Lords Sitting of 17 February 1972

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

MOTOR CAR ROADWORTHINESS TESTS
LORD SEGAL: 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 the present regulations for the testing of old cars, and the issue of a certificate of roadworthiness, could be extended to every new car, prior to the issue of a registration certificate to the purchaser.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, such a requirement is not justified. The purpose of the test is to ensure that vehicles in use are maintained to at least the minimum standard necessary to ensure compliance with the regulations in respect of the items subject to test. Control of the quality of new vehicles is the responsibility of the manufacturer and dealer.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply, so far as it goes. Is he aware that in a recent survey over 60 per cent. of new vehicles were on the roads with at least two major faults—some of them with faulty brakes and defective steering—and that the present state of affairs was described in The Times as "little short of appalling"?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I have heard about that report. I do not know how accurate it was, but I can perhaps reassure the noble Lord and the House that my right honourable friend is proposing to introduce a system of compulsory type approval, which would mean that each type of vehicle sold by manufacturers would have to conform to certain appropriate regulations. The
302
manufacturers would have to certify that each subsequential model sold conformed in detail to the type approved.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the magazine Which there were several complaints alleged against motor salesmen in connection with these faults? The Motor Manufacturers' Association are as much concerned as anyone in this contion. Could not the Minister consider whether it would be feasible to appoint some sort of inspector to make spot checks at the manufacturers before the cars actually leave the place of production?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if my right honourable friend does introduce type approval (and I hope that it may be done by the end of the next Session) I think that will give the noble Lord all the security he needs. If a salesman sells something defective, the buyer of course has his own means of redress.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an assurance that the Government will insist on minimum standards for pre-delivery inspection on all new cars and thus remove a very real menace from the roads?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think that that is really another question. If the noble Lord will write to me, I will look at it.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it might be more helpful were the existing regulations extended and made more effective in so far as the older vehicle was concerned, rather than that we should concern ourselves about the condition of new vehicles?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend is well aware that the noble Lord and some members of the public have expressed disquiet over this matter, and he is at the moment undertaking a comprehensive review of the present car test.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I understand that Rolls-Royce owners are marching on Crewe—I presume suitably dressed in fur coats and top hats—to obtain spare parts for their vehicles?

WHYTELEAFE COUNTRY SCHOOL FOR GIRLS
3.10 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend that Surrey County Council shall continue to select pupils for admission to Whyteleafe County School for Girls, having regard to the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science not to approve that authority's proposal to cease to maintain that School as a separatist establishment within a scheme for comprehensive reorganisation of secondary education.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, the effect of my right honourable friend's decision is that the Whyteleafe County School for Girls remains a school which admits pupils by reference to their ability.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I find the Minister's reply quite evasive and I would ask him whether he is aware that the decision of the Secretary of State in disapproving the proposal of the Surrey County Council with regard to the future of this school is another case where she is denying the local education authority the greater freedom promised in Circular 10/70? Further, will he please answer my Question, whether they intend that the County Council shall admit pupils to this school by way of selection procedure?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, this is a proposal which was part of a package of proposals, 22 in number, of which my right honourable friend approved 21. Those proposals which were approved included proposals for three comprehensive schools in this area, at Warlingham, Caterham and Oxted. There is therefore no reason, unless parents so wish, why children should be subject to selection procedures. The noble Lord referred to greater freedom; and certainly the word "freer" was used in Circular 10/70; but I should have thought that a comparison
304
between Circular 10/70, my right honourable friend's circular, and Circular 10/66 would show the truth of this.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this decision with regard to the Whyteleafe School, which is a two-form entry grammar school, seriously affects the comprehensive schools of De Stafford and Warlingham by the use of highly qualified staff who would be more usefully employed in the other schools; that it will affect the position with regard to primary education in so far as the distribution of children for primary education is concerned, and that it will also affect the position of the middle school which is approved and for which there will now be no building? Does the noble Lord say that this is really the right sort of decision to take on behalf of a very small minority of the total number of children involved in this area?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, by way of comparison, the sizes of the three comprehensive schools are up to 1,200. Those are the proposals, and the noble Lord has himself given the size in terms of form entry of the Whyteleafe School, which comes to something in excess of 300; and of course there will be a sixth form, which I think at the moment has 98 girls. Those are the comparative sizes. As regards any further proposals from the authority, my right honourable friend is always ready to receive proposals from Surrey under Section 13 of the Act.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the effect of this action is to demote the comprehensive schools, and that there are no comparable facilities available for boys? This is especially something for a two-form entry grammar school, and the outlook for grammar school education in the whole area is virtually nil in the case of boys. Does the noble Lord consider that right?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the view of my right honourable friend was put in a letter to the Surrey County Council dated February 1, 1972. In answer to the noble Lord, the relevant part states that she has reached this decision after careful consideration of all the relevant facts, of the views expressed by local government electors (there

305
happen to be 7,000 objections to the closure of this particular school) and of the authority's observations on the objections received. She had regard to the desirability of preserving, wherever possible, existing opportunities open to parents and children—that is something which this Government think is important—and, in her view, the balance of educational advantage lies in enabling this school to continue to make its contribution to the provision available in the area. As regards the noble Lord's point about the site of a middle school, I have already referred to Section 13 of the Act and have said that my right honourable friend would be very ready to consider a proposal.
Lord GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister please to answer my original Question, which was whether the Government intend that the County Council shall select children for admission to this school? May I, by way of another supplementary, put to him that the closure of this school and its incorporation with De Stafford is an integral part of a scheme for comprehensive reorganisation? Will he also accept it from me?—
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I know that technically the noble Lord, Lord Garns-worthy, is casting his supplementaries in an interrogative form, but I think they are tending to become a little declamatory.
Lord GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the disapproval of the Section 13 notice for Whyteleafe, as my noble friend Lord Pargiter has indicated, has created a most serious situation within the area in that the buildings are urgently needed to complete Plowden reorganisation of primary eduction?
LORD BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords. That relates to the bulk of the proposals, 21 out of 22, which my right honourable friend approved.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that if there is anything worse than an obstinate doctrinaire man it is an obstinate doctrinaire woman?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, in a debate about three or four months ago I told your Lordships that my right honourable friend had received about 3,700 proposals for a change in character, or for the establishment or closure of schools, and that she had refused in 57 cases. I thought that was not very many, since in educational considerations the wise use of resources, local needs and local wishes are three criteria on which she feels she should base her decisions. What your Lordships may prefer to know is that those 3,700 proposals included 1,400 in respect of secondary schools, and of those my right honourable friend has refused only 35. I do not call that doctrinaire.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to answer the question which my noble friend has put to him on two occasions? Can the County Council, the local education authority, select children to send to this school?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, it is entirely up to the County Council. The arrangements for admissions to a voluntary school are entirely up to either the County Council or its mangers or governors.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether that reply indicates that it is the intention of the Government that the County Council shall continue to admit by way of selection?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, perhaps this ought to be the last word on this matter. The Government received a proposal under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944. Incidentally, part of that section was redrafted by the previous Government in 1968, specifically in relation to the changing character of schools. The initiative therefore always lies with the people who are making the proposal—the local education authority. All that the Government can do is to say either "Yes" or "No". If noble Lords really want legislation to sweep away that section, then they ought to tell the House so. They did not do it from 1965 to 1970.

STUDENT FUNDS AND DONATIONS TO I.R.A.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether money has been donated from student funds in the United Kingdom to the I.R.A.]
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, my right honourable friend is not responsible for the decisions or activities of individual student unions and would not normally be informed about them. I can neither confirm nor deny that any such donation has been made.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that my information is that student funds of Aston University, Birmingham, were used for that purpose; and, if this is so, would not my noble friend agree that the British ratepayers' funds should not be used to assist the enemies of the United Kingdom? Would he not also agree that some control of student funds, either by local government councils or by Her Majesty's Government, is therefore necessary?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I must apologise to my noble friend that I do not have detailed information concerning Aston University. I entirely agree with him that Her Majesty's Government should, as they do, deplore the donation of student union funds, if that occurs, to the I.R.A. or to any organisation which uses violence to achieve its ends. These funds are provided to enable students to take part in the social, cultual and corporate activities of their educational establishments, and not so that they may make grants to outside organisations. The answer to my noble friend's third supplementary question is that he may have noticed that the Government have published a Consultative Document which indeed is at the moment the subject of consultation by the interested parties.

PAKISTANIS' RIGHTS IN UNITED KINGDOM
3.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how the fact of Pakistan leaving the Commonwealth will affect the position of Pakistan citizens in the United Kingdom.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, citizens of Pakistan will remain Commonwealth citizens in our law until Section 1 of the British Nationality Act 1948 is amended.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I say that I agree—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I agree with the decision of Her Majesty's Government? It is the civilised decision, but it may not be strictly practical. May I further ask my noble friend what is the position of Pakistan nationals who now want to enter the United Kingdom? Are they Commonwealth citizens or are they aliens? What description applies to them?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am glad to know that the Government can count on the support of the noble Viscount in this matter. The position is unchanged until the British Nationality Act is amended. This is something which needs the most careful consideration.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is it not highly irresponsible for any person to stir up among the Pakistani community in this country anxieties as to their future right to remain here, and will the noble Lord deplore the statements which have been made by various people, including particularly Mr. Powell, on this subject?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it would not be right for me to comment

309
on statements made by right honourable and honourable Gentlemen who are Members of another place. The Home Secretary has said that the Government intend to review the position, and to do so in our own time. It is not something to be hurried; and we hope that perhaps the present decision of Pakistan to withdraw from the Commonwealth is not irreversible.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if action is to be taken against the Pakistanis, it would be equally logical to take action against the Southern Irish, which might lead to a very serious reduction in the membership of your Lordships' House?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the British Nationality Act 1948 distinguishes quite clearly between the Republic of Ireland and Commonwealth countries.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, would my noble friend say what the current position is with regard to the powers of the courts to recommend deportation, since the conditions are of course quite different and the matter arises under a different Act?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as I explained in my original Answer, the position of citizens of Pakistan in this country is not changed in any way, and will not be until the British Nationality Act 1948 is amended.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if there were a change in the position of Pakistanis in this country, he can tell me how many doctors would be affected?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we need to be clear about this. Even if citizens of Pakistan were to be treated as foreign nationals after legislative changes had been made, the continued stay of those who had been admitted for settlement would not be endangered in any way at all.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord for an assurance on the position
310
of students from Pakistan, both on Commonwealth grants and on grants from private education trusts? Would what he has just said in reply to my noble friend apply equally to them?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, under the Immigration Act I971, which your Lordships passed in the last Session, and the Immigration Rules which will be made under that Act when it comes fully into operation, students and visitors from Commonwealth countries will be in very much the same position as those admitted from non-Commonwealth countries. So there should not be any great difference in practice.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, following the withdrawal of South Africa from the Commonwealth, it was necessary to pass legislation to amend the Nationality Act on that occasion, and whether one can assume that, if Pakistan remains with its present decision not to continue as a member of the Commonwealth, legislation along similar lines will be necessary in this House?
LORD WINDLESHAM: That would be so, my Lords. Legislation did follow in the shape of the South Africa Act 1962. I think that those of your Lordships who were concerned with the legislation at the time will remember that it followed only after proper consideration had been given to the changes that were necessary.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he thinks that this continual series of questions about hypothetical events is not really rather obstructive?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it would be an unfortunate precedent if Ministers from this Box said which contributions they thought were obstructive or otherwise.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be making a Statement on electricity supplies at a convenient moment after 3.30.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE: SHORT WEDNESDAY DEBATES
3.27 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to make a Statement about the procedure to be followed for the short Wednesday debates which are to be tried on an experimental basis, starting with the two debates that are down for next Wednesday. As your Lordships will be aware, the Fifth Report of the Procedure Committee, which is down on the Order Paper for consideration next Tuesday, contains in Item 3 certain recommendations on the subject of these debates; but as there is not much time left before we begin this experiment, I thought it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to make a Statement to-day to explain, in rather greater detail than is entered into in the Procedure Committee Report, the produres which have been worked out to cover this new kind of debate. This will give these noble Lords who are not in the House to-day but who nevertheless receive Hansard by post adequate opportunity to read this Statement before next Wednesday.
My Lords, we are now embarking on an experiment in short debates, limited in time to two and a half hours each, on one Wednesday a month, to be reserved for Back-Benchers, the principle of which the House has already approved. It did so on December 16 last. The experiment involves some procedural features of which the House has had no previous experience, such as the imposition of a time limit, and I think it would be agreed that in these circumstances we should make as few rules as possible and leave it to the good sense of the House to make the experiment work. The Procedure Committee considered this matter in some detail, but found themselves unable to cover the whole ground, and left the completion of their work to the usual channels. The Statement which I am now making is the result of further consideration through those usual channels.
I will deal first with the ballot. It is proposed that the ballot for the debates should be held three weeks ahead of each day set aside for them. That is to say, for the debates on March 29, April
312
26 and May 24, the ballot will be held on March 8, March 29 and May 3, respectively. In each case the ballot will be for those Motions actually printed in Part II of "No Day Named" on the day on which the ballot is taken. It is assumed that unless a Lord has informed the Clerk of the Parliaments to the contrary, each Lord who has placed a Motion on the Order Paper for the next ballot will be willing to accept the next available Wednesday if he is successful in the ballot. Nevertheless, in order to provide for the unforeseen contingency such as illness or accidents, the Clerk of the Parliaments will draw, and keep in reserve, two other Motions in addition to the two successful ones.
So far as the text of Motions is concerned, the proposal is that a Lord should have reasonable discretion to alter its terms, once it is on the Order Paper, but not to make fundamental changes in its subject matter. Here I would add a word about the nature of the Motions which are suitable to be debated under the conditions that we are proposing. It is hoped that these Motions will not take the form of Resolutions on which the House is called upon to come to a conclusion if necessary by a Division. It seems to me most undesirable and contrary to all the traditions of the House that the House should be asked to divide in a limited-time debate in which not necessarily all those who wish to speak may have had the chance of doing so. I hope, therefore, that these short Wednesday debates will be regarded as vehicles for discussing subjects in a fairly impartial way and not as a means of reaching a conclusion on a question.
As for the proceedings in the House, the intention is that two and a half hours exactly shall be allowed for each debate, and if there are interruptions, for example for a Government Statement, the time taken up by such interruptions should be regarded as "injury time" and added on at the end. As this may leave the House in some doubt as to when precisely a particular debate is due to end, in such circumstances it is intended to announce from the Government Front Bench immediately after such an interruption has taken place the revised time at which the debate will end.
I hope the House will be willing to establish a convention whereby about

313
twenty minutes before the end of each debate whoever may be speaking will give way to the Minister so that the House may hear the Government reply. I must make it clear that there is no obligation upon anybody to try to fill the whole of the two and a half hours allowed, if less time would suffice. This means that the mover of the Motion which is to be the subject of the second debate, must be in the House and ready to move his Motion whenever the first debate ends. On the other hand, if there is a long list of speakers for any Motion it is most desirable that the earlier speakers do not outrun the average time available and thus deprive the later speakers of a chance of participating in the debate.
I now come to the question of how best to bring the debate to an end if this should be necessary. I hope the House will agree that at the end of the two and a half hours the Clerk at the Table should rise and that this should be the signal for the Lord on the Woolsack to bring the debate to an end, first by inquiring of the mover of the Motion whether he wishes to withdraw his Motion, and then, if he does not, or if leave is withheld, by putting the Question forthwith. Everyone will then know where he is and there will be no chance of argument as to whether a particular Lord may or may not go on speaking.
In order to comply with the provisions of Standing Order 18 (which stipulates that the Lord Chancellor is not to do anything "as Mouth of the House, without the consent of the House first had …") it will be necessary to move a Motion (for the duration of the experiment and which I will place on the Order Paper for Tuesday next) to ensure that the Lord Chancellor (or Lord on the Woolsack) is acting with the full consent and approval of the House in bringing the debate to an end automatically upon the lapse of two and a half hours from its start.
3.34 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this is a lengthy and carefully drawn up Statement and we are all grateful to the noble Earl for having the consideration and forethought to put it on the Record before Tuesday. My own feeling is that it is a matter which instead of questioning now, we ought to consider
314
when we see it printed and leave questioning until Tuesday. However, perhaps I may be allowed to make three comments. First, this is essentially a Back-Benchers' affair: it is to enable more time for Back-Benchers; and if there are not always spokesmen from the Front Bench of the Opposition it will not be a reflection on the importance of the subject but simply a matter of leaving more time for the Back Benchers. Secondly, the noble Earl said that a convention should be encouraged of leaving 20 minutes to the Government spokesman at the end of the discussion. I think it ought to be stressed that this is a matter for agreement between the Government and the mover of the Motion and that there are occasions when, by agreement, I0 minutes would be considered adequate.
As the noble Earl knows, my enthusiasm for the whole experiment has never "passed the bounds of moderation"—those words were first stated by, I think, the late Lord Snell; they are not my own. So my third point is that the success of the experiment will depend on the way in which the House as a whole accepts the time limitations. Therefore, in studying this proposal I would call attention particularly to the intention that 2½ hours "exactly" shall be allowed for each debate. Once we allow something more than 2½ hours, once we forget the "exactly", then I think the procedure will get out of hand. Furthermore, the Statement says:
"… if there is a long list of speakers for any Motion it is most desirable that the earlier speakers do not outrun the average time available and thus deprive the later speakers of a chance of participating in the debate."
On that, I simply say that if these requirements are observed I can see that possibly the best thing that will come out of this experiment is a greater discipline in the timing of one's own speeches, both in these debates and on other occasions.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl for the Statement. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I have never regarded this proposal with any wild enthusiasm, but I think it is a very worthwhile experiment to make. Supposing your Lordships do observe these rather complicated suggestions—I am not going

315
to call them rules—then I think we should have a series of interesting debates. There is one question on which I was not entirely clear. Has the noble Lord who moves the Motion a right to reply, supposing that there is time, after the Government spokesman has finished his speech?
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I offer a suggestion on the conduct of this experiment: that in determining the order of speaking, some regard will be had to reputations for long-winded utterances?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I, as a Back-Bencher, ask a simple question? In the Order Paper under the heading "No Day Named" appear the subjects for proposed debate. Some of them have been there for a long time; and one such subject is "China". Am I entitled to poach on the preserves of my noble friend who has that subject down and put it down in my name in the ballot?
LORD SHEPHERD: No.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: If I approach him courteously, why not? I can try it. I should like a ruling on this point.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have commented. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for emphasising, I think rightly, that the Opposition Front Bench will not necessarily exercise their right to speak, either at the beginning or at the end of these debates. I think that that is most helpful. I am sure that the House will appreciate the forbearance shown. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, also commented on the length of the Government reply. This will be by agreement between the Mover and the Government spokesman and, obviously, if we can get a Government reply in seven minutes, so much the better. I welcome his enthusiasm about concluding at the exact hour. I am sure that this is desirable. It probably will mean that a noble Lord may have to cut short his speech in the middle of a sentence; but, frankly, that is just too bad.
The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, raised the question of the mover having a right
316
of reply. This again will really be by agreement with the Government spokesman. If the Government spokesman needs I5 minutes, then he will rise 20 minutes before the end of the debate to allow five minutes for the mover to reply. The list of speakers will be dealt with in the usual way; but the mover will be very much involved in this matter and I dare say he will bear in mind what the noble Lord. Lord Peddie, has said. With regard to Lord Davies of Leek's point about poaching, poaching is not a habit which we encourage in this House in any form. But the best poachers have always been known to be able to get agreement in certain circumstances.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords. does not the noble Earl agree that 20 minutes for the Government to reply seems a long time?—because 20 minutes is really enough when we have a long debate.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have said that the length of the reply will be by agreement between the mover and the Government spokesman. It depends entirely on the subject of the debate and the amount of information which is required to be given.

UNITED REFORMED CHURCH BILL [H.L.]
3.41 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HALLSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): The Question is, That the said Motion be agreed to. Those who are of opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". The "Contents" have it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am grateful for the permission which has been given for me to speak briefly on this Motion to express the deep appreciation—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I must apologise for having put

317
the Question, and I hope that the right reverend Prelate may make his speech. I had in fact taken the voices. I had no idea that the right reverend Prelate wanted to speak on the Motion, and I should point out that I had in fact declared that the "Contents" have it.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I apologise. I did ask the Chairman of Committees for permission and I thought it had been granted. Perhaps I may briefly express the appreciation of a large number of my own Church at the very successful culmination of the talks between the two great Churches. It is a highly significant moment, because it is, I think, the first time since the Reformation that two Churches of different traditions have united. It is true that two Churches in Scotland united and two Methodist Churches united, but they were Churches within the same tradition. This is a remarkable fact, and I am delighted that the Dean of Westminster has given permission for the Abbey to be used on the occasion of the great service which is to mark this union. I am sure we should all like to express the hope that this may stimulate other successful schemes of union.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his comments. I am also grateful to him for having given me notice of the fact that he intended to speak shortly on the Bill, and I must apologise to him for not having passed this information to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

UPPER AVON NAVIGATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:
Standing Order No. 40
Leave out Standing Order No. 40 and insert the following new Standing Order—
"Questions for Written Answer.
40. A Question to which an answer in writing is desired may be placed on the Order Paper under the heading 'For Written Answer'. The reply shall be printed in the Official Report; it may be given on any sitting day including that on which the Question is handed in."
Standing Order No. 78
At end, insert the following new proviso—
"Provided that on an occasion of grave national emergency the House may, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 33B, resolve without notice that it is essential for reasons of national security that a Bill (or Bills) should immediately be proceeded with and that the provisions of Standing Order No. 42 should be dispensed with to enable the House to proceed that day with every stage of a Bill (or Bills) which it thinks necessary: and if the Clerk shall have read Standing Orders Nos. 42 and 78 at the Table and the motion for the said resolution shall have been then agreed to, any such Bill may be passed through all its stages on that clay."
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
3.44 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Second Report from the Select Committee be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. ACCOMMODATION AND AMENITIES
The Committee have considered a memorandum by the Chairman of Committees on Accommodation and Amenities with, a recommendation from the Administration Committee that its contents should be reported by the Committee for the information of the House. The Committee consider that it would be useful to the House to summarise the present position regarding the provision of additional accommodation by new building and other steps which it is proposed to take to provide improved accommodation and amenities.
(1) New Building
There are two new building projects now in hand:—

(i) the State Officers' Court Scheme which is due to be completed by the end of the Summer Recess 1972;

319

(ii) the Peers' Dining Room Extension Scheme which is due to start in July, 1972 and to be completed by January, 1974.

The effect of these schemes will be as follows:—

(i) The State Officers' Court Scheme will provide new accommodation for the Law Lords, and the new Dining Room Scheme will absorb some, but not all, of the existing offices in the Law Lords' Corridor. The rearrangement of offices in consequence of these two schemes will lead to improvements in accommodation for Government and Opposition Front Bench Peers, Women Peers and Hansard. Some Interview or Dictation Rooms will also become available.

(ii) The Peers' Dining Room Extension Scheme will add one room to the Library (present Committee Room "C"), provide two Committee Rooms, increase the total accommodation in the Peers' Dining Room from 132 to 200 places and add a new Smoking Room, a T.V. Room and a Cinema Projection Room. Further details of the scheme and of the dislocation and disturbance which will arise while the work is in progress are given in paragraph (6) of the Report.

(2) Amenities
The following improvements which will be provided or are under investigation include improved Servery and wine storage for the Dining Room, a self-service Coffee Bar in the new Smoking Room, cinema projectors for the new Committee Rooms, T.V. Annunciators throughout the House, a Bath and Changing Room for Women Peers and the provision of facilities for tape recording in some Committee Rooms. A new automatic telephone system is in the course of installation. The Committee asked the Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department to consider—

(i) the provision of Cafeteria Service in addition to the self-service Coffee Bar to be provided in the new Smoking Room; and

(ii) the feasibility of providing a smaller Dining Room or Rooms for private parties.

The Committee have referred to the Sub-Committee on Works of Art the choice of furniture for the new offices to be provided as a result of the State Officers' Court Scheme.
(3) Further Building
There are two areas where additional building can be accomplished, based on existing structures:—

(i) an additional floor to the new State Officers' Court Building, which would yield 1.150 sq. ft;

(ii) a further floor above the Dining Room which would yield 3,300 sq. ft.

Neither of these projects could start until the Dining Room Extension Scheme is completed in January, 1974; but to allow further accommodation to come into use in 1975 the Committee have asked the Department of the Environment for sketch drawings with a view to later financial approval.
(4) Royal Gallery
Reference was made in paragraph 49 of the 10th Report of the Procedure Committee to possible use of the Royal Gallery, Queen's Robing Room and King's Room as suitable meeting places for Peers, M.P.s and guests and as Committee Rooms. The Committee confined its consideration to the proposal to use the Royal Gallery and to furnish it appropriately with armchairs, sofas and carpets. The Committee, while recognising that the Lord Great Chamberlain has control of the Royal Gallery on behalf of the Queen have referred the question for further consideration to the Administration Committee with a recommendation that the Lord Great Chamberlain should be invited to discuss with that Committee bearing in mind the importance of preserving the appearance and character of the Royal Gallery:—

(i) the practicability of the proposed new doorway;

(ii) the increased use of the Royal Gallery; and

(iii) if it is agreed that further use should be made of the Royal Gallery, the type of furniture to be provided.

(5) Conclusion
It is hoped that the new Smoking Room and T.V. Rooms, together with an additional room for the Library and an extra Committee Room, as well as the larger Dining Room and provision of the facilities mentioned above will improve present conditions and meet many of the existing inadequacies.
(6) Peers' Dining Room Extension—Effect of Proposed Works
The works necessary to complete the Peers' Dining Room Extension and construction over the Dining Room will lead inevitably to considerable disturbance and inconvenience from the Summer Recess 1972 until completion of the scheme in January, 1974, although every effort will be made to keep disturbance to a minimum. A notice will be circulated to all Peers nearer the time setting out arrangements in detail. Meanwhile the Committee wish to draw to the attention of the House the main areas in which disturbance will arise:—

(1) From August. 1972 until the latter part of October, 1973 a partition will be erected in front of the fireplace at the northern end of the Peer's Dining Room which will prohibit the use of the Law Lords' Table.

(2) During October, 1972 the Cholmondeley Room will be available for luncheon for Law Lords, Peers and Officers of the House and will be available for private parties only in the evening.

(3) From the beginning of the Summer Recess 1972 until April, 1973 the Law Lords Corridor will be sealed off to contain the dust, etc resulting from the extensive works being carried out to enlarge the Dining Room and to build on the floor above it. After April. 1973 until completion of the scheme in January, 1974 a narrow passage through the corridor should become available.

(4) Throughout the progress of the works the Committee Corridor will be to some extent affected.
2. PARLIAMENT OFFICE

(i) The Committee took note with approval of a proposal from the Leader of the House that he should appoint a small Group of Peers to report to him personally on the organisation and staffing of the Parliament Office.

(ii) The Committee authorised the appointment of an additional Personal Secretary and an additional Office Assistant for extra work in conection with Select Commitees.

3. EXPENSES OF SELECT COMMITTEES
The Committee approved a scale of fees and rates of subsistence and travelling expenses payable to specialist advisers, research assistants and witnesses.
4. ESTIMATES
The Committee were informed of the submission of a further Supplementary Estimate for 1971–72 and took note of a revised Estimate for 1972–73.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now agreed to. Perhaps I may say a few words about it. The main object of the Report is to provide the House with the information it required for the debate on accommodation and amenities. Your Lordships will remember that the House expressed the wish to have such a debate when it discussed the Tenth Report of the Procedure Committee last November and that the Offices Committee were asked at that time to provide the House with the necessary information.
I think it may be useful to your Lordships if I draw attention briefly to the passages in the Report which set out what is being done at the present time to improve our accommodation and facilities. These projected improvements proceed from the opinion that we all share that our present accommodation is inadequate because it has not caught up with the substantial increase in our numbers and our longer hours of work. The House will recall that the Working Group set up by the Leader of the House to deal mainly with procedure expressed its views about accommodation and facilities and mentioned a number of complaints and suggestions, which are referred to in the Tenth Report of the Procedure Committee.
I will try to indicate how the Offices Committee in their present Report have endeavoured to deal with the suggestions and complaints as noted by the Working
322
Group. Noble Lords will notice that Paragraph (1) of this Report deals with new building. There are two schemes now in hand: the State Officers' Court scheme, which is intended primarily for the benefit of the Law Lords and which will be completed this year, and the Peers' Dining Room extension scheme, which will increase accommodation in the Dining Room from 132 to 200 places when it is finished at the end of next year. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department, may tell the House something more about the plans of his Committee, and I shall leave that aspect of this Report for him to deal with. The new accommodation that will be provided by these two building schemes will go some way, I hope, to meet the complaints mentioned by the Working Group, and I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to go through them in the order in which they are set out in the Working Group's Report.
The first complaint was about lack of accommodation for private meetings. To meet this difficulty four to six interview rooms will be provided in the Law Lords' Corridor, when the Law Lords have moved into their new offices, and these rooms can of course be used for either interviews or dictation. The second complaint was the lack of a smoking room similar to the Smoking Room of which many noble Lords have had long experience in another place. It is proposed that the Dining Room extention will provide on the first floor above the Dining Room a smoking room to some extent equivalent to the Smoking Room in another place. There will be a self-service coffee bar, and the Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department have been asked to consider the possibility of providing cafeteria services as well.
The third complaint was of a lack of committee rooms where Peers can hold meetings. Here, again, the Dining Room extension will help to meet this need by providing two committee rooms on the first floor. There will be a movable partition between them, so that they can be turned into one large room for showing films or be used for very large meetings, and projectors will be provided for the films. The fourth complaint was that there is no place other than bars to which Peers can take their friends. I

323
must confess that the new accommodation in these two building schemes to which I have referred will not have sufficient space for such guest rooms; but they could be provided for in the further building, mentioned in paragraph (3) of the Report, which would give two additional floors.
I will now turn for a few moments to Paragraph (2) of the Report which deals with amenities. Here I can perhaps amplify a little what has been said in the Report by saying that the provision of television annunciators has been approved in principle by the Offices Committee, subject to cost. The bath and changing room for women Peers at the end of the West Gallery will be completed this year and the new automatic telephone system, also mentioned in this paragraph, will be installed by the end of the Summer Recess. The House will notice that the end of paragraph (3) to which I have already referred indicates the possibility of further building which, if required, could be started in 1975 and would maintain the momentum of the building programme already in hand.
In order to meet the lacq of accommodation to which they have drawn the attention of the House, the Working Group went on to suggest that consideration should be given to a better use of the Royal Gallery, the Queen's Robing Room and the King's Room. The Offices Committee has noted that the King's Room is now used as the office of the Lord Great Chamberlain, who gave up his ground, floor office as a robing room for the Bishops, and that the Queen's Robing Room which, in its present condition, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, is one of the most beautiful rooms in the Palace, is a valued part of the public line of route. The Offices Committee therefore confined its consideration, as set out in paragraph 1(4) of the Report, to the proposal to use the Royal Gallery as a meeting place for Peers and their guests. The vital factor in this proposal is the provision of some alternative means of access to entry to the Royal Gallery through the Prince's Chamber, which should also be in keeping with the appearance and character of the Royal Gallery. The Offices Committee has asked the Administration Sub-Committee to discuss this
324
proposal with the Lord Great Chamberlain, who of course has responsibility for the Gallery, and the House will be informed in due course when the matter has been fully considered by the two Committees.
The two new building schemes will inevitably cause some disturbance and inconvenience, I am afraid, and these disagreeable consequences are set out in some detail in Paragraph (6) of the Report. But of course this inconvenience will be merely temporary. I hope your Lordships will agree that the Offices Committee is fully aware of the defects of our present accommodation and that it has been doing its best, within the limits set by money and by the existing structure and character of the Palace, to improve the conditions under which we live and work. I am sure the House will wish to acknowledge its indebtedness to successive Governments—both the present Government and their predecessors—for their willingness to finance a costly building programme which will give us the largest addition to our accommodation since the war, and will also wish to express its gratitude to the Officers of the House, particularly Black Rod, and also to the Department of the Environment, for their assistance in the planning and carrying out of the necessary work. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Report be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

COAL STRIKE: ELECTRICITY RESTRICTIONS
3.55 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I hope it will be for the convenience of noble Lords if I now repeat a Statement which has been made on restrictions on electricity by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"No major change has taken place in the rate of deterioration in the overall energy supply pattern I outlined to the House on Monday night. Stocks of coal, lighting up fuel and necessary chemicals available to the C.E.G.B. have diminished as anticipated, with

325
denial of available and necessary supplies still continuing as a result of unwillingness of other union members to cross picket lines. Load met yesterday was 23,500 megawatts. The combined effects of the statutory restrictions, the rota disconnections and the public response to the appeal for economy has been to reduce the consumption of coal at power stations by about 35 per cent. This is good but the effort must be intensified. I urge all concerned to do so.
"I must plan on the assumption of no early relief in the situation, much as I hope it will occur. I will therefore be giving directions for further restrictions in consumption to take effect on Wednesday of next week: details will he made available as soon as possible after the completion of consultations presently in hand. They will affect industrial, commercial and domestic users.
"Assuming no relief in the situation, these restrictions will allow supply to be maintained throughout next week at the still further reduced level, before reaching the point where we will be down to non-coal generated capacity—equal to 20–25 per cent. of normal load—and sufficient only to meet the essential services of the country, with cirtually nothing available for other users, domestic or industrial. If essential materials currently denied to the C.E.G.B. were made available, then the time by which this basic, essential services only ' level would be reached would be extended by seven to ten days.
"If there were resumption of work early next week in the coal mines, I would expect the new restricted level of consumption to need to be maintained for a comparatively short time, after which there would be a progressive easement of the situation though, as I have previously said, restriction of supply is likely to be required for several weeks after the coal mines are back in production. I will continue to keep the House informed of developments."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are most grateful to the noble Lord for
326
repeating this Statement. I must first say that I appreciate the first sentence in the second paragraph of the Statement which says:
"I must plan on the assumption of no early relief in the situation, much as I hope it will occur."
If only this degree of prudence had been shown about three weeks or so ago, how much better placed we should have been to meet the present emergency! On the effect of the difficulties so far, may I ask what are the latest figures of workers laid off, as of to-day, and what is the anticipated number if the further cuts have to be made next week? May I also ask the noble Lord what arrangements have been made to distribute priority supplies to old-age pensioners and other needy persons? Is the noble Lord aware that the miners themselves have gone to immense trouble, voluntarily and on their own initiative, in the coalfields to arrange for supplies of coal to many old-age pensioners? I wonder what the Government themselves have done in this regard. Also may I ask the noble Lord, since he told us last time that there had been consultations with industry as long ago as last autumn, what consultations his right honourable friend has had with the National Union of Mineworkers, especially on this question of the distribution of priority supplies? Has his right honourable friend had any contact at all with the N.U.M.; and, if not, s this not one of the most extraordinary features of this whole unsatisfactory business?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for repeating that Statement, may I ask him whether he does not think that it might have been suitable for the Government to make some apology to the consumers who are now suffering hardship and discomfort as a result of the Government's failure td plan ahead td meet this present situation? With regard to the additional restrictions to be imposed from next Wednesday, can the noble Lord give some idea of what these will be? Do they imply longer disconnections, particularly for domestic consumers; and with whom are the Government consulting with regard to the effect on the domestic market in particular? May I finally ask him what is meant by "a comparatively short time" where the Statement refers to the restricted level of consumption being continued after the strike has

327
been brought to an end, if a solution follows the Wilberforce Inquiry Report? What does "a comparatively short time" mean—is it a week, or a month?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, whenever steps had been taken to make preparations we should have had to have the same restrictions as we have now. I quite appreciate that the greater restrictions that may have to be imposed next week would perhaps have come later than they will at the present time in the course of restrictions. I fully explained in the debate the reason why the Government took the view that they did; they hoped that there would be agreement. I explained this quite fully and I do not think I need go over that again.
The noble Lord asked about the number of workers laid off. The estimate of the number laid off to-day is of the order of 1,400,000—about 6½ per cent. of employed people. Assuming that there is no worsening in the extent of the power cuts, indications so far received suggest that the numbers laid off could rise by a further two to three hundred thousand by the end of the week. If the cuts continue at the present rate it could be of the order of 2 million a day by the middle of next week. The noble Lord asked about the distribution of priority supplies. This has been left, as my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade said, for voluntary control. This has been dealt with very effectively. We are extremely grateful for the way it has been carried out by co-operation between the coal merchants and the National Union of Mineworkers' branches. I acknowledge that the branches of the National Union of Mineworkers have co-operated in almost all cases very well indeed in this matter.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has indicated a certain amount of disagreement, I would say that to have done otherwise, to have set up a formal form of rationing and priority grouping, would have meant very great difficulties indeed. It would have meant that all the stocks that were held by coal merchants would have had to be evaluated and distribution arranged in this way. This would have been an enormous bureaucratic initiative without any certainty
328
that supplies to meet the plans so made would be forthcoming. Therefore I hope your Lordships will accept that as this is working reasonably well—as well as could possibly be expected in the circumstances—the right decision was taken.
I was asked about consultation with industry and whether my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has had any consultation with the National Union of Mineworkers. The answer is, "No" because the system is working reasonably well. I was asked to repeat a further Statement. We all naturally regret the trouble that the community as a whole is suffering. I cannot accept that this was due to a failure to plan ahead. As to additional restrictions it is obviously quite impossible to say what those will be. I would remind the noble Lord that what the Statement said was:
"I must plan on the assumption of no early relief in the situation much as I hope it will occur".
Consultations are now taking place with a view to that planning with the appropriate bodies. I think I have answered all the questions. If not, I shall endeavour to do so.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, in view of the fact that hospitals have been warned by the Ministry that 24-hour cuts in electricity may occur, will my noble friend confirm that no cuts of this duration will be implemented without a Statement and 24 hours' notice?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I cannot guarantee that there will be 24 hours' notice, but I can tell my noble friend that such cuts are not imminent. This was a warning. If such cuts become necessary every effort will be made to give as much advance warning as possible. The Regional Hospital Boards concerned are being asked to pass this information on to the hospital management committees.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, do we not have to press the Government to protect the public interest more effectively than this? Instead of offering us regrets should we not ask them to start arranging imports of coal? There is coal all over the Continent but nobody is arranging to import it. If any employers' side I of any industry treated the economy of

329
a great country in this way would they not be accused of naked abuse of power?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I hope my noble friend will not expect me to answer that question. I do not think it would contribute in any way to an easement of the situation.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could make arrangements for the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, to see for himself, first hand, the spirit of the picket lines and then see whether he would repeat his question in the light of that knowledge? May I press the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on the point about consultation with the N.U.M.? He was good enough to say that there had been no consultation with them about the distribution of priority supplies because the system was working very satisfactorily. I was talking about the prior consultation on which the noble Lord made such a big point when we discussed this earlier in the week. He said on the actual Regulations that there had been consultation at all levels. Are we to understand that although there had been consultation at all levels so far back as last autumn in order to make preparations for an emergency, his right honourable friend had never even once seen any representative at all of the men who were primarily concerned with the whole business?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am a little surprised at that particular question. The noble Lord will be well aware from his experience in Government that there is a need always to maintain up to date the emergency powers provisions. These consultations were designed to do that. They were carried out at all levels—all appropriate levels—and these were at the official levels with the various officials of the organisations. I do not think it would have been appropriate to have carried them out with the National Union of Mineworkers which I think he is suggesting should have been done. Of course in all emergency procedures there are matters of confidentiality. The point I was answering was limited to the attack which was made upon me when it was suggested that certain organisations that one would expect to have been consulted were not consulted. It was to that that I addressed my observations that consultations had taken place at all levels.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the Government have a duty to govern, and when there is hardship to seek to mitigate it? The noble Lord has referred to the fact that working arrangements have been operating reasonably well. But these might well have been improved with the co-operation of the mineworkers if the Government had taken a lead and had consulted with them. Would the noble Lord accept that there would then have been a chance of an improvement? In view of the noble Lord's comments on a number of occasions about consultation, would he say when there was consultation with the C.B.I. prior to the announcement made by the Secretary of State on Friday last? When was that consultation with the C.B.I. on the powers and restrictions that the Government have imposed?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's first point. These were essentially matters of local organisation and they could best be arranged at local level. On the second question, as the noble Lord challenges me directly, I am informed that consultation took place in October with the C.B.I., at the same time as other consultations took place.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, am I to understand from the reply the noble Lord has given that the last consultation the Government had with the Confederation of British Industry, with all their responsibility for industry in this country, was in October, although the strike started in January and still continues in February? Is that what the noble Lord is saying?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is not what I said. What I said was that I am informed that consultations took place at that time. I have no further information about consultations.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, will the noble Lord then seek it, in view of the speech that he made on Tuesday? He then made a very strong case on behalf of the Government that they had had full consultation at all levels, yet at this moment of time he cannot answer even that question. I find it absolutely extraordinary.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I cannot for one moment accept that. I

331
was asked whether there had been consultations. I said that there had. I have now given the time when the consultations took place, and I think that that is an entirely satisfactory answer in the context of what I have already said regarding Emergency Powers.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what steps the Government are taking, or have in mind, to implement the recommendations of the Wilberforce Report? Are they in close touch with the National Union of Mineworkers and the Confederation of British Industry so that, if the Report is agreeable to the N.U.M., this disastrous strike may be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am quite certain that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is in constant touch, so far as touch is possible.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I apologise for delaying your Lordships, but I asked what was meant in the Statement by "a comparatively short time" at the new restricted level of consumption which is to be imposed from Wednesday next week. Assuming that there was an early resumption of work following the Wilberforce Committee's Report, as we all hope—perhaps early next week—how long does the noble Lord predict (not to the exact day, but roughly) we shall have to suffer these new reduced levels of consumption?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if we come to the new reduced levels of consumption, I am informed that it may be a matter of a week.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord ensure that the power stations are able to use their own coal, before the whole industry of this country comes to a stop?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Emergency Powers of course lay an obligation on Her Majesty's Government to take what steps they can to safeguard the life of the country; but, again, I cannot of course in any way go into detail as to how this should be done.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
4.13 p.m.
Consideration of Second Report resumed.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I add a word, on a slightly lower temperature, about the proposed extensions to your Lordships' Dining Room. The proposal is to add about 50 per cent. to the accommodation of the Dining Room by taking in the existing Law Lords' rooms on the Law Lords' Corridor which now abuts on the end of our Dining Room. This will form an L-shaped dining room at the North end of the Dining Room, and that in the future will become the Peers' Guests' Dining Room. That will give us accommodation for Peers' Guests amounting to about 112, compared with the existing number of about 70; in other words, an increase of 42. Peers dining singly will move across from our present room into what is now the Peers' Guests' Room, and that will give us an increase in accommodation from approximately 62, which we have at present, to 88 the other side; in other words, an additional 26. Our calculations show that this addition to the Peers' Guests' Dining Room should make it possible for Peers to book tables, and indeed obtain tables, for luncheon engagements without having a second sitting which is so inconvenient at the present time.
This Report, as noble Lords will have seen, gives (in paragraph 6 on page 4) some details of the timetable of these changes. This indicates that the work will start at the end of the summer. We shall then lose the end table in the single Peer's Dining Room—that is the Law Lords' table; a screen will be built across there when the work commences. The outside wall of the Law Lords' rooms has to be cantilevered out about 8 feet in order to widen that section sufficiently for the extension of the Dining Room, and the whole of that work with the building overhead will take some 12 to 18 months. We can then expect to have the completed, extended Dining Room available for our use by the autumn of next year—by the beginning of November.
The second point which we were asked to consider was the possibility of having one night a week when dinner would be

333
provided. This the Refreshment Department has not done as a formality. In fact, of course, over the summer months dinner was provided very much more often than on one night a week. Our practice, which seems to have worked out reasonably well in practice, has been to lay on dinner whenever it seemed that attendance here was going to be heavy enough to justify it, rather than make it a formality of a fixed night, when it might not be to the convenience of Peers to attend. May I, my Lords, in concluding my brief comment on these proposed additions, pay a short tribute to Black Rod and his officials, who have a tremendous amount of work to do with all these changes, and to the Architect of the Palace of Westminster, Mr. Pearce, who has gone to endless trouble to ensure that these additions are going to be substantially in the same character and decor as we now have, which we all value so much.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I rise only to express appreciation not only on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House but also I think on behalf of noble Lords from all quarters, of the introduction which the noble Earl, the Chairman of Committees, has given to the Report of the Offices Committee; and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, as Chairman of the Sub-Committee for the Refreshment Department. We are all very conscious of the great difficulties the Committee as a whole and the Sub-Committee are experiencing in meeting the increasing needs and demands of Members of this House, and of the limitations that clearly exist. It is extraordinary to realise the amount of work that is in progress, and when completed it will make a very considerable difference to the general running of our affairs and the amenity of Members.
I should like, with other noble Lords, to express our appreciation to Black Rod and to all his staff, and, if I may say so at this rather difficult time (I think also of the last Session, although we have paid our compliments in that connection), to Miss Wilson, the Manageress of the Refreshment Department, and to all those wonderful girls who run a bar just along the corridor and in other places. We are very much indebted to them, and I hope that we shall see this great work brought to fruition in a very short time.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, may I just tiptoe for a second into the discussion to say that I should very much like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just said? The House as a whole is very greatly indebted to all those who are helping to improve our accommodation and facilities, in the rather restricted Victorian context in which we find ourselves: to the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees; to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, the Chairman of the Refreshment Department Sub-Committee; to Black Rod and his staff; to Miss Wilson and Ann and the rest of them; and also, if I may say so, to the people who have actually been dealing with the alterations. They have carried out the work with a minimum of interference and with very great consideration for us.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I ask a question and make a short comment? First of all, I would add my own congratulations to the Committee for their helpful and valuable Report. I suppose it is too much to hope that a large notice which says "No Smoking" will be placed in a prominent position in the new Smoking Room.
NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD PLATT: In making this suggestion, my Lords, I realise that I am speaking now for more than a half of the adult population, who are non-smokers of cigarettes. Be that as it may, I appreciate the fact that a room called a Smoking Room has for many years—perhaps hundreds of years; I do not know—been a very valued amenity in another place. Nevertheless, at a time when our Department of Health and Social Security is urging more accommodation for non-smokers in public places, in railway trains and transport generally, and when our Health and Education Council has a non-smoking campaign as one of its first priorities, I would ask the Committee to endeavour to find some slightly different name. We have tried to follow the customs of another place when we thought they were good ones. I believe that to have a room of this kind is a good thing. I do not seriously hope that it will be labelled a "Non-Smoking" Room, but I wonder whether

335
we might be able to find a different name for it.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to make a protest against the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Platt. In my view, the smoking campaign has been carried to far too great lengths. To have a smoking room is an old historic tradition in this country and it should be sustained in this House. Those who like to smoke should be entitled to smoke themselves to death in this House if they wish to do so.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, as a non-smoker myself I will not take part in this argument between the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Boothby. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken for their very kind words, which will give considerable encouragement to the Offices Committee, to all its sub-committees and to all the staff of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPERANNUATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CIVIL LIST BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

DISEASES OF ANIMALS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
4.24 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I am happy to see that the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, is in his place. He was kind enough to write to me and say that there was some doubt whether he would be able to come, but I am happy to see that he is here, particularly because I want to comment on some things about which he wrote to me. Your Lordships will remember that at Committee stage the noble Earl cast some doubt on whether the calves that the R.S.P.C.A. inspectors saw being slaughtered at Putte were really the British calves that they had seen at Zeebrugge, and he went further
336
in the letter that he wrote to me this month, saying:
"In a progress report sent to the Ministry before Mr. Brown published his report it was quite clearly stated that the slaughter of British calves was over by 8.30 a.m."
Perhaps the noble Earl will make it clear when he speaks, who made that statement and what foundation can be given for it. He also says:
"Incidentally I have confirmed with Mr. Michael Burrows that he was not the owner of the calves in question, either before or after slaughter."
Some interesting things have happened since the Committee stage, my Lords. I have been speaking over the telephone to Mr. Philip Brown, who is the deputy chief veterinary officer of the R.S.P.C.A. and who was one of the two R.S.P.C.A. officers who made this inspection at Zeebrugge. He wrote to me stating the case very clearly, and with your Lordships' permission I should like to quote at some length from his letter because it throws a good deal of light on this situation. He says:
"You asked me to elaborate on certain matters appertaining to the veal calves which we followed from Zeebrugge in Belgium to the slaughterhouse in Putte in October, 1970. You will appreciate that there was much detail which was not included in this report which we tried to keep as concise as possible.
"The owner of these calves was a Mr. Burrows."
I pause there, my Lords, just to say that when I asked him whether he could give any concise proof of that he said that he merely asked who the owner was and was told it was Mr. Burrows, which is a rather odd coincidence if Mr. Burrows was not in fact the owner.
The letter continues:
"He"—
that is to say, Mr. Burrows—
"was not present at Zeebrugge, but his partner or manager, Mr. Chubb, was there and we had a long talk with him. He told us that the calves would be slaughtered at Putte and the abattoir was a frightful place compared to English—"
British—
"standards. In fact he was glad to have us go to Putte for us to see for ourselves the conditions in which the cattle would be slaughtered, as he told us he was very unhappy about the situation there.
"About two miles short of Putte, on our way to the slaughterhouse, we saw the lorry driver returning from the abattoir and when we arrived at the place of slaughter, we asked to see the calves from England."

337
From England, my Lords—I emphasise that.
"These were readily shown to us by the foreman who explained that some of them had already been killed"—
"some" of them had already been killed—
"and the rest were awaiting slaughter. We examined both those dead and alive and identified them positively as those we had seen in Zeebrugge the night before. The calf with the blind eye, mentioned in the report, had not yet been killed."
My Lords, I do not think I need go any further with that letter, but it seems to prove beyond doubt that the British calves had not been killed when Mr. Brown and his partner arrived there. They were still being killed, and the method employed was as he described it.
I asked about Mr. Burrows. I asked whether Mr. Brown knew anything about Mr. Burrows, and I was informed that apparently he has been responsible for some large shipments of calves to the Canaries and is preparing one to Greece, neither country, of course, being a signatory of the Balfour assurances; but of course those can easily be got round, as I shall show in a moment, merely by stating that the animals are for further fattening. That is one of the things I want to complain of about the Balfour assurances. They are completely useless, even if they were observed, because no body has as yet defined what "further fattening" is; it may be only a matter of two or three days—who knows? You keep the calf for two or three days and you say it is being further fattened and then you slaughter it, perfectly legally, in the country in which it has arrived and by what methods you choose. Therefore, my Lords, the Balfour assurances are really worse than useless.
I have also a letter from my noble friend Lord Denham which he wrote to Mrs. Spooner, who is chairman of an animal society interested in this matter. I should like to quote one or two things from that letter. He said:
"I am sorry that you so totally discount the worth of the Balfour Assurances because as you will appreciate, these have been given by the Governments of the countries concerned to Her Majesty's Government, and we must assume that a Government would not enter into an agreement it was unable or unwilling to implement."
Well, one must assume that unfortunately it has been proved that the assurances
338
are not implemented. In any case, as I have pointed out, it is perfectly easy to evade them by merely keeping the stock for a matter of two days. Further on my noble friend says:
"As I said in the House, occasional lapses occur anywhere, not only abroad but also in this country, but I do not think that they should be taken as indicative of the general standard of treatment accorded to animals whether here or elsewhere."
My Lords, I must ask my noble friend to take off his Departmental dark glasses and to look facts in the face. This is not a matter of just one or two incidents, one or two failures to observe the assurances; they are happening everywhere. And the mere fact that the people of those countries take them completely for granted is surely a proof of that; there is no objection to it whatsoever. Incidentally, it would also be a very odd coincidence if the parties who had visited slaughterhouses abroad had happened purely by chance to arrive on those one or two occasions where they were not being observed. That, I am afraid, is an argument which just does not hold water. Therefore, I sincerely hope that my noble friend will not press that argument. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Somers.)
4.32 p.m.
THE EARL. OF SHANNON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Somers, for reading extracts from my letters. I wonder whether he would mind if I read an extract from his. He says:
"Was the English owner a certain Mr. Michael Burrows? I have had a suggestion (not from Mr. Brown) that it might be."
Yet he quoted Mr. Brown's report as the source of his information. We can pull each other's letters apart, we can niggle over this miserable Putte Report. But the Putte Report is not really the basis of this Bill, or at least I hope it is not; if it is we are all wasting our time. My opinion of the Putte Report is this. I have listened in my lifetime to many, many old soldiers stories and I believe I can recognise another one even if it happens to be told to me by a civilian. The only question we have not had answered over this Putte Report is this. Why, having gone to all the trouble to go there and see this particular thing, at the critical moment when they knew what was happening they disappeared for

339
four and a half hours? Four and a half hours later these inspectors arrive. They say, surprise, surprise, "We saw it". Other people who were there say quite categorically that they stayed there; they followed the animals right through and it was all over by 8.30. I draw my conclusion and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, draws his. I think that is the end of that Putte Report.
My Lords, I really must ask you whether you wish to allow this Bill to proceed. I agree that your Lordships' House gave it a Second Reading, but when one reads the Second Reading debate one sees that there are calls for amendment at Committee stage, and yet here we are at Third Reading faced with exactly the same Bill, unamended, unaltered, as it was when we had it at First Reading. Is that decision really so binding now?
I object to this Bill for two reasons. The first is that it is so full of loopholes that it is actually damaging to its stated objects. Secondly, I believe it to be an impossible piece of nonsense anyway. If I may go back to the first point, great play has been made of the exception contained in the Bill about animals exported for exhibition or breeding. I quote the proposer's statement on Second Reading:
"This Bill will prevent the ex port of animals to the Continent for slaughter, whether that slaughter be immediate or postponed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25/11/71, col. 1171.]
Whether or not the noble Lord was right in drawing that conclusion from the Bill, which presumably he had arranged to be drafted, I do not know. But assuming that he is right, that all animals are eventually destined for postponed slaughter, how long is the postponement allowed? How long do they have to be exhibited before they can be slaughtered—10 minutes on a railway siding? The whole thing does not make sense.
My Lords, this market exists whether we like it or not; it is nothing to do with us, and it will be filled whether we like it or not; it will be filled either with animals from elsewhere or, on account of these loopholes, with British animals, most probably via Ireland. This trade will be taken away. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, challenged me. He said that after exhaustive inquiries he could not find a single case of British exporters
340
who accompanied their animals abroad. I have been able to find only two cases in one company where it was not so. But obviously we make our exhaustive inquiries in different directions. But this trade will be taken away from these reputable companies, these companies with a lot of experience and prestige; that will be lost. If this Bill were ever to become a Statute I think it would be thoroughly retrogressive and very shortsighted.
There have been many arguments—I will not delay your Lordships with answering all of them—about passing this Bill in its various stages. We have had the argument of the under-employed slaughterhouses. I have made inquiries about this, and I find that some of the slaughterhouses are under-employed on geographical grounds; but mainly I find that these municipal slaughterhouses are under-employed for one very good reason; that their rates are too expensive and hence they are a drain on the rates. I think this is answered by one commercial company which has built its own slaughterhouse, not too far away from a municipal one which is under-employed, and with lower rates it is working very well. So it cannot be a geographical reason for that slaughterhouse. It is not the export of animals that is causing the under-employment. That is good emotional stuff, good emotional argument at this time, but it just does not apply to this Bill. It is not the export that is causing the under-employment of our municipal slaughterhouses.
We talk about carcase export, frozen meat. Straightaway that is to devalue your product. If we like devaluing our product, all right, but it is not a very good idea. Another one is about our old cast cows. We do not eat them here, but on the Continent they find a ready market. I understand that this is due to the difference in eating habits and the vastly greater amount of processed meat in the form of sausages, and things like that, which are eaten on the Continent and not here. There is a market for them there and no market for them here. I understand that most of our exports of live animals now are for fattening. This is very good for our breeders here. Through this Continental demand there is a higher price paid for these animals than normally would be

341
paid for their use for fattening here. Also, there is very little indeed of high quality fat cattle exported from this country straight for slaughter.
This Bill has a simple emotional theory behind it: that if animals are slaughtered here Balfour assurances are enforced up to the hilt, and if they are taken abroad they are not at all. It is a good theory, but is that really the case? I said at the Committee stage to your Lordships that the R.S.P.C.A., in its current broadsheet, carries information about religious ritual slaughter being carried on in this country. Is that within the Balfour assurances? What about this 100 kilometres? I have been looking into that. We gnash our teeth when we hear that animals are taken more than 100 kilometres on the Continent; but it is quite customary to take animals in this country for slaughter from Anglesey to the Eastern Counties, and nothing is thought of it. Really, where does this emotional theory lie that here it is all right and there it is all wrong?
My second main reason for opposing this Bill is that it is impossible to enforce. I presume, and I hope, that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, will speak again. I do not wish to anticipate anything he says, but I can only repeat what he has already said. He has twice said that he considers—and his Department, who are intimately concerned with this question have said this—that this Bill is not only impracticable but that it is almost impossible to operate. Yet still there has been no amendment or any detailed explanation, in spite of an appeal from the Government Front Bench, of how the Minister is expected to operate the Bill. There was a precedent quoted of a vastly simpler system of valuation, I think under the Ponies Bill; but here again, the noble Lord, Lord Denham, pointed out that the overlapping value brackets, and the tremendous complexity of them, made such a thing in this Bill completely impossible. We are still devoid of any detailed explanation from the proposers of this Bill of exactly how they mean it to operate. Because I did not understand it—and apparently I am not alone; the Ministry of Agriculture do not understand it either—I did not attempt to amend the value clause in this Bill. But
342
because I had failed to try to make an Amendment to that clause I noticed that one or two, I suspect, supporters of this Bill were trying to address questions to me during the Committee stage as to how the Bill was to be operated. I do not know.
I have given your Lordships plenty of reasons why I think that the Bill should not proceed. But now it is only right that you should say to me, "Well, what should we do? What do you think? Try your hand." All right, I will. It would appear—and I will go no further than that—that shortly this country is to join the European Economic Community. Of course this will be a godsend to the poor Minister of Agriculture, sitting at his desk trying to think how on earth he is going to operate this Bill should it become law, because he will be pleased to see that it will be utterly and completely superseded by the regulations of the Common Agricultural Policy in the European Economic Community. We are pledged to support of these, and this Bill will not possibly fit in with what they are likely to do, because already they have laid the groundwork for complete, free interchange of animals between all countries. They are not yet fully implemented, but this is well on the way. This Bill notwithstanding, willy-nilly we will have a free interchange of animals.
Let us try to drop this insular attitude that these Continentals can do what they like to their own animals, but they are not going to do it to animals with British passports. As I said at the Committee stage, animal welfare is not divisible; it does not matter what passports they have. You cannot sacrifice other animals just to protect your own with British passports. Therefore, let us see where the trouble lies. I believe that what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and I, and I am sure all of us, want to see is not this sacrificing of other animals in favour of our own, but to do something positive about ensuring that Continental slaughterhouses are improved both on the grounds of humanity and hygiene. This is the real crux; not whether it is British animals or other animals. I think this is a most important point. This Bill strikes me as too parochial, too petty, too small; it merely says, "Sacrifice the rest, and let us keep the British ones all right".

343
If the Bill is passed and becomes law then we shall have seriously damaged our chances of doing something for the real cause, and we shall have squandered everything on some little red herring. The strength of our representatives on the Commission which will make these regulations will lie in the fact that they represent a major participant in the international trade of animals which are exported for breeding, fattening, as well as slaughter. If they use our strength and prestige in this market, with our reputable companies behind them, I am sure they will be able to force through proper regulations such as we would like to see covering Continental slaughterhouses. But why cut the ground from under their feet with this Bill? If you do, the moment they start speaking in that Commission you can be absolutely certain that someone will give them a dry little smile and say, "Why did you bale out of it?"
Our companies have a fine record. There is one small example of this which I should like to draw to your attention. Two companies—one British, one French—were invited to make a trial shipment of animals by air to see who would collect a large foreign Government contract. The British company chartered the same aircraft as their foreign competitor. They fitted it out to take 220 animals. The foreign competitor fitted theirs out to take 380-odd animals, although it was going on a longer journey. The British company obtained the contract even though it was for a higher price, because their animals arrived at the destination in good condition, and not one of them had died. The other company had over 10 per cent. fatalities.
That is where our strength lies; not in baling out and disengaging ourselves. Such prestige and expertise as we have built up is now coming to our credit and standing us in good stead, and it will stand our representatives on that Commission in good stead, too. But, again, how weak and feeble will be their influence if they have had the ground taken from under their feet by the defeatist disengagement policy which this Bill seeks to pursue! No, my Lords. I heartily appreciate the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in moving this Bill, and of his supporters, but their efforts could be used to far greater effect in implementing
344
the recommendations I have made than in trying to destroy the one good position that we have for trying to force our standards on other people. We should actually be destroying that position for a very problematical—certainly temporary—benefit for those animals with British passports.
In conclusion, I think that this Bill is pointless, unnecessary and actually damaging to what we all want to see. The Government have twice explained—and if they have changed their opinion I shall withdraw wholeheartedly what I have said—how impossible this Bill is to operate, and we have since had no attempt to improve it or to explain its operation. I hardly think that any of your Lordships present in the dignity of your Lordships' House would like to see yourselves being made responsible for uttering a nonsense; but if this Bill is allowed to proceed I am afraid that that is what you will be doing.
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, with all due respect to the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, who has just spoken, I must say that I feel his opinions against this Bill are rather stronger than the arguments which he has put forward. His main arguments are probably two. First of all, he feels that the Channel is, after all, a very small gap indeed and that one can see equally well what is going on both on the other side and in the United Kingdom. But I think we all know that at present, at any rate, the Channel still represents a very great distance, with the different Governments and so on. So I would dismiss that argument. His next argument, which is much more interesting, is that if we go into the E.E.C. and become part of the Community we may then be able to do something to improve the matters with which we are dissatisfied. I am afraid that I do not accept that that argument against the Bill is a very strong one either, because there will be a great many matters of importance to be attended to if we join the Community, and this will be only a small one. Furthermore, on the whole, I do not believe that nations are very willing to be told that their slaughterhouses are not over-satisfactory and are not as good as ours. It will take a good long time before we can get to a position where we are able to exert our influence

345
in a constructive way. My conclusion, therefore, would be the reverse of that of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. We should do something about this matter now and should show our concern, which would automatically mean that this was something which must be looked at fairly soon. Therefore, if we are going into the Common Market, it is all the more important that we should do something now.
The noble Earl's next major point is that the Bill is a poor one. Let us face the facts, my Lords. We know that for various reasons, which I can probably guess, the Government have not been in favour of this Bill. Therefore, nobody has tried to amend it. But if we look back to the Second Reading debate, which I attended, we shall recall that the body of feeling in the House that this Bill should go through was very strong indeed, in spite of the fact that the Minister advised us that it should not be given a Second Reading. If the Government had insisted, they would have been very badly defeated indeed. So what has been done, my Lords?—precisely nothing. As we do not have commercial interests against this Bill we should seize our opportunity. From time to time, when an opportunity arises, we should show that we are concerned about animal welfare and should try to do something about it. I certainly do not believe that this Bill could not be made into something worth while. It may have to be changed, but it could be changed in another place. I believe that this House ought to show that it feels that here is something which is important and about which something should be done, and this Bill must have a Third Reading.
4.56 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord who has just spoken is over-optimistic about what the Bill could do. I am not going to enter into the argument between the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and the noble Lord, Lord Somers, as to which inspector saw what. We all accept that there are abuses, and very bad ones, and we are all anxious that they should be stopped. But although the Bill of the noble Lord is so well-intentioned, it is not going to do what he hopes. Let us, first, take the matter of the values of the animals. Very few of your Lordships heard the speech
346
of the noble Lord, Lord Denham, on Second Reading, when he explained how difficult it would be to operate this part of the Bill, and no doubt he will tell your Lordships again. I did not hear his speech, but I read the report of it and discussed it with auctioneers and valuers, and I came to the conclusion that there are not enough valuers to do the valuations required by the Bill. That seems to be a fairly strong argument against the present provisions, and nobody has made any attempt to amend them.
Secondly, there is the question of what would happen to our present exports. So far as I can see, all that would happen is that the exports would go through Ireland, as they do now to countries such as those in North Africa which do not recognise the Balfour assurances, or to the Continent, and nobody would pay the least attention to any regulations. All that would happen is that the cattle would have a rather longer journey than they have now. This would also mean that our very valuable store trade with Ireland, which amounts to something like 750,000 head of store cattle a year coming into this country to be fattened, would dry up because the cattle would gradually find some other outlet. Those are two reasons which really defeat the Bill from the start.
I sympathise very much with all the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and I certainly would not go so far as the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, in his strictures on the Bill. I think it is a most worthy Bill, but it simply will not work, even if one accepts the desire behind it. Those are two reasons why I think it will not work and why it would be damaging to the big trade of store cattle coming into this country. It would also damage the quite legitimate and fair and reasonable trade of cattle going out of this country for slaughter. I agree with the noble Earl that the right way to approach this matter is to try to make the weight of our feeling about the care of animals in transit and for slaughter acceptable on the Continent where their standards are not so high as ours, rather than agree to this Bill, which would have the reverse effect.
5.0 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I had the opportunity during Second Reading and at the Committee stage to support the

347
noble Lord, Lord Somers, in the proceedings on this Bill, and so far as I can see there is not a great deal left to be said. In fact, the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, I think, has made the speech which I intended to make, and it is not necessary to repeat it. I would only point out that on Second Reading this House made up its mind, after quite a long discussion, that this was a valuable thing to do; and it came to that conclusion on two grounds. The first was that the House was completely satisfied that the present position leaves a great deal to be desired so far as the export of cattle to the Continent is concerned; that, on the humanitarian side of it, their treatment of animals was not in line with the traditions of this country. Therefore, on those grounds it was thought by your Lordships to he a very good thing that this Bill should proceed, at least to the other place.
The second ground was the economic argument. I have always held the view—and held it very strongly, even when my Party were in Government and were not prepared to listen to a Bill of this kind—that it was completely wrong that cattle which had been heavily subsidised by the British taxpayer should eventually find their way to the Continent of Europe, while we as a country were compelled to import other meat from various parts of the world. To me, this has always been a crazy way to conduct our food trade, and I believe that is so to-day. I believe that we as a House ought to accept this point very clearly, and to say, "We want our own cattle and our own sheep in this country, because we know they are the best". In that way, I believe we should be encouraging this particular section of the agricultural industry.
In spite of everything that has been said by the noble Earl—and we heard the same arguments from him at an earlier stage of the Bill, at which time he himself did not feel that his case was strong enough to take us to a Division on his Amendment—I believe that this subject has been threshed out thoroughly in your Lordships' House during the various stages of the Bill. I therefore appeal, particularly on humanitarian grounds, that we should say to the Continent, and to the world: "We are deeply
348
concerned about the wellbeing of animals, and this is our gesture at this moment towards that belief". I hope that we shall agree to give this Bill a Third Reading, to show that your Lordships desire that point of view to be thoroughly expressed.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, if I may take the noble Lord up on one point, he said he thought it was quite crazy that we should export calves born of cattle on which the farmer had perhaps received a subsidy. It is not crazy at all: it is very good trade. As I explained before, the reason is that you get a better price for livestock on the hoof than if you export it dead; and, getting that better price, you can then import into this country some more meat at a cheaper price. It is a favourable balance of trade; that is the reason. If you are not to export anything on which you get a subsidy, what about all the corn we export? I used to export quite a lot of barley to the Continent, and some even went to Poland. Of course, we get a subsidy on that. With due respect, the noble Lord's argument on that point is not sound. With regard to the Bill itself, I should just like to say that I wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in his motives—they are very fine motives—but the Bill is not really practical. We are presumably joining the E.E.C., and there will be a good deal of legislation involved. It would be crazy to legislate on this matter now.
The only other thing I would say is that it would appear that, from the humane angle, what the noble Lord is really saying is that English livestock feel more or are more sensitive than foreign livestock. If we stop this trade, the slaughterhouses abroad to which our animals are now sent will be filled by other animals from other countries, and they are going to feel just as much. I must not go into stories, but it rather reminds me of what a Spanish girl said to me once at a bull-fight. She said to me. "What do you think of the bull-fight?" I said, "It is probably a great spectacle, but I think it is cruel—extremely cruel. Apart from being cruel to the bulls, I think it is cruel to the horses". She said, "You don't understand; they are not thoroughbreds, they are only old hacks".
5.6 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I do not want to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, on the question of what he said to the Spanish girl and what the Spanish girl said to him. Nor do I want to be quite so ferocious as the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, was in making his speech half an hour ago. I should like to say this to the noble Earl, however. He said that this Bill really needs amendment. So I say: Then why has he not put down Amendments to make it workable? I know that he did put down an Amendment at the Committee stage; but after it had been debated, after it had been slaughtered from various parts of the Committee, he withdrew it without a Division. The noble Viscount also suggested that perhaps we were being a little hypocritical in saying that we wanted to concern ourselves with the welfare of those animals which had British passports but were ignoring completely the fate of the others. The answer simply is that we have no control over these French bulls and Spanish bullocks, but we have control over those which have been born and reared in England; and it is those particular animals, those which have been bred on British farms, to which we want to give our protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, suggests, as I believe did the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, that this is one of those matters that we could leave to the European Economic Community, and that we should have a little regulation brought before the Community and adopted by all those quarrelsome nations who hardly seem able to agree upon any matter concerning the Common Agricultural Policy. Then what should we have? We should have 2,001 regulations to talk about, debate and consider, instead of the 2,000 that we have now. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, also said to us at the Committee stage that the Bill was too full of loopholes to be effective. If that be so, what have those people to fear who are at present indulging in this traffic? Nothing at all if the Bill is not going to be effective. But the bulk of the opposition has been rather from the other point of view: that it would kill this particular trade. All I would say is that the noble Earl cannot have it both ways. I believe that the Bill, if it becomes
350
law, will be effective; I believe it deserves to be effective, and I believe that it deserves to be passed by this House.
We have had ample evidence during the various stages of this Bill about the cruelty to which these animals are subjected, not in any sadistic way, but merely because of the bare fact that they have to travel these long distances; that they are sometimes conveyed in ships which are not seaworthy—and if anybody challenges me on that I would say that one of the ships went down with an enormous number of animals aboard—and that they are sometimes loaded into two-tier wagons to be carted either on this side of the water or on the other side of the water. They sometimes go for very long distances by road and rail: in the individual cases found by the Balfour Committee which investigated the matter some of them went as far as Bordeaux and others as far as Africa. There is ample evidence, too, even if we forget for a moment the particular examples which the noble Earl challenged, about inhumane methods of slaughtering that are practised in many cases—I will not say all—on the Continent. We have no control over these animals when once the buyer from the Continent has bought them from the Englishman who has bred them; so that the way they are loaded on the ship will frequently be at the dictates of the foreign buyer and not under the instruction and supervision of the very high-minded British breeders of the stock. As I said at an earlier stage, if we want to have this traffic with the Continent we should kill the animals here; for we now have a much-improved system of refrigerated vehicles with which to transport the carcases to the Continent.
We have been told that if we pass this Bill we shall be cutting off our noses to spite our faces and that there is a prospect of great and growing trade in the export of these kind of animals when we enter the E.E.C. We are told that the prices at which we should sell them would be tempting to foreign purchasers. That seems to indicate that we can breed our beef and mutton more cheaply than they can on the Continent—but that is quite another argument. If we look at another aspect of 'the economic case we find that at the moment we are exporting about £5 million worth of these

351
animals a year, and the total will go up if the trade is allowed to continue. On the other hand, we import about £250 million worth of meat from various countries in the world. Why cannot we keep that meat here, instead of sending it to the Continent, and thus reduce our imports from other countries accordingly, and at the same time give the British housewife a better quality of home-produced meat than the foreign, imported meat which she has to accept at the moment? The argument has been used time and time again that many of our slaughterhouses are at present underemployed. This would provide an opportunity to employ them fully and to enable our various chemical and other industries to get some of the by-products produced in slaughterhouses.
I believe that, not only on economic grounds but on humanitarian grounds as well, we ought to support this Bill. I was very much impressed during the Committee stage when the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, a former Minister of Agriculture, wholeheartedly gave it his support. Had he produced a case against the Bill, his argument would have merited very careful consideration. But he came out wholeheartedly in favour of it; and so do I. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Third Reading.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Before the noble Lords sits down, may I correct one figure in his speech? He valued the livestock export trade at £5 million. It is, in fact, £20 million.
LORD HIVES: My Lords, I should like more or less to follow the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, and everybody who spoke of the, need for the highest standard of management and humane consideration for animals on the farm, during transport and at slaughter. But this Bill provides nothing towards that. It merely seeks to stop the export of animals for slaughter. It will neither stop the cruelty abroad nor help us even to combat the cruelty we still have here. It is opting out of the problem. I say that we should stay in this trade and use our considerable influence continuously to improve the standards of both sides so that by getting together and learning
352
from one another we may eventually—I say "eventually"—have a whole-carcase trade. I say that our influence is considerable because although the total amount of the trade is not vast—it is about £20 million, as has just been said—it is very important because it is largely a seasonal trade. It fits in exactly with our surplus and their shortage. For a beast of right conformation the difference in price between selling it live and selling it dead is £5 a cwt. The price per cwt. can be as much as £20, or even more; because when the demand is on, the important factor is not the price but getting the live cattle. This shows how important is this trade. I say that we have every right to be listened to in our insistence on high standards of management and maintenance, on all agreements being kept and on a continuing search for improvement.
5.17 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, it has been argued against this Bill that it is unenforceable. That must be true. It probably will be evaded in the kind of shoddy racket described by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. Of course it will. But the point is that the present Orders for the protection of animals are evaded all along the line. They are unenforceable. If you look at them and at the facilities there are for enforcing them, you will see that they are unenforceable. It would need an army, a multitude, of inspectors to get them properly enforced. It cannot be done and has not been done. If the Bill is unenforceable so, too, are our present regulations on which our standards of animal welfare rest in respect of this trade.
You might as well in the past have proposed regulating the slave trade by prescribing a certain number of square feet per slave between decks or by prescribing the kind of reception centre that African chiefs should maintain for the slaves that they rounded up for export. It could not be done. The only answer was to abolish slavery. That we did; and in so doing put at risk certain respectable Liverpool shipowners and almost ruined a number of very hard-working British West Indian sugar planters. But we abolished slavery. There was no good economic reason for it; we took a risk. In the same way we abolished the employment of small children in the

353
cotton factories, and we caused a number of good Christian cotton masters to feel that their profit margins were at risk and a number of wage earners to feel that they were being deprived of the necessary earnings of their small children. But we abolished it.
My Lords, in the case of this Bill we are not asking for anything like that. We are certainly asking the Government to do something humanitarian for the welfare of animals and for the satisfaction of our consciences, but also we are putting before them a good economic proposition, a measure that will open up new trade at home and diminish our dependence on importing processed food and processed meat which could probably be produced on this side. This could provide employment for people as in the case of the slaughterhouses and as in the case of the by-products of the slaughter houses. It is not only a humanitarian proposal, but it is a good economic proposition. When you can satisfy righteousness in terms of economics, then you are doing something that is very satisfying: you are doing something which Miss Octavia did when she produced a system of property management which enabled her to consider the human welfare of the tenants and produce at the same time 5 per cent. for the property owners. In fact, what you are doing in this case is to create a co-operation between the great God Mammon and St. Francis of Assisi, and if the two will work together, then you have really done something.
5.21 p.m.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I missed the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. I should like to speak on this matter as an interested party, having bred and exported cattle all over the world since the war. Perhaps I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who has on more than one occasion travelled his own bulls to the Argentine—I have taken as many as twenty-eight to South America from the Scottish pedigree bull sales. I can assure your Lordships that on these occasions the cattle are a good deal more comfortable than the attendant who takes them there, so I feel that the British love of fair play to animals is superseding the realities of this situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, we rely to a large extent on Irish store cattle. Are we going to
354
be dishonest enough to accept them as an alternative to becoming a race of vegetarians? In my opinion, this is quite an absurd Bill to introduce on the eve of entry into the Common Market.
Sentiment I know plays a large part in our handling of animals, and it is often misguided sentiment. Those of your Lordships who go to the fatstock shows, particularly in Smithfield, will remember an extraordinary situation about four years ago when the champion of Smithfield was a very bonny beast, a little Aberdeen Angus heifer without a hair out of place, and a furore arose in the Press suggesting that she was too pretty to be slaughtered. Of course an animal is only sent to the Smithfield Fatstock Show for slaughter. That heifer could never breed—her ovaries were too fat—and yet she was a pet that appealed to the British public. In refusing the export of cattle overseas we are really being too sentimental. It is a necessary procedure, and it has to be carried on in good animal husbandry, good farming and for the future of the cattle trade: it is as important as that to us.
5.25 p.m.
LORD WOOLLEY: My Lords. I apologise for the fact that I was unable to attend the Second Reading or the Committee stage on this Bill, but I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT with close interest. I congratulate the noble Lord. Lord Somers, on stirring up interest in this important matter. I think he has performed a service in so doing, because I think interest in this needs to be kept constantly on the boil. I do not think we can afford to let this go to sleep. On the other hand, I am quite convinced that if the noble Lord's Bill were passed into law it would defeat its own objective, as has already been said, and it would indeed do a good deal more harm than good. I say that with great respect and after a good deal of thought.
My Lords. I have an interest to declare, in that I have been a livestock farmer all my working life, and still am I am still out early every morning at 7.30 helping to feed the bullocks, come wind, rain or shine. I will not enter into competition with the noble Lord. Lord Lovat. He has taken hulls to the Argentine, but I have brought many thousands of cattle over from Ireland. At any rate, we both have some practical experience. We are

355
both against this Bill, and I do not think either of us would care to be regarded as being inhumane people. People who have spent a lifetime with livestock have a feeling for livestock: they would not be with livestock all their lives if they did not, because they would get sick and weary of them and would find a more profitable and easier job—and I can think of many.
The other interest I have to declare is that I am a member of the Council of the National Farmers' Union, and that organisation is strongly opposed to this legislation. I have known the people who compose the National Farmers' Union for long enough to know full well that they do not lightly take up a strong position on an issue of this kind unless they are satisfied that it is soundly based; and they would not, even though the economic arguments were against their advantage, argue the case on pure economics if they believed that there was a matter of moral principle involved. I assure your Lordships that no more would I knowingly do so. But having looked at this, I am much impressed by the point that the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, made at some length and very forcibly: that by opting out, by leaving the field—and that is what we are going to do; we are going to walk off because we do not approve of the way the game is being played—we are going to withdraw all potential influence to improve it, because we are out of the way; we are not concerned any more; we are not operating. So we can take our little sentiments and prejudices home and hug them to ourselves, so far as other people are concerned. That, I believe, is what is going to happen. I believe that, apart from reducing any degree of unnecessary suffering that there might be (and I personally do not know how great the suffering is; I know from personal experience that the handling of cattle in this country is done in a first-class way, because they are valuable properties, and people are not going to knock them about and devalue them), it would be just bad business.
I believe, my Lords, that the sum total of suffering would not be reduced one whit by this legislation, even if it were practical and feasible administratively. One could not make a great case of this, but I believe that the net result would
356
be to worsen, not to improve the position, and I am sure that that is far from the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and those who sincerely and genuinely support his Bill. I do not believe that it would have the effect that they intend. Therefore I oppose this legislation on humane grounds. The fact that the noble Lord has introduced this Bill—whether introducing it in this form was the best vehicle for achieving this end, I do not know—has stirred things up. The Balfour assurances may not be fully implemented. Nobody is contending that they are; but nobody is contending either that they do not exist and have no sort of significance at all, because the fact that the existence of the Balfour assurances has produced this debate in your Lordships' House is, I think, a matter of great significance in itself. But there will be no Balfour assurances; there will be nothing; the field will be empty if this legislation is passed.
I hear the noble Lord, Lord Royle, passing some comment on what I am saying, so I will now deal with something that he said; that is, as regards the subsidy. The noble Lord put forward an economic argument on this point, and I think perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, was rather following on the same lines. It is easy to be deceived by that argument. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Royle, knows well, under the old order, when we were operating—and we still are, for the time being, apparently—under this system of guaranteed prices and deficiency payments, the extent of the deficiency payment, and therefore the make-up from the Exchequer, depended upon the level of market price compared with the level of the guaranteed price. Therefore there was the gap, and this had to be made up.
In so far as this addition to the trade helped to keep the market price higher, it reduced the requirement for deficiency payment and subsidy and so reduced the indent upon the taxpayer. Therefore this is an argument that just will not run. Also, I think it would be right to say that the majority of the stock involved has never received a subsidy at all, because most of them have been turnoff fat barren cows. Fat barren cows do not get any subsidy. A great deal of the remainder of the stock has been young stock that has never qualified for

357
subsidy. I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of this has never had any subsidy, so I would simply say that I do not regard this argument as having any real content in it.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to forgive my interrupting him? Surely the fat sheep tegs in the market have received a subsidy by going through the market? Therefore the noble Lord's argument on that point does not really apply. But I agree with the argument about having the foreign buyers there to keep the price up towards the guarantee.
LORD WOOLLEY: My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Lord. I think perhaps he slightly misunderstood me. I said, "the vast majority" and not the whole, because I had in mind that there were the classes of fatstock to which he referred which had drawn a subsidy. I said, however, that it was not an argument that had any real content in it. I believe that to be so. if there is no basis for this legislation on humane grounds—and I am personally convinced and satisfied that there is none—then it is utterly wrong that an imposition should be made upon a section of the community and of the economy that is quite unjustified, because in so far as the farming community is now being exhorted to stand on its own feet and to look to the market for its returns (and this has been the constant cry of the Ministry of Agriculture) then it is utterly wrong that the legislators should at the same time quite unjustifiably hobble the industry in getting the best price it can from the market.
As has already been said by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, this trade is a very small proportion of the total. Of course it is a very small proportion, but nevertheless it is a significant factor in maintaining the level of prices at glut periods, and the noble Lord, Lord Royle, will know as well as I do, or perhaps even better, just how significant a small change in supply and demand can be in stabilising the market. Therefore I suggest that it would be quite unworthy of your Lordships' House to allow noble sentiments to overrule sound consideration and honest assessment of the situation. Of course we are all attracted to the idea of being on the side
358
of the angels. We want to be on their side: this is natural, and nobody wants to appear to be callous or to feel that they are being callous. My contention is that we certainly will not be on the side of the angels if we support this legislation.
I am not arguing for the Common Market, because I am against entry. That is an aside, and I am not saying what will or will not happen. I do not go along with the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, in his panegyrics of yesterday, but what I do say is that, in or out of the Market, the sensible thing is to go forward and try to ensure that our good influence and our higher standards are brought to bear in this trade to improve the standards and at the same time to maintain a sensible, businesslike approach combined with humanity.
5.34 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord has put forward his arguments with just as much emotion and sentiment as did my noble friend Lady Stocks. I do not want to take very strong sides in this argument; but three arguments were used by the noble Lord, who is an old protagonist of mine in the farming world, which really we cannot allow to pass in this House. He began by saying that he and Lord Lovat are both very decent people and therefore anything they said on this subject should not be disputed. This was unbelievable.
LORD WOOLLEY: My Lords, may I just point out that I did not say that it should not be disputed; I merely hoped that it would not be.
LORD DONALDSON or KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord actually could not understand how it could be disputed. Secondly, he said that this Bill was opposed by the one organisation which has a total interest in it; that is, the N.F.U. I have been a member of that admirable organisation for years, but to advance this argument in a serious place towards the end of the evening is something that I f el must be commented on. Thirdly, he said that one thing nobody could criticise was the handling of livestock in this country in transport. Well, my Lords, I can. I am sure the noble Lord has never been

359
to a market: he is concerned with the F.M.C. I suggest that he goes to a country market, sees the cattle being prodded and knocked about, sees what the cattle look like in the pen—I am ashamed every time I go, and I am frightened by it.
I think this is a very difficult matter. I do not know the answer. I have myself made money doing it, and have been uncomfortable about it. But there is one thing we can say with absolute certainty: there is no right whatever to extend known pain-giving activities; and we know that if you heat and prod animals out of lorries and into pens you give pain. Some of this trade is essential. I think it is reasonable to do this with valuable animals exported for breeding: I cannot see any other way of maintaining the general interest. But when it comes to exporting animals for fattening, that is an entirely different point. It requires justification which can only be made economically here. My own view is that if you quickly fatten the animals here and kill them you will have the same market for animals abroad as you have now for animals on the hoof. I could not let the noble Lord's arguments pass without comment.
5.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT DAVIDSON: My Lords, I shall be brief because most of the arguments I was going to put to your Lordships have already been covered much more adequately than I could have covered them myself. I must first declare an interest: I am involved in farming, and in livestock farming of both pedigree and non-pedigree milk cows. From time to time we have exported some of our stock for showing and for breeding purposes. So far as I know, we have not exported any of our stock for any other purposes. No one in his right senses would or could tolerate cruelty to any living animal, and the farming industry of this country, in particular, is wholly opposed to any treatment which leads to suffering or injury. I would submit that the standard of management of livestock in this country is as high as anywhere in the world, and if production is any criterion of content, as I believe it is, this only serves to confirm that we can give a lead to other countries in this respect.
360
My main reason for opposing the Bill stems from this particular point. I believe that we can bring to bear an influence for good in the cause of animal welfare as a whole on an international basis. We are doing so anyway through being a party to the Balfour assurances. We can no doubt do a great deal more, but our influence in this field will not only be diminished but may count for little if this Bill is passed.
There are many other equally compelling arguments for opposing this Bill, which have been stated already. I do not want to touch too closely on the question of economics, for economics by themselves are not always the overriding considerations when the main problem is one of humanity. At the same time they cannot be ignored, particularly in view of what we must assume is our imminent entry into the Common Market. It seems strange, to say the least, that at a time when trade barriers are being pulled down we should be asked to approve trade legislation the effect of which will be, in practical terms, to lead to the erection of a trade barrier. I say "in practical terms", but in fact and in practice what will happen if this Bill becomes law (the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has already mentioned this, but I think it is worth repeating) is that the demand for meat on the hoof will continue and will probably expand in Europe. This will have to come from alternative sources of supply. It may well come from Northern Ireland; it is more than likely that it will come from this country via Northern Ireland. It will be a more painful, longer journey for the livestock involved, leading to worse hardship. On the journey the livestock would be outside the protection of the Balfour assurances.
There is one more practical point which in my experience would in any case make this Bill as it stands virtually unworkable: the difficulty of fixing a minimum value below which livestock may not be exported. This places on the Department a responsibility which I doubt whether they would be able to carry out. My noble friend Lord Denham explained these difficulties during the Committee stage, and I should like to support the argument that he put forward at that time. Values vary from day to day, from market to market, from one type of animal to another and from

361
age to age. It is extremely difficult to get a fair price below which they are not to be exported. For instance, the price of a great big fat cull cow for slaughter to-day may be higher than that of a pedigree in-calf heifer. One could quote many other examples to illustrate these practical difficulties. In short, while supporting and admiring the motives behind this Bill, I believe that it would in practice do more harm than good. With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Somers, I suggest that the practical effects of this Bill would be to penalise those who are innocent without imposing sanctions on those who might be guilty of an offence. It is for these reasons that I feel bound to oppose the Bill.
5.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the object of this Bill is to try to ensure that cattle in this country get the benefit of the high standards of humane slaughter which we have here. We try to do this through the Balfour assurances. It is pretty widely recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, that these are not very effective, and that there is fairly strong evidence that they are not being carried out properly. The objection to stopping this trade has been, first, that it would not apply to Ireland. If we have to govern our laws in this country by what happens in Ireland we shall be in considerable difficulty. Secondly, there is the difficulty in valuing these animals. Will there really be much difficulty in telling the difference between cattle intended for slaughter and those intended for breeding and exhibition? There may be marginal cases, but by and large I do not seriously think that that would cause much difficulty. This would not prevent the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, from exporting any of his pedigree cattle to the Argentine, or indeed anywhere else.
One of the objections which I think is a little unreal is that with regard to the European Economic Community. It is argued that if we trade enough in live cattle in Europe they will amend their methods of slaughter. I do not believe that for a minute. Many international organisations have been working in this field, but, frankly, the progress has not been very great. If we were to say that we would not send cattle to Europe then the European countries would realise that
362
we were serious; that we really meant what we said; that we did not think that the standards they maintained in their slaughterhouses were good enough. In any case it would take years to get that over. I am afraid that this will be a matter for the Council of Ministers and for the Commission. I do not think it will come up because of the extent of our trading. It is for that reason that this Bill will be, in my view, a valuable measure, and certainly as workable as a number of others that we pass through this House. If I may say this with respect to my noble friend Lord Shannon, this is not a question of emotion: to me, humane slaughter is a facet of civilisation, and that is why I support this Bill.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, l am sure you will be relieved to hear that practically everything I wanted to say has already been said. I should like to pose one question. The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, referred to opting out of the trade. I wonder whether, if there had not been any British animals in the Putte slaughterhouse, the alleged bad conditions there would have been ventilated.
5.45 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, it is now utterly impossible to avoid being repetitious but I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, has said. I feel that this Bill does not go far enough, since it is obviously impossible for it to do anything at all to improve the conditions in the Continental slaughterhouses. That is the real crux of the problem. If we prohibit the export of live animals to the Continent we shall be in some measure burying our heads in the sand. The demand obviously will be satisfied from elsewhere, and all animals, from wherever they come, must obviously experience the same fear and pain. This Bill can do nothing to improve conditions in these Continental slaughterhouses, which obviously is what we all want to do; indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, said, it could well have the opposite effect.
5.46 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognises and shares the real concern for the welfare of animals that prompted my noble friend Lord Somers in introducing this Bill and carrying it through the various stages in this House. This debate has

363
shown that the whole House also shares this concern. Where your Lordships disagree is whether, from the point of view of the welfare of the animals, the Bill is either necessary or a good idea. The case for the Bill rests mainly on allegations of inhuman treatment of animals in foreign countries, particularly at slaughter, in breach of the Balfour assurances. Several of your Lordships have said, if not at this stage of the Bill then at other stages, that the Balfour assurances are worth little or nothing. While there have been many such allegations, and a few which your Lordships have specially mentioned, the evidence in general that animals exported from Great Britain have been cruelly treated is not strong. Your Lordships will recall that I invited details of specific complaints on this score. I did this on Second Reading and repeated it at Committee stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, said that she would overwhelm me with such examples from her postbags. I have not been so overwhelmed. Since then I have received no complaints from Members of your Lordships' House and only one letter on the subject. This did not mention any specific, individual complaints.
I repeat this invitation to your Lordships: if any noble Lord has and can give me any specific instances, with chapter and verse, where they know that the Balfour assurances have been broken, I personally will see to it that they are fully studied by the Ministry of Agriculture and, if necessary, representations will be made to the countries concerned. But if noble Lords cannot produce these specific instances I hope that they will be careful to moderate their accusations suggesting a breach of agreement—almost a breach of faith—against friendly countries. In the past two years there has been only one specific complaint brought to the Ministry of Agriculture. My noble friend Lord Somers said how odd it was that on the one or two occasions when people had taken the trouble to go and look they had found abuses. I do not know what the second occasion is—it has never been brought to my notice or the notice of the Ministry of Agriculture. So far as I know in the past two years there has been only this one instance.
364
Your Lordships have heard a lot about the Putte slaughterhouse in the debate this afternoon. The matter was investigated with the full co-operation of the Belgian authorities. As a result, this slaughterhouse was removed from the list of those which can deal with our animals, as its distance from the port is greater than that allowed under the Balfour assurances. The need for this action on the part of the Belgian Government has been used to illustrate the inadequacy of the Balfour assurances, but of course it is also an example that the assurances can be made to work and that they are taken seriously by Governments. The Statement on the Putte incident made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture also emphasised that Belgian law concerning slaughter is no less stringent than ours and that humane slaughter is provided for in a similar way to our own regulations by requiring stunning electrically or by captive bolt pistol or anaesthetising before slaughter.
We all know that there will be lapses under any system of safeguards. Certainly it is no part of the Government policy to condone them. However, I submit that such abuses as have been reported cannot be taken as reflecting a general disregard of their obligations by countries which have given the Balfour assurances. Arguments have been advanced that it would be to our wider advantage, as well as in the interests of animal welfare, to replace the trade in live animals by one in carcase meat. While the Government would like to see the carcase trade increase and the live trade decrease, they would be reluctant to compel the trade to change in this way. At a time when we are seeking to encourage expansion in production it might be unwise to close an existing trade outlet that could be important to us in the future at times of temporary over-supply of our markets. Furthermore, we should have to expect a loss of trade.
If animal welfare standards generally are to be raised—and this I say particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Leather-land, if he has not already been convinced by the extremely able speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolley—the best prospect lies in working towards international agreements. We need to be in a

365
position to influence these matters, and a restriction on export of live animals would eliminate a pressure for improved conditions which we already bring to bear through the Balfour assurances. Commendable progress on animal welfare has already been made in the international field by the Council of Europe, and we played our full part. It is by such action that we shall exert an influence to improve animal welfare generally.
I have informed your Lordships that in the Government's view the Bill gives rise to serious practical difficulties. It requires Ministers to prescribe minimum values for cattle, sheep, pigs and goats at levels that would reinforce the prohibition of the export of animals for slaughter or further rearing but would not restrict the export of animals for breeding or exhibition. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has reminded your Lordships that it would be extremely difficult to set such minimum values, since often there is only a narrow margin, or even an overlap, between the value of animals for slaughter on the Continent and the value of commercial breeding animals in this country. There are further complications. It would be necessary to have minimum values for different breeds and ages of cattle, sheep, goats and swine, and to keep all these values under constant review to take account of changes in the market. My noble friend Lord Selkirk said, "Surely you can tell by looking at it, the difference between an animal that is intended for breeding and an animal intended for slaughter". That may well be, and I am certain that the noble Earl would be able to do that, but how is he going to arrange for the constant review of prices at all stages of the market, all ages of animals, all breeds of animals?
There are serious practical difficulties in the operation of this Bill and I trust your Lordships will not persist in supporting it. The present arrangements for the exporting of animals already provide substantial welfare safeguards and the Government believe that effective domestic transport regulations and internationally agreed arrangements are much more satisfactory. For these reasons, my Lords, the Government would still be reluctant to see the Bill proceed.
5.55 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking all those noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Bill; and before I go any further I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, that I should most certainly not think of introducing any Bill that was going to bring hardship upon farmers, for whom I have the greatest respect and whose trade I should not like to see suffer in the slightest. I think, however, that that could be overcome. I am not enough of an economist—or a politician, for that matter—to be able to say how; but I think it could be overcome, none the less. I hope that the House will not pay too much attention to the rather violent and. if I may say so without offence. I felt rather insulting speech of the noble Earl, Lord Shannon. He obviously has very strong feelings on this subject and is determined to see this Bill thrown out. But I cannot say that he has produced any evidence, again to-day, that he did not produce before—and that I feel was absolutely, completely false. I hesitate in saving that because, naturally, no noble Lord would give false evidence knowingly, but I am afraid that the noble Earl has been seriously misinformed.
THE EARL OF SHANNON: My Lords, as I am under attack. I wonder whether the noble Lord will accept from me that he has not spoken to Mr. Michael Burrows—has he? Has he spoken to Mr. Chubb? He is saying, on the basis of a telephone call with a Mr. Brown, that Mr. Brown understood that Mr. Burrows was the owner. Mr. Burrows has assured me that he is not. Now who has been misinformed?
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, Mr. Brown is the Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and he does not make unguarded statements. I can go only as far as that. I must leave it to your Lordships to choose which statement you would rather believe.
As to the statement by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about cattle on the hoof from Ireland, there is nothing in the Bill whatsoever to prevent that. There is nothing to prevent them from coming in. It is only going out—
LORD HENLEYMy Lords, the noble Lord perhaps misunderstands what I mean. What I mean is that the store trade in cattle from Ireland would dry up, because there would be other fields for its outlet.
LORD SOMERS: Well, that may be, my Lords. And of course I accept the argument, too, that it is quite possible that the Continental buyers will not be willing to accept a carcase trade in place of live cattle. But when one considers the fact that we spend £1¼ million per day on meat and meat preparation imports, surely we could eat our own meat and save quite a considerable amount of that money. We could not provide the whole of it of course; but we certainly should not be at a financial loss.
Several noble Lords have dismissed this Bill as being merely sentimental and parochial. The noble Earl, Lord Shannon, used the latter term, and criticised the fact that it was doing nothing about conditions in the Continental slaughterhouses. My Lords, how can it? We have no power to legislate for foreign countries; no power whatsoever. All we can do is to prevent our own cattle from suffering from the conditions which undoubtedly obtain there. As to the argument that the Bill is based on sentiment, which was also used by the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, my Lords, I have not
worked for animal welfare for a good many years now without having come across that argument a good many times. It is a very, very old joke indeed and it does not bear any weight whatsoever. I am not looking at it from a point of view of sentiment, unless of course noble Lords who use that term regard it as sentimental to object to causing suffering to defenceless creatures. In that case, I suppose I am sentimental, because I do object to their suffering.
Your Lordships gave this Bill an unopposed Second Reading. Nothing has changed in the Bill since then. It is quite possible that if and when the Bill gets to another pace it will be amended, and I am quite aware of the fact that it may even be thrown out; but a gesture will have been made by your Lordships to show not only the other place but the country at large that we do care about these subjects and that we do not regard them as being just sentimental. They are more than that; they are based on moral principles. Therefore, my Lords, I hope that should it become necessary you will support me in the Lobby.
6.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 3a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 61.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Redesdale, L.

Arwyn, L.

Fulton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Sandys, L.

Bowden, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L. [Teller]

Somers, L. [Teller.]

Chalfont, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Stocks, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Conesford, L.

Mais, L.

White, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Platt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Davidson, V.

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

Abinger, L.

Denham, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Derwent, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Auckland, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hives, L.

Belstead, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Brecon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lothian, M.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lovat, L.

Burton, L.

Exeter, M.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Falkland, V.

Lytton, E.

Collison, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gowrie, E.

Margadale, L.

Cowley, E.

Greenway, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Craigavon, V.

Grenfell, L.

Merrivale, L.

Crathorne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

St. Just, L.

Thomas, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ogmore, L.

Segal, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Wise, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Shannon, E. [Teller.]

Woolley, L.

Rowallan, L.

Strang, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
6.9 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In whatever way your Lordships would like to see the steel industry organised, I think that this House will agree that this country should have a healthy and competitive steel industry. To achieve this, substantial investment is needed to replace old and inefficient plant. Moreover, the British Steel Corporation is currently facing heavy losses which it cannot hope to recoup in the immediate future. In addition to an accumulated loss of £40 million, the Corporation expects a loss of up to £100 million in the current financial year, before allowing for the effects of the present coal strike, and a similar loss in the next year. The purpose of this Bill, as explained in the Memorandum published as a White Paper on December 7, is to deal realistically with the financial position so that the Corporation may become profitable.
The Bill is part of the series of measures to streamline and modernise the steel industry described last year in the Statements which I repeated in your Lordships' House on April 27 and June 28. These related to the structure of the industry, as regards, first, the retention of responsibility within the Corporation for bulk iron and steel making, and, secondly, the boundary with the private sector. Discussions are in progress between the B.S.C. and private industry with the object of removing anomalies on the boundary between the public and private sectors—an object which is generally accepted as desirable—and also of introducing private capital into some of the B.S.C.'s ancillary and peripheral activities as I indicated in the Statement last June.
The Government also recognised the need to replace outdated plant which can no longer be operated competitively, and to make good the low level of past in
370
vestment. Here we are faced with the problem of deciding the future size of the industry and the long-term strategy that should be pursued, given the probable level of demand both in the United Kingdom and overseas. A comprehensive review of the industry was therefore begun last year, as announced by the Secretary of State in another place on March 18, 1971, and a Statement will be made very shortly. The result of the review will provide a background for considering any proposals put forward by the B.S.C. later this year for major new development at a "Brownfield" or "greenfield" site.
Your Lordships will be aware of the current world-wide recession in the demand for steel, which has caused a fall in the output of steel in all the major market economies and has increased the difficulty of estimating the future market for steel. Outside the Eastern bloc, steel production fell in 1971 to nearly 6 per cent. below the 1970 level. Output fell by 13 per cent. in the United Kingdom to 24 million tons, by 8 per cent. in the United States of America to 109 million tons, by 5 per cent. in the E.C.S C. to 103 million tons and by 5 per cent. in Japan to 89 million tons. In consequence all the main producers are reviewing their plans for expansion. For example, it is reported that in Japan the estimate of production of 160 million tons in 1975 was reduced by nearly one third. In the E.E.C., whereas it was at one time thought that production might be approaching 170 million tons in 1974, it is now thought more likely that in 1975 it will be less than 150 million tons. In the United States of America, expenditure on plant and equipment last year fell by 12 per cent.
In the light of this the future size of the United Kingdom industry will require careful consideration. In the meantime, steps have been taken to ensure that plans to modernise the industry are not held up.
Last June the Secretary of State authorised capital expenditure in 1971–72 at

371
the record level of £225 million at 1970–71 prices, equivalent to £242 million at 1971 Public Expenditure Survey prices, to enable the Corporation to proceed with the various projects it had decided on. That authorisation took account of the results of the first stage of the review covering B.S.C.'s financial position and investment needs in 1971–72. Last December capital expenditure in 1972–73 was approved at the even higher level of £265 million at 1971 Survey prices, including up to £10 million for minor projects brought forward to help in providing additional employment, much of it in areas of above-average unemployment. That approval is subject to a reservation in regard to about £25 million for certain major projects on which final decisions have not yet been made by B.S.C. or which might prejudice decisions on longterm strategy.
Meanwhile, we have to face a situation in which the Corporation is incurring heavy losses due to a number of factors. I have already referred to the world steel situation, which has, of course, affected the finances of B.S.C. and the steel producers in other countries. And the restraints imposed by successive Governments on steel prices must also be taken into account. Last April, as your Lordships will recall, the Iron and Steel Consumers' Council made a formal representation to the Secretary of State against the proposed 14 per cent. increase, recommending that the increase should be halved. As the Corporation subsequently adhered to the C.B.I. initiative on prices, it cannot increase its prices again until April, and then only by 5 per cent. It is too early to say what will happen after the period of the present C.B.I. initiative ends in July, but we can foresee that in accordance with our Treaty with the E.E.C. the Corporation will be operating from January 1973 under the pricing arrangements of the European Coal and Steel Community; this means that the power in the Iron and Steel Act 1967 under which the Secretary of State can make a direction on prices following a representation of the Iron and Steel Consumers' Council has to be repealed. There is in fact no prospect of recovering the losses in the foreseeable future. So to carry them forward in the accounts
372
would be pointless as well as discouraging to morale.
The intention of both Government and Corporation is that B.S.C. should become profitable as quickly as possible. The Corporation have agreed that as a matter of policy their objective should be to earn a profit in 1973–74 and, so far as the inherent uncertainties of the steel industry permit, to maintain a reasonable profit thereafter. In order that the Corporation shall not be hampered in achieving this objective, and shall have an adequate operating reserve, Clause 1 provides for a reduction of up to £350 million in B.S.C.'s capital. First, this will enable the Corporation to write off the losses—estimated at up to £250 million—which it is expected to have incurred by March. 1973. Secondly, it will enable B.S.C. to have a reserve, as manufacturing industries normally do. This would be available to meet exceptional costs and other contingencies. It should subsequently be maintained at an appropriate level out of profits. The balance available for this purpose after writing off losses would be £100 million.
As the White Paper on the Bill makes clear, these proposals for the reconstruction of B.S.C.'s capital are based on professional advice. They will enable the Corporation's financial position to be put on a sound basis as soon as possible and in particular before entry into the European Coal and Steel Community, when the Corporation will need to meet competition from other European steel producers from a broadly comparable basis. Two hundred million pounds of the capital reduction would be made from the Corporation's public dividend capital of £700 million, and up to £150 million from outstanding long-term loans. It is appropriate that the reduction should apply to both dividend and loan capital.
I should emphasise that the Government will retain control of the application of the sums by which dividend and loan capital is reduced. A direction will be made under Section 17(4) of the Iron and Steel Act 1967 requiring the equivalent of the written off sums to be credited to the Corporation's general reserve and requiring that this money shall not be applied from the reserve in order to write off losses or for any other purpose, except in accordance with further directions.

373
The reduction in public dividend capital will have immediate effect. It will give the Corporation the benefit of a substantial reserve without delay and thus fulfil one of the main objectives of the Bill.
The timing and amount—up to the total of £150 million—of release from liability to repay long-term loans would be determined by the Secretary of State, with Treasury consent. As the White Paper makes clear, it is the intention, before agreeing to write off any part of the £150 million into reserve, to set in the spring of 1972 a financial objective which will take account both of the findings of the current review and the Corporation's next five years' financial and development forecast. The combination of a high rate of investment—made all the more necessary by low investment in earlier years—and a low rate of earnings has inevitably increased B.S.C.'s need for external finance.
Clause 1 therefore provides also for an increase in the Corporation's borrowing powers from their present limit of £650 million to £1,250 million. This raises the limit by £600 million, but the proposed release up to £150 million from existing indebtedness means that the maximum effective increase in borrowing will be up to £750 million. Outstanding borrowing from the National Loans Fund amounts to £358 million, in addition to temporary facilities guaranteed by the Treasury totalling £170 million—£528 million in all—and it is likely that the present limit of £650 million will be reached in the first part of 1972. The proposed new borrowing limit provides for what is likely to be required for fixed investment and working capital up to 1974, after taking account of the likely level of internal financing. It allows for the high levels of capital investment this year and next, most of which will have to be financed by borrowing, as well as for the investment of £255 million, based on B.S.C.'s own estimates, for which allowance is provisionally made for 1973–74 in the 1971 Survey of Public Expenditure. So the Government are likely to come to Parliament for increased borrowing powers in about two years or so from now, and there will be opportunity for further Parliamentary discussion then.
374
In short, Clause 1 represents a realistic approach to the current financial position and prospects of the British Steel Corporation. The purpose of Clause 2 is to ensure that the existing legislation is not interpreted in a way which would impose an unreasonable limitation on the commercial freedom of the Corporation in its efforts to achieve profitability and rationalise its structure. The clause makes it clear that B.S.C. is not bound to carry on iron and steel activities to a greater extent than it sees fit. Section 3(l)(a) of the 1967 Act could be interpreted as requiring B.S.C. to maintain the supply of every type of iron and steel product for which there is a demand irrespective of circumstances and without regard to its own interest. We believe, and the Corporation believes, that this is an unreasonable burden to place on an industry which is expected to achieve profitability as soon as possible. The effect of the clause is, however, only to clarify the duty to supply which still remains.
The clause also removes any doubt there may be about B.S.C.'s freedom to dispose of any iron and steel assets that it does not wish to retain. This could help to preserve jobs that might otherwise be lost where the Corporation's only other course would be to close down the concern. There is a power of disposal in Section 2(4) of the 1967 Act. This power is qualified in that it can only be exercised if, in the Corporation's opinion, it would facilitate the proper carrying on of the Corporation's iron and steel activities. Taken in conjunction with Section 3(1)(a), this qualification might be interpreted as limiting the Corporation's power to dispose of iron and steel assets. There is, of course, no doubt about its ability to dispose of assets which are not used for or in connection with iron and steel production. The clause therefore clarifies the Corporation's freedom to dispose of iron and steel assets and interests in pursuance of the Statement on June 28. It does not give the Government power to direct the disposal of iron and steel assets.
My Lords, this Bill takes steps that are most necessary if B.S.C. is to be put on a sound footing and to become profitable, as we intend. But to make it possible for them to do so, we must ensure on the one hand that it is not hampered

375
by the burden of past losses or by unreasonable restraints on its commerri;g1 freedom, and on the other that it has the finance necessary for modernisation. These are the objectives of this Bill, which I commend with confidence to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Drumalbyn.)
6.24 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has explained the provisions of this Bill. It deals of course with an industry and a public corporation of the greatest importance for the economic health of this country. Although it is a small Bill it is an important one, and it embodies in its general provisions arrangements which we on this side of the House are not disposed to challenge. It proposes a capital reconstruction, and the extension of borrowing powers, which we regard as appropriate.
The noble Lord, in introducing the Bill, very naturally and properly made reference to some of the general factors which at the moment have influenced the financial and economic position of the Steel Corporation. I should like, in just a few minutes, to refer to some of those factors for which the Government have a degree of responsibility and which have played their part in producing the current position of the Steel Corporation from which this Bill, in so large a part, derives. I am bound to observe that the Government have not really kept their pre-Election promise to reduce the involvement of the State in the nationalised industries, in which connection they particularly referred to the steel industry. Perhaps the undertaking was in somewhat ambiguous terms, but I think it was generally taken as meaning that the Conservative Party, if elected as Government, would reduce the interference in the way in which the nationalised industries conducted their day-to-day affairs and would leave the Boards charged with their administration free to use their commercial judgment.
I do not think it can be denied that, in the case of the steel industry there has been a good deal of interference and intervention by the Ministers concerned.
376
Nor can it be denied that some of the Ministers concerned particularly with the steel industry are among those who, by their previous declarations—and declarations made before they became Ministers—had shown themselves to be possessed of a rather marked doctrinaire hostility to nationalisation and nationalised industries. This is a factor that inevitably makes us on this side of the House a little suspicious when we look at the terms of Clause 2 of the Bill now before us, particularly when we bear in mind some of the actions of the Government in respect of other spheres of nationalised industry where they have in one way or another insisted upon the disposal of public assets.
Clause 2 was put to us in a very persuasive way by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He emphasised that it was intended merely to clarify the position so far as the responsibility for supply was concerned, and to clarify the entitlement of the British Steel Corporation to dispose of iron and steel assets if the Corporation believed that such a step was appropriate for them to take. That of course, so far as it goes, is fair enough. But I hope the noble Lord will be able to give us an assurance that no kind of pressure, direct or indirect, will be placed by the Government upon the British Steel Corporation in any way to act under this clause against its own judgment, and that we may be firmly assured that this is solely a question of enabling the Steel Corporation to use the commercial judgment of the Board concerned with running it.
There are some factors which have contributed to the situation in which this capital reconstruction of the Corporation has become advisable, and they are factors for which the Government have a very substantial degree of responsibility. The noble Lord has referred to the fall in the demand for steel in the current year, and the consequent reduction in production. Of course this cannot be dissociated from the effect which the policies of the Government have had upon the general level of economic activity. A higher level of economic activity stimulated by wiser Government policies would have maintained the demand for steel and so enabled the Corporation to maintain its production.

377
A second factor has been the interference of the Government in the pricing proposals of the British Steel Corporation. For myself, I do not see anything objectionable, in principle, in a Government's making a decision of this sort which interferes in the pricing policy of a nationalised industry. We know that in this case the Government compelled the British Steel Corporation to halve the price advance which it thought it was appropriate to seek. As I said, I have no objection, in principle, to such action as that, provided it is clearly recognised by the Government for what it is—an act of subsidy to British industry as a whole, by enabling British industry to secure its steel at a price lower than that which the Steel Corporation thinks it is economically and financially justifiable to charge. If such a Government action is seen and avowed as an act of public subsidy to industry in general, then we know exactly where we are.
But what is objectionable is a situation in which the Government claim, as some Ministers have appeared to me to do, to know the British Steel Corporation's business better than the Corporation itself knows its own business, and to have argued that to seek so substantial a price increase was not in the Steel Corporation's own interest. Secondly, I think we should avoid the objectionable situation in which the Government, having held back the price increase sought by a nationalised industry in order to give a subsidy to industry in general, then turn the deficit which results from that into a basis for criticising the nationalised industry itself, or for allowing their supporters to criticise that industry. Whatever may be said, there can be no doubt that the decision, whether it was right or wrong, whether it was justified on the right grounds or on the wrong grounds, was a decision by the Government which materially contributed to the present financial position of the Steel Corporation.
Thirdly, the British Steel Corporation has been adversely affected by the change from investment grants to investment allowances, as I think is made clear in the latest Report of the Steel Corporation for the year 1970–71, where, referring to this matter, the Corporation state that it will not benefit substantially from the proposed changes in the method of cal
378
culating allowances on capital expenditure in replacement of investment grants, and will suffer considerable reduction in cash flow. Here, again, one may debate at some length the relative advantages of the two systems, but what is not open to serious debate is that this change in fiscal policy in regard to assistance for investment has operated adversely in the case of the British Steel Corporation. I am bound to say, and we must all recognise this, that the problems of the steel industry and of the Corporation will be increased—to what extent we cannot at the moment say—by the present grave industrial crisis which has been produced by the lack of foresight and the lack of leadership which the Government have shown.
This brief debate, like the somewhat longer debate which immediately preceded it, is perhaps also overshadowed by the question of entry into the E.E.C. I am not to-night going to press the noble Lord to try to develop at any length the implications of entry into the E.E.C. for the British Steel Corporation. This is a topic to which we shall probably return on a number of occasions, when in due course your Lordships' House is considering the whole legislative process which—I am inclined to borrow a phrase used earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Shannon—it is possible may arise, dependent upon certain eventualities later this evening. But, certainly, whatever may be the future relations between the United Kingdom and the countries of Europe, the health and well-being of the steel industry will remain of very great importance indeed for the whole United Kingdom economy, and it may well be that on some later occasion we shall wish to pursue this matter and seek a broader discussion of the problems of the industry. But we should not regard it as appropriate to seek such a wide discussion at the present time and on the present Bill, the general purposes of which, as I have indicated, we on this side support.
6.36 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, it is not my intention at this hour to keep the House very late, but I wish to take about four minutes of your Lordships' time to stress two or three vital points in relation to this small Bill. Despite

379
the fact that it is a small Bill, its repercussions can be very extensive. Those of us who were bred and born on the Welsh hills had a peculiar kind of life at one time. Those of us who were small farmers may have had miners and steelworkers on our farms, and, anywhere between the Brecon Beacons and Swansea an old shepherd might be working on the mountains on a Welsh farm, like Under Milkwood, when suddenly the entire farm would be lit up by the opening of the mighty furnaces in the Welsh steelworks. The poetry and magic of that when we were youngsters was something that used to attract us. We were very proud of the people who worked in the mills, as well as of those on the hills and on the farms.
In those days, private enterprise was quite an easy thing to go along with. To-day, the lesson of public ownership is hitting us more and more. Here we see both Labour and Conservative Governments perpetually forced to come to the country and say that for public ownership of the mines, of steel and of all these other enterprises we must get more money. We have had an admission tonight that throughout the world, even in the countries that are in the front of private enterprise, even in countries such as Japan who believe in the apotheosis of private enterprise, there are slumps and terrific drops in steel output. The fact is that the day has ended when, all the time, we can make steel, coal, gas, electricity and these vital shock absorbers in modern productive forces a subject of perpetual Party differences at every General Election. The steel industry needs equanimity and a certain long period of transition. Here I know what I am talking about.
It is the same with the military. When there are changes in Defence policy every three or four years, no sound Defence policy can be built up. No sound public enterprise can be built up if, every three or four years, there is likely to be a change of approach when a new Government comes in. Never mind the beautiful logarithmic scales and graphs of the professors of economics, which I used to try to understand; and never mind the slide rules which they use to come to wonderful theoretical answers. We often
380
forget that those who make steel, cut coal or produce animals on the farm are people, but we are now forced in 20th century economics—and this happens even in America—to subsidise mines and steel, and hidden subsidies exist throughout the entire world of private enterprise. In other words, far from the old Labour and Socialist approach being dead, the truth more and more is that in certain large enterprises its philosophy is proving itself. Therefore, all I am saying is this. Is it not time that, constructively, we got down to looking at industries such as these?
That brings me to my last two points. In Clause 2 there is the right to dispose of assets. But if the boys who deal in bulls on the Stock Exchange are looking around and buying they may think that this part of the steel industry is right for private enterprise; and one of the dangers that we may have here if we do not have Government control and if we do not watch what is taking place is that the richer pieces of our public enterprise in steel could be sold off to private enterprise. We saw the same, pathetic thing, on a very small scale, in Carlisle. There, the pubs were successful financially, and so the Government sold them to the brewers because they could make a bit of profit. In other words, I hope that both Conservative and Labour Governments—and I think this is dawning on the world—will realise that in the case of these mighty industries (even shipbuilding is too big now for Cunard to raise capital) we have reached a new era in man's progress by way of production. In that era, whatever scoffing took place 20, 30 or 40 years ago, public ownership has a rightful place. Once we acknowledge that, it should be left, without doctrinaire approaches by both sides of the House, while we are trying to build up an economy which can stand the shocks of the 20th century.
6.42 p.m.
LORD ROBERTHALL: My Lords, I apologise for speaking at this late hour. I had not intended to speak, and had not put my name down, but in his speech the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred to a matter of great interest to me and I want to make just two very short points. He said, I think, that a

381
review is now being made of the future of the steel industry, and that a Statement is to be expected fairly soon. The two points that I want to make are, first, that it is to be hoped that the B.S.C. will be put in a position to go on with its planning as soon as possible. As of course everyone knows, the heavy plant industry in this country is at present very under-utilised, so that in real terms it would be very cheap to undertake the investment now, and it would contribute towards getting us out of our severe recession, which I think is deplored in all parts of both this House and another place.
The second point is that in discussing this review the noble Lord called attention to the very low level of steel consumption both in this country and all over the industrial world; and the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, rubbed in a little the point about this country. I am sure that the Minister and his advisers are well aware that all over the industrial world at the present time there is a recession. It is an almost unique position. We are not the only country that is experiencing something we have not had in the post-war period; and we have not had a recession all over the place. My point is simply this. The Minister said that this low level of demand was being taken into account in future planning. It would be very unwise, I think, to carry out any future planning on the basis that anything like the present world level of steel consumption is going to be normal. It seems an obvious point, and I am sure that it has not escaped the Minister. But it is so important that I hope I may be forgiven for making it. Otherwise, I support the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful for what noble Lords have said. If I may start by replying straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, I would thank him for his intervention. As I said, the purpose of the review is to establish the background against which particular proposals can be considered. He has taken the point that that background should not assume that the low level of world investment will continue. My Lords, this is not the intention. But one has to take account of the fact that so many nations, in estimating their steel
382
production for the future, had taken an extremely optimistic line; and probably the end result should lie somewhere between the two. The noble Lord also said that it would be cheap to make investment now. As I said in my opening remarks, the level of investment going on this year is higher than it has ever been before, and it will be higher again next year. I am sure that he will believe me when I say that these points have been very carefully taken into account.
My Lords, perhaps it may be a little more difficult for noble Lords opposite to take my word for things quite so much, and I fully understand their suspicions in these regards. But there was a certain contradiction that I detected between what was said from the Front and from the second Benches. I say straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that of course we fully appreciate the need to get down and look at industry—and that is precisely what we have been doing. After all, we are dealing with an industry which, as the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, said, is of tremendous importance to this country; where the amounts involved in investment are so great every year; and when all this money is in fact borrowed from the Government at the present time—we may have an injection of private capital later, at an appropriate time, and this may be a very good thing—it really is up to the Government to look very carefully indeed at the prospects for the future. When the Steel Corporation itself decides, in the light of this review, what the investment levels should be, it is the duty of the Government to consider the proposals very carefully before giving their consent. This is part of the duty of the Government. No one will disagree that this is the proper function of the Government; and it is a function which they are by Statute obliged to carry out. So I hope the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, will not feel that in this Bill, at any rate, there is any implication of unnecessary intervention of any kind. I hope that is so, because I firmly believe that it is so myself: that the Government are only doing their duty in this Bill, and that the House would not expect them to abstain from this kind of very careful examination.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, said that he did not disagree with

383
interference by the Government in pricing proposals. Nor should he, my Lords, because of course this is precisely what the Labour Government, our predecessors, did. The extent of the interference was quite considerable. I believe that it had an effect of some £50 million to £80 million. But he says that the interference must be clearly in the British Steel Corporation's own interest. Is that right?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the point. The point I was seeking to make was that I had no objection if the Government wished to interfere with price policy, but if they wish to deny the British Steel Corporation the full extent of a price increase that it seeks, they should make it clear that by holding back the price advances they are in fact providing a subsidy to industry generally; and that if they are doing that they should not pretend to know the B.S.C.'s business better than does the B.S.C. Neither should they use the deficit, inevitably consequential on their own actions, as some kind of criticism of the industry.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Touché!
LORD DRUMALBYN: Did the noble Lord say "Touché"? I would say, "Badly missed!"—because the Government have certainly never done this. The noble Lord seems to think that we can muzzle our supporters. I do not think that he can muzzle his supporters, either. Criticisms may arise of this kind—
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am not for a moment asking the noble Lord to seek to muzzle his supporters. I am asking only that he and his Ministerial colleagues should perhaps sometimes defend the nationalised industries rather more vigorously against their supporters.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord does not know what goes on—I trust he does not—in the Committees of the Conservative Party; but he has quite a good point. The fact remains that the cut in proposed prices was done on the recommendation of the Consumer Council. It was they who suggested that the prices should be
384
halved. The consequences are plain to see. The Government accepted that recommendation because they regard as one of their first duties the containment of inflation. I think that that is quite fair. I do not think one need conceal that in any way. I hope the noble Lord will accept it.
The noble Lord then went on to investment allowances. Of course, it is true that if you make a loss you do not get the benefits of investment allowances. But one of the purposes of the Bill is to ensure that the British Steel Corporation will become profitable. When they become profitable they will then be able to write off the investment allowances against what they have spent. This is the long view. I agree that in the meantime the cash flow is reduced; but again this is one of the things this Bill is helping with.
The other point the noble Lord made was that to some extent the present plight of the British Steel Corporation cannot be dissociated from Government policies. Once again one of the main objectives was to keep down the rate of inflation.
Also I think one has to bear in mind that the level of investment has not been held back, so far as we are concerned, in the steel industry. So far as the investment programme is concerned, it has been allowed to continue. I take the point of Lord Davies of Leek that this should not in any way be a Party political matter; and I do not think it was. One must realise that when such an enormous organisation as the B.S.C. is taking over, it takes them some time to try to get their plans right because—and he is right—these plans take a long time to mature. It could be four years from the time the scheme is conceived to the time when it is completed; and after that its effects run for at least another 20 years.
I am glad that the noble Lord welcomed this. I understand his suspicions. I can assure him that they are not justified in the case of Clause 2 any more than they are in that of Clause I. So far as the capital of the British Steel Corporation is concerned, the B.S.C. itself was in full agreement; so far as the restructuring of the industry was concerned, the negotiations for restructuring are entirely in their hands. With those assurances I hope that noble Lords will be

385
prepared to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with an Amendment.
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON, KING'S COLLEGE (LEASE) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.