas in which they are living until such time as the Commission referred to in paragraph III above has reported and its recommendations have been fully considered."
I think it would be a mistake for me to go beyond those words at the present time. But I assure the noble Lord that I will make a point of being able to give him a fuller answer when we come to debate this matter.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while noble Lords in all parts of this Chamber will join in the tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, noble Lords certainly on this side of the House and, I think, on all sides—would also like to join in a tribute to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, who has achieved what appears to be a settlement in line with the Five Principles involved in this unhappy dispute? Is my noble friend aware that we all feel a deep sense of gratitude to my right honourable friend for bringing about what appears to be a satisfactory settlement?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I should like to say that I, for one, share that feeling of gratitude.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, before we agree to the canonisation or even the beatification of the Foreign Secretary, there are a great many questions that remain unanswered in his Statement and in the Proposals for a Settlement? For example, when we speak of "normal political activity" will the noble Earl state categorically that this means an end of censorship? Is he aware that radio and TV time is allocated only to Parties represented in the present House of Assembly? The vast majority of Africans are unrepresented in that House. How does the noble Earl think that their views are going to be represented through this media of communication? Is the noble Earl also aware that the Commission is only to scrutinise the provisions of the Land Tenure Act, and that the implementation of any recommendations they make is not subject to any safeguards at all? In particular, the sentence that he has just read out, about the Epworth and Chishawasha Missions, leaves Mr. Smith free to state ultimately that he has fully considered the recommendations and has decided that these Africans should be removed. Finally, can the noble Earl say how the 62 detainees who will be left in custody after the release of those he has mentioned are going to take part in normal political activities, and will he circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of names of those people, so that we can see how many leaders of the African people such as Mr. Joshua Nkomo, are

1169
not going to be released until after the end of the procedures?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if I were to attempt detailed answers to those rather detailed points which the noble Lord has put to me, I think I should be going beyond the self-denying ordinance which I imposed upon myself at the start of repeating this Statement. Therefore, I am afraid that I am not going to reply to those very detailed points. I believe that it would be a great mistake for me to do so, and that it is far better that we should discuss these and other matters when we can do it fully. I can give an assurance to noble Lords that I, for one, will use my best endeavour to see that we have very full time— as much as we like—to debate what is a very important Statement indeed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Earl that we should not go much further on this important Statement this afternoon, and that we should await our debate next week. But may I ask one question about the debate? I presume that this will be on a Motion to "take note of" the settlement proposals and not on a Motion for approval, because there are many questions that will have to be asked and answered, and I suspect that to obtain those answers will be very difficult in the course of a normal debate. Therefore I hope the noble Earl will give this House time to consider all the details in the White Paper, and the questions and answers, before he comes to the House on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to seek approval. I trust that the high hopes we had of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will not be in any way dashed—but, like the noble Earl, I am being cautious. I have seen some of the small print and I have some anxieties.
But can the noble Earl answer two simple questions? First of all, once Rhodesia has fulfilled the settlement will it be a Republic, and will it remain inside the Commonwealth, or, as it is now, outside? Secondly, will the Declaration of Rights, to which great importance must be attached, be entrenched into the Constitution? My quick reading of the settlement proposals does not make this last point very clear.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, first of all I should like to say that I take very
1170
careful note of what the noble Lord has said about the form of our debate. I can already see the arguments, pro and con; but I can assure him that the considerations which he has put will not be absent from my mind when we come to a final decision about the form of the debate. The question of whether Rhodesia will or will not remain within the Commonwealth, and what the form of its future Government will be, must be, I think, according to my understanding of the workings of the Commonwealth, a matter for the Rhodesians. On the second point which the noble Lord put—and I quite see the importance of that—my understanding is that the Declaration will most certainly be entrenched. But in the short time available to me since the noble Lord asked that question I have not been able to put my finger on any precise statement in the White Paper. But that, as I say, is my understanding. If I am wrong, I will let the noble Lord know straight away.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I press the point about the form of the debate? The noble Earl will appreciate that the matters which we shall have under review are to be referred to the people of Rhodesia, and that will take, I understand, several weeks, and perhaps some months. Obviously it would be quite impossible to have a vote asking for the approval of something that has yet to be referred to the people of Rhodesia. Would not the noble Earl be content with asking your Lordships' House merely to "take note of" the settlement proposals?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I always pay very close attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, says on this, or, indeed, on any other matter. I think I will not go beyond saying that I will pay as close attention to what he has said from the Back Benches on this matter as to what his noble friend Lord Shepherd has said from the Front Benches on the same matter.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
4.12 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I must confess that I had hoped that I should have been able to get my

1171
speech in before the Statement, because then I should have had a very full Chamber to address. But, unfortunately, luck has gone against me. Many of your Lordships may remember that last January I asked an Unstarred Question on the subject of the export of live animals. My noble friend Lord Denham, who answered for the Government, assured me then that everything I had said would be conveyed to his noble friend, and may I assure him now that I have not the slightest doubt that this was done. But the fact remains that I have heard nothing whatsoever since, and therefore I felt that the only way I could raise the matter again was to introduce this Bill. This Bill will prevent the export of animals to the Continent for slaughter, whether that slaughter be immediate or postponed. I do not think I need go through the Bill itself, except just to mention the fact that of course there are exemptions for animals which are sent abroad for the purpose of either breeding or showing; but I should like to discuss some of the aspects of the problem the Bill is supposed to cover.
My Lords, I know that it is impossible to assess with any accuracy just how much an animal suffers during any one particular experience, since animals have no means of telling one; and although those who have lived with them and worked with them have learnt to recognise certain little signals which they are able to give to express their feelings, it does not go very far. But I hardly think that a young calf can be driven into the hold of a ship, which it has never seen before, can remain there for several hours, perhaps in rough weather, and then be driven ashore into a country which it has never see before without some mental stress, even if not actual physical pain. But if that were the only problem with which one was concerned with regard to this traffic I should never have dreamed of introducing this Bill. That is not the chief problem at all. In fact, it is the very least of them. The main problem concerns what happens to these animals when they get to these other countries.
Most of your Lordships will know that in 1957, on the recommendations of the Balfour Committee, we asked those Con-
1172
tinental countries to which we export animals to sign four assurances, which have since been known as the Balfour assurances. These assurances were: first, that these animals would not travel more than 100 kilometres from their point of landing; second, that they would not be re-exported; third, that they would be suitably penned, fed and watered while awaiting slaughter; and, fourth, that they would be humanely slaughtered with electric stunning or a captive bolt pistol. This would have been entirely satisfactory if it were not for the fact that it has been discovered that these assurances are practically totally ignored. This was first discovered, I think, by two officials of the R. S. P. C. A. who went to Belgium last year to see what was going on. They saw a great many sights, and they made a long report. I shall not read all the report to your Lordships, but I should like to quote one or two things from it. I quoted them last January, but there may be some noble Lords present to-day who did not hear them.
The investigation was carried out by Superintendent Butfield and the Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer. Among other things, they followed a shipment of young calves which had arrived at Ostend. They say:
"The veal calves arrived at the Ostend lair-age from Zeebrugge at midnight on Friday, 23rd; they were in good condition, having travelled well. One was blind in one eye and it was noticed that they seemed very out of breath with the exertion of loading and unloading. Also, their vision seemed to be defective as one could go right up to them before they appeared to see you".
Further on, the report continues:
"The slaughterhouse at Putte"—
that is where they were taken—
"is 186 kilometres from Zeebrugge and where the calves disembarked".
Your Lordships will remember that the limit is supposed to be 100 kilometres. The report continues:
"The calves would arrive at Putte at 5 a.m. and the owner of the calves told us that he insisted that they were given something to drink on arrival. We ourselves arrived at Putte at 9.30 a.m. the following morning, by which time about half of the calves had been slaughtered. Slaughtering methods and the slaughterhouse itself can only be described as barbaric. The method of stunning used was to hit the animal over the head with an ordinary carpenter's claw hammer. I examined some of the heads of the killed calves and found no bullet holes but in one or two cases fractured frontal bones. The calves may, or may not, have been stunned by this method.

1173
The calf was then hoisted by the hind leg by a travelling hoist and its throat was cut. Out of deference to us, the slaughterman was requested by the manager to use a Cash pistol while we were there, but he resented having to use it and was not proficient in its use. The pistol had not been greased for some time and was not working satisfactorily."
In other words, they did not bother about the Cash pistol at all.
If that were the only case that had been seen I suppose one might, by some stretch of the imagination, think that it was exceptional. But, unfortunately, it is not. In an article in the Farmer's Weekly about the visit of some Welsh farmers to another Belgian market and abattoir, it said:
"Members of the party, farmers, auctioneers and butchers, were shocked at the way that cattle especially were handled. They thought that the brutality involved was not only unnecessary but actually made the job of moving cattle more difficult. The normal practice is to have the animal on a halter belabouring the beast on the nose to slow it down and one behind driving it on with a stick. The net result is that the animal panics and begins to struggle and so the stick wielding becomes more vigorous. Every man in the market carried a stick and was very ready to use it."
It says later on:
"An R. S. P. C. A. inspector could have had a field day picking fault with slaughterhouse technique. Certainly the buildings were old and due for rebuilding but that could not account for the fact that the slaughterers paid only lip service to humane slaughtering methods."
Things do not seem to be any better in France. The Secretary of the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society had a letter from a well-known French humane slaughtering association, the Oeuvre D'Assistance aux Bêtes D'Abattoirs, giving a description of some of the methods of slaughter that are used in France. They appear to have four methods which are carried out in full consciousness—stunning is not used at all. The four methods are: (1) a large opening is cut from one ear to the other a hole is cut at the side of the neck; a very deep hole is dug in the neck through which the medulla is cut by means of a knife; and, (4) the animal is first immobilised by driving the tip of the knife into the occipital area—the part responsible for co-ordinating muscle movement. Thereafter, the throat is cut acording to the slaughterer's convenience. And there is a comment on that: that nobody seemed to think that anything was
1174
wrong. They were all wandering round buying bits of meat; nobody thought that there was anything wrong in the least.
My Lords, if we cannot enforce the assurances—and we certainly cannot because the moment the animals land on the other side of the Channel they are beyond our control—it seems to me that the only method we can adopt is to prohibit live exports altogether. There have been, I know, some objections to this. For instance, I believe that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has stated that the trade brings in foreign currency and is a valuable contribution to the balance of payments. Well, imports of meat and meat preparations are now running at over £ 11 million a day. Every pound of meat exported, alive or dead, must be replaced by imports—much of which comes from the many countries to which we export. Each year we get less meat for a greater sum of currency outlay, while each imported pound of meat brings with it a risk of disease; that is to say, foot and mouth or anthrax. Another objection is that our Continental customers prefer fresh killed meat.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, so do we!
LORD SOMERS: Exactly, my Lords—so do we. I was going on to say that it is perfectly easy for them to have meat as freshly-killed as any of us ever eat over here. For one thing, the Meat Trade Association is entirely in favour of this Bill and there have been many letters in the Farmer's Weekly in favour of it. I will not weary your Lordships by reading them all, but I have them here if anybody wishes to see them. There is no doubt that there is a very strong feeling among the public, and particularly among farmers who do not wish their stock to be subjected to this treatment.
But apart from the humanitarian side of it, there are other considerations. There is the economic side. For instance, we have 46 licensed slaughter houses in this country; licensed, that is, for the export of meat. Most of them are running at a very heavy loss for the simple reason that they have not enough to do. The conversion to a carcase trade would be an absolute blessing to them. They would be able to make good our losses and give employment to many

1175
people—surely a thing that we should think of seriously at a time like this. So far as transport concerned, I told your Lordships last January about the fleet of refrigerated vehicles we have which operate on the "drive-on, drive-off" system which would enable meat killed in our slaughterhouses to reach the Continental market within a few hours. What could be fresher than that? They say that occasionally the Continental buyers would object to not having the hide and the offal. But there is no reason on earth why they should not have the hide and offal. They could be sent as well, if they wish to pay the price for them.
I must confess at this point that I felt sonic slight qualms about this Bill when we were making our plans to enter Europe. But I have studied the Treaty of Rome very carefully and I cannot find anything in it which would prejudice the Bill at all. In fact, export of meat to the Continent would remain exactly the same, with the exception that it would be killed on this side of the channel instead of that. My Lords, I am as much opposed as anybody to a sentimental concern for animals which is based on fantasy or fanaticism, but I do hold very strongly that we have a duty to the animals in our charge not to allow them to be subjected to needless cruelty. After all, is not the desire to ensure that they are not subjected to needless cruelty one of the things that raises us above the beasts? I should have thought so. Therefore, my Lords, I sincerely hope that you will see fit to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Somers.)
4.31 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, we have an inherent national regard for the welfare of our animals, and clearly this has been the inspiration behind my noble friend's Bill. I think that we are rightly proud of this regard for the welfare of animals, and your Lordships will appreciate the initiative of my noble friend Lord Somers in seeking to improve the safeguards. In 1964 the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Soames, said that the Government of the day would like to see the trade in live animals replaced by a trade in carcase meat. That
1176
is also the view of this Government. An increased export of carcases at the expense of trade in live animals would be welcome. Nevertheless, the Government consider that adequate safeguards for the welfare of animals which are exported are practicable, and that in the main they are provided by the existing legislative and other provisions. The prime purpose of this Bill is to end the export of farm animals—cattle, sheep, pigs and goats—for slaughter or for further rearing, while permitting the continued export of such animals for breeding or for exhibition.
The Bill seeks to achieve this objective by prohibiting the export of any cattle, sheep, pigs or goats unless the Minister or Secretary of State is satisfied that they are intended for one of the two specified purposes, breeding or exhibition; and only then provided that they are at least of a minimum value to be prescribed by Ministers. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to describe the provisions which exist already to safeguard the welfare of ex-ported animals. There are regulations to ensure that the animals are properly rested, tended and inspected before embarkation and that they travel in good condition to places abroad. These regulations are at present being revised and strengthened and will be extended to cover air transport. In addition, the welfare of cattle, sheep and pigs intended for slaughter is safeguarded by restricting export to those countries which have given the Balfour Assurances. My noble friend has described in detail what the Balfour Assurances are.
Further, several countries, including the United Kingdom. have signed the Council of Europe Convention for the protection of animals during international transport which the United Kingdom Government, when the necessary legislation has been passed, intends to ratify. The Convention is a step by means of international agreement towards improving welfare safeguards for exported animals. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 3 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill started the steps that needed to be taken in this direction.
My Lords, the Continental regulations on the operation of slaughterhouses are, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, no less stringent than our own.

1177
although of course the occasional lapse can occur anywhere. Reports of any such lapses are investigated, and such a step was taken only a year ago with the full co-operation of the Government concerned. This is the report which my noble friend Lord Somers has talked about. I should like to go through the allegations made then. First, that calves of under 110 lb. were exported. Exhaustive inquiries were made and this allegation could not be substantiated. Secondly, that the slaughtered calves had travelled over 100 kilometres after disembarkation. This allegation was substantiated and the Belgian authorities assured us of their intention to observe and enforce the Balfour limit in future. Next, that calves were slaughtered in humanely. This allegation was not proven, but the Belgian authorities withdrew their approval of the slaughterhouse concerned on hygiene grounds. So far as we know, the premises were later reinstated, but as they are over 100 kilometres from the port, they may not be used for slaughtering animals from the United Kingdom and are not on the Belgian approved list for this purpose. Lastly, that calves imported from the United Kingdom for slaughter were re-exported. Inquiries showed that the calves to which the allegation referred had been imported for further rearing and the Balfour Assurances do not apply to calves for further rearing.
The Belgian authorities gave very full co-operation in these inquiries, for which I think we should all pay tribute, and Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that they are keeping an eye on this matter. Recent years have seen a good deal of improvement in the facilities available for the safe and speedy transport of animals. The design of road vehicles is now much improved and the use of roll-on/roll-off ferries has speeded up sea crossings. Road networks, both here and also on the Continent, have been much improved. All these factors make for better conditions in livestock transport. The constant review of the adequacy of legislative provisions by the Government, and their participation in international efforts to protect the animals, helps to keep everyone on his toes. Despite the existence of these wide-ranging safeguards, this Bill has obvious attractions, since the transport of animals by sea can involve hazards. But there are important issues
1178
which should be examined carefully when considering the proposals.
The Government's misgivings are mainly concerned with practicalities. The Bill shows some affinity to the Ponies Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, introduced into your Lordships' House some two years ago. Like the Ponies Bill, it seeks to achieve the desired result by requiring the Minister to be satisfied as to the purpose of export and to prescribe minimum values below which even export for permitted purposes may not be allowed. But the ponies exported are comparatively few in kind and number, and in his Bill the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was able to quote the actual minimum values to be used for ponies of different heights. The export of farm livestock is another matter, and the Bill leaves it to Ministers to specify minimum values, which would be extremely difficult. The values would have to be related to different types and ages of animals, and, if set high enough to make the export for slaughter or rearing purposes uneconomic would obstruct the legitimate trade in breeding animals.
Also, my Lords, the exporters of breeding animals would have to employ a valuer to value each animal, taking account of such variable factors as breed, age, sex, confirmation, condition and the current economic position. The Bill would not control movements of animals from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, which in practice comprises a relatively small number of bulls for breeding purposes. Nor would it control exports from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland or elsewhere. Clearly, it would be impracticable to interfere with the traditional trade between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic which accounts for two-thirds of the United Kingdom exports of cattle, sheep and pigs.
There is a further possibility that the Bill would lead to an increase in the export of animals from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland and that these animals would then be shipped elsewhere abroad. If traders saw scope for this and such a trade developed, the result would be to involve the animals in a longer sea crossing, instead of a short cross-Channel journey from here to the Continent. Furthermore, the protection afforded by the Balfour Assurances which we have received would in such circumstances be

1179
lost. Present arrangements provide reasonable safeguards for the welfare of exported animals. There are serious practical difficulties in the operation of the controls envisaged in the Bill. The measures proposed are too extreme for the benefits to be expected. Powers in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill now before Parliament will, in due course, enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on international transport, and we believe that effective regulations are preferable to the ban on exports which is proposed.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? He is bearing a great deal on transport, which I said at the beginning is the least of the problems. He is not saying anything about what is going to happen when the animals arrive at their destination.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I think I have already said that the complaints have been investigated by my right honourable friend's Department. He gave my noble friend instances of this and what had been found, and I will come to that later. For all these reasons, the Government would be reluctant to see the Bill proceed, and I hope that my noble friend will not press the Second Reading of this Bill. My right honourable friend will study the Report of this debate very carefully, and of course he is always ready to investigate specific complaints of ill-treatment of animals. Such reports are helpful in the continuing review of the efficiency of animal welfare provision. I would also restate my wish to be given details of any such complaints. I would point out that I gave a similar earlier invitation on May 20,1971, in answer to a question by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, but since that time no specific complaints have been brought to my attention.
4.41 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, if Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the safeguards now existing are adequately enforced, I can only say that most of us are not satisfied. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, has said that he will be delighted to receive complaints of non-satisfaction of the safeguards. I can only say that somehow they must
1180
have got lost in the post—which is perhaps not surprising. Recently I had to ask one of the leading champions of this cause not to send me nearly so much literature, because hardly a morning went by on which I did not receive authentic accounts of the misuse of these legislative safeguards.
Going back to the Balfour Report, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, is not present at this debate, because she signed that Report. She said that among the evidence received was some evidence which had caused her disquiet, and I should have liked to recall this to her memory. The Balfour Commitee reported in 1957, when this was a new trade. It was in its infancy, and since then it has grown greatly. The terms of reference of the Balfour Committee were:
"To inquire into the export trade in live cattle from Great Britain to the Continent for slaughter, the considerations affecting the continuance of this trade, and steps to avoid any unnecessary suffering of the cattle at all stages of their journey; to consider whether slaughter before export would be a desirable and feasible alternative, …"
The Committee came to the conclusion that this would be a desirable alternative. They said that there was justification for anxiety, on all grounds, about the conditions under which cattle were exported, but they also said that they could not assent to the complete abolition of this export trade. They concluded:
"Slaughter for export would be desirable, but the overwhelming weight of evidence is that except to a very limited extent the alternative of a carcase trade is not feasible."
It was not feasible at that time, my Lords, for various reasons. There was an insufficient provision of suitable containers for slaughtered meat; there were insufficient slaughterhouse facilities, and insufficient possibility of the use of interfrigo wagons, which were not available in adequate numbers at that time. But when we consider what has happened since the publication of that Report, we find that all those conditions no longer exist. So far as slaughterhouses are concerned, not only have we a sufficiency, operating under decent humane conditions, but we have an over-sufficiency and many of them are standing idle. I would have wished that the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, could be here, because he knows something of the present cost to the ratepayers of Manchester of the large and

1181
excellent slaughterhouse which is insufficiently used. And that situation is not peculiar to Manchester: the ratepayers up and down the country are spending money on insufficiently used slaughterhouses.
As a way out, the Balfour Committee laid down certain conditions which they believed would, if enforced—I emphasise, if enforced— render this trade reasonably humane. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, has mentioned them. They are known as the Balfour assurances and concern the conditions of transport and non-re-export, suitable berths, feeding and watering and all the rest of it. Those assurances have been accepted by the Governments of Holland, Belgium, West Germany and Italy for all species of exported cattle, and by France for cattle only. But, unfortunately, we know now that those assurances are more honoured in the breach than in the fact. As I have already said over and over again, we have examples of their failure. Mr. Anthony Stodart, Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, explained recently, in a letter to a Member of Parliament, that there is a limit to the extent to which we can attempt to exercise control over arrangements for the welfare of the exported animals once they have passed beyond our jurisdiction, as we cannot presume to interfere in matters which other countries regard as their own domestic affairs. So much for the Balfour assurances.
May I expand on the non-effective enforcement of the Balfour assurances? There are certain trades which have fallen outside the scope of these assurances. For instance, we are now faced with the airlift in a big way of live calves to North Africa. There is no way of enforcing the conditions to which these animals are subjected when they get to North Africa, and there is much information to suggest that they receive very poor treatment when they get there. Here is a report, which was published in the this month. It reports an export contract for,
"… 5,000 calves between Oakdene Estates Ltd., Cowfold, Sussex, and the Greek Government. The deal will be completed this year.
"The company is also flying calves and beef stores to the Canary Islands every fortnight, and has exported animals by air to North Africa, Italy, Bermuda and India."
1182
The report continues:
"The only problem is to get enough of them to meet overseas orders.
"We are short of good calves and are looking for additional suppliers, said managing director, Mr. Bill Chubb, who next year is planning to fly calves from Canada to Greece to help fulfil the demand."
Well, we have no control over Canada. That is one form of the trade in live animals, which has broken through any controls which we can or have tried to operate.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to the export of live animals from Ulster to the Irish Republic, over which, again, we have no control. As the noble Lord, Lord Denham, has said, at the moment we cannot control the Republic of Ireland in a great many respects, including this one. But it is a fact that animals cross the Border from Northern Ireland in great numbers, and off they go—nobody knows where. The question is who is responsible for this trade and who is to a large extent making money out of it? I have here a letter written to Mr. Clarke, the Secretary to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, from the Ministry in Northern Ireland, referring to a report on the export of fat cattle from the Republic of Ireland to North Africa. It says:
"I have read this excellent and comprehensive report with great interest and appreciate that a great deal of work and effort went into it. Let me assure you that this Ministry shares your Society's concern about the shipment of cattle to non-Balfour countries for slaughter and regrets very much that such a trade has developed. I wonder, however, if you have sent your report to the appropriate place. We in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain take every possible precaution to ensure that our ports are not used for shipping cattle for slaughter in non-Balfour countries. It is in fact the Republic of Ireland which creates the back door for this trade by not subscribing to the Assurances, and I suggest that it might he more appropriate and more fruitful if your Society made a direct approach to the Government in Dublin…. You will be aware of the constitutional limitations placed on the Northern Ireland Government in respect of international trade."
Well, we are of course aware of it.
Let us inquire a little further into who is responsible in this country for making money. I cannot find among my papers the reference to the firm in this country that is carrying on this export in a big way, but I will look it up and let the noble Lord know. It is a firm which is finding it a very profitable business,

1183
and I should think that the Balfour Assurances sit very lightly upon their operations. When the noble Lord says that he is satisfied that we have sufficient legislation to make the abuse impossible, I find it extremely difficult to share his view. He says that we have a national interest in the wellbeing of animals, and I only hope that this is so.
About a century and a half ago the people of this country woke up to the fact that large numbers of small children were being exploited for gain in mines, factories and even chimneys. I suppose children had always been exploited, but when they were exploited in large-scale industries one could see it going on. This country decided to stop it, and did so. There were certain economic arguments used in its favour, as no doubt there will be by certain sections of the farming community in the case of the export of cattle. It was argued that it would save ratepayers' money, and the like, because it was a good way of disposing of the workhouse children. It was argued that the marginal profits of the large and growing textile industry depended upon this particular form of cheap labour. It was argued that the parents were poor and needed the earnings of the children.
But it was not the economic arguments that won the day a century and a half ago; it was the argument of compassion. That is the argument that many of us are putting forward to-day on behalf of the control of the export of live cattle: and 1 am only sorry that the Episcopal Benches should be completely empty when a question of compassion is being discussed. It is possible of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said, that there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which would preclude us from going forward with this Bill. Indeed, it is quite possible if we go into the Common Market (and it looks as though we will) while this export of live cattle exists, that we might be able to stiffen up the acceptance of the Balfour Assurances by the Common Market countries and secure some real co-operation for their enforcement. But this I doubt. I only hope that if do go into the Common Market our entente will not be so cordial as to preclude us from saying rude things about French and Belgian slaughterhouses.
4.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, my reaction from listening to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, is that this is just the type of Bill which should go to a Committee stage. Quite frankly, a large number of the remarks the noble Lord made I regarded as equivocal, or at least deserving of close examination. In this country we have been at great pains to ensure that humane slaughter is properly carried out. We now raise the question, as we have done before, as to what is to happen to animals exported from this country. There was a halfway stage with the Balfour Assurances. The Government, I take it, were reluctant at that time to go much further than that.
I have spoken to the same inspector as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, spoke to, and there is no doubt that the Balfour Assurances are being substantially disregarded. I cannot say how far they are disregarded, and I do not believe the noble Lord can say, either. I should like him to tell us, for instance, how much inspection is carried out in the many different countries to which animals are exported from this country. He says that there are safeguards. This is quite different from the stories that I have heard, and the description of the barbaric methods to which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred. But this is not all, my Lords. I have a letter from France, dated November,1971, which says:
"Today in France about 85 per cent. of sheep and 50 per cent. of calves have their throats cut while fully conscious, and often are not pre-stunned when hung up by a leg for bleeding."
I do not know how many of your Lordships have seen a calf hanging by its legs with its throat cut although perfectly conscious. I have seen it, and it has left on me an indelible impression. It is something that I think we should all wish to avoid. This Bill may not be the best way of doing it, but it is a way in which we can do it, and I believe that we should do it.
There is an economic side to this problem which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, mentioned, and it is by no means inconsiderable. I do not know exactly how important it is, but we have been to great pains in many of our municipalities to have well-appointed slaughterhouses. Let us use them to the full. If Mr. Soames, when Minister of Agriculture,

1185
could say: "We should like to go to carcase trade only", why do we not do so? I think the Government should explain that on Committee stage. If it is not possible to do it, let us hear why it is not.
We have not mentioned Northern Ireland: at least the noble Lord has not. Perhaps it is too difficult and is a matter which may be taken up on another occasion. At any rate, it is not part of the Bill at all and we are dealing with exporting elsewhere. But I do not think the practical difficulties of valuation are as great as all that: it is only a question of minimum value. I think we ought to give the Bill a Second Reading and have these words thoroughly examined at the Committee stage.
5.1 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, in principle I agree wholeheartedly with the object of the Bill of Lord Somers, but in practice I am against it. It is too limited: it is limited to Great Britain. Secondly, if the Balfour Assurances were more rigidly complied with abroad there would be no need for the Bill. Surely it is up to Her Majesty's Government to urge people who agreed to the Balfour Assurances to see that they are carried out and also to give more publicity to them. Personally I am against the export of animals on the hoof for slaughter abroad, not only from the R. S. P. C. A. point of view but because it is more costly to export animals on the hoof than it is to export a carcase. Gradually exporters are coming round to this view; so that is another reason against passing the Bill. If your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading I shall introduce an Amendment to insert a new clause to prohibit the import of live animals from abroad, with the exception of store cattle, to this country. Breeding animals should be imported only under very strict supervision and by permission of the Ministry of Agriculture, with a suitable quarantine period. We are leaning towards entry into the Common Market but we have no knowledge of whether or not imported cattle may have been in contact with foot-and-mouth disease, brucellosis and other diseases. Therefore I advise the prohibition of the import of cattle on the hoof. I hope that Lord Somers will withdraw this Bill.
5.3 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I appreciate and have sympathy with the wholly admirable and humane sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, which prompted him to place this Bill before us. I am indeed deeply concerned with all aspects of the welfare of farm animals, and certainly not least during their transit from place to place. Probably I shall be rather a lone voice in the Chamber this afternoon, but I should like to speak for a few moments within the context of this Bill on the interests of the producer, which it seems to me have been completely overlooked. Perhaps I should declare an interest, in that I am a producer of stock; and although it is highly unlikely, I suppose it is possible that at some time or other I may sell stock to someone who may eventually wish to export it.
The Bill seeks to prohibit the export of live farm animals other than those intended for breeding or exhibition. I cannot understand why there should necessarily be any greater degree of cruelty in shipping for slaughter than in shipping for breeding. We all know the Balfour Recommendations— the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has told us about them—and surely these can be upheld and the same stringent rules applied. I agree that it is practically impossible for us to be certain that the Balfour Recommendations are enforced after the stock have disembarked, but various Governments have given their assurances that those Recommendations will be carried out, and surely we should accept such assurances. I did not know of the appalling conditions of slaughter described by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, which occur in various other countries; but I still cannot think that people of other countries are necessarily so much more inhumane in their treatment of and attitude towards animals than we are. It may be so, but I hope the Government will endeavour to seek further assurances from, for example, the Belgians (who seem to be the worst offenders) that some more humane means of slaughter may be found.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords. may I ask the noble Lord one question? Is he aware that the French have declined to give any undertaking whatsoever in regard to sheep, goats and pigs, so that the Balfour Assurances do not apply in respect of those animals at all?
LORD WISE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that information. I was not aware of that. But from a purely mercenary point of view, it is obvious that buyers, in their own interests, will ensure that their stock will arrive at their destinations in the best possible condition. This fact alone should do much to eliminate any ill-treatment during transport. As I said, I have no knowledge of the slaughtering methods. Obviously there will always be isolated cases of cruelty which we all deplore, and unfortunately such cases occasionally happen in our own country also. I do not consider them to be an adequate reason to stop the exporting of live animals, to the detriment of the home producer. Only a very small proportion of the total production of commercial stock in this country is exported, and I believe that most of this is of the type which is most suitable for processing purposes and for which, as yet, there is not a complete home market. However, this comparatively small percentage acts as a support to the market and ensures a reasonably stable and satisfactory return to the producer for this type of stock. Without its regulating influence, producers would be at a disadvantage and market returns would inevitably fall.
I am hopeful that more capital will flow into the home meat-processing industry. I think that the diminishing number of stock exported is indicative that this is the case. It may be possible for the home market to absorb the stock, and I hope that this proves to be so, not only for the sake of the stock but to the benefit of the national economy as well. It surely cannot be an economic proposition to sell stock to other countries and buy the meat back again when it has been canned. However, until that time comes I do not feel that home producers should be penalised in this way. Animal transport is generally very well carried out and is continually improving. For these reasons I feel unable to support this Bill.
5.10 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for having introduced this Bill, and congratulate him on the manner in which he has done so. Those who know the noble Lord know that he has devoted a great part of his life to the
1188
cause of dumb animals and has rendered great service to that cause.
This Bill is justified on two grounds. First, animals that are exported suffer and are treated with cruelty. Secondly, there is the economic consideration. It is no part of the case of the noble Lord, Lord Somers—nor is it mine, or anybody else's—that the animals suffer in transit crossing the Channel. In fact such evidence as we have is that they take the crossing exceedingly well, and when there is a rough crossing the human beings suffer much more than the animals. Therefore that is not part of the case. Our concern is what happens to the animals after they reach the other side of the Channel. Here, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Denham, may say, we have no control. From time to time questions have been asked of various Ministers, both of Labour and of Conservative Governments, and each time we have been told that we have no control, and that we are not able to exercise any control over what happens on the other side. We have received certain assurances, but the noble Lord, Lord Denham, admitted that these assurances have been broken. Every one of them has been broken. I will not go into detail, but that is a fact. Have we any reason to assume that, having obtained the word of the various Governments abroad that their undertakings will not be broken in the future, they will be adhered to? It is not a matter which rests with the Government; it rests with the people who use the animals, and who are trading in them. Unless there is a tremendous amount of supervision on the other side of the Channel—which there is not—there is no assurance whatever that these four safeguards will be carried out in the future any more than they have been in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, gave a number of examples of cruelty. The noble Lord, Lord Denham, and my noble friend Lord Wise, said that they may be isolated examples. But that may not be so. Why do they assume that those are isolated examples? The noble Lord, Lord Denham, says, "If you have any complaints, let us know about them." But what will he do with the complaints after the event? If I were to write to him to-morrow and tell him that a certain animal was killed in a cruel way, what

1189
would he do? Would he write and make inquiries and have it denied? There is no way by which he can safeguard himself and be sure that he is giving the right answer. The fact is, my Lords, that investigations have been made by a number of organisations, including the R. S. P. C. A., who have gone over the Channel deliberately to inspect the methods of slaughtering there. They have seen it with their own eyes and reported on it. The result has been that in each case every one of these organisations has recommended that this trade should be ended. If we are not to end it, the onus is on the Government to show why it should not be ended.
I will not enlarge on this, although I could give examples of inhumane methods of slaughtering. But that is not the only cruelty. The cruelty and suffering which animals undergo often start from the time they are landed on the other side of the Channel. In many cases they are taken from one market to another and are sold and re-sold. The price at which we sell these animals lends itself to a little profit being made by each trader. I was surprised to hear it, but the fact is that we are selling these live animals at something like one-third of the price which people abroad have to pay for them. Naturally it is very good business for those who handle them. These poor animals are taken from market to market. Very often they are not fed or watered, and they are not given enough rest, so that they are tired out. This is in addition to the cruelty caused by the methods of slaughtering that they undergo. For myself, having inquired into this, I am satisfied that there is a substantial amount of cruelty and suffering by the animals that are exported. For the sake of our good name, and if we want to retain the reputation of avoiding suffering to animals, we should tackle this matter.
I admit that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, made the point about Ireland. That is a matter that we shall have to look at in Committee. It may be that the only way of dealing with the Republic of Ireland is to prohibit the export of animals to that country, even through Northern Ireland. I welcome the opportunity to examine this matter in Committee to see what can be done to pre
1190
vent it. I hope that this Bill will get a Second Reading, and that we shall have the co-operation of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, in trying to ascertain how we can prevent the evasion of what we all want to achieve.
The second point is the economic one. I must confess that here I am at a complete loss. How can it possibly be worth our while to have our slaughterhouses half empty, not fully used, and, at the same time, send animals abroad to be slaughtered? We import carcases and canned meat, and often the very animals we send abroad are sent back to us in that form. How can that be to our advantage? Surely, if we were to carry out the slaughter in this country we should provide work, fully occupy the slaughterhouses that are at present under-occupied, and provide the housewife with the boon which we are presenting to the Continent—fresh, home-killed meat. Why should the British housewife be satisfied with imported meat?
LORD BURTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? Could he give any indication of how much of this meat is in fact re-imported?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, no, I cannot.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend would permit me to help, because I happen to have a figure?
LORD SILKIN: Certainly a good deal of canned meat is re-imported. There is a thriving trade between the Continental countries and ourselves, and it is quite obvious to me that the meat which is purchased cheaply forms a very profitable undertaking to them. So I would suggest that both on the economic ground and on the humane ground we give this Bill a Second Reading, and if there are any defects in it, or if we can strengthen it, by all means let us put our heads together and see what we can do on Committee stage.
5.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should like to apologise to my noble friend Lord Somers for walking out of the Chamber before he finished his speech, but I had to attend a Defence Committee on the North of Ireland. Perhaps the noble Lord will

1191
forgive me. I apologise also to my noble friend Lord Denham.
This question of the export of livestock abroad is rather a hardy perennial, but it all boils down to how far one is prepared to give away commercial advantage to secure humane treatment of animals. It is really a question of ethics. Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on one of his questions. The noble Lord appeared to be perturbed—or perhaps "confused" is the right word: he wanted to know why farmers export some meat on the hoof. This is a small trade. I am a farmer and an agriculturist, and have some practical experience of this. The reason is that standards of grading on the Continent for fatstock—when an animal is fat and is killed—are lower than ours. They can get a fatstock price for what we should call a store animal, an animal which in our country would not be ready. Therefore at certain times of the year it pays farmers to export store animals on the hoof that are not fat enough to be killed here, although they may be killed abroad. Perhaps that will answer the noble Lord's query. It is a small but lucrative trade, and I personally, as a farmer, should be quite happy to see it stopped; but there arc many farmers who I suppose would not agree with me. They could not argue over the ethics or morals, but I do not think they would agree with me.
We have heard about the Balfour assurances and it is true that these are unenforceable. One noble Lord pointed out that in France the Balfour assurances apply only to cattle and not to other livestock. In Italy, humane slaughter is not statutory, so there is no reason why the Italians should adhere to the Balfour assurances; and I presume they do not. In regard to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I think the Government have mentioned that they are going to ratify the Convention of the Council of Europe for the international transport of livestock. That will certainly help on paper; I do not know whether it will help much in practice. However, it is a step in the right direction. We have to remember that when we go into the Common Market, as I presume we shall, Mr. Wilson allowing, we shall presumably have far more say
1192
on the Continent in ensuring that the Balfour assurances are adhered to.
There is one great omission concerning this Bill (perhaps it has already been mentioned), and that is regarding its application to the North of Ireland. This Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland. I have some figures here to which I would refer. In the first nine months of 1971,200,000-odd animals were exported on the hoof. Of that number, apparently 78 per cent. went to the Republic of Ireland. Presumably most of these would go through the North of Ireland. Therefore, if my noble friend Lord Somers wants his Bill to be effective he will need to have an Amendment made on Committee stage of the Bill to include Northern Ireland and I fear that he will find that very difficult.
One or two noble Lords have, quite rightly, said that we in this country have, on the whole, up-to-date slaughterhouses, and therefore it would provide more work here and would be more practicable to slaughter all our animals in this country rather than to export any on the hoof. That is a fair comment; but, as I say, the numbers are small. One noble Lord asked the question: how is it when you are exporting livestock for breeding there is no cruelty? The answer is that we come back again to filthy lucre. If one is exporting pedigree animals, of course they are valuable and more care is taken with them. My noble friend Lord Somers quoted the instance of some calves that had been exported and said, I believe, that their vision was affected. Their vision would not be affected by the journey. Those calves had probably been reared in dark conditions, and their vision would be affected by that. Surprisingly, the noble Lord quoted the figure that we import into this country £ 11 million. worth of meat a day. It seems extra ordinary if we do because I understood that we produced about two-thirds of our meat.
LORD SILKIN: A half, my Lords.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Is the noble Lord sure that that is the correct figure?
LORD SOMERS: One million pounds worth a day, I said, my Lords.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I understood him to say £ 11 million and thought he was exaggerating a little. However, I heartily sympathise with my noble friend in this Bill. After all, kindness is probably the most noble of all the virtues, and I personally should like to see this trade stopped. I quite understand the viewpoint of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I agree that there are certain interests and that if this trade is stopped it will harm them. But if we join the Common Market I think we can look forward to getting our good influence to bear on the Continent to ensure that the Balfour assurances are adhered to, so that in the not so far distant future every country on the Continent, or at any rate every country in the Common Market, will treat animals with the same consideration as we do here. As I have said, I should prefer to see this trade stopped, but I can sec very little hope of that. Having said that, I certainly support the Bill, and I hope that it will reach its Committee stage during which we can thrash out all these problems.
5.30 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I suppose it would be true to say that I know more about the slaughter of animals for food than any Member of your Lordships' House. In fact when I look back over many years I remember that in days gone by I must have slaughtered many hundreds with my own bloody hands. Therefore, possibly I know more than most people about the abuses which can take place in the slaughter of animals. I believe that those abuses, which took place in a great many places in the past, have now gone from this country. We have put that matter right. But I am not at all satisfied that it has been put right in other countries, and it is because of that great doubt in my mind that I am an enthusiastic supporter of this Bill. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on sticking to this matter and once more raising it in your Lordships' House. In view of the debate which has taken place I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Denham, can now still hope that there will be no Second Reading for this Bill. It seems to me that if he takes notice of the debate he must agree that there the Bill be given
1194
a Second Reading and that we should have the opportunity of debating it in closer detail at the Committee stage. I am sure that is right.
I shall try to be brief, but this is something about which I feel most strongly. After what has been said this afternoon I feel that I ought not to make new points but to emphasise some of those that have been raised. Like my noble friend Lord Silkin, I come back to the two essential matters: the humane side and the economic side. May I remind your Lordships how this trade in movement of live cattle to the Continent for slaughter came about. The Americans, in about 1955–56, decided that they could not accept bodies of beef and of iamb and sheep for the use of their forces on the Continent because of the conditions then applying in British slaughterhouses. They were not satisfied at that time with those conditions. So they said, "We will have the live animals here and we will slaughter them on the Continent for ourselves". That was the beginning of the movement of animals to the Continent.
As my noble friend Lady Stocks has pointed out, all that has gone; the situation is different now. The legislation that has passed through both Houses of Parliament in the days since 1956 has ensured that the conditions in the slaughterhouses of our country are right. All over the country we have done away with those miserable slaughterhouses where the conditions were so vile. and now we have great municipal—and even private—abattoirs where cattle, sheep and pigs are killed in the best possible conditions.
So we need not concern ourselves with what motivated the Balfour Committee, because the whole situation is different. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, that there is no reason whatever why the movement of meat to the Continent should not be dead meat rather than live meat. However much he has tried with his Ministry brief to instil this into us this afternoon, I suggest that he failed completely to show that there was any need to send a single animal for slaughter abroad from this country. All of us who go fairly regularly to the Continent have often seen at the ports cattle boats which have arrived from Britain and have observed the treatment of the cattle from

1195
the French and Belgian drovers. It turns me over to see it, and, my goodness! I have had a lot of experience with cattle for slaughter.
That being so, my Lords, has not the time come when we should say, "This is a shocking trade and we should have nothing whatever to do with it"? We can do that by passing the Bill which we are discussing this afternoon. It is a fact that no animals like to travel. That is why they are different from us. I have never yet seen any brochures from travel agents directed at cattle and sheep, asking them whether they would like to travel somewhere. To my mind, whatever the conditions may be, travel exposes them to some amount of cruelty, and I believe that on the humane side this Bill would save many hundreds of animals every year from fatigue and cruelty when they are exported from this country. That, as far as I see it, is the humane side.
I now come hurriedly to the economic side. To me this is just as important, too. Why on earth do we export live to the Continent our best cattle, in many cases heavily subsidised by the British taxpayer, when we have to import from other countries to replace those very cattle? The noble Lord, Lord Burton, asked my noble friend in the course of his speech about the importation of meat from other countries. So far as I can make out, we imported dead meat in carcase or in cans at a cost of £ 23 million over the last nine months from January to September.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can tell us what amount is actually re-imported of what has been exported from this country? I think he will find that the amount that comes back into this country is very small.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, the figure I am talking about concerns the meat that is brought into this country in cans and in all manner of ways from other places: £ 23 million worth in the nine months. But let us consider Denmark and Holland, and the amount of meat that pours into this country from those countries. It is replacing what we are sending out. Where is the sense in that? I appreciate that you have to import in order to export, and vice versa: we all
1196
accept that principle; but it need not be a straight exchange of two commodities like cattle and meat. We are a manufacturing country, and surely our export trade must be based on that.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I just point out to the noble Lord that it is not a sheer exchange. I do not agree with it, but I am giving the facts: We export the animals on the hoof at a greater price than we pay for the meat which we import. There is an economic advantage in that.
LORD ROYLE: So that it does not matter a hang about the humane side—
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Oh yes, it does, my Lords. I have already said that I do not agree with it.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, this important matter in the noble Viscount's mind is that there must be some profit—
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I did not say that.
LORD ROYLE: — and a big profit, my Lords; and I am suggesting that this is not the way in which we should be thinking on an issue of this kind. I am quite sure that we are wrong if we think of it in those terms alone.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord once again, is it not right that the bulk of the export consists of old cows that we do not like eating in this country?
LORD ROYLE: Oh no, my Lords, not at all. My goodness, that is not true! It is anything but true. We are sending some of the best cattle we rear to the Continent. They have such poor cattle themselves, and in France they have a different system altogether from ours. They only kill off female animals for beef after they have finished milking them. Our system is heifers and bullocks, good beef; we send it to them and we are exporting it in large amounts all the time.
The other side is the economic one. It has already been mentioned very ably this afternoon, and this is only a question of emphasis. Let us take employment.

1197
As has been pointed out by several noble Lords, there are these under-occupied abattoirs in this country. My noble friend Lady Stocks mentioned Manchester, and I know the Manchester abattoir. They could probably take on twice the amount of slaughtering that they carry out at the present time. It is probably the largest and best abattoir in Europe, a very fine abattoir, but it is quite under-occupied at the present time. It would find work for all manner of people for whom we do not now find work when we send the cattle live to the Continent—slaughtermen, packers, hide and skin firms, tanners and all the people concerned witth curing and with by-products generally. At a time of unemployment such as exists to-day can we ignore any section of the employment market? We could find work for a great many people in this country by ceasing this type of trade. Not only is there advantage on the employment side, but we could also save for our own use in this country hundreds and hundreds of hides and skins which we need for our leather manufacture, as well as all the ancillary parts from inside the carcase, such as bones, glands, blood, hooves—all things needed in manufacturing industry ill this country.
I would say one last word on transport. It it is silly to suggest that we could not satisfactorily move dead meat to the Continent to-day. Modern refrigeration, transport refrigeration particularly, is completely adequate for anything we should need to take the meat to the docks and beyond. Those of us who have crossed on the boats from Dover to Boulogne or Calais, or from Newhaven to Dieppe, have seen great refrigerator vans right down in the bottom of the ship with the engines ticking over, keeping the meat, or whatever is in the carrier, cold and ready for the other side. This system could be used in place of moving the cattle in the way we do. With my noble friend Lady Stocks, I think much of the worry is caused by vested interests, I want the Government to dig their heels in on this and to say that vested interests are not going to affect our point of view in this very important matter.
One last word to my noble friend Lord Wise. He said that there was not much difference so far as cruelty was
1198
concerned whether it was cruelty to breeding animals or animals for slaughter. Surely, if he gives it a little more thought, he will appreciate that people would nurse animals much more carefuly if they were going for breeding rather than for slaughter.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I agree with tile noble Lord in that respect, but the point I was trying to make is that surely that should not be so. It perhaps is so. but it should not be. We should be able to ensure that it is not so.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I accept that at once. I end where I began. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. If it needs examination on the Irish question or matters of that kind, let us look at it in Committee. But meanwhile the House could pay a compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for his activity in this regard by giving his Bill a Second Reading tonight.
5.45 p.m.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I rise as a "jumper". The noble Lord, Lord Somers, asked me yesterday if I would speak on this, but I said that I would not put my name down to speak but would listen to the debate to decide whether I could make any worth-while contribution. I can make a contribution: it is, like myself, a very old one, but it is a very genuine one. Before the war—and the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard and the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, will know that what I am saying is true—at the end of the season a great number of horses in selling races were sold. Our trainers used to ask for subscriptions; we were asked to put up £ 5 or £ 10 to buy these horses, which would otherwise he sold for next to nothing and go to what were known as "flesh-smashers" —people who bought horses for £ 5, £ 8 or £ 10 to send to the Belgian market. These thoroughbreds had been brought up under wonderful conditions and it was not their fault that they did not inherit the leadership quality, and therefore did not win, with the result that nobody wanted them. If they were bought by the "flesh-smashers" they were taken without water and without food, and thrown into boats, and arrived in Belgium, very often under intolerable

1199
conditions. This was over 30 years ago—we are all growing up. But I subscribed then and I would again. I hope that the conditions are not as bad now as they were then but this situation cannot go on.
Horses especially, but also any animal in that condition, should go to our modern slaughterhouses and be put into what is accepted now as perfectly adequate cold storage, from which they can be sent over to people who want to eat them or to feed animals that want to eat them. That is really the end of my speech. I have said what I wanted to say. Perhaps I may add this comment: I have always liked, and always shall like, many animals better than I like many people, but I should not even like to see human beings sent over under the conditions in which these horses were sent over. There must be a Second Reading of this Bill.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that the export of horses is not allowed unless they are over a certain value, so in actual fact there is no export of horses from this country for human consumption.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount. I did not quite hear what he said, but I realise that if he and the honourable Mr. Wilson go into the Common Market together they will pay attention to this concern.
5.49 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it is for my noble friend Lord Somers to reply to this debate, but if I may have the leave of your Lordships' House I should like to say a few words about what has been said in the debate.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, with great respect, is it not rather unusual for any noble Lord other than the mover to make a second speech, even a member of the Government?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, not, I am advised, for a member of the Government; I think this is usual, by leave. If it is the feeling of your Lordships' House that you would not like the views of Her Majesty's Government on the debate, I will by all means give way to it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: We do not.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Continue !
LORD DENHAM: Your Lordships have covered every aspect of this problem. The noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, says that she has been getting a large amount of correspondence on this subject, and I should be most grateful, if she is convinced by any of the correspondence she gets, if she would pass it on to me. I should also be grateful for details of the firm whose name she said she would let me have; and I will of course look into this.
Your Lordships do not seem to be very satisfied by the Balfour assurances. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, says that every one has been broken. I think that is probably a little too harsh. There have been cases where some of them have been broken.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, did not the noble Lord himself admit it in the course of his earlier speech? He said that they got "further assurances that these would be put right". In other words, that these firms would behave better in the future. I think that is what he said.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I do not want to make too much of a point on this. The noble Lord said every one". I gave a case where two of them were broken, but not the whole lot. However, this is a minor matter. My noble friend Lord Selkirk asked how we check up on this; how we assure ourselves that the Balfour assurances work. The only way we can do this is by diplomatic action, and to rely on the good faith of the Governments who have given these assurances. Of course, the countries which have given the assurances will take note, I feel sure, of this debate in your Lordships' House.
There are two questions: first, are the safeguards against any cruelty resulting from exporting of live animals stringent enough; and, secondly, are they being properly applied. These questions are kept under review by my right honourable friend, and he will look very carefully into what your Lordships have said. As I said at the beginning, Her Majesty's Government would like to see the live trade replaced by the carcase trade. They do not feel that compulsion is the right answer. Your Lordships may well wish

1201
to prohibit the live trade, but I think it only fair to point out that this would not necessarily mean an increase in the carcase trade. This, of course, may not be a good enough reason for your Lordships, if you feel that the live trade should be prohibited, to stop it; but I think one should realise that there is no reason to assume that the people who buy abroad would not buy their beasts from elsewhere and still slaughter them.
In the mood of your Lordships' House, it would clearly be wrong for me to ask you not to give this Bill a Second Reading, or to ask you to divide against it. Obviously your Lordships would like it to have a Committee stage. My advice is that it will be very difficult to amend this Bill on Committee so as to carry out the intentions of my noble friend Lord Somers. We shall obviously have a look at it later, but I think we want to be very careful indeed, before actually passing the Bill, to ensure that we are not leaving the position worse than it was before. Having said that, my Lords, I will not ask your Lordships to divide.
5.52 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am sorry to have to say that I am about as unsatisfied with both the replies that I have received from my noble friend as I have been with any that I have heard. I should like to make it quite plain that I am not directing that remark at him personally. I know perfectly well what the position is of a Minister on the Front Bench he has to read from his brief and he has to adopt the policy of his superior Minister in another place. Therefore I am not blaming my noble friend at all. The trouble is, of course, that when one lives and works in a Government Department one does not come very closely in contact with real life. The result is that it only too often leads to complacency and complete indifference, and I am afraid that this is one of those occasions.
My noble friend said that the cases that have been quoted were probably just rare exceptions. I should like to read something from each of them. The R. S. P. C. A. report about the journey to Putte ended up by saying:
"The owner of the slaughterhouse arrived about 10 a.m. and we had a short discussion with him about the killing methods, which I told him would not be satisfactory from the British point of view. He seemed to think that there was nothing amiss with his methods."
1202
That does not seem to imply that it was just one individual case. Again, the article which described the visit of the Welsh farmers to another Belgian abattoir, ends with a paragraph which says:
"The most disquieting thing was that nobody seemed to feel there was anything wrong. Members of the public wandered around as they bought cheap meat from the wholesalers. but all seemed unconcerned about the animals' welfare."
It seems to me obvious, if one is willing to open one's eyes—of course I realise that some people are not—that these things are a commonplace on the Continent. We always knew that the Continental attitude towards animals was different from ours, and why should it have changed? So far as the assurances are concerned and any undertaking to obtain future promises, if they signed the assurances and then paid no attention to them, are they any more likely to do so after they have given us a further promise? I should say definitely "No", there is no likelihood of it whatsoever. Before I end I must thank all noble Lords who have supported this Bill and who have spoken to extremely convincingly. I should like, in addition, to disappoint my noble friend Lord Denham in his hope that I would not press this Bill, because I certainly will.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

AIR FARES
5.57 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether they are aware of increasing consumer discontent at the lack of progress made on the problem of cheaper air fares and the legitimate availability of these direct to the public; whether they are prepared to grant further dispensation to State airlines making such facilities available through arrangements with the countries concerned thereby minimising work for airline officials and confusion to the travelling public; and whether they will now state, or publish, the principle behind the policy which they would like to see adopted. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the last time I spoke in this House I took only 12 minutes. but I am afraid that to-night that I shall not be quite so

1203
brief. I did inform Lord Drumalbyn's office this morning that practically all the points I should be dealing with would be points that I have covered in Questions over the past year, so that I hoped he would be able to answer them. There is one exception—and I shall come to that later—of which I did give him specific notice. I should like to say now that have considerable (if I may dare say it), affection and esteem for the noble Lord. hut I think that he has been guilty of stonewalling over these past 11 months, and to-night I am hoping to send him down some fast halls that will get past his guard. and perhaps we shall get some sort of an answer.
My Lords, on February 18, about nine months ago, I raised this problem by means of an Unstarred Question, and I have had to return to it again. I have had to return to it for the very simple reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on November 9, at column 233 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
"the situation remains obscure."
This, I should have thought, was the understatement of the year. My first complaint against this Government is that they have done little or nothing to dispel this obscurity. My Questions, troublesome though they may have been, have been put down with two purposes: one, to elicit information; two, to stress that people should he treated fairly.
My second complaint is that the Government—and I think it must be done deliberately—refuse to acknowledge why I am pursuing this matter, and continue to state the obvious. Perhaps we might look at this point. This Unstarred Question to-day ends with the request that the Government
"… will now state, or publish, the principle behind the policy which they would like to see adopted."
This was a supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lord Beswick during my oral questions on November 9 last. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, replied to my noble friend Lord Beswick (and sent me a copy) with his usual courtesy and detail. It got us exactly nowhere. I quote:
"The United Kingdom airlines have the Government's full support in seeking lower fares."
1204
Perhaps I was unfair in saying that we had got exactly nowhere. This fact has at last been dragged out; it took a very long time. The letter went on:
"However there is no point in reducing a fare or introducing new types of low fares for a particular category of passenger if the loss of revenue is not more than offset by an increase in traffic."
That, I should have thought, was stating the obvious. I should not really have thought it was worth the space that it took up. The letter went on to state:
"The aim must be to achieve the lowest possible levels of fares commensurate with viable operations and, as you know, airlines generally are going through a difficult time."
That, I would suggest, is equally obvious.
I do not know about your Lordships, but this type of letter reduces me almost to despair. For some 12 months now, I have been trying to explain to the Government that air revenue on scheduled airlines has fallen because of overcapacity, high fares and charter competition. Every Member of your Lordships' House must have wearied of this constant repetition. Equally, for the same 12 months, I have been trying to suggest to the Government ways in which this financial position might be improved. They might have been good suggestions; they might have been poor ones. But I was at least trying to suggest a remedy. In fact, someone on the Government Benches once said to me afterwards, "I don't think they've got a clue. Don't they realise you are trying to fill their empty seats?" Of course it is no use having lower fares if there is no increase in traffic. That is obvious to everyone. I thought this was the main reason for the success of charter flights. But the Government merely say that there will be no increase. How do they know without its being tried? The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, shakes his head. He does not know what is coming.
That brings roe to my third complaint: of statements being made without corroboration. Indeed, on February 18 last, at column 803 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, told US:
"The demand for scheduled services is relatively inelastic. It is growing, although obviously more slowly than for non-scheduled. There is little indication that it is being eroded by charter services and inclusive tours on most routes, or that a reduction in fares on scheduled

1205
services would result in a commensurate increase in their use."
My noble friend Lord Beswick replied that
"… the noble Lord has just touched on the core of the matter. What it boils down to is this: should not we create extra traffic OT promote extra traffic if we experimented with the idea of reducing a little for all rather than a lot for the few? Can the noble Lord say oil what he bases his last statement that there is no indication that a reduction in fares would help scheduled services?"
The reply from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn (col.803), was:
"I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord the basis for it. May I write to him about that?"
I am not in favour of government by correspondence, and it was clear from the embarrassment of the noble Lord that he had no basis, either in his head or in his papers. I think he should not have allowed the argument to be used without checking the basic facts. On this side of the House we have not been able to check whether an actual reply was sent to my noble friend Lord Beswick; we cannot find one. I think that is a small point, because the noble Lord is always most courteous. But my real complaint is that a statement was used by a Minis ter without facts to support it, and that I think—
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, is not the noble Baroness going a little far about that? She has said that a statement was made without facts. But these were entirely matters of judgment. They were not matters of fact; they were matters of judgment, and not only the judgment of this country, but the judgment of other countries as well.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, the noble Lord will not get away with that. I am glad that this is not Question Time and that we have a little more time to deal with these matters. The noble Lord stated as a definite fact (I have the copy of Hansard here, and I am sure he can get hold of one before he comes to reply) that a reduction in fares on scheduled services would not result in a commensurate increase in their use. My noble friend Lord Beswick asked him for the basis for that statement and, having said that he does not have a basis, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is not
1206
going to get away with saying that it is a general fact. It just will not do. It is woolly and it is not factual.
My fourth complaint about this Government is that they are always quibbling; and we have just had an example of it. I should much prefer the noble Lord to say, "I am sorry, but I have not got the facts and I should have had them". The Government eternally quibble. They have quibbled for twelve months with me over this matter, and I have become tired of it. On the eliciting of information, which the Leader of the House rightly reminded us recently (I think it was only last week) was the real purpose of Question Time, progress is minimal. This goes on week after week, month after month. The direct answer is always evaded until we come to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, earlier this week and I shall come back to that.
On November 9 last I asked the Government (col.234):
"whether, in view of the dispensation to run charter flights at low prices and both advertise and sell tickets direct to the public granted by them on an experimental basis to B. O. A. C. and British Caledonian for flights to Malaya and Singapore, they will consider granting a similar dispensation to B. E. A. for an experimental flight in Europe."
For the moment, my Lords, let us leave the request concerning B. E. A. and deal with the facts stated. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, replied that:
"… the exemptions granted to the charter subsidiaries of B. O. A. C. and British Caledonian relate to charter services where it is the charterer rather than the airline which advertises and sells the tickets."
Will the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when he comes to reply this evening, say specifically, without qualifications, whether I am right in saying that B. O. A. C. and British Caledonian have been given exemption to normal licensing rules for flights to Malaya and Singapore; that this means they can run flights on a charter basis at a low price and both advertise and sell tickets direct to the public? Normally charter flights cannot be advertised, and no tickets are officially available to non-group members. I wish that Hansard could print that last sentence-and-a-half in red type to bring it home to the Minister; and I should be glad to know, when he comes to reply whether what I have said is correct.

1207
When, on the same day, November 9 (col.235), we moved on to hoped-for new charter rules, I asked the noble Lord whether he meant,
"that these tickets would be available to the public direct, and that it would not be necessary to be a member of some affinity group or to be on an actual … flight."
The answer I received, I am sorry to say, was what one would expect: that
"… it is precisely because of the difficulty arising from the affinity groups that we are seeking some other method of dealing with this matter. So far as affinity groups are concerned, it is Her Majesty's Government's intention … to apply the rules strictly".
My Lords, there was not one word on what I had asked: Would the tickets be available to the public direct? And so we go on: we get nowhere. A Minister is able to do this at Question Time, but it does not enhance reputations.
My Lords, let us look briefly at the manner in which the Government, to quote Lord Drumalbyn, are applying the rules strictly. An incident happened at Gatwick Airport on October 22 when an affinity group flight by Donaldson International was waiting to take off to New York. Department of Trade and Industry officers made a spot check of passengers to see whether they were eligible. Some were not, and were not carried on the flight. But the full check had not been completed when the aircraft took off. The managing director of Donaldson International said that five interviewing officers arrived an hour before take-off time. Departure was delayed for one hour 56 minutes. The managing director then authorised takeoff because, he said, the officers had interviewed only 45 of the 189 passengers, and on that basis the take-off would have been delayed for eight or nine hours. There were also 189 passengers in New York who would similarly have been delayed. I have taken that account from The Times. There is an even better written one in the Guardian of yesterday; perhaps the noble Lord's Department would care to read it. It is called, "Anarchy in the sky", and it contains a lot of information.
My Lords, as to affinity groups or charter flights—call them what you will —again I would say what everybody realises, that the evasions here are bringing the law into contempt. We know
1208
of course, that inspectors from the Department of Trade and Industry descend on some would-be travellers, find they are not members of the affinity group concerned and the flight is called off. That was so on the night of the 22nd. Have the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and his Department any realisation that this is the tip of the iceberg? Do they read the papers to find out what is going on, if they do not know from other sources? I have a particular reason for asking that question. Only last Tuesday I asked the Government:
"… whether they are aware of an undesirable feature of the concealed group air fares now developing by which touts buy the cheap tickets and resell these within the time limit; and what figures have been obtained from sources other than the airlines, of the percentage of the I. A. T. A. affinity group tickets that are being sold or resold to non-members of the nominal groups, with similar figures for B. O. A. C. Earlybird tickets."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT,23/11/71, col. S99.]
If I may paraphrase columns 899 and 900, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told us that the Government were aware that there had been some abuse of the existing arrangements for affinity group charter flights, and that the Minister for Trade and Industry would be making a Statement in another place on the subject in the near future. We then learned that the Statement was not likely to be repeated in this House. Seeing that most of the work on this matter over the past 12 months had been done in this House, this seemed unfair— and I think that is a very calm remark. That opinion was shared by many noble Lords. As a matter of fact, I thought it both mean and a breach of Parliamentary etiquette. Thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and obviously in conjunction with the Government Chief Whip, the matter was dealt with. A Question for Written Answer was placed on our Order Paper in my name on Tuesday night, and a similar one in another place. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I think that the other one got lost, but I am not bothered about that. If they have been fortunate enough to get a copy noble Lords will see the suggested Statement in the form of a Written Answer at column 1140 in our Hansard to-day. I should like to express my appreciation to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers.

1209
The Question was:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking in view of the increasing abuse of the regulations governing affinity group charter flights".
The reply is long, and needs studying. Perhaps I may quote just part of two paragraphs concerning the abuse:
"… provision has been made in Section 26 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 for the licensing of air travel organisers, and arrangements for this will be introduced as soon as possible after the Civil Aviation Authority comes into operation next spring.
"… the Air Transport Licensing Board have now decided to add a condition to these licences to be issued for 1972 under which the airlines will be required to submit,3 months in advance, particulars of all the groups they propose to carry between points more than 2,250 miles apart. The Air Transport Licensing Board will then ask the airlines to apply for specific licences in respect of any groups about whose qualifications the Board are in doubt so that any such case may be fully examined. The carriage of such a group under an E licence would be regarded by the Board grounds for considering revocation of that licence".
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would the noble Baroness forgive me?
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Yes, of course.
LORD DRUMALBYN: There is just a possibility that the House may have misunderstood what the noble Baroness said. She missed out a sentence there which makes it clear that there is a transition between what happens after the Civil Aviation Act comes into force and the intervening period with which the second part of what she read out deals. It is the intervening period to which the second part relates.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would explain that later. It was not left out with any evil intent, and I should be very interested to hear what he has to say about it at the end of the debate. Presumably none of this can operate until next spring. Could the Minister be a little more precise? From which month in the spring do we hope that this will operate? Originally I wrote "spring is elastic", but I thought that might be a joke which was not intended. So I would ask the Minister if he could possibly say which month in the spring he thinks it might come into effect. But the reply, of course, does not cover the Question I
1210
asked on Tuesday. Presumably that sort of thing will still go on. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, told me at column 900 that the Government had no figures to illustrate the extent of the abuse about which I was asking. My Lords, I think the Government should have such figures. No wonder the racket flourishes! I am quite serious about this, and perhaps the noble Lord would look at the Question. I thought it was disgraceful that the Government had no figures. If we look on the back page of The Times on most days—I have here to-day's edition, and it is not selected; your Lordships can look any day and see this; I have done, and doubtless other noble Lords have, too, as well as in other papers— we see offers or blatant advertisements of cheap jet flights to practically anywhere. Perhaps the Department of Trade and Industry would have a look at them, and then they will get some figures. May I make it clear that I am not criticising the papers for carrying these offers: it is the system which is at fault, and I blame the Government for permitting it to be brought into disrepute.
On October 27 last two examples came my way. Obviously, I shall keep them completely anonymous. The first of these two examples related to someone currently unemployed who wanted to send his 15-year-old daughter cheaply to a Swiss friend for a holiday. The B. E. A. f'are was ELIO. He was offered an Air-India P. I. A., IATA ticket for £ 18 (via The Times back page). The second example that I would give the noble Lord is that someone working in Rome tells me that Air-India, P. I. A. and El Al are selling IATA Rome-London tickets at a 30 per cent. discount although they are marked with the proper fare of £ 41. I have here a Natal newspaper article, and I will give it to the Minister afterwards. To say the least it is disturbing. I hope that the details will be looked into. The opening paragraph says:
"Cut-price jet-setters are flying between Europe and South Africa on scheduled IATA flights in high season for less than the lowest off-season excursion rates—through highly organised ticket pirates ' in London who are thought to be running a racket in cut-rate air tickets."
I am stressing this to the noble Lord. I know that he does not have the answer-to this, but I hope that he will look at

1211
it. In the paper are examples and details of tickets such as the following. I emphasise the figures, for I should not like the noble Lord to miss them. In the paper are examples and details of tickets as the following: a B. O. A. C. ticket from Nairobi to Johannesburg for £ 35 although the fare quoted on the ticket was £ 67.45. This is the usual in-season rate. The ticket was transferable to any IATA airline and any country in Africa within a certain distance and valid for one year.
When the Minister is studying these details after this debate, I wonder whether he will look at the following point. I believe I am correct in saying that the TATA clearing house makes inter-airline monthly settlements using clearing values considerably below the face values and based on a periodical statistical calculation of the average ticket value. This avoids the often complex work of calculating the individual ticket values to which each airline is entitled—though it all arises from the nonsensical comlexity and high proportion of discounted tickets to which I have already referred to-night and on many other occasions. I should like to ask the Minister this question. Could it be that some of the IATA airlines have started to sell tickets at the clearing house values? Perhaps these clearing house values should become the simplified lower standard fare. Perhaps IATA could investigate. Perhaps the Government, through our own State airlines could demand that they do so. Surely we need not wait until next spring for this aspect of the matter to be cleared up!
I come now to my fifth complaint—and noble Lords will be glad to hear that it is the last complaint and will be followed by my conclusion. My fifth complaint is of the inability of the Government to see when something is complete nonsense. On October 12 last (at column 307 of the OFFICIAL REPORT) the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, confirmed to me that the total number of derivative fares on trans-Atlantic scheduled services exceeded 50. How stupid can we get? I do not think that there is a single Member of your Lordships' House who would not say that this is a complete nonsense. Never mind the poor
1212
consumer and his confusion, just think of the work involved and the numbers of staff required by each airline! Is it really any wonder that they are in the red?
Last week, on November 16, I asked what progress had been made with my suggestion of a month previously that consideration should be given to the possibility of having an experimental period during which a simple cut-price ticket would replace all other special holiday tickets, thereby minimising confusion to the public and work for the staff concerned. The Minister did say that this radical suggestion had been drawn to the attention of the three United Kingdom members of IATA. I hope that they, and the Government, can stand the fresh air. We are all glad that the IATA Conference has at last got somewhere on cheap fares across the Atlantic.
Then in The Times of November 20 —and this is the specific point on which I gave the Minister notice this morning —there was a column article by Arthur Reed, the air correspondent, under the heading:
"Big fares cuts agreed by airlines."
I was very happy about that. I hope that I am not unduly suspicious; but paragraphs are not usually in newspapers for no reason. That is why I rang the noble Lord's office this morning. We go on reading happily through this article and discover that people who are going to get cheap bookings to America will not have to book in advance. Then we come to something to which I want to draw the noble Lord's attention. We come to a paragraph which says:
"Under the agreement passengers will be able to take up the cheap fares by paying for tickets on the day of travel."
I thought that this was most extraordinary. It may be that it is not extraordinary, but it started a train of thought in my mind. I hope that it is wrong; and I am sure that the noble Lord hopes that I am wrong; but I do want to know more about it. We read on, and towards the end of the column find that it has been decided to:
"reduce normal economy fares in the winter from £ 180 to about £ 165."
My Lords, if you get a fare to New York in the winter for £ 83 there is one condition: that you must stay at the destination for between 22 and 45 days. What interests me is this. What does a

1213
passenger who pays £ 165 get for precisely double the fare? From the headline to this article the traveller assumes that he will be able to purchase a return ticket to New York for £ 83. I want to ask the noble Lord this question: can he do so? I know the answer, but I repeat: can he do so? And will the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, tell us this? Is it intended that the traveller can choose his date within the winter period, book his flight, get his ticket and pay then and there? Or can he pay only on the day of travel? And if so, why?
My Lords, this Government have been prepared to condone the breaking of the law so far as charter and affinity group flights are concerned: after pressure for 12 months they are now going to deal with part of the problem next spring. They still seem prepared to condone a system which permits touts to buy cheap group tickets and to sell them within the time limit—and the Government even have no figures indicating the extent of this abuse—and they are prepared to allow the allocation of substantial seating accommodation on scheduled flights to charter or other groups. The one thing that they are not prepared to do is to ensure that the ordinary travelling public gets a fair deal. Apparently they see no reason why any financial concessions should be made to them. But then, of course—and I say this with regret to the noble Lord—this Government have never understood the essential consumer problem. I am asked time and again by the ordinary traveller, in your Lordships' House, outside and at work, who wish to go by air, "Why cannot I get one of these cheaper tickets? Why are they not available to me direct?"
My Lords, to sum up. One: I believe that revenues on scheduled airlines have been falling because of over-capacity, high fares and charter competition. Two: I believe that these airlines have been short-sighted and unfair to their ordinary travellers. Three: I believe that a reduction in fares on scheduled flights would bring in more customers and increase revenue. Four: I believe it to be grossly unfair that up to 50 per cent. —it may be more in some cases—of capacity on some scheduled flights should be reserved for charter passengers with
1214
others paying full fare. I ask the Minister to recommend that anyone should be able to buy cheap fares direct, with no strings attached, instead of doing so through advertisements in the papers; and I ask for this to be given a trial before being condemned. We, the air-travelling public, want action, and we want it now. Many of us plan our next year's holiday during the coming four or six weeks, and we see no reason why cheap individual tickets for holidays in Europe should not be available to us through B. E. A. without advance bookings of some 90 days or three months.
Is the Minister—are the Government —going to help the ordinary traveller now; or are they going to shelter behind the announcement of action in the spring which will clean up some of the charter flight abuses but do nothing at all for the rest of us? My Lords, even this Government, even considering the way in which they have procrastinated on this issue, cannot believe that making things better on charter flights will increase the revenue of the scheduled airlines.
6.32 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, on her persistence and, if I may say so, her courage in pursuing this vexed problem. In her Question the words "increasing consumer discontent" and" legitimate availability" I think want a little more looking into. I imagine that "consumer" in this context means the general public and not that section of the public that wants to travel by air. I also wonder how she determines this "increasing discontent". Is it by Gallup Poll; talking to the airlines and their agents; talking to individual people; by letters to the editor or what? I should think that if "consumer" refers to the general public, perhaps "discontent" is not quite the right word.
Of course, my Lords, there can be no question that all of us would like cheaper and cheaper air fares. I think it would not be too much to say that if we could, we should like to get to the position where ultimately we should all travel free by air, boat, train, bus and even by taxi; but that Utopian situation is for the moment not even remotely on the horizon of practicability. I think it is a question of degree and general development. We

1215
may note with considerable satisfaction the efforts made recently, and which are continuing to be made, by the airline business itself to promote cheaper fares, with B. O. A. C. and B. E. A. well in the lead. This is encouraging and it has already resulted, as the noble Baroness has said, in agreements for cheaper fares on the regular services across the Atlantic. Of course, these are freely and readily available to all members of the general public. Discussions are to take place in Geneva next month to seek to extend the move for cheaper fares on the scheduled services in other parts of the world.
Recently there has been a rapid growth of a very large market, often holiday makers and their families; people who are prepared to forgo the many facilities offered by the regular scheduled services operating to a timetable published twice a year, in favour of going by charter flights, as affinity groups, special clubs inclusive tours and so on, and these flights are operated by the sponsor when he has a full load or a near full load. The reason for this is that it is much cheaper. The demand has resulted in the emergence of quite a few air operating companies who do not fly to a timetable, and this involves a wide range of tickets and of validities which, as the noble Baroness has rightly said, means complex booking arrangements, a lot of staff and a great deal of work.
It may be useful to make a short comparison between the regular time-tabled service operator and the charter operator. The scheduled service operator is obligated to provide an immense array of services to many destinations, and often he stops off at places on the way. These services are operated to a timetable for, in many cases,365 days in the year. They are flown irrespective of whether the planes are full or empty. There are special fare concessions, such as for travel at off-peak periods, weekends, et cetera. These are on continuous offer to the whole gamut of the travelling public. The cost is enormous, both in its equipment and also in its performance. All the international fares and rates are subject to agreement between the operator and his reciprocal competitor, and they are also subject to the agreement of the Governments involved. Hence
1216
IATA and its invaluable clearing house. There are stalwarts who would like to do away with IATA to-morrow and, presumably, they would be happy to live with the ensuing chaos. It is useful to note that in the charter business, should an aeroplane become unserviceable, or if a flight is delayed for any reason at all, there is no ready alternative for the passenger. Whereas with the scheduled operator, if that happens, the passenger is put on the next flight to his destination and there are generally very many flights.
Charter operators are not subject to a timetable or to giving reciprocal agreements with their opposite numbers —if they have any— and they fly only when the aircraft is full or reasonably full. They do not stop off at intervening places with the ensuing expenses of landing and handling fees, and consequently their expenses and costs are lower and they are able to offer lower fares. But, of course, they are subject, or should be, to very strict regulations. Here I think we can note that last night an Answer was given to a Written Question that these regulations are to be stepped up very considerably. It is well known in your Lordships' House that in this business of special fares, especially the group fares across the Atlantic, there has been a considerable amount of "fiddling", if your Lordships will excuse the phrase.
Why is it that these charter operators are saddled with these restrictions? Because if they were not, they could then move in to operate alongside the scheduled operators: not necessarily operating to a timetable, but going to the same destinations and charging very low fares and flying only when they had a rood load. That must lead to the eroding of the traffic of the regular scheduled operators, and surely the result would be that these operators would have to cut their fares to compete with the charier man, who would then cut his fares again. So it could go on until, in the long run, both parties would go bankrupt, unless the Government were prepared to step in with higher subsidies. Translated that would mean that the Government would be subsidising cheap fares for the few, to be paid for by the general taxpayer. I hardly think that the noble Baroness would like to see that situation come about—or would she?

1217
Of course we should all like to enjoy cheap travel. I think that there is room for both scheduled and charter companies, and I suggest that the pursuit of lower fares should be left to the industry itself to sort out, given Exchequer help and encouragement and even pressure to do so. Possibly this problem will loom large on the agenda of the new Civil Aviation Authority, probably seeking Government approval at a later date. However, I strongly deplore any move to encourage the Government to seek to put their finger in the management of the civil air business. Finally, may I remind your Lordships of a saying current some time ago in the industry, which might have a certain validity to-day: the cheapest is not necessarily the most reliable.
6.42 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, in the traditional phrase, I would apologise for detaining your Lordships at this late hour, but I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, on her persistence. I could not help thinking that in some respects she was a little unfair to my noble friend. Many of her strictures against what in fact is the outcome of the structure of IATA could have been addressed to almost any Administration for the last 22 years and no doubt in future she will pursue this question, if ever there is another change in the Administration. The noble Baroness has shown a remarkable knowledge of the intricacies of the fare structure, which I cannot pretend to have. It is such a desperately complicated matter nowadays that it is difficult for the ordinary layman who is a traveller to rely even on the advice he gets from an airline about which is the right and cheapest way to travel. I have had some experience of this, having recently returned from America and received contradictory information from two officials of B. O. A. C.
May I say, with respect, to the noble Earl that it is not easy for the layman to follow the intricacies of IATA. So far as I am concerned (if I may put it with slight exaggeration) I have always looked on IATA as being a conspiracy against the consumer—and an international conspiracy at that! My heart bleeds for the scheduled airlines. I always travel by them myself, but I can
1218
not help feeling that the pace of change in IATA has been forced by these wicked charter companies. Every single argument that the noble Earl adduced, I have heard myself in another place. Perhaps my noble friend will remember that these arguments were used when it was mooted that we must build the third Queen" because we had to have a scheduled service across the Atlantic to match the scheduled services of other nations. The "Queens" have all gone from that service now. No doubt there were similar arguments about scheduled services on mail coaches; these have gone, too. Again we heard this argument a few years ago on retail price maintenance, and that has gone. I cannot help feeling that this is always the argument in defending an entrenched, privileged monopoly or cartel. The fact that it is international, that it is run by and for the benefit of international airlines, makes it none the less a good old-fashioned restrictive cartel. The sooner this is realised the better.
I accept that we must have a clearing house. We had to have this for the railways and it has always been necessary. But when we come to the present size and intricacies of the regulations the airlines have to pursue, I think that but for the piracy of the charter companies we should not have made anything like the progress we have made in the matter of cheaper fares. More power to the pirates' arms! They have been allowed to get away with their nefarious cheaper prices for too long. The independent traveller is always being heavily penalised compared with what I may call the herd traveller. I myself returned only this Tuesday morning from the United States of America. The plane was less than half full. There was one club of bird-watchers from Boston; I know they were paying less than I. What I felt about it is this. If we all had to pay a little less, there would have been more people in the plane—and possibly I would have been deprived of the advantage of having three seats to stretch myself over during the course of the night.
Some of the improvements that are advertised are totally illusive. The much publicized "Early Bird" service of B. O. A. C. is really a snare and delusion. One has to book four months in advance and to pay four months in advance.

1219
B. O. A. C. have the use of your money for four months, and if you wish a single variation, even of a day, in your travelling, you are not allowed to do this without forfeiting the advantage. I wanted to change the day of my trip in January on an "Early Bird" flight but I was not allowed to do so. Judging from my experience, the result of the continued restrictions is that at certain seasons of the year the scheduled planes are empty, or at best half full. I realise that there must be variations in fares, on a seasonal basis, on a class basis and on a peak-time basis, but they should not be nearly so complex as they are to-day. I never can follow why airlines must have this complex structure, and why they need to have 56—or is it 62?— different fares for crossing the Atlantic.
The different airlines always shelter behind their Governments and their policies. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend on behalf of Her Majesty's Government will accede to the request to publish for the benefit of the public a White Paper giving their views on the need for cheaper fares and on the complexity of the existing structure. I urge Her Majesty's Government to go behind the backs of the airlines (if I may put it in that way) and to convene a conference of the major nations interested in the coordination of fare policies. I end as I began, by saying that I still think IATA is an international restrictive cartel, and that I cannot believe that its policies can really meet with the approval of a Government whose Prime Minister was instrumental in abolishing retail price maintenance.
4.49 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, has saved us a lot of time, because he said very much what I wanted to say and said it very well, so I need not repeat it. It is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry when she is in full battle array. It is quite an exciting experience. I congratulate her on having put her case, not perhaps with extreme moderation, but with extreme clarity. I am particularly happy to support her in this campaign, because in the old days, when I had the support of the resources of the Consumer
1220
Council behind me, we felt strongly that this was a matter which affected consumers, and we did a good deal of work on the subject. Not having those resources, I have to rely now on my common sense, not unlaced with indignation. The truth is, as the noble Lord who has just spoken has hinted, that capitalist and liberal theories of trade do not really mix. It has long been accepted as a defence against the worst abuses of monopoly capitalism that fixing prices in order to make more money is not acceptable and amounts to an agreement in restraint of trade. Proper competition clearly demands control, and however much monopoly or near-monopoly capitalism may defend cartels and price rings, we had thought, as the noble Lord has just said, that on this question at least the Government would be tied to their commitments to the virtues of competition.
What I want to see and what I demand as a consumer is that the seller of goods or the provider of services should not be forcibly prevented from lowering his price to me if he wants to do so. One of the objects of competition, to which noble Lords opposite pay such obsequious lip service but which they seldom lift a finger to enforce, is exactly this: to persuade sellers to reduce their prices. Yet the whole system which IATA has set up is designed to do the exact opposite. It is designed to preserve the scheduled service, used chiefly by people on business, at the expense of the charter flight used chiefly by people on holiday. Well, I suppose it is arguable that work is more important than play, though many psychiatrists would not agree. Possibly some kind of a case could be made out for keeping skeleton scheduled services running; but none at all can be made out for keeping them running half empty.
The notorious Provision 1, of which there has been some modification, the idiotic affinity rules, of which there has been virtually no modification—how much longer must we put up with such absurd and offensive rules? Only this week, as the noble Baroness was telling us, we read that an airline which bears my name—but alas! it is no relation, so I must disclaim any interest—was extremely badly treated by inspectors, and the next day we read from the Minister that he is going to tighten up and make

1221
it more difficult for enterprising consumers to get low prices. He said:
"Bogus charter groups breed like rabbits."
That is very offensive to people like me, who are prepared to join any charter group under any terms to get a cheap fare. He went on:
"We are going to try to limit the more flagrant among them."
This is really emotional language, not at all applicable to enterprising people trying to stand on their own feet and look after themselves in the difficulties of life by helping the airlines to fill their seats. There are of course some technical and international difficulties in getting rid of this set of idiotic restrictions right away: I do not pretend that you can just contract out. But the fact is, as the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, has said, the Government are saddled with this through their vicarious membership of IATA and they cannot just laugh it off.
My noble friend has asked the Government to state the principle behind the policy that they would like to see adopted. May I tell them what their principle should be? It should be free competition between all operators and the right to quote different rates for different services, different machines, different destinations, different dinners, even different air hostesses; the right of the air service to fill a plane by lowering the price; the right for the public to form a group to charter a plane without having to tell a lot of lies; and meanwhile the whole industry to be, as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, told us it is and as I believe it to be, subject to the most rigid safety precautions. If my noble friend can extract from the Minister who is to reply something along these lines she will not have wasted our time.
6.55 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have stood at this Box many times and batted to the bowling of the noble Baroness. She has on this occasion decided that it is not enough to have an over at a time and has launched towards me a continuous stream of balls of all kinds—wides, no-balls, and all the rest; some of them rather outside the Question that she has put down on the Order Paper to-day. I do not complain about this; and I do not complain about the fact that the noble Baroness does not
1222
really fully understand the circumstances in which the airlines operate. I only wish that, if she will not listen to me, she would listen to the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, who has considerable experience in this matter. What I shall try to do to-night, so far as possible, is to answer her questions (one or two of them, as the noble Baroness recognised, I cannot answer; but on those I can say straight away that everything she has said will be fully considered), and either we can have a talk about it, or I can write to her. She may think that this is not a very appropriate way of dealing with this subject, but I have begun to despair of being able to persuade her across the Floor of the House what it is all about. It really is extremely difficult.
The noble Baroness summed up what she had to say in a few sentences. She said that the airline revenues are falling. So far as B. E. A. and B. O. A. C. are concerned, that is not so. True, their profitability is falling. She said that the airlines are short-sighted. The airlines, as the noble Baroness very well knows, have been trying for a long time to do exactly what she wants them to do; namely, to get cheaper fares. She complains that the last time I said that the situation was obscure. Now that the situation is revealed, the noble Baroness still seems to think that the situation is obscure, although she herself quoted from the article in The Times, which revealed it it with fair clarity—and I shall come later in my speech to the point that she made.
As to the question of the use of capacity, here again I think I ought to try to give the noble Baroness a reasoned statement of the Government's point of view, in the hope that she may come to understand what it is all about. The Government are well aware of the growing demand in this country and elsewhere for cheap air travel to be made available on the widest possible basis, and we are doing what we can to see that this demand is catered for. But as the noble Baroness knows well, this is a most complex question. There are many aspects to the problem. So far as international flights are concerned, Governments have little scope for acting unilaterally. I feel that the noble Baroness merited the very gentle reproach that my noble friend Lord Reigate gave her, because she tried to treat this to-day as if it were a political

1223
matter, suggesting that this was something particularly that the Government have been doing. She knows perfectly well that in the world as a whole the airlines either are or represent Governments, with the exception of the United States of America; and she knows that Governments generally, whether representing large countries or small countries, demand reciprocity.
The noble Baroness knows that some countries may have great difficulty in making their airlines pay. She knows that if everything were freed completely, then all these nationalised bodies, in competition with each other, would lose money, and it would be the taxpayer who would pay. Some would lose more than others. But unlike what happens in competition as a whole, those countries who were losing money heavily would he less able to get out of their commitments. They would continue to fulfil their commitments for national and prestige reasons and their losses might well be very heavy indeed. By continuing the competition if everything were left free, then in the circumstances of this trade being carried on by nationalised industries I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Reigate that there would be a very big difference and that the losses could be very severe indeed. The competition would still continue. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in his place because I have heard him make exactly this point.
I think perhaps the nub of the complaint of the noble Baroness is not so much that the low fares are not available—because they are—but that they are very often only available on a basis which she would regard as discriminatory. She quoted the example of up to 50 per cent. of capacity being reserved for charter passengers on a scheduled service. I am not aware that any fixed capacity is available. There may be times of the year in which 50 per cent. is available, but this is a commercial matter for the airlines to fix for themselves. To obtain a low-priced ticket one has to travel at certain times, on certain days, or one has to stay not more or not less than a certain period, or one has to be a student or to join a club. As we are only too well aware, another way of getting cheap
1224
air travel is to break the rules. The noble Baroness asks what statistics we have about the breaking of the rules. Well, if we were in a position to detect each instance of a rule being broken we could provide the statistics—
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I have been sitting under a complete travesty of a reply, which bears no relation at all to what I said. I have never suggested that things should be free and neither have I asked for instances when rules were broken. I will try not to interrupt again, but the noble Lord really must stop putting up his own Aunt Sallies and knocking them down.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not knocking down my own Aunt Sallies. I am at the moment gently cutting her long hops to the boundary.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: You cannot cut long hops.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Baroness—I made a note of what she said—pressed me very hard and criticised me very hard for not being able to tell her exactly the extent of the abuses. All I am pointing out is that in the Written Answer which she was given yesterday, my noble friend Lord Ferrers said:
"This country has not been alone in finding it difficult to police these rules by traditional methods. None the less, the widespread abuse that has taken place this year cannot be allowed to continue and the Government are determined to bring the situation under control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,24/11/71; col.1140.]
That was the start of the Answer given to the noble Baroness. This is an important issue and one which is central to the whole question of air fares and the rules governing eligibility for those air fares.
I think it may be helpful if I make the Government's position clear from the start; that is, that we should not regard discrimination in all cases as being a bad thing. Some forms of discrimination are objectionable, but others are not; and I am sure that in practice the noble Baroness accepts this. So far as I am aware, she has not complained of the fact that children generally travel at half fare, which is the most obvious example of discrimination. Price discrimination

1225
is in fact a valuable tool which may be used to keep average prices to a level lower than they would otherwise be. Whether one thinks of cheap tickets for off-peak flights or cheap prices for off-peak electricity, the principle is the same —by spreading the traffic or by spreading consumption the peaks of demand can be evened out and the costs of providing for the peaks are diminished.
There is another aspect in which a difference in air fares seems to be fully justified: that is where the costs of producing a product—in this case a flight —are different. In this case a charter flight with a 90 per cent. load factor and high-density seating is cheaper to produce, as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, said, than a scheduled flight with a low load factor and more generous density. It is also cheaper to provide for passengers who are prepared to book well in advance and to be flexible about their flight than for those who want to be able to book at shorter notice and be sure of their flight. This is the principle of the "Early Bird" or "Apex" fares which are already applied on services to the Caribbean, where we have not the same handicaps about having to negotiate with other countries; and quite a lot has been heard about those in recent weeks. I think most people would accept that this is entirely—
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt for a moment? I quite accept that there should be arrangements for booking well in advance. I cannot accept that there should not necessarily be some reduction if you book in advance, and for a family; but he talked about flexibility. There is no flexibility. You fix the date and you have to stick to it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not quite certain what point my noble friend is making. If you book far in advance then you have to stick to the date, and that is the quid pro quo for the lower price. If you want to have full flexibility then you pay the full scheduled fare. On the other hand, I accept that some forms of discrimination are open to objection. That is where the discrimination is arbitrary in character and distinguishes between one section of the population and another in such a way as to deny some people reasonable access to
1226
opportunities for cheap travel that are open to others. I think that some of the youth fares are open to this objection, and so are the affinity group rules. It is open to anybody to hook three months in advance or to travel by night if they consider it worth their while, but it is another matter to say that if you want cheap travel you must join a club whose purpose is something other than travel. I do not know what the noble Baroness thought about the Written Answer which she was given yesterday. She said it did not answer her Question, but at any rate it gave a clear indication of the thinking of my right honourable friend, because the Answer said this:
"In parallel with these measures the Department have been reviewing the regulations to see whether a new type of charter travel might be introduced that could be made available to the public at large without those features of the affinity group rules which arc objectionable in themselves or have been difficult to enforce. One possibility might he to adopt for charter flights the advance hooking concept which has already been made familiar by B. O. A. C. 's 'Early Bird' fares. On this basis, anybody would he able to obtain low-cost flights who booked a certain period in advance, without needing to join a group of any kind."— [Col.1141.]
This is what B. O. A. C. have been pressing for, and unfortunately this is not something which has come out of the negotiations.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord why he says "unfortunately"? I understood that what had come out of negotiations was a cheap flight without having to book three months or 90 days in advance. I should have thought that was a gain.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we think that in order to get greater flexibility it is a good thing for the airlines to know where they stand. They can know better where they stand if they have bookings. This is also of benefit to the customer, who is then able to get a flight at a much cheaper rate. The noble Baroness asked me specifically to comment on what Mr. Keith Granville is reported in The Times of November 20 to have said about obtaining cheap fares by paying for tickets on the day of travel. If I interpret his remarks correctly, he was saying that neither booking nor payment would be necessary until the day of travel. Most people like to make sure of

1227
their travel arrangements by booking ahead, and they generally like to make sure of their seats by paying in advance, whether direct to the airline or through agents. There are advantages in paying in advance, because I imagine that if two people present themselves for the last seat on an aeroplane the airline tends to give preference to the person who has paid in advance for his seat. Mr. Keith Granville went on to explain that in order to be entitled to the cheapest fare, passengers would have to return not earlier than 22 days and not later than 45 days after the outward flight. If they wanted to return earlier then they would have to pay a supplement which would vary with the length of their stay. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has had an opportunity to study the tariff. She will see there that there are terms, for example, for a 12 to 21 day excursion, as well as for a 22 to 45 day excursion.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I interrupt? I am not being tiresome, but I am not at all clear about this matter, I did not know that it was Mr. Keith Granville—I quoted Mr. Arthur Reid, the Air Correspondent of The Times. Do I understand that the noble Lord told the House that if this suggestion is adopted at the next meeting to be held at Geneva I could ask for a fare of £ 83 return to New York so long as I stayed for 23 or 45 days, or whatever it is? If I wanted to go two months hence, still in the winter period, I could book my ticket then and I should know that I would go then. The result would he that probably the aeroplane would be full of people with the cheap tickets, and those who wanted to pay twice as much, £ 165, would not get in. Is there no advantage in paying £ 165, except that you need not stay for 22 to 45 days?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the whole point of scheduled services is that you —
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Will the Minister answer "Yes" or "No"?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, no, I will not answer "Yes" or "No" because I am trying to explain the matter to the noble Baroness. I hope she will
1228
treat me with the same courtesy of listening. The whole point of the scheduled services is to have regular services, and this will involve, quite obviously, a greater number of empty seats during the off-peak periods than during the peak periods. One of the off-peak periods is obviously the winter months. During these months these special terms are offered in order to help to fill up the seats. It may well be that there is a rush of people who want to avail themselves of these cheap fares, and it may be that 100 per cent. of them on a particular flight are all cheap fares. If so there are other flights available, possibly at practically the same time. This is the way that the services from different countries working together operate. I cannot see any objection to this. The real trouble is that the noble Baroness cannot get it out of her head that we in this country should operate a service completely at our own discretion, and that that service should be entirely self-contained. That is not realistic. If the noble Baroness could only adjust her thinking to the realities of the situation, we should be more likely to talk the same language and understand each other.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Would he also try to understand that it is just conceivable that there would be fewer empty seats to be filled up by these various gimmicks if the ordinary fare were a little cheaper?
LORD DRUNIALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord will understand very well that at a time when costs are rising very quickly it is not easy to reduce the price of the ordinary fares. The ordinary fares in these negotiations have not been increased. I am informed that in constant money terms the airlines' average yield per passenger kilometre increased by a little under 10 per cent. during the period 1961 to 1969. The cost of living index for Europe for the period from 1960 to 1967 showed a 34 per cent. increase. Taking these together it shows that in real terms the cost of air services has come down.
I was going to say that it is very much with these thoughts in mind that my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade has been pursuing the possibility

1229
of introducing a new type of charter facility, such as was referred to in the Answer my noble friend gave to the noble Baroness yesterday. As was then indicated, it is too soon to go into the details about this; we must await the progress of further international discussions. But in broad terms the concept is clear enough; what is in mind is to apply the "Early Bird" concept to charter flights, so that anybody who is prepared to make a firm booking and pay a deposit long enough in advance will have the same opportunity to fly as cheaply as the club member now has.
I can tell the noble Baroness that this is not our thinking alone; the thinking in North America is running along much the same lines, although not exactly the same lines. The European countries are prepared to consider both sets of proposals, and consultations are taking place on this and other ideas.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, this is the last time that I will interrupt, but I am in a state of complete obscurity. Can the noble Lord explain why, with the cheap fares across the Atlantic which it is hoped will be agreed, there is no booking such as there is on "Early Bird" fares, three months in advance? Why should there be a booking three months in advance on the system that the noble Lord is hoping will come about when there is not one across the Atlantic? He has just said that you can book a ticket. Why not do it on the others?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Baroness is well aware that there are separate sections for the negotiations on air fares. I. A. T. A. is at present having meetings about the section dealing with the North American fares. Next week it will be getting on to the consideration of the European fares. What I have been doing—because I thought it was what I was asked to do—is putting forward from our point of view the thinking of the airlines on this matter. I am saying that this is what we should like to see. We have accepted the arrangement on the Atlantic fares in order to reach agreement, but it does not follow that exactly the same will apply to every section of the world. I hope that answers the question of the noble Baroness.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the affinity group point, which I am chiefly concerned with, I am grateful to hear that there is in Government thinking support for block booking with no "tags" by individuals, except on early bookings, which seems quite reasonable. I read the Minister's remarks in my speech to your Lordships when he said that chasing the people who were breaking these foolish rules, as if they were criminals, should be eased up. If you have very bad rules it is a great mistake to persecute people who are breaking them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, so long as we have rules I think we have to stick to them. Perhaps this brings me to the point the noble Baroness made on which she challenged me on the Far-East exemptions. As I told the noble Baroness in an Answer to her Question on November 9, exemptions granted to the subsidiaries of B. O. A. C. and B. C. A. L. relate to
"services where it is the charterer rather than the airline which advertises and sells the tickets."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,9/11/71; col.234.]
The charter subsidiaries of those airlines which operate the exempted flights do not and may not sell tickets direct to the public.
The noble Baroness also asked what we were doing to tighten up the enforcement —the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, thinks we ought not to tighten up the enforcement—by the Air Transport Licensing Board, and the noble Baroness asked when this would come into effect. As she will probably have observed, the proposal is that three months' notice should be given—this was in the Answer she was given—of the flights that it was intended to run; and this means, obviously, that you can only start from now. As from January 1 this system of three months' notice will come into operation, which means that she is right in judging that it is only after April 1 that this system can possibly become operative. If the noble Baroness could devise a means of avoiding this in the meantime, I should be very glad to know of it.
I would also add in this connection that, by making cheap travel available to every body in this way, we hope to take some

1231
of the profit out of breaking the rules, as one of the measures my right honourable friend mentioned for dealing with the back-street operators. I hardly need to reiterate the Government's determination to deal with these abuses in every effective way that we can, in the first instance in the direction of preventing them through still stricter licensing procedures. As the noble Baroness is aware, I am sure, there are blanket licences for charter flights. Where necessary licences may be required for individual flights, and where there is not compliance with the conditions of licence then the licence can be withdrawn, and this is of course aside from any possibility of prosecution.
Reverting now more closely to the terms of the noble Baroness's Question, I think I have answered her first point, at least to some extent, by showing that we are in fact making progress towards making cheaper air travel available legitimately to the public, and this is the outcome of the transatlantic fare structure. I have also touched to some extent on the principles behind our policy. I have not dealt at all with her middle point, which concerned the possible extension to other areas of the arrangements introduced earlier this year in respect of certain services to South-East Asia. The Government's position on those services has throughout been clear. They were temporary arrangements which were introduced to meet a specific and rather unusual situation, and it was never the Government's intention to regard them either as permanent or as suitable for general application. In due course they will be superseded by other and, I hope, better arrangements which might indeed take the form of advance booking charters that we have been discussing if these were adopted elsewhere. Certainly, when it comes to the parts of the world in which the noble Baroness is mainly interested, I would regard the advance bookings scheme as being in many ways a better alternative.
My Lords, as I told the noble Baroness, they were never intended as an experiment. They were not new forms of charter travel; they were the continuation of existing British services referred to in paragraph 21 of the Air Transport Licensing Board's Eleventh Report. They
1232
have no relevance at all to intra-European services, nor transatlantic services, and I hope that I have made clear to the noble Baroness what this was all about. If I have not, perhaps she will signify.
There are other aspects to these questions on which I should also touch, if only briefly. Progress in settling the fares on international scheduled services for 1972 has been difficult and slow. The main reason for this is, quite simply, that it is very difficult at this time for any of us to foresee how matters will develop and, therefore, what the best response will be to a rapidly changing market situation, let alone to get agreement about it. As I said before, we are not here dealing with facts; we are dealing with judgments. The disagreement between Lufthansa and the other airlines concerned with the North Atlantic routes was one in which both points of view were perfectly legitimate; and I am glad to see that they seem now to have been reconciled. It is a matter for regret on our part that the agreement reached in principle in Honolulu last week does not include provision for Apex fares, and also that the resulting fare structure is not likely to be any simpler than the existing structure. But it would I think be wrong to disapprove this hard-won agreement on this account. There will be other opportunities to look at these matters again in the light of experience. Meanwhile, in concert with other Governments concerned, we must, if we do not want to face a free-for-all, do all we can to preserve some semblance of order on these very important routes. That is why we are going to do our best to enforce the rules.
Discussions in IATA about other parts of the world will be continuing, and here again I hope that sensible agreements will be reached, even if they cannot be ideal. Sometimes when the noble Baroness is addressing me I think she must suppose that I am not only omniscient but deeply omnipotent, or speaking on behalf of a Minister who is deeply omnipotent, at least in the field of civil aviation and air fares. Certainly I am neither, as the noble Baroness should be well aware. In all these matters we have to work within the realities as best we can, and these realities include a large number of airlines who do not always agree with ours, and a large number of Governments who

1233
do not always agree with us, or at least not all at once. Progress in the direction the noble Baroness would like to see must necessarily be slower than either she or I would like. I can only counsel her not to despair, for we shall keep on trying.
My Lords, may I make one final observation in reply to the last leg of the noble Baroness's question?—and here I also reply to what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked me before. The Government's policy on air fares will be one element on the policy guidance which they are due to give to the Civil Aviation Authority under Section 3(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1971. This will require the affirmative vote of your Lordships' House as well as of another place. The Government will he bringing out a White Paper, setting out the guidance they propose, probably about February next year. That will give us a further opportunity for the agreeable kind of discussion that we, the noble Baroness and I, are accustomed to.

DEBATE ON RHODESIAN SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS
7.28 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Business Statement. After consultation through the usual channels, it has been agreed that we should debate the Rhodesian settlement on Wednesday and Thursday of next week, December 1 and 2. This has necessitated some alteration of business, which I should like to set out for your Lordships. First of all, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has kindly agreed to postpone her Motion on low income groups until Tuesday, December 7. Secondly, the Committee stage of the Museums and Galleries Bill will be postponed from Thursday, December 2, to Monday, December 6. Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has agreed to advance his Bill, subject to the approval of the House, to Monday, December 6. Fourthly, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has agreed to postpone her Unstarred Question on the chronically sick and disabled persons from Tuesday, December 7, to Wednesday. December 8. My noble friend Lord Sandford will, subject to the approval of the House, advance
1234
the Committee stage of the Field Monuments Bill from Thursday, December 2. to Tuesday, November 30. The Unstarred Question of my noble friend Lord Ferrier on roads round historic towns will now be taken on Thursday, December 2, instead of Wednesday December 1.
My Lords, I hope that these arrangements will be acceptable to your Lordships. Although there are not many of your Lordships in the Chamber at this moment, I hope that some may read these remarks, and might I make a plea that those who wish to speak on Rhodesia should record their names as soon as possible.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I express appreciation of the courtesy of the Government Chief Whip for giving this advance notice of these changes.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
First Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.